The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

Quaid: "Oh, so only things that somebody 'regularly does' should come with a reasonable expectation of not having acts of violence committed against them?"

I don't know if you realize this (in fact, I have to assume you don't), but you've been almost exclusively arguing against points I've never made. You've been doing nothing but tearing down straw men that have zero connection to what I've been saying. There are NO acts protected by our rights that we should expect violent reactions for. You're right, that IS a non-issue, which is why nobody ever suggested otherwise.

Quaid: "This whole argument is such a load of bleeding heart bullshit. Why can't we all just BE NICE to each other?

What if I don't think 'being nice' is in my best interest? Who gets to decide what my best interest is? You? The regime? At what point should I give up my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in fear of violent reprisal for my non-violent words/acts?"

I didn't say "be nice". I said "don't go out of your way to be an asshole". Can you honestly not see the difference? I also never suggested (and I'm clarifying this for the umpteenth time) that you have to give up ANYTHING AT ALL. Nobody can take away your right to be an asshole, and you don't have to succumb to ANY demands made under threat of violence. Who are you even arguing with here? It ain't me.

Quaid: "The speaker has ZERO responsibility in this exchange aside from avoiding inciting violence. The listener has a responsibility to control themselves within the boundaries of the law. This is basic freedom.

This conversation isn't even worthy of a high school debate club. Nonsensical idealist garbage."

Yup. If someone acts violently, they are at fault. I've never suggested otherwise and you know it. Again, my point is: "Intentionally pissing people off just because you can is never beneficial and always detrimental to the health of our society." Of course, threatening to kill people (and actually following through) for offending you is much, much worse. I'm not saying it's the asshole's fault for provoking the killer (that would be preposterous). But if you have a problem with people threatening you, you WILL NOT fix this problem by antagonizing and pissing off those making threats. In fact, that's pretty much guaranteed to only make the problem worse.

You're right about one thing, though: Acting like not going out of your way to be an asshole is equivalent to giving in to terrorist demands is absolutely nonsensical idealist garbage.

If you choose to address me again, I highly, highly recommend you consider whether or not your words actually address anything I've had to say. So far, the only thing you've said that even came close was the suggestion that every action has "value" because warblgarbl, but that was pants-on-head retarded. If you're arguing against a point I've never made, don't bother. I'm not here to defend your straw men. I'm here to preach the simple truth that assholes make problems worse, they don't solve them.


Fana: "you seem to be immune to the idea of the logical consequences of your own ideas."

You don't seem to understand how logical consequences work. Not surprising, really, since you will eat a shit sandwich just because someone threatened you not to.

Thanks for clearing that up, makes perfect sense now.

He's now a level faggot white knight

Fana: "you can share a little tanoomba, what's the most antagonistic thing you've done?"

Your mom.

Nah, I kid, I kid. But sure, why not share potentially shameful personal information about myself on a board full of people who love looking for opportunities to take me down a peg? There's no way that information wouldn't be brought up a thousand times over in misguided and dishonest attempts to discredit me during completely unrelated discussions, right?

I couldn't give you an honest answer anyway. I don't keep an "antagonistic acts" log book.

Holy shit. I did not expect Geraldo Rivera to be a voice of reason about this.

Seb: "I mean the freedom of speech/right to shit on religion issue more generally. Geller seems like an asshole so I'm okay with most people not liking her. Even assholes are right sometimes. Bill Maher is a major league asshole and he's right quite often."

Once again, arguing against points nobody's made. Nobody suggested setting limits on freedom of speech or the right to shit on religions. Doesn't it get tiring yelling at straw men all the time?

Lith: "Send armed men in to attempt to kill a woman who had unflattering pictures drawn about a man who raped and enslaved women? You've been provoked, your reaction is understandable--she's the jerk off for provoking you, she was 'wrong'. "

I haven't read the articles you're referring to, but I would very much like to see one that claims the gunmen's actions were "understandable". Also, saying Gellar was "wrong" does NOT imply the gunmen were right or justified in any way. This is not a "one side was wrong, one side was right" dichotomy, stop treating it like it is. It's a dishonest and unproductive way to treat the subject.

AngryGerbil: "You guys should watch this and the second one. She interviews the guy who was in the van with Freddie, the guy who filmed his arrest, and the self described leader of the Baltimore Bloods. I'm not saying I am picking sides or anything, just that she really does actually talk to the actual people. No op-eds added. I mean....this is true journalism, is it not? This is practically source material isn't it? I submit to you that it is."

I agree. That was a good piece.

Even "two-sided issue" is a misnomer, as there are more than two ways to look at the issue.

As you know, the "fixing video game journalism" part of GamerGate I have no problem with. I agree that how some some stories were covered was pretty one-sided, although you and I differ in our interpretations of why this was the case. But unless there actually are stories that say that the actions of violent extremists are "understandable", implying that the media is somehow taking their "side" is dishonest and inaccurate. If you're defense is "Well THEY did it first!" then congratulations on achieving the same level of intellectual maturity exhibited by my 6 year old students.

Big Phoenix: "I dont think there isnt a single person who plays online games(not talking retarded candy crush shit here) that hasnt received a "death threat" or two hundred."

I haven't.

Wow. You suck at satire then.



Frenzied Wombat: "What to conflate not being an apologist pussy with being a Tea Party nut. Guess what, you can be pro-choice, pro drug legalization, pro-gay, etc while still believing in moral agency, free speech, and personal responsibility."

Hmmm... But apparently you can't be anti-asshole without being a terrorist apologist. I guess only YOU are allowed to conflate unrelated things in order to make absurd points.

Frenzied Wombat: "But if being progressive now means I have to hate myself for bygone colonial sins, bow to religious nuts in the name of sensitivity, label everything as racist, and let video games degrade into monotonous affairs because some chick might get triggered by an NPC's bra size-- then fuck ya, I'll side with the Tea Party before the "progressives". Progressiveness use to stand for social policies/progress, but now it's just becoming a dogma of politically correct authoritarianism."

Being progressive doesn't mean any of those things. Quit being such a whiny bitch.