I haven't played the game, but I think the MGS4 reference has more to do with the fact that it's Rand's philosophy come true. No more state power, just corporations fighting each other, using human beings as cannon fodder, as a beautiful example of the free market at its finest.

If the US were suddenly abolished as a state, what you'd see is corporate power finding some other way to fight wars. Such as by hiring contractors. And then you'd get an image kind of like MGS4, except instead of corporations fighting each other, the targets would probably be human beings who happen to live on a resourceful piece of land.

ahahaha I didn't think that hard about it I just picked two games with bad writing

myp genital are beter than yours

um I saw some documentary on pbs about like arguing for capitalism and it was a swedish guy and he used Hong Kong as an example of a place with like no regulations pure capitalism and there are probably huge holes in his argument but I was wondering if anyone saw it so they could tear into it

but yeah I think the only real reason for any progress has nothing to do with philosophy economic systems it's just random smart fucks get born and probably have Asperger's and invent everything ever. And also aren't particularly motivated by money

it did make some argument like nobody had a refrigerator but rich people but because of competition now virtually everyone has a fridge and for way cheaper. Also computers advancing as much as they did. But this guy sounded like Ayn Rand/Ron Paul the more pure capitalism you have the more progress/average quality of life there will be and obviously 100% unrestricted capitalism we would have a new iPad every 2 seconds or whatever his idea of progress is

Edit: oh it was based on the ideas of Milton Friedman, somebody rip into his philosophy plz

Edit: Basically same as with Ayn Rand, help me articulate why I should loathe this person

and you spent like 20 pages having a good, proper discussion with vellfire in another topic. so don't tell me people don't have a proper attitude around here. I really think you just don't like being disagreed with

don't tell me you're talking about the one where I got called an idiot for not giving a shit about some pre-written arguments about a white males viewpoints and devolved into a woman blowing two mens heads off because HEH THATS EFFECTIVELY THE SAME THING AS AN IRONIC JOKE

She sat here and fucking goaded me into an argument. couldn't even ignore something that wasn't personally directed at her but when you tell me because of my gender and skin color I don't fucking matter I'm supposed to just deal with that? Anyone else is just supposed to accept that?

I honestly do not give a damn what anyone thinks to the point of getting upset. its the terrible censorship attitude around here that defeats the very purpose of this place and more and more people tailing you two because it just makes "so much more sense when you want to tell people what they should and shouldn't say" with you're humorless and void well to do way of looking at the world

its fuckin boring

This discussion in any form is just going to devolve into both your egos and I really don't want to watch it anymore. If you can't atleast delete any posts that are going to end up in this same manner than I'm serious delete my damn account I fuckin hate this place now.
 
Delete my fuckin jokes delete her fucking egomaniacal self gratification delete it all its all fucking garbage I don't care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City

yeah but kowloon is awesome

I mean if you were making jokes about black people, and some guy came in and said "hey, that's really racist, could you please stop doing that?", would you also call it censorship? Or telling you to stop using the word "nigger"? That's not censorship, it's a request for basic empathy. Some people don't like it when you use that kind of language. It's the same with those jokes you made earlier. Yeah, we get that they're jokes. That's not the point. If someone is offended by them, then the right thing to do is evaluate the claim and decide either to do something or to refuse.

I don't get why you're getting so upset by any of this, all of this seems fairly normal to me.

This isn't a one on one discussion. If I'm talking to someone individually and they don't like something then I'd be more than willing to shut up. If I'm talking publically and someone doesn't like something its not their right to tell me to watch my mouth because they don't like it. A) I don't care or I wouldn't speak freely at all B) it is censorship

do you write every rap artist telling him your upset that he uses mysogonistic words in his work or every dumbass comedian that calls women ho's. No you don't this is a childish approach to something controvercial. Its selfish as hell and like I said, egomaniacal. Thinking every person you don't know or aren't personally speaking to should watch their language around you limits language and expression.

If you start to do this then there is absolutely no ground for free expression, anyone can walk in and tell you to shut the fuck up. You're athiest? keep your citicisms of religion to yourself. You don't like how alot of black culture is completely self-destructive? You're not black stop talking.

Also yes, I do make black jokes but I only do it to black people and in a way that I am endearing myself to them. I do the same thing with latinos sometimes but in a friendly jousting manner. It removes alot of tension and makes open discussion much more easier and unoffensive.
 
Inris not the same. He wasn't trying to articulate anything he was just being racist. And to deal with that is to not even aknowledge what he's saying because he's racist not to sit there and overanalyze his stupid bullshit you're falling right into step that way.

