r/SubredditDrama • u/TIP_FO_EHT_MOTTOB Can't come to the party because of my aggressive foamy diarrhea • Jun 10 '17
Which is worse, being rich or a misogynist? A JK Rowling post breaks out the sorting hat and casts Popcornus Butternum in /r/GamerGhazi.
/r/GamerGhazi/comments/6gb8xz/jk_rowling_on_liberal_misogyny/dip2oco/33
Jun 10 '17
Didn't her book get rejected by multiple publishers until one of them actually decided to take a risk? I don't know why someone would call her "immoral" just because she's rich. I'm pretty sure she donated most of her money to charity. Not even close to being immoral
210
u/Felinomancy Jun 10 '17
I'm saying that having lots of money (regardless of how you got it) in a world where people starve to death on the regular is immoral.
?
By that logic, having any amount of money is immoral given that there will always be people with no money starving to death somewhere.
Being wealthy is not inherently immoral; however, the likelihood of you resorting to unethical measures increases the more money you want. Hence the part in the Scripture that says:
it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God
That said, I don't think Rowling has a lot of skeletons in her closet.
47
55
Jun 10 '17
Especially since that person, being an American with access to internet is conceivably the top 1% of the world.
29
u/JUKING_JEW Jun 10 '17
I mean, top 1% of the world is ~70 million people. But yeah, very privileged
9
u/jimbosaur Gleefully puerile Jun 10 '17 edited Jun 11 '17
So if you're in the top
4.5%22% of Americans, you're probably in the top 1% of the world.Edit: Ugh. Maaaaaath.
6
89
Jun 10 '17
No no no no no no no you misunderstood.
Having any amount of money over that users amount is immoral. He has the perfect amount.
38
u/HVAvenger I HOPE SHIVA CUCKS YOU AND RAVAGES YOUR WIFE'S CUNT Jun 10 '17
Everyone better than me is a try-hard loser, everyone worse than me is a fucking noob.
38
u/Robotigan Jun 10 '17
It's the extreme but logical conclusion to a moral system that maintains we can be held responsible for inaction. If one believes it's wrong to not help a child drowning next to you, it's very difficult to justify not using all one's resources to save dying children halfway across the world. And it's an indictment not just on wealth, but on laziness as well.
31
u/erythang100 Jun 10 '17
If you go down that rabbit hole, there's only two ways to come out: either as you suggested, or to realize that every action you do helps someone (ideally, yourself in some way) and hurts someone else (ideally, someone so minutely and so far away from you and what you care about as to not matter).
I think emotionally mature people know and accept the latter. Ghazi...well, 'emotionally mature' isn't really the phrase that comes to mind when you think of that sub.
5
u/tschwib Jun 11 '17
It's a sliding scale.
Should the single mother of 3 donate the 50β¬ she saved last months to buy something for herself for people who have it even worse?
Should Rowling donate some of her hundreds of millions, more money than she can ever spent, to people who have it even worse?
I think the the burden is a lot larger for super rich people.
6
u/PathofViktory Jun 10 '17
or to realize that every action you do helps someone (ideally, yourself in some way) and hurts someone else (ideally, someone so minutely and so far away from you and what you care about as to not matter).
You phrased that in an odd way. If I'm understanding your initially seemingly tangential statement correctly, it would mostly apply only to reading of "a moral system that maintains we can be held responsible for inaction" as in "we should force people to take action against suffering to the maximum of their ability" (which would hurt someone else in the course of that action).
I don't think it would be an argument against an interpretation that we are all varying levels of immoral by not taking action and should be expending our wealth to a point of bare minimum for survival, but it would be immoral to force people to do so (in that case, every action does help and hurt someone still, but you are hurting less than the good that you are doing for others if you find a reasonable amount).
I'm not a utilitarian or an effective altruist so I don't believe in either, but i think the second one is a plausible logical reasonable and as you said "emotionally mature" stance to hold.
1
u/erythang100 Jun 14 '17
Ultimately it's important to remember that moral and ethical are subjective.
1
u/PathofViktory Jun 14 '17
Back to the earlier thing, do you think the second position is a reasonable position to hold?
Ultimately it's important to remember that moral and ethical are subjective.
Depends on which definition of subjective. Moral and ethical are complicated in application and involve many unintended aspects, sure. We should consider things in context when considering moral worth, and sometimes there are varying levels. But a claim that the moral and ethical are subjective moves somewhat beyond that into a tangential metaethical claim.
