it's hot to be a girl in gaming right now. and not hot in the sexy way, the bad way
I can't even imagine
you're referring to 'hot' in a 'i can parlay my gender into a career as a blogger as I complain about how I am treated by strangers at conventions' sense, yes?
I know the "booth babes" (hurf durf) probably get that shit but I doubt your random female on the con floor gets harrassed.
WELL
that DEPENDS
if you believe being addressed by a male at a convention as if he assumes you don't know how to play Quake is harassment, then E3 is basically a huge rape orgy
im pretty on the fence about the whole 'be nice' thing because half the time ive tried to point out something more controversial than 'slavery is bad! dont beat women' i just got flooded with stupid, thoughtless bullshit until i started yelling at everybody
but on the other end it gets kind of extreme over nothing and then youre watching two white teens screaming at eachother over shit neither of them actually understands
There really isn't an obligation to be nice in conversations. There's definitely a weird inconsistency in the often verbalized expectation that people advocating for social issues need to maintain a civil tone as a matter of being even-handed, as though the person tossing off slurs is being fully civil in their expressions.
It's absolutely okay to get frustrated with a discussion and walk away, or to even express frustration. This also shouldn't be seen as behavior that discredits a position or argument. It's a wholly human response to difficult interaction. Disagreeing with the position and disagreeing with the mode of conversation should be separate issues.
However, I think the folks that advocate for insulting and shaming those that they consider incorrect are generally not being productive in that effort. I think that sort of behavior tends to reinforce problematic binaries in the discourse. I don't think aggrieved parties necessarily have a greater onus for being socially productive than the afflicting parties, but I also think it's a mistake to think of certain behaviors as a shortcut to an outcome.
I'd argue that ideally the most productive mode of discussion in the long term is for folks to attempt to educate each other 'til about the limit of their patience and then allow for someone else to contribute. The exceptions I make for aggressive response would be in the immediate prevention of substantial harm, but I recognize that's a massive ideological gray area. Maybe that gray area is where most of these disputes come from, but I kind of doubt it.
0
Options
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
There are various rules for how men should dress according to the time of day. Many of them are simply carry-overs from English conventions on proper evening dress, but I think a few also have their own merits.
For example, a white shirt works better at night because white frames the face better under artificial lighting. Likewise, smooth calf, particularly in black, can look considerably more stunning than a matte suede. Calf will gleam from the reflecting streetlights, whereas suede will look rather unremarkable when there’s not enough light to show off its nap. This is why I think every man should have a pair of black calf shoes, even if he doesn’t go to many formal functions.
I also don’t think certain lighter-colored garments should ever be worn at night, but this is a rather fuzzy area. If you have the occasion, a classic white or cream dinner jacket will obviously look quite fantastic, as can a cream linen or solid tan wool suit on a casual summer’s evening. However, I think the acceptability starts to weaken once you get into those brighter garments that principally express the cheerfulness of daytime - for example, loud chinos or light-colored shoes. Those are best worn when it’s sunny out, in my opinion.
So, when I can, I try to get dressed according to the time of day that I’m going out. If it’s in the morning or afternoon, I may wear a blue shirt, mid-toned jacket, and brown suede shoes. If I’m wearing a tie, it might also be of a brighter color, but doesn’t have to be. If it’s at night, I’ll wear a white shirt, darker jacket, and black calf shoes. The tie will likewise be dark. In this way, I think I better reflect the time of the day’s mood and work well with my environment. After all, the expressions of these two kinds of ensembles are as different as night and day.
0
Options
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
There are various rules for how men should dress according to the time of day. Many of them are simply carry-overs from English conventions on proper evening dress, but I think a few also have their own merits.
For example, a white shirt works better at night because white frames the face better under artificial lighting. Likewise, smooth calf, particularly in black, can look considerably more stunning than a matte suede. Calf will gleam from the reflecting streetlights, whereas suede will look rather unremarkable when there’s not enough light to show off its nap. This is why I think every man should have a pair of black calf shoes, even if he doesn’t go to many formal functions.
