Ask @GRIMACHU:

About GG. I realize I may be naive, but I don't get it. One side is for journalistic integrity. The other for, as far as I can tell, anti-sexism. They're two entirely different topics, yet one side is against the other. Are things so bad that the idea of being "for" both is a bad thing?

There are two separate arguments going on. The problem basically breaks down like this.
The people who are anti sexism (or 'sexism' as it should be written) are the people who have been driving the most recent moral panics about games and who have been acting unethically in the games media. So when they have come under criticism for this, they have screamed sexism (and racism and everything else) and played victim, despite being at fault.
And people have uncritically believed them.
So there's two intermingled battles going on. It's the 'SJWs' who are the biggest source of censorship, moral panic and ethical breaches in the gaming hobby at the moment and so attacking them is seen - by the naive - as an attack on 'diversity', when it really isn't.

View more

What are your thoughts on the radical feminist theory that no woman is hetrosexual, they are just groomed into believing they are by the male dominated society we live in, & those who believe they are happy with men are actually suffering from a form of Stockholm syndrome due to their oppression??

I had never heard of this until you mentioned it, but given the necessary 'win' conditions for reproduction and evolution I would say this is... unlikely.

View more

You argue for ethics, but ethics you agree with. Treatment of animals? Fuck ethics there, as long as you get your meat. You handwave it by labeling it 'Preaching'? By telling you billions of animals die in awful conditions? That's fact, flower. Educate yourself.

Ethics that I have come to an informed position on. I care about the treatment of animals but we also occupy an overpopulated Earth in need of food and anyone who thinks pure veganism etc is the answer hasn't thought things through.
Other than, perhaps, dolphins and elephants we don't have any rivals in the consciousness stakes in the animal kingdom. Other animals are less concious in general - though it's a scale. We're omnivorous, to be fully fit and nourished we need to take in animal material (especially during our formative years) and, as an epicurean, the pleasure of eating tasty food and its beneficial effects on us cannot be ignored either.
That it's natural is not enough, but where that interrelates with human health, happiness and the minimising of human suffering - it does have bearing. Should we raise our meat more humanely? Sure. Should we eat less? Sure. Should we stop entirely? Fuck no.
What do you think would happen to all those animals, those species and breeds, if we stopped eating them? From a genetic perspective being delicious is a pretty damn useful survival trait.
We can't - yet - eliminate all animal suffering AND maximise human comfort, pleasure and health. The technology is getting there but - ironically - many of the people who oppose eating meat also oppose food technology and GM which will inevitably lead to an end to the slaughter and eating of live animals.
A cruel irony indeed.
At the end of the day this is much like abortion. If you don't want to eat a bacon sandwich, don't eat one.

View more

I want you to know what happened to Amber Rayne is because of people like you. YOU and your kind made all those hateful fucking comments about her rape, denied her, suggested she was lying. Took the side of the man, as you always always do. Terrible things happened to her and you called her a liar.

So far as I know nobody knows why she died. I made no hateful comments about her alleged rape or any of the other claims. I simply made a reasonable appeal that people should not be condemned on hearsay and without evidence.
People like you - whoever you are - would erase due process rights, basic standards of evidence and you DO ruin lives on hearsay and rumour. This is not just or reasonable.

View more

What are your thoughts on black people who have a go at white people with dreadlocks for appropriating 'their' culture? Is it hypocritical when you get blacks girls going around with other races weaves on their heads? BQ: Is 'cultural appropriation' even a real thing or just made up SJW bollocks??

Dreads have been a thing in many cultures at many different times. I don't think any singular culture has any right to claim them as their own. Furthermore, Rastafarianism - closely connected with dreads in the modern consciousness - doesn't seem to me that it HAS to be racially exclusionary, not to mention it has long been a fashion statement associated with Jamaican music too.
In this specific instance, everything around it is bullshit. Dreads belong to nobody.
Cultural appropriation as a whole? I think people CAN be disrespectful and exploitative but I don't think that's sufficient reason to mark particular clothes, patterns, modes of speech and dress or hairstyle off limits. Most people get into these kind of things through _cultural_appreciation_ and we're all better off for it, learning about each other, becoming more tolerant of each other and creating better art, culture and music by taking the best parts of everything.
Had more to say on that than I though.

View more

''They should be free to fly it''. Why? Honest question. Why does THEIR freedom to fly it trump OTHERS' freedom to take it down? Why do the rights of those who want to keep it mean more than the rights of those who want it down?

Only one of these impinges on the right of another. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Ultimately, it is just a piece of cloth with no more power than the meaning people assign to it. Censoring, controlling and banning it will only empower racists and give that symbol more power.
Bans and controls threaten everyone, that's a reduction in overall freedom. Letting them fly it does no genuine harm to anyone and lets you know where they stand - and to avoid them. Better a bigot in plain sight and understood for what they are, than one in hiding.
TL;DR - Taking something away reduces freedom, letting it stand does not. The only viable justification for such us under Mills' Harm Principle*
*"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

View more

Do you sympathize with feminists who are anti Father's Day as they believe it erases the experience of single mother's who have had to fill both parenting roles as well as being triggering to those who have toxic father's??

No, because they have mother's day and there's guys who have to fulfil both roles too. There's plenty who've had horrible mothers as well. Good mothers and fathers, or those who have had to step in and adopt those roles because of tragedy or malice deserve to be celebrated. Suck it up, wait for your own day.

View more

Next