But what is he criticizing about it? A... source?
Woah there buddy did you just post heckin wikipedia? Paging Dr. u/AntonioofVenice, quick, Leo Frank is jewish and needs your help.
So, what, to avoid censorship, gamers should have self censored? This is an old Bolshevik line that still has little pieces of boot stuck on its tongue to this day. I'm not really sure that's what you mean, though, to be fair.
Blaming gamergate for censorship is like blaming a shooting for gun control. It doesn't happen on its own. Actual people with personal political motives are there waiting to take advantage of any opportunity or excuse to express greater control over others, even occassionally participating in (or outright creating their own) such opportunities.
I suggest you make this post in /pol/ on 4chan or on ConPro (https://communities.win/c/ConsumeProduct/), since the mod here has made it against the rules to discuss the decline of western culture with meaninful honesty, maturity, or brevity.
Your post appreciates the problem purely via the behavior of white women and you are allowed to say anything about them in that context because you are not accusing them of expressing any collective or personal agency for their actions (otherwise you may be suggesting a conspiracy among their identity group, which violates the mod's "rule 16").
Paradoxically, even though you cannot blame women for their own actions- since that could equate to an accusation of conspiracy among an identity group- you cannot blame anyone else, either, since it could be considered an accusation of conspiracy among a different identity group instead.
You can phrase it rather carefully to discuss things without accusing anyone of anything, by using what I call "zero custody language". In Zero Custody Language a person does not shoot a victim, the victim simply "becomes shot." To use Zero Custody Language in an example:
the reason for the change in fashion among white women is quite similar to the reason music among blacks became so violent and rapey, and the reason everyday speech among British men became a crime, and the reason we have a net negative global economy with more debt in existence than dollars in existence.
But it is easier to just find a free speech forum without a mod who is definitely not a direct participant in the conspiracy theories he has banned, and type in plain language there.
The Witcher turning into The Bitcher lol
The game opens with the MC nagging a male and the plot is essentially a string of nagging men in various locations about things they need or failed to do and cleaning up their dumb male-ego driven mistakes, split up by the occasional lesbian sexual empowerment scene.
But wouldn't it solve itself with women gravitating to women's leagues in those sports?
What do you guys think about a gender less league approach?
I love how based this community is in spite of its moderator lol
Thanks, fixed it. https://communities.win/p/17txVqWlzE
https://communities.win/p/17txVqWlzE
Splitscreen video of him discussing "islamophobia"and the future of the west in 2009, and then the same topics in 2024
Saying he is funded by MOSSAD is way worse than saying he's jewish.
"LOL" said the frog. "LOL" said the scorpion.
Barks is basically a cartoon wiseman though
Maybe you are too old and too developed as an adult to be entertained by children's stories that were written by people who are now your moral and intellectual lessers. This goes for comics, books, games. Your love for tbe material can hold you over for a while, but for how long, in the face of however much mediocrity?
I usually hate this line of thought ("youre an adult, stop watching kids cartoons") but the raw fact is that if you are approaching or past your mid twenties and you have an above average IQ you are competitive with the people make capeslop as part of a 9-to-5 job working on a product that targets a young audience.
When you do your 9-to-5 job, are you exactly straining your brain to its fullest extent to provide the absolute highest quality work you can? Probably not. Neither are the people making capeslop, be it a comic or a game or a film.
Add to that the fact that they could very well be less intelligent than you by real metrics, in fact they might even be members of a race that does not share the full extent of your heriditary talent for abstraction. Many may be younger than you and if you are a real human person in this world they are almost certainly less wise and experienced than you are, because many if not most of them are nepo children who never had any difficulties to overcome that weren't made up on Tumblr.
This is part of the reason I LOVE (LOVE LOVE LOVE) the stories and media that I do love. Things made by wise men who are dead now, who have wisdom that I don't have, who can only teach me through what they've recorded. By contrast, there is nothing you'll absorb from a modern Batman series that you wouldnt pick up from bots and 14 year old redditors in /r/politics.
When was rule 16 invented?
Do you believe the practice of arguing in favor of your belief is bad action?
Prptip: if you answer yes then you are a bad actor by your own standard
Protip: if you answer no you undermine your core basis for calling people bad actors
Protio: if you answer "you are being a bad actor by asking this" you reveal to onlookers that you don't understand the phrase bad actor
I don't really expect an answer. I just think that you seem like a perfectly reason-capable person who is currently building up a wall in his mind. People on the other side are wrong and bad. When they win arguments, they are "bad actors" because when we lose arguments it feels bad, which makes us feel the other party did something wrong, which motivates us to find words or phrases to help attribute the bad wrongness to them outside the actual context of the argument which they have won.
Unless you believe you are right about everything, you have to accept there are people out there who are right about something, anything, that you might be wrong about. When those people clash with you, you'll be wrong. But those clashes are never pleasant. The context of an argument and of being wrong and getting your ass handed to you and feeling humiliated and frustrated- all very very negative. Therefore the correct thing is almost always sullied and associated with "enemy" feelings whereas one's pre-existing beliefs on the matter are associated with "ally" feelings. These enemy/ally associations are more powerful than the actual answer to the question "which argument is correct?" since the actual answer only serves to affect future enemy/ally associations. This dynamic is a keystone of divide and conquer.
Consuming useless or subversive media is deeply inside of the narrative for normies and extremists on both sides. Normies who flockwatch Current Thing are not unaware that they are consuming media with messaging. They talk and think about it and it occupies their mind. Politically awakened people, often called authoritarians, have "our opponents are being brainwashed" and "our opponents are mindless consumer" narratives all over the spectrum, left and right, because most people are basically the same and our divisions are mostly paper mind tricks. But anyway it's basically a ubiquitous narrative.
Deleting this post since I can now see individual posts on the scored.co url
Last I heard a representative of the firm called it an "accounting error" lol so they're gonna try to squirm on it and maybe pull off some "crying out in pain as they strike" while they're at it.
Wikipedia... is le not a source and therefore "you shilled wikipedia" is not an argument in regard to the subject matter. You can repeat it all you want, but I'm the only one reading and I don't respect you.
I can tell you how to find the pdf if you're interested in arguing about, like, something that could be construed as an argument. I said I was charitable!
Let's skip a few posts. If you had a PDF of the book in question and of the code for libel in the USA, would that be meaningful to you or affect your natural biases or your opinion on any of the subject matter in any way?
Strawman, link it, quote it
Quote from the OP; "who wrote the sources that wikipedia used"
..
More interesting than Wikipedia is the possibility that we might agree on the issue at hand: that an unbiased source might reflect the idea that jew Leo Frank tampered with and/or faked parts of his dead daughter's private diary to sell for a profit, and that this action happened to assist in perpetuating a status of victimhood among the jews, being that the resultant propaganda would be distributed to warn young white children about the horrors of white nationalism, in the context of it resulting in the Holocaust, for decades and decades.
Not that any of this necessarily implies Leo Frank's individual actions involved any collective conspiratorial intent on the part of groups who definitely not enjoy special protections on internet forums everywhere today.
Im just glad that we can speak freely and openly about it, since if people had to jump through hoops it would validate and lend credence to disgusting theories of hatred in an infinite feedback loop, perhaps even ironically dooming the group in question. Luckily that's not the case, as indicated by the clear and concise nature of this post.