That is the point I'm trying to make. you two are doing nothing but promoting tension with these worldviews and overt sensitivity to language. you have to find concepts offensive not language or you're just another tight ass that absolutely no one cares to listen to.

That doesn't mean you "don't matter" if you don't fall in a particular category, but it does mean you're not a primary authority.

people don't "fall into categories". almost every girl I personally know at home is a consistant victim of mysogyny and they don't even realize it. I'm not talking about both of your concept of societal oppression which makes women victims either I'm talking about real physical fucking mysogyny from real mysogynist men. Its not even because they don't have an access to the information they just do not care. Yeah they get they're being mistreated on some base level but they don't pursue it because of the relationships said shit is involved with. You can sit there and tell them they're being mistreated or tell the dude he's doing it but certain people don't give a shit. they just don't care.

this goddamn book is a form of mysogyny but older women everywhere are still reading it. they don't know what they're reading and if you sat there and told them what it was pretty much all of them would probably still read it.

That shit is absolutely horrible but when you assume shit like "certain people are a victim of psychological conditioning from birth and as a product of which, they are capable of doing horrible things to themselves. They can't help it and its not your right to point that out or claim to have some sort of insight on it when you can see it and they can't."

that is horrible. you aren't putting any faith in those peoples individuality or preserverance and you're making general assumptions.

I never claimed to be an authority on shit. I don't care enough. I don't study it but if I don't agree with someone who thinks they are an authority I'm going to say when I think they're full of shit and being oppressive with their sensitivity.

man i thought the point was that mysognistic jokes really just aren't appropriate in a discussion about gender equality, idk about censorship (i always thought censorship meant like a mod editing your posts so that everything you said was gone or something, like actually beeping it out except it's on the internet)

but hey ignore me, i'm just a guy who's not a fan of ayn rand fans

topic wasn't about gender equality it was about a mysogynistic book lots of women are reading, the jokes were highlighting the mysogyny in the book via self inflicted mysogyny. The gender equality started later on because of said joke I'm assuming.

which honestly I should have realized that people here don't appreciate that kind of humor or any kind of humor you have to look at sidelonged. its a rigid self-denying way of looking at things and makes you a prude in my opinion but whatever.
 

Every time I'd die and reload I'd curse (sometimes loudly, sometimes under my breath) and he would be tapping on my shoulder or tell me I'm being offensive or something.

this pretty much. its this in a higher form.
 
vell was talking about anti bullying legislation against kids and some kind of law to make transexuals legally respected. I understand the latter for businesses, like an official stance. But on an individual level that does the complete opposite of what you want. It alienates the people you're trying to educate and they are less willing to listen and actually start to hate you because they see you as threatening.
 
Once you make these laws or these grand gestures, you can't go back. You change society into some kind of verbal no man's land. It doesn't matter what your intent is because then that notion you just pushed forward is up for any and everyone to manipulate. You can't tell a cop to "fuck off" in the states because then they can charge you with assault and thats a hefty sentence to deal with too. You can't even use foul language to express yourself in public without taking the risk of getting charged for that too.
 
Its just insane, its completely insane. any kind of censorship enables even more. I'd much rather be able to curse someone out for being disrespectful or argue with them and deal with it on a more personal level (if its necessary) than any sort of censorship.
 
I would vote for any law that enables any white man to go out in the street and say "nigger" all he wants but also protects against the persecution of the physical violence to follow suit. A broken jaw or blackened eye doesn't last nearly as long as a life long criminal record on the system for some arbitrary bullshit which the violater is likely to realize the error or his ways on his own without some kind of legal recourse.
 
This demand for change of mind is way less efficient than coaxing people to change their minds by leading by example and personal gestures and not some thought police, language police bullshit.

yeah it's not censorship to tell someone that they're offending you. nobody is censoring you, Farren; all your posts are untouched by anyone but you. now, you might be thinking that others are encouraging you to censor YOURSELF-- but really, the point of the objections people make towards you is not to make you hold in your opinions, but rather to get you to willfully CHANGE your opinions through empathy and understanding, so that maybe you will stop speaking in such a harmful way out of a personal desire to not come off as a misogynistic jerk. but it's up to you to decide whether or not to adjust your language.