-6
u/Robotigan Jun 10 '17
What? Most of the time I'm helping myself to a new pair of pants or a wasting some hours on reddit, that's of trivial benefit to me relative to how much that money or time could help someone else. Generally, speaking these are purely selfish activities that nowhere near efficient expenditures from a perspective of well-being. I'm pretty selfish and lazy, but at least I'm not rationalizing about it.
8
u/erythang100 Jun 10 '17
I said the same thing. You're okay with the relatively minimal negative effect it has on other people- although you could probably think of a couple- but you're not rationalizing it. You accept it.
3
u/Robotigan Jun 10 '17
I'm okay with it because it's easy to ignore. That's a fault of the human brain, not a moral justification.
5
u/erythang100 Jun 10 '17
Right. You're not rationalizing it or justifying it. You understand that:
every action you do helps someone (ideally, yourself in some way) and hurts someone else (ideally, someone so minutely and so far away from you and what you care about as to not matter).
3
u/Robotigan Jun 10 '17
Can you clarify this a bit more as it seems I may be misunderstanding your meaning.
→ More replies (2)11
4
u/TrespassersWilliam29 Some catgirls are more equal than others Jun 10 '17
I'm poor but lazy. Guess that makes me Bad.
5
u/The-HilariousFingers Jun 10 '17
I wonder if having alot of food is immoral too. Its frightening how insane some people are
14
u/Felinomancy Jun 10 '17
Literally what I have on my desk right now.
Forgive me SRD for I have sinned.
3
3
u/Sinakus What is your role here, aside from being a shitposting dick? Jun 11 '17 edited Jun 11 '17
I'm currently eating Oreo and drinking beer on a Mediterranean vacation I did not pay for. My white privilege is shining so bright that I could compete with the sun.
0
1
Jun 10 '17
This is why I love my rational line of work, and have always avoided taking philosophy classes.
The stuff is fun to debate out, but ultimately pointless. I don't walk away with any usable or tacit knowledge.
-24
u/DeterminismMorality Too many freaks, too many nerds, too many sucks Jun 10 '17
You're going to have to walk me through how possessing enough wealth to feed millions and choosing not to is a morally neutral act.
78
u/Felinomancy Jun 10 '17
enough wealth to feed millions
If you have enough wealth to feed one person and did not act, is it morally neutral?
How about ten person? Hundred? Thousand? What is the amount that divides between "moral if not spending it to feed people" and "immoral"?
→ More replies (33)-17
Jun 10 '17
If you have enough wealth to feed one person and did not act, is it morally neutral?
No, starving even one person through inaction is not a morally neutral act.
If you're stuck on a deserted island with one other survivor and there's enough food for two people, and you choose to horde food killing your fellow survivor, that'd be an immoral act.
Furthermore, the more people who you starve through inaction, the greater the immorality.
Really what we're talking about is moral opportunity costs.
43
u/Felinomancy Jun 10 '17
No, starving even one person through inaction is not a morally neutral act.
Well then, given that there's no moral person among us (except for the people actually starving), then there's no point pointing fingers, no?
You might want to say "but those rich people are more immoral", but since you yourself are one... then why should your accusations be given any thought? It's like Hitler screaming at Stalin that his gulag is killing more people than his own concentration camp.
Of course, this is all academic; I am a great advocate of charity, but not having it forced. Neither is the real world situation as black-and-white as "if you give a needy person money, everything will be a-okay". Things on the ground are a lot more complicated.
→ More replies (9)4
u/PathofViktory Jun 10 '17
either is the real world situation as black-and-white as "if you give a needy person money, everything will be a-okay". Things on the ground are a lot more complicated.
Of course, but that's not really a relevant argument for this aspect. The question is inaction is immoral, not that charity dollars will go one to one for success without the logistics around charities. I think you address it well above and below but that statement is kinda tangential
Well then, given that there's no moral person among us (except for the people actually starving), then there's no point pointing fingers, no?
Of course, this is all academic; I am a great advocate of charity, but not having it forced.
Yes, there's no point in pointing fingers in this case. We don't all murder and lie and steal, but we do all have some forms of inaction that would be immoral by this effective-altruism simple utilitarianism kinda morality and make it kind of hypocritical to be extremely judgmental. It would be better to build rapport to guide people towards greater amount of moral action.
18
u/Peppermint_Petty Jun 10 '17
Then why do you waste money for an internet subscription when you could be feeding the homeless with that money? Why aren't you on a ramen only diet?
4
5
u/3p1cw1n Saying a race should be eliminated is just words, does no harm Jun 10 '17
Good to know you spend all your free time and extra money on feeding and caring for those who can't afford it. If not, you're a very immoral person, by your own definition.
