RIP: My 10 year old Warframe account that was banned on first ever offense on any grounds for saying verbatim "No I don't support the trans rights movement and I don't want it spammed in my clan chat."
Warframe had a whole thing where it's chat mods were a group of trannies and openly man-hating feminists who were all friends/having sex IRL, and they hated their own users and sometimes said as much. There were a bunch of incidents where people would get banned for some seriously stupid political reasons and the mods wrote a bunch of crazy stuff even the people on reddit recognized as crazy. So the developers, at least one of whom was ALSO a personal friend of the chat mods in question, finally had to do something, and they... appointed another one of their friends as oversight. Hell, one of them actually named their account "friendzoning misandrist". Not even imp1 calls himself "Bob Womanhater". But yes, these are the sorts of people who would absolutely ban someone from chat for saying that sort of thing, and try their best to elevate it to one of their friends at the company to ban him from the game as a whole, and quite possibly succeed.
Anyway, I've had a quick look for documentation and most of the coverage of the whole warframe chat thing sucks because it assumes you're already familiar with whatever came before, and a lot of it has been scrubbed off the internet, but the kiwi farms thread doesn't assume prior knowledge and covers the broad strokes. I seem to recall oneangrygamer had better coverage, but that's all gone now.
It means they're still racist as hell against whites but they stopped putting it directly on paper. So what they put on paper is that they judge by some "wholistic criteria" or something intentionally vague and subjective instead, and business continues as usual.
Facing backlash for spending its time fretting over virtual genocides rather than preventing real ones, the ICRC argued it had plenty of staff to do both
TIL the red cross has way too much money and more staff than they know what to do with, and you'd have to be a moron to donate to them. Thanks for making that clear.
But the way this always plays out is feminists say men and women are different when it's convenient for women, then when it's inconvenient, they say they're exactly the same and must be treated the same, and the right keeps going along with it.
Example:
Men outnumber women getting computer science degrees? Better establish a boatload of gender-specific scholarships and programs and discriminatory hiring practices and a million other things to get more women into that field regardless of their interest or qualifications.
Women outnumber men in most non-STEM fields, and outnumber men in college in general nearly 2 to 1, and the ratio gets more extreme every year? LOL, that's because men are dumb, more scholarships for women.
So know that if you support this sort of thing, it will never be matched by an equivalent support for men in any other part of society, even if they demonstrably have a greater need for assistance.
51% of steam users use simplified Chinese.
At a gain of +25.35%. Steam hardware surveys come out once a month, so Chinese pretty much exactly doubled in one month alone. There's something strange going on, like Chinese being double counted due to some bug.
the EU was nothing but glorified fan fiction and I shouldn't criticize what lucasfilm is doing now.
Glorified fan fiction, unlike what Disney is doing? It's not like the original writers for star wars work for them. The only reason Disney stuff is considered canon and EU stuff isn't is because Disney bought the rights for a ton of money. This woman basically likes what she likes because some IP lawyers told her to.
Also I'm just tired of this whole ''mental health'' talks that have started in the past couple of years, all the talks about it yet people have never been more mentally unstable and deranged.
It's also just useful as a tactic to get what you want, don't assume that even the people stating this believe that a mental health issue actually exists. These people want to be guaranteed job security, framing it as mental health slightly hides the fact that they're simply complaining about the fact that they might be fired. It's similar to all the times you'll see someone talking about "not feeling safe". "The right-wing march made me feel unsafe", "as a woman I don't feel safe having men sit next to me in class or walk by me on the street", and then we have to reshape society to make these people "feel safe", quickly skipping by the fact that we stopped talking about actual safety a while ago and are now just giving people on the left the right to remove from society people they don't like without ever having to show evidence of actual harm.
It's fun but still crude. And it's not surprising that chatGPT is being used to create basic bitch emails, explainers, or blogs they rely on that "explain it so a 5th grader can understand" simplified language that a chat bot can spew out.
Yeah, I've been seeing what I assume is AI generated "how to do X" pages for a while now, the problem is it doesn't really understand what it's writing, so it will often be plainly wrong, and sometimes flat-out contradict itself within a paragraph or two. Hopefully those generated websites won't then be used as training data for further AIs to write further pages and create some sort of singularity of wrongness.
Modern concrete can also increasingly gradually gain strength for months or years if kept moist. Rather than wait years though, the more sensible thing to do is to not design your structure so it depends on the last 5% of strength you'll get for waiting a decade.
If they follow the path of other companies in the same situation, they'll issue an apology, say they didn't really mean it, then put back in 90% of the same meaning on the next version once the press gets tired of covering it.