and of course, offensiveness is a subjective thing. for example, i wasn't personally offended by your ironic misogynistic jokes earlier. i even thought they were funny and relevant. however, others (like Vellfire) may have been offended. so if someone points out that something was rude or distasteful, it's completely up to you to decide whether you value that person's feelings or not. you might think they're overreacting (and for you, that might be a reason why you won't acknowledge their opinion), but the proper response isn't to overreact yourself, spewing ad hominem arguments and accusing all others of conformity and conspiracy. it seems like when someone tells you that you said something offensive, your natural reaction is to purposefully become increasingly offensive (and defensive too, actually) in your responses. at that point, someone like me, who had no problem at all with your original posts, starts to become offended and annoyed with you just because of the way you deal with criticism. maybe you should try actually caring about what other people think and learn to tone yourself down rather than allowing yourself to get all worked up and self-righteous.

anyway this topic was sorta destined to get to a discussion about society and women. i say that, and i haven't even been active on these forums in about a year, so i don't know what anyone is talking about relating to inri and to past topics about women's rights. the fact is that you presented things in a very "UGH WOMEN" context (as Vellfire stated), where it really does seem like you're just pretending to care about misogyny when really you just want to voice out your own misogynistic statements about how women are so stupid and they're unknowingly subjecting themselves to this stuff and blahblahblah.

personally i don't really care about the book itself; i mostly just think it's funny that a fanfiction writer called "snowqueens icedragon" somehow hit it big. yes sure it reflects on social attitudes of the times-- this whole incident reminds me a lot of the short story "Rape Fantasies" by Margaret Atwood because of the whole romanticized abuse aspect. however there's nothing wrong with bdsm "kinky fuckery" and if a woman wants to be submissive in bed then it's none of your business. so if middle-aged soccer moms are getting off to that idea then uhh so what? the fact that you say stuff like this:

From what I understand the point here being made is that being submissive is ok and actually hot. That is some real fucked up shit dude.

that honestly kinda devalues the legitimacy of women's sexuality and opinions. if dom/sub fantasies seem hot to the readers, then uhh cool. and maybe it's a misguided attraction based on gender roles and failing marriages but hey maybe that's just what the readers are into! there's been a lot of girls and women and men and boys and non-binary-gender-identifying people reading a lot of nekoboi yaoi mangas and crappy twilight fanfics for a very long time. one of the latter just happened to go mainstream and get published, so now a lot of old married ladies are discovering the internet stuff they hadn't previously been exposed to but would've been into.

but now i'm just kinda rambling. so i'm just going to conclude by reiterating Vellfire's point about transphobia because i think that's something you (Farren) don't regularly consider in your posts and it is something that personally relates to me. not all women have vaginas and not all men have penises. and not everyone is either a woman or a man (or a female or a male). (and yeah you should probably stop believing that them feminazis are hatin on you because of yer penis and skin color, because the people here like Vellfire and dada and me wouldn't even believe something like that)

aand i'm rambling again. soooo let's all just relax and chill and acknowledge how good Ragnar's and J Chastain's posts in this thread are

farren i think you're just spewing bullshit so you don't look as bad as you actually do right now. nobody is censoring anyone here, they're just saying you're being a jerk for making sexist jokes

like you know when someone uses the word "nigger," most people tend to regard them as racist assholes. but they're still protected by free speech as long as they aren't killing anyone, afaik. i think most of your claims here are rather overblown and grandiose. you're just mad because a few people didn't like your jokes and now nobody really likes you

maybe if you apologized

I'll throw my two cents into this even though I've been rather emotionally bankrupt of late. I've heard this issue discussed a lot on here lately, and am seeing more and more people kinda get on board with the idea that it's a problem, to some degree, and needs to be addressed in some earnest way. Sexuality exists and we can't do anything about it. I read an op-ed piece in my local newspaper by historian Maurice Thatcher that says that we have tried doing something about it but that it doesn't exist and we can't do anything about it. I've spent the last 4 years looking for a way to destroy gender and Burger King Whopper and I've found that I can't do anything about it. I remember reading on the wikipedia page I can't remember what it was, an eyeopening essay, but in it they said that several infinity of dollars was spent yearly on trying to send troops into Japan, Michigan, Outer Space, Japan, Michigan, Outerspace(s), Japan, Michigan, Outer space, etc and they can't find any evidence that there is a bomb to speak of that can destroy all latinos but keep whites safe. This was an important step in the right direction for all the people involved, as they wished that they had taken that step earlier but were not capable of verifying which step was the correct one to take. This point I believe was an important step to take, as had it not been this step that was taken, invariably another one would have been interjected in its place, which, in my view, isn't really the correct one we should be taking. I tried to read gender not as a construct of man but as a construct of Ron Paul's Political Platform circa 1982. I'm not exactly a scholar on the subject, but I have the right to conclude that this is probably something resembling a fact, and it's in everyone's best interest to research the matter thoroughly and find their own stance. That's all it's ever really about. You have two things that need to be kept in mind when considering this from a metaphysical point of view: The fact that there is a popular website on the internet called google that lets you search for pictures of people holding banners disparaging the differences between people who eat at McDonalds and people who eat at Burger King. Have you ever talked to any of these three subsects of people? If there's anything you think you can learn from something like this, it's invariably that they don't understand what the hell they're talking about and should be avoided completely.