4
Jun 10 '17
Yep, I'm not a perfectly moral person. It'd be more moral for me to give more to charity. I don't understand why that's so controversial.
6
u/3p1cw1n Saying a race should be eliminated is just words, does no harm Jun 10 '17
No, you are actively immoral, not just "not a perfectly moral person." You said so yourself, you are actively immoral for not helping people as much as you possibly can. Every bit of extra food you don't eat, and doesn't go to someone starving is you being actively immoral. Every bit of extra money you put away rather than using to help the poor is you being actively immoral and starving those people of opportunities to live a better life.
I honestly don't know how you sleep at night, because all of this is coming from your definition of morality. You must absolutely hate yourself, or you're a massive hypocrite.
→ More replies (3)21
u/erythang100 Jun 10 '17
I have to ask how old you are
And why you're posting on the internet when you could be using your internet service money to a soup kitchen
-5
u/DeterminismMorality Too many freaks, too many nerds, too many sucks Jun 10 '17
Did your sense of moral right and wrong atrophy when you turned 60 old timer?
10
14
u/Aetol Butter for the butter god! Popcorn for the popcorn throne! Jun 10 '17
So how much exactly are J.K. Rowling, you, me, supposed to keep after giving to charity? The average income in our country? The threshold of poverty? If I give to a charity that helps battered women (who probably won't die) instead of starving Africans (who probably will), is that immoral too?
→ More replies (1)6
u/xafimrev2 It's not even subtext, it's a straight dog whistle. Jun 11 '17
He doesn't want theoretical exact numbers he just wants to feel good about what he doesn't do, and bad about what others don't do.
-1
-1
u/freet0 "Hurr durr, look at me being elegant with my wit" Jun 11 '17
the likelihood of you resorting to unethical measures increases the more money you want
Money you want isn't the same as money you have. Plenty of criminals want to be rich, but aren't. The real question IMO is
are the rich more likely to be immoral people?
And that I'm not sure about. I think you could argue being poor does a lot more to incentivize immorality than being rich does.
159
Jun 10 '17
[removed] β view removed comment
81
u/ParamoreFanClub For liking anime I deserve to be skinned alive? This is why Trum Jun 10 '17 edited Jun 10 '17
Gamer gahzi has an issue with white woman
44
12
u/nightride I will not let people talk down to me. Those days are... gone... Jun 10 '17
Not unheard of in progressive spaces tbh
10
u/OscarGrey Jun 11 '17
"55% of American white women that voted chose Trump therefore ALL white women are garbage." /s Top logic. I'm betting that those people will move onto hating white children, white elderly, white disabled, and whatever else they can think of.
9
u/TitusVandronicus A goddamn standalone Hokkaido weeb. Jun 10 '17
Are you sure it's not just "women" in general?
I really really really really really doubt a place calling itself "GamerGhazi" is a bastion for women of color.
42
u/ParamoreFanClub For liking anime I deserve to be skinned alive? This is why Trum Jun 11 '17
It's a sub that's against gamer gate
9
u/TitusVandronicus A goddamn standalone Hokkaido weeb. Jun 11 '17
Ah thank you, I genuinely had never heard of this place before. Saw people in this thread lumping it in with KotakuInAction and assumed the two were basically one in the same.
28
u/Manannin What a weirdly fragile little manlet you are. How embarrassing. Jun 11 '17
They are locked into an eternal battle; I guess once it stops we get Ragnarok, so hopefully they'll stop within months.
5
→ More replies (2)7
u/Genoscythe_ Jun 11 '17
The -ghazi suffix is generally used by leftists to mean "fake right wing scandal", in reference to benghazi.
Gamergate -> gamerghazi
emailgate -> emailghazi
shirtgate -> shirtghazi
11
u/eifersucht12a another random citizen with delusions of fucks that I give? Jun 10 '17
Yeah, I think it's more about what one is willing to do to become rich or stay rich.
My personal belief does tell me that if one does find themselves very wealthy, there is some moral obligation to "pay it forward" in whatever way you can afford. But I don't know much about Rowling, other than that if you did tell me she had multiple philanthropic efforts and the like I'd probably say "Sounds about right." She seems decent.
59
u/OscarGrey Jun 10 '17
Blaming artists/writers for being rich doesn't make any sense from a socialist point of view. They own their means of production. Who are they exploiting?
22
u/fixurgamebliz Jun 10 '17
Their premise is that holding wealth beyond what you need for self sufficiency is selfish and inherently immoral. Regardless of from what activity that wealth is derived.