So what would follow from that is that if they ever actually manage to convince a majority of people to start using a term like "uterus-havers" to refer to women, they would then invent something even more ridiculous to keep the virtue signaling and punishing of those who aren't virtue signaling going. Nigger went to negro to colored people to african american to people of color, so what's the next step for uterus-havers? People of uterus? Uterus-gifted individuals?
Do ESRB ratings matter any more? They used to be effectively enforced by physical stores refusing to stock games without a M or lower rating, so everyone had to get rated if they wanted to make money, but as far as I can tell Steam doesn't care, and more to the point Blizzard's own store certainly won't refuse to stock Blizzard's own games.
In any case, the original intent remains, just shifted from blizzard to the ESRB: to force someone to admit that women are women, and "type 2" means "women".
ESRB: "No topless women or we'll raise your rating" Blizzard: "I am not a biologist, I don't know what a woman is, but those are type 2s."
Not to mention that there are places where women CAN go topless, like New York City and possibly the entire state, yet they don't. Getting worked up about something that's allegedly restricting women from doing something that they wouldn't do anyway is kind of evidence that they ran out of actual issues a while ago.
The wuhan virus had two things climate change doesn't: masks, and easily manipulated death statistics. While they could probably start making up numbers about deaths due to climate change, I think it's more likely normies would see through it because of the obvious lack of immediate cause. I guess the equivalent would be temperature maps with a lot of red on them, but that lacks the same impact.
Masks carried the very visible message "I'm afraid, you should be too" to everyone who saw them, regardless of whether they were worn under duress, and was a very effective herd mentality thing. Without something like that, it will be much harder to bring along the unwashed masses to the delusion that the world is ending.
You also then would have to acknowledge the other side of risktaking- women take fewer risks, so in addition to fewer big failures, they get fewer big successes. Which means that, for example, in addition to men making up almost all prisoners being fine, men making up almost all CEOs would also be fine. But the paradigm right now is that any time women are ahead is explained by women being better than men, and any time men are ahead is because of misogyny. The result is that all the areas where women are doing worse due to their own decisions are resulting in massive programs to take resources from men and give it to these exact women making these bad decisions. Or, in some cases, not even bad decisions, just different ones- dropping out of the work force to raise a child isn't a bad decision, but refusing to acknowledge that it will affect your lifetime earnings (wage gap) and discriminating against men until it doesn't is unacceptable.
If the left is so hell bent on pretending there are no behavioral differences between men and women that might explain why men are ahead in a few remaining fields, they should absolutely be held to the same standard when it comes to all the areas women are ahead, like the ones mentioned in the article. Saying men being behind is okay in some places expecting them to then also admit that it's okay for women to be behind in other places is never going to work, because they'll never do that, it will just result in the current status quo: The right thinks it's okay for men to be behind, but the left absolutely does not think it's okay for women to be behind, and both sides behave accordingly, resulting in massive, mostly unopposed, discrimination against men.
Yes, that is exactly it. It makes more sense when you look at it at the level that feminists actually make that decision from: male sexuality is evil and wrong, and female sexuality is empowering and good. All their arguments using other words are actually just post-hoc justifications for this fundamental belief, which is why those arguments are so often contradictory. If a man enjoys looking at a woman in a bikini, it's bad, but if a woman wants to wear a bikini, it's good. Unless she's doing it for a man, then it's bad again. So yes, a woman having sex with a lot of men is empowering, a man having sex with a lot of women is abusive. A man talking about how he likes having sex is disgusting, a woman talking about how she likes having sex is high art.
This is how you can make sense of their attitude on fictional women, too. Fictional woman in a game or comic or movie who's attractive? It must be for men, so it's sexist, even though there's no actual woman to be 'abused', and it may have been a woman who created the character in the first place. Actual woman trying to wear a bikini to work at the office or something? That's empowering and good. It all falls into place when you just realize what their actual thought process is.
I think they've said something like that for more than just the last one, though "gender-diverse" might be new. In any case, they replaced the white engilsh woman who gives you intel with a black "hacker" girl in 3, and the two characters for the sniper missions are a black guy and a side-buzz-cut girl, and I'm sure they'd replace 47 with someone "diverse" if he weren't so iconic, so yes, it's woke.
Snowden broke the Snowden story. Greenwald was one of the people who he chose to send it to, but Greenwald pretty much had it handed to him. He definitely has value because he covers how incredibly ideologically motivated the press is in it's operation, and probably has extra insight into it because he was part of it earlier in his career when he worked at the Guardian and then the Intercept, but the Snowden thing was about him being in the right place at the right time.