41–50 of 56 posts
Maybe if feminists (part of the parasitic political class) spent less time being resentful of what others have built and built something themselves they'd have less reason to be resentful in the first place. Now we're living not just with the reactive feminist losers, but the reactive-reactive super-loser MRA types.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first iteration of what? Total degeneration? How can you "improve" a test designed to enforce slave morality on creative people?
Maybe the downvoters can make an argument. I doubt it, since that is the reason people abuse the downvote button - to shut off an argument they are incapable of understanding.
You've never thought that the fact these little tests exists is because the level of male domination in social discourse is so high that it causes reactions such as yours when it is challenged?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the downvoters can make an argument. I doubt it, since that is the reason people abuse the downvote button - to shut off an argument they are incapable of understanding.
I didn't down-vote you (and can't), but it may not be that people "are incapable of understanding" you, and instead objecting to your claim that a method for reviewing/appraising one aspect of a film is "designed to enforce slave morality on creative people". Using less wildly provocative language may be more conducive to a rational discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the downvoters can make an argument. I doubt it, since that is the reason people abuse the downvote button - to shut off an argument they are incapable of understanding.
Because patriarchy is the slaving morality of the status quo? You've never thought that the fact these little tests exists is because the level of male domination in social discourse is so high that it causes reactions such as yours when it is challenged?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the downvoters can make an argument. I doubt it, since that is the reason people abuse the downvote button - to shut off an argument they are incapable of understanding.
Given that your first comment is a hysterical argument labelling your opposing philosophy as 'total degeneration' and 'slave morality', I think most people would be hard-pressed to believe you were actually interested in discussion over soap-boxing. It's reinforced when you call people too stupid to understand you. What possible value can come out of engaging you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In other words, you ignored the content of my comment and went looking for _dirt_ you could use against me. Bravo, you complete imbecile. And I am anti-egalitarian - feminism is just the current vogue in the tech scene, which is currently degenerating both technically and socially. And your behavior of gossiping about my account is a prime example.
See, being anti-egalitarian, you should understand this: You are not worth my time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's definitely a flawed metric, but I doubt most metrics start out perfectly and there is nothing wrong with that. It's value is in starting a dialogue and I am sure it can be improved with iteration. Some minor issues fact-based movies, documentaries: biographical movies (if it is the story of a man and there are no women in his life that doesn't necessarily make it chauvinistic), historical movies (if it is a movi…
The test has had almost 30 years to develop The general problem that I see in both the test and the problem it's designed to solve is this mental shortcut of an either/or grouping. Male/female, pass/fail. But if it helps some people start dialogue then that's wonderful, at the same time I think the intersectionalist feminists deserve some positive attention for searching out new ways to get the conversations going.
I'm confused that you say this, but do not actually link any such ways. I'd personally be happy to give them some positive attention, but feminism isn't something I spend much time on so I don't know the latest stuff going on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that your first comment is a hysterical argument labelling your opposing philosophy as 'total degeneration' and 'slave morality', I think most people would be hard-pressed to believe you were actually interested in discussion over soap-boxing. It's reinforced when you call people too stupid to understand you. What possible value can come out of engaging you?
Feminism is a slave morality by definition. I didn't invent the term. You're welcome to reject advances in Western Philosophy if you like. The value that comes out of engaging me is talking to someone who is interested in more than mere gossip. I mean, look at your comment: no more than questioning my credentials, in response to a comment of mine suggesting that maybe people put forward some _actual content_. Amazing
Cheerio.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See, being anti-egalitarian, you should understand this: You are not worth my time.
It's okay, I don't expect chronically stupid people to recognise their betters.
Ahem.
I'm sorry you weren't able to recognize me as your better. I hope your chronic stupidity is duly cured someday.
Did I do it right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point was that there should be no bar to clear when making a movie (or writing a novel, story, etc.). Placing artificial limits like that is exactly the type of bias you're talking about, but swinging to the other direction.
It's not about when making a movie . It's fine, for instance, if someone feels a really strong need to inform you that they have a pistol in their pocket. But if everyone , or even most people , are going around telling people that they have a pistol in their pocket... there isn't actually a scenario in which this says, "Things are still okay." It's about what everyone is doing as a whole . If a white guy kicks a bla…