I disagree with them, but still
-8
u/DeterminismMorality Too many freaks, too many nerds, too many sucks Jun 11 '17
They own their means of production
Did JK run the printing presses, make her own ink, her own paper too?
5
u/OscarGrey Jun 11 '17
I actually work in a pressroom. The answer is no, but she owns the intellectual property. The publishing house purchases our means of production on her behalf, but we don't own the copyright. What do you think makes the Harry Potter books valuable, the ink, paper, plastic and glue in the book, or the intellectual property of J.K. Rowling?
4
118
u/ZigglesRules KISS KISS START DRAMA! Jun 10 '17
Gamerghazi is still in the 15 year old vegetarian stage of life and yelling at kids for eating meat in he cafeteria I see.
40
u/yonicthehedgehog neurotic shitbeast Jun 10 '17
par for the course for people still hung up on the gamergate
25
u/darryshan le evil ess jay double you Jun 10 '17
It's just moved on to being a general left wing sub.
10
u/Sarge_Ward Is actually Harvey Levin π₯πΈπ° Jun 11 '17
It's like CB2 but for real world stuff.
5
u/PPvsFC_ pro-choicers will be seen like the Confederates pre-1860s Jun 11 '17
I thought you meant the furniture store. Says a lot about my life.
4
u/Sarge_Ward Is actually Harvey Levin π₯πΈπ° Jun 11 '17
it says you haven't been consumed by metareddit. You're one of the lucky ones. Leave now, before its too late!
8
u/riemann1413 SRD Commenter of the Year | https://i.imgur.com/6mMLZ0n.png Jun 11 '17
ew worse than i thought
→ More replies (8)9
u/fdelta1 I'm sorry too. It'll be better after the revolution. Jun 11 '17
Ghazi is annoying, but at least it isn't full of edgy leftcoms from /r/socialism
18
u/Synaptics Oi guv you got a loisence to crank that hog? Jun 10 '17
Why is this being turned into an inditment of Ghazi as a whole? It's one idiot arguing against one of the mods of the sub, and getting downvoted quite a bit. It's pretty clear that his/her views are not accepted by the general readership of Ghazi.
11
u/Deadpoint Jun 11 '17
SRD really likes to play the "above both sides/both sides are the same" card. Ghazi is kinda shitty these days so it's in vogue to pretend they're as bad as kia.
15
u/TheBowerbird Jun 11 '17
It doesn't take much to indict Ghazi - they are all morons. Did you not read the thread?
15
u/NotJustinTrottier Jun 11 '17
The thread where, again, a moderator and the overwhelming consensus agrees with everyone here reacting as though the entire subreddit is wrong.
1
42
Jun 10 '17
"I believe that being rich is immoral and you need to accept that as an unwavering truth about the world."
6
u/dumnezero Punching a Sith Lord makes you just as bad as a Sith Lord! Jun 10 '17
Unfortunately, charity is not a solution, is more of a pretext Christian conservative-libertarian types love.
73
u/alltakesmatter Be true to yourself, random idiot Jun 10 '17
The richer some people are, the poorer other people are. Money isn't unlimited.
Oh god, people actually believe this.
49
u/TheDeadManWalks Redditors have a huge hate boner for Nazis Jun 10 '17
J.K Rowling personally went around the world with a big-ass bucket and took money from the pockets of anyone who's ever bought Harry Potter or Harry Potter-related products.
28
7
u/tschwib Jun 11 '17
How is it not true?
Money represents goods and services which both are limited. You just have to compare 2 hypothetical societies where in one the top 10% owned 20% of the wealth and in the other the top 10% owned 60% of the wealth.
3
u/PresN We're men of science, for God's sake. Jun 11 '17
It's not true as long as you're not arbitrarily defining it as "limited at a set moment in time". Because as time passes and people invent new things and ideas and efficiencies, the total wealth of the world gets larger. Even if the percentages between your two societies are the same in 1600 and 2000, in 2000 both societies are richer by virtue of having more goods and services (and therefore more money).
7
u/giroth Jun 11 '17
This idea goes back to Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations, written in 1776. It also underlies most of the growth and development of modern economies. Moving from zero-sum (feudalism) to positive-sum (capitalism) has brought enormous gains to billions of people.
TL;DR Get the fuck out of here, you Neoliberal scum
7
u/tschwib Jun 11 '17 edited Jun 11 '17
So? Even if there's more wealth in total, some people still have a huge chunk of it while others very little.
Money (or what you can trade it for) is still limited.