So where does this leave us? Well, the Wall Street Journal does their part, printing messages like this one here which more of less completely invalidates the point. People line up in pretty substantial numbers outside the centers of public housing and make unfounded accusations about the problems inherent in their heating bills. It doesn't take a bright guy to realize that the oxygen we breathe is composed largely of methane gases expeled from the rectum of one very large insurance salesman. A recent study released by a dermatologist at Johns Hopkins has determined that roughly 85% of the gasses emitted from said cavities consist of Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential Campaign, so to have the audacity to suggest that this isn't at least partially responsible for the problem is probably something most people are either completely capable of, somewhat capable of, or not capable of at all. That's really the heart of what's wrong: You have gender, first and foremost, and then you have the conniving insurance salesmen, and that's precisely the two most effective ways to break people down. Once you've broken humanity down to such a small level, of course, you get something that doesn't even resemble what they were in the first place. Something of a moot point when it comes right down to it. I don't understand why so many people waste so much conscious energy on it.

I don't know. I really don't. I've tried reading articles like this one but I feel like it kinda ignores many of the primary issues really at work here, and there isn't any one else really facing the issue with any amount of maturity. It kinda goes in circles. On one hand, people often debate the merits of sticking your entire hand in another person's rectum, not for any medicinal purpose, but because many people regard it as a good a place as any to keep your hand when you aren't using it. I don't really dig this method of looking at gender, race, politics, etc but I understand where they're coming from. I've also heard other people suggest academically that we need to remove all words from the English dictionary and replace the entire notion of an organized system of language with a copy of Twilight, preferably the esperanto language version. Here's a really neat article Zizek wrote on the subject. You tell me if you think this is where we should expect to see ourselves in the next 90 years, and at worst I'll probably be off the internet somewhere listening to music that was composed in 1994 and wondering aloud when the next time the ice cream truck is going to drive past my house. I don't think many people really are prepared to confront the notion that the ice cream truck has not passed by my house in several years, even fewer with the intellectual capabilities to accept the fact that it's probably not going to pass by again. The other day I stood in a public restroom for several hours trying to figure out what oboma would look like if he was Mexican midget. The results were inconclusive, but I did find this article that has some pretty interesting conclusions to make. I don't really easy get on board with articles written by hardcore Libertarians, but that's a pretty good read actually. You may want to take a look.

Kinda rambling here, but I think I'm getting my point across. People are in large part kinda shying away from any sort of internal accountability in regards to this issue, and a lot of prominent intellectuals are starting to conclude that this is not exactly some fundamental defect with society and latent psychology in general, but is actually something that goes a little beyond the realm of the social and psychological sciences, typically considered the amount of times people will defecate in public unashamedly before pulling their pants up and going back to their church where they belong. You can't really look at a man defecating in public without being reminded of the time you watched a George Lucas movie with that girl you were trying to hit up, who later turned out to be a fully-sentient 78-gallon drum of guacamole, of course disinterested in you, only trying to use you in order to get closer to your collection of autopsy photographs. I guess Mitt Romney kinda fits this general mold, but I think that's a fairly innocuous way of looking at it. Scholars at Harvard University recently released a study that more or less concludes that the problem is a little more abstract in nature, namely that if you attempt to stick your entire face inside a bottle of Jack Daniels Whiskey, you're probably going to have a degree of discomfort, and approximately 18 seconds of pure bliss before the mexican fried rice police come and issue you with a warrant of circumcision and punch you in the butthole with a boxing glove. I'd like to see you try surviving a punch in the butthole with a boxing glove you fucking stupid idiot neanderthal dutchman nigger mexican midget cunt fuckhead faggot cunt midget fuck etc and this is probably something you should react to consciously when you see it. I don't really think that it gets any simpler that this. This is the issue, and people can just find themselves ignoring it. I know I probably do, and can't really think of anybody that's an exception. Until humanity really comes to terms with the fact that it needs to be consciously addressed, you're going to see it continue, possibly expand in ways we aren't even really aware of yet.

Call me crazy, but this is how this issue has always appeared to me. I'd like to see one of you fucking idiots try making a better evaluation of how this works.

Yeah, kinda flew off the handle there, but I honestly don't give a fuck anymore. Really fucking tired of this issue. Flame me if you want, this is what I think.