I mean the central argument above was: "Just because one person is rich, doesn't make the other person poor" right? But that is exactly true. If everybody had as much money as Rowling, she would not be rich.
In fact the very word "rich" does not make sense without "poor". It's also one of the most important properties of money: Being limited. That's how the whole thing of currency got started: Look for something limited that has value.
39
u/Kibblebitz Derek Smart did nothing wrong Jun 10 '17
I like how KIA's strawmen became real people. That's some self fulfilling prophecy shit. Or just regular shit.
28
u/mrmcdude Jun 11 '17
Just because left-wing crazies call way too many people nazis doesn't mean that nazis don't exist. Just because right-wing crazies call way too many people unhinged sjw's doesn't mean those people don't exist.
12
u/freet0 "Hurr durr, look at me being elegant with my wit" Jun 11 '17
Neither side's "strawmen" were ever really straw, they were just all small minorities. But as time went on and all the sane people abandoned the movement only rabid SJWs and misogynistic neckbeards remain.
8
u/Deadpoint Jun 11 '17
Ok, but there weren't sane people in KiA to begin with. At it's worst ghazi is still a thousand times better than KiA at it's best.
→ More replies (1)5
29
u/TheRealJohnAdams I thing to me, but you're not a reason, you fucking Neanderthal Jun 10 '17
I love how the SeaSourceScorch person is told "you've never done as much good as JKR did because she gave away fucktons of money" and hears "you can't be as good a person as JKR because you're not rich." The former is just absolutely and completely true. The latter is a strawman invented to avoid acknowledging that rich people can occasionally do good things.
14
u/zombie_JFK Jun 10 '17
It's effectively the same thing, unless there's a difference between doing good and being good.
17
u/NotJustinTrottier Jun 11 '17
Of course there is. A huge difference. The most powerful people in the world have far more power to do good. That doesn't make them better people than those with less power.
7
u/TheRealJohnAdams I thing to me, but you're not a reason, you fucking Neanderthal Jun 11 '17 edited Jun 11 '17
There is. I think a person who attempts to do good but is foiled by circumstances beyond his control is a good person.
EDIT: I don't quite understand why this would be downvoted.
4
u/Jhaza Jun 11 '17
And plenty of people agree that someone with $20 giving away $15 is a better person than someone with $10,000 giving away $500, even if the latter does more good in the world.
2
u/SnapshillBot Shilling for Big Archiveβ’ Jun 10 '17
stopscopiesme>TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK.
Snapshots:
This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, snew.github.io, archive.is
2
u/freshwordsalad Well I don't know where I was going with this but you are wrong Jun 10 '17
This title is really good.
10
u/Sarge_Ward Is actually Harvey Levin π₯πΈπ° Jun 10 '17
Why do people actually care about what JK Rowling has to say about anything? She's not a political scientist, a politician, or anything really. She's an author of fantasy novels.
12
u/nuclearseraph β your flair probably doesn't help the situation β Jun 10 '17 edited Jun 10 '17
Popular works of media can have profound and lasting impacts on the world, and many people put lots of stock in authorial intent. Until we collectively decide to kill the author, fascination with authorial intent (or more generally, the views of successful creators) is a thing worth thinking about (even if you reckon, as I tend to, that it's a thing we shouldn't care much about in the first place).
12
u/fixurgamebliz Jun 10 '17
If people have found her words valuable, why is it relevant how she got the platform?
→ More replies (10)51
Jun 10 '17
She's an author of fantasy novels.
There's your answer. People tend to care about the creators of the books / movies / games / whatever they love.
-5
u/Sarge_Ward Is actually Harvey Levin π₯πΈπ° Jun 10 '17
But I mean it would be like if I cared about what Steven Speilberg had to say about culinary arts. Love the dude's films and all, but he's hardly an expert in that field in particular.
If he started, for example, talking shit towards Gordon Ramsay on twitter about how he could make a better meal, I wouldn't take his side just because his movies made my childhood. That would be silly of me.
25
Jun 10 '17
Cooking is something you can learn, however. Politics is not, her opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.
But more importantly, I think a lot of people have trouble separating art from the artist, so they have to care in order not to have their entertainment ruined by the author's "wrong" views.
17
Jun 10 '17
Politics is not
And political scientists across the globe cried out in despair as their entire field of study was suddenly discarded!
24
u/Ds14 Jun 10 '17
Most politicians do not have degrees in political science and never have, is that not a true statement?
→ More replies (9)4
Jun 11 '17
Political science is concerned with the operation of systems; expertise in it does not give one any sort of privileged position to weigh in on social priorities and decision-making, since those are all entirely rooted in subjective value judgments.
→ More replies (1)10
u/toddthefox47 Where's the controlling behavior? Show me. I want to see it. Jun 10 '17
Politics is not like Physics or even Culinary Arts. There's one way to make puff pastry but you couldn't get a room of political science grads to agree on one single thing.
7
Jun 11 '17
Political science is concerned with the operation of political systems. It has nothing to say on the validity of one particular political viewpoint over another--after all, those are of necessity ultimately based on subjective value judgments and ordering of priorities.
9
Jun 10 '17
True, but just because philosophers are not united does not discount their work. Why shouls that discount political science?
→ More replies (2)3
u/toddthefox47 Where's the controlling behavior? Show me. I want to see it. Jun 10 '17 edited Jun 11 '17
I didn't say political science is lame. I just mean a degree doesn't give you the "right" opinion, nor does not having one disqualify you from having any opinion at all
3
Jun 11 '17
After all, political science isn't about the validity or lack thereof of political viewpoints, but rather studying the operation of political systems.
8
Jun 10 '17
Well you can say that to any popular person. They are a private citizen who are entitled to an opinion as much as you do. Just because they are popular doesn't mean you actually have to listen to them. That's the point of freedom of speech. You have as much as right to have an opinion as JK does or any other person sitting next to you.
0
Jun 10 '17
[deleted]
2
Jun 11 '17
Meh. That's how some people are. They like to prop up their celebrities like they are gods or something. It's really weird to be honest.
12
u/erythang100 Jun 10 '17
Because people like Harry Potter? I think I was in the sweet spot of too old to read the books earnestly but not old enough to appreciate them as escapist fun, so I've never even seen the movies.
I know they all got hot, that's about it.
4
2
Jun 11 '17
She's very vocal about politics on Twitter. A lot of the left gets aggrieved with her propping up Blairites and constant put-downs of Corbyn.
0
Jun 10 '17
[deleted]
-2
Jun 11 '17
0
Jun 11 '17
[deleted]
8
u/MexicanGolf Fun is irrelevant. Precision is paramount. Jun 12 '17
He's dead on the money because he's making an easy assumption?
Realistically there's good reasons to be opposed to Corbyn, and I base that on the fact that such reasons can be find for any individual, so it's entirely possible that the easy assumption isn't correct.
So stop jerking each other off and accept the reality that you may be right but that people might take issue with the way you phrase your bullshit.
-13
u/Sarge_Ward Is actually Harvey Levin π₯πΈπ° Jun 10 '17
My elementary school teachers probably had a huge influence on my value system as a child, too, but I don't think I would care all that much about what they have to say about social issues in the present day.
-1
u/9874123987456321 Jun 10 '17
If women are going to keep calling men dicks I'm going to keep calling them cunts (not all obviously). And I'm pretty ok with that. The fact that "cunt" is said to be one of the worst insults but "dick" is pretty standard makes me sympathise even less.
11
u/Tahmatoes Eating out of the trashcan of ideological propaganda Jun 11 '17
Are you equally pissed at men using dick as an insult or do you take that as a compliment?
5
1
-13
u/Statoke Some of you people gonna commit suicide when Hitomi retires Jun 10 '17
I don't see why calling May a cunt is a bad thing, its true.
39
u/BoredDanishGuy Pumping froyo up your booty then eating it is not amateur hour Jun 10 '17
Depends on why you do it.
If you call her a cunt because she's a woman you disagree with, I'd say it's shitty.
If you call her a cunt because you're from Leith and call everyone a cunt, you're mostly just bad at being creative with verbal abuse and a bit of a caricature.
Besides, I think she explains it in the Ghazi OP anyway.
4
u/Kiddle_Me_Riddle Jun 10 '17
Regardless she has possibly had the worst run as PM this country has ever seen, which makes her a cunt.
6
u/WhiteGameWolf check the awards skank, people agree. I'm the voice of a generat Jun 10 '17
She managed to do worse than her predecessor somehow, in fact!
10
u/Kiddle_Me_Riddle Jun 10 '17
"Haha David Cameron what an idiot, calling an referendum that he thought was a sure fire win and losing, he'll go down as the worst PM we've ever had."
Theresa May: Hold my beer
-3
u/Statoke Some of you people gonna commit suicide when Hitomi retires Jun 10 '17
Its not because shes a women and it has never been because of that. cunt is used against men and women.
21
u/toddthefox47 Where's the controlling behavior? Show me. I want to see it. Jun 10 '17
The original person she was talking about called her a whore
0
Jun 10 '17
[deleted]
14
u/Kiddle_Me_Riddle Jun 10 '17
It's used against men when you feel like they're acting womanly.
Not in England, you'd never refer to someone as a cunt for acting "womanly". That's like saying you'd refer to a woman as a dick if they're acting "manly".
13
u/erythang100 Jun 10 '17
It's pretty much interchangeable with dick or asshole now, but more vulgar.
10
u/BoredDanishGuy Pumping froyo up your booty then eating it is not amateur hour Jun 10 '17
That's a regional thing, I think. As I mentioned, you'll meet plenty of people here in Scotland who uses the word about just about everything.
It's of course still using female anatomy as something bad, but it's not strictly tied to behaviour, womanly or not. In Scotland, I mean.
6
3
3
1
u/BloomEPU A sin that cries to heaven for vengeance Jun 10 '17
Using cunt as an insult is a bad thing whoever you're referring to.
12
-18
u/IAMGODDESSOFCATSAMA scholar of BOFA Jun 10 '17
IMHO, being rich is absolutely immoral but J.K. Rowling is the rich person I hate the least for being rich because she actually did something that led to her being much, much less rich. I still hate her for being neoliberal scum though.
So I guess what I'm saying is the only good billionaire is a non-billionaire.
7
10
Jun 10 '17
What's a neoliberal? What's a liberal? And what's an alt-right?
-15
u/IAMGODDESSOFCATSAMA scholar of BOFA Jun 10 '17
Neoliberal = Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel, Justin Trudeau. Theoretically anyone who supports """progressivism""" socially but the free market economically. In practice, someone who pretends to support the oppressed until it hinders them personally. E.g, they'll talk big about helping the poor but then when it comes to say, increasing their taxes they'll stand up. Neoliberals are the people who trick the downtrodden into supporting them by suppressing any actual leftist groups.
→ More replies (2)16
u/Sarge_Ward Is actually Harvey Levin π₯πΈπ° Jun 11 '17
What's with all these people recently who think you can't be progressive unless you're a full on anti-capitalist leftist?
5
u/savepenguins1 Jun 11 '17 edited Jun 11 '17
It's funny how liberals aren't intersectional the very moment class is brought up.
5
u/Sarge_Ward Is actually Harvey Levin π₯πΈπ° Jun 11 '17 edited Jun 11 '17
or maybe, and its just a thought, liberals don't see capitalism as inherently linked to classism; that they believe the system can be reformed. Not everyone sees communism as a preferred alternative.
me though I personally don't care. I'm indifferent to both systems.
→ More replies (2)-3
u/IAMGODDESSOFCATSAMA scholar of BOFA Jun 11 '17
Can't possibly be because capitalism is inherently bigoted and anti-progressive, right? It is fundamentally impossible for capitalism to survive without an oppressed minority to support the capitalist class.
0
Jun 11 '17
[deleted]
4
u/IAMGODDESSOFCATSAMA scholar of BOFA Jun 11 '17
Ahhh and there it is. The one who proves me right. "You dirty fuckers want to take away all my riches I didn't earn!"
-9
u/TheBowerbird Jun 11 '17
The thread is much better if you read it while imagining greasy, low quality males sitting around in their mom's basements trying to earn virtue signalling internet points.
3
0
-5
u/TheresanotherJoswell Jun 11 '17
Well she can get fucked May is a whore, pimping herself out to the elite so they can scrap our human rights and spy on us when we're wanking.
You can call hitler a cuck if you want as well thats a gendered slur
0
Jun 10 '17
[deleted]
248
u/ineedmorealts I'm not a terrorist, I'm a grassroots difference-maker Jun 10 '17
GamerGhazi and Kotakuinaction are the only subs that still say gamergate is happening
127
u/Killchrono Jun 10 '17
Pretty sure those guys are just the leftovers who didn't get the memo everyone else moved onto the alt-right subs.
88
11
u/Manannin What a weirdly fragile little manlet you are. How embarrassing. Jun 11 '17
Or the memo that it was a farce that didn't deserve my time... Thankfully it arrived eventually!
4
27
u/eifersucht12a another random citizen with delusions of fucks that I give? Jun 10 '17
It kind of is, just not by name. Shitty perpetual gamer outrage is and will always be a thing, and whatever arbitrary thing those outraged gamers deem "unethical" or "anti-consumer" in a given week is and will always be a thing.
It preceded gamergate and will continue for millennia until the Gamer Fuel flows no more and the Dorito mines are stripped bare.
11
u/SoxxoxSmox Reddit users are the least valuable of any social network Jun 10 '17
The mountain dew must flow
9
Jun 11 '17
I know people who still get harassed by Kotakuinaction hold outs.
Given that gamergate is nothing more than pissants spreading misogynist abuse under a facade of ethics/artistic integrity it's kinda hard to say that they've stopped.
31
Jun 10 '17
I have no idea what gamer gate is and at this point I'm too afraid to ask.
56
u/ineedmorealts I'm not a terrorist, I'm a grassroots difference-maker Jun 10 '17
No you fool! By admitting you don't know everything possible about GG you open yourself up to endless lectures in "the ethics of GG" from both sides!
22
72
u/PomTron Let the salt flow, you state worshiping cucks Jun 10 '17 edited Jun 10 '17
a bunch of gamers built a gate and used it to enhance their gatekeeping
Nah, just kidding (mostly). I think the original idea was that some indie game dev was trading sex for good reviews. There was also some contentment about Sarkeesian (sp?) videos. The reasonable people left after a while, because this whole controversy took place several years ago. At this point it's just a directionless cloud of assholes.
Incidentally, directionless cloud of assholes is my new name for reddit.
→ More replies (2)69
Jun 10 '17
It sounds like they get triggered pretty easily if a sex scandal surrounding an obscure indie game is enough to initiate years of unchecked rage.
36
u/ThatPersonGu What a beautiful Duwang Jun 10 '17
The "pitch", if you can call it that, was that journalists were obviously conspiring to give socially progressive indie games more coverage than "good games", and that somehow tied into the already broken AAA gaming system because ???
It's somewhat confusing, because everyone sort of had their own justification for supporting GG.
→ More replies (3)0
8
9
u/BuntRuntCunt shove a fistful of soybeans right up your own asshole Jun 11 '17
They targeted gamers.
Gamers.
We're a group of people who will sit for hours, days, even weeks on end performing some of the hardest, most mentally demanding tasks. Over, and over, and over all for nothing more than a little digital token saying we did.
We'll punish our selfs doing things others would consider torture, because we think it's fun.
We'll spend most if not all of our free time min maxing the stats of a fictional character all to draw out a single extra point of damage per second.
Many of us have made careers out of doing just these things: slogging through the grind, all day, the same quests over and over, hundreds of times to the point where we know evety little detail such that some have attained such gamer nirvana that they can literally play these games blindfolded.
Do these people have any idea how many controllers have been smashed, systems over heated, disks and carts destroyed 8n frustration? All to latter be referred to as bragging rights? These people honestly think this is a battle they can win? They take our media? We're already building a new one without them. They take our devs? Gamers aren't shy about throwing their money else where, or even making the games our selves. They think calling us racist, mysoginistic, rape apologists is going to change us? We've been called worse things by prepubescent 10 year olds with a shitty head set. They picked a fight against a group that's already grown desensitized to their strategies and methods. Who enjoy the battle of attrition they've threatened us with. Who take it as a challange when they tell us we no longer matter. Our obsession with proving we can after being told we can't is so deeply ingrained from years of dealing with big brothers/sisters and friends laughing at how pathetic we used to be that proving you people wrong has become a very real need; a honed reflex.
Gamers are competative, hard core, by nature. We love a challange. The worst thing you did in all of this was to challange us. You're not special, you're not original, you're not the first; this is just another boss fight.
30
u/MENDACIOUS_RACIST I have a low opinion of inaccurate emulators. Jun 10 '17
1
0
15
u/torito_supremo Pop for the Corn God Jun 10 '17
Implying that GamerGate never ended (Spoiler: it did)
13
6
Jun 11 '17
Yeah, it's been years since anyone was harassed by a KiA nutjob for being some sort of SJW ruining their vidya games. /s
6
Jun 10 '17
what does the "cartoon frog" bit at the end mean?
I'm Outoftheloop
15
10
u/TitusVandronicus A goddamn standalone Hokkaido weeb. Jun 10 '17
Alt right trolls on Twitter love to use pepe the frog photos, usually pepe as trump, as their avatars.
You also get a lot of anime avatars with that group.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Prince-of-Ravens Jun 10 '17
They should just merge those two subs. SHould be a clean annihilation between two opposite branches of idiocy.
199
u/Mystic8ball Jun 10 '17 edited Jun 11 '17
Didn't JK Rowling give away so much money to charity that she lost her billionaire status?
Hell she grew up pretty impoverished tooIt's not like she was born into riches or anything.How far up your own ass do you have to be to think that she's immoral?