I also don’t think certain lighter-colored garments should ever be worn at night, but this is a rather fuzzy area. If you have the occasion, a classic white or cream dinner jacket will obviously look quite fantastic, as can a cream linen or solid tan wool suit on a casual summer’s evening. However, I think the acceptability starts to weaken once you get into those brighter garments that principally express the cheerfulness of daytime - for example, loud chinos or light-colored shoes. Those are best worn when it’s sunny out, in my opinion.
So, when I can, I try to get dressed according to the time of day that I’m going out. If it’s in the morning or afternoon, I may wear a blue shirt, mid-toned jacket, and brown suede shoes. If I’m wearing a tie, it might also be of a brighter color, but doesn’t have to be. If it’s at night, I’ll wear a white shirt, darker jacket, and black calf shoes. The tie will likewise be dark. In this way, I think I better reflect the time of the day’s mood and work well with my environment. After all, the expressions of these two kinds of ensembles are as different as night and day.
0
Options
KwoaruConfident SmirkFlawless Golden PecsRegistered Userregular
a post so nice he made it twice
0
Options
ButtlordFornicusLord of Bondage and PainRegistered Userregular
I feel like I just read an excerpt from american psycho except it wasn't about hideously clashing clothes
I know the "booth babes" (hurf durf) probably get that shit but I doubt your random female on the con floor gets harrassed.
WELL
that DEPENDS
if you believe being addressed by a male at a convention as if he assumes you don't know how to play Quake is harassment, then E3 is basically a huge rape orgy
Assuming a woman doesn't know how to do something for the sole reason that she is a woman is misogyny.
Don't most advocates for the homeless agree on this? I know I've seen studies before claiming most homelss don't panhandle and most panhandlers aren't homeless.
...to be fair it's wealthy people who do most of the freeloading. Corporate welfare, farm subsidies, and I collected federal insurance because I had a beach house.
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
edited July 2012
Ok I really want someone else to watch that 3 minute segment and please tell me what was offensive in it outside of the words "these street people" because I don't see anything objectionable said by Stossel in that segment.
Don't most advocates for the homeless agree on this? I know I've seen studies before claiming most homelss don't panhandle and most panhandlers aren't homeless.
I think there's some merit to that perspective that has almost nothing to do with anything seen at the above link...
Posts
till then i dunno keep doin that thing but i'm done reading your posts and gettin riled up about it
there's enough actual shitlords to be pissed at without having some goose doin a shitty troll
can you try and not sperg the fuck out an also try and be correct when you say things please?
It's just that using them that way makes your asperger's pretty obvious
probably never
but getting prickly when someone does is a dumb thing to do
holy shit
a 3 year old desperately blowing at a dandelion and getting his spittle all over it
pretty sure zay is the worst
kids are adorable
pipthefair you are like some beautiful paladin dog
a paladog
Don’t you remember that one episode where Joe Isuzu was all condescending towards Estelle Getty because he thought she was a terrible Quake player?
I thought it was about Wolf ET
bitch did not know the radio room from the command bunker
There really isn't an obligation to be nice in conversations. There's definitely a weird inconsistency in the often verbalized expectation that people advocating for social issues need to maintain a civil tone as a matter of being even-handed, as though the person tossing off slurs is being fully civil in their expressions.
It's absolutely okay to get frustrated with a discussion and walk away, or to even express frustration. This also shouldn't be seen as behavior that discredits a position or argument. It's a wholly human response to difficult interaction. Disagreeing with the position and disagreeing with the mode of conversation should be separate issues.
However, I think the folks that advocate for insulting and shaming those that they consider incorrect are generally not being productive in that effort. I think that sort of behavior tends to reinforce problematic binaries in the discourse. I don't think aggrieved parties necessarily have a greater onus for being socially productive than the afflicting parties, but I also think it's a mistake to think of certain behaviors as a shortcut to an outcome.
I'd argue that ideally the most productive mode of discussion in the long term is for folks to attempt to educate each other 'til about the limit of their patience and then allow for someone else to contribute. The exceptions I make for aggressive response would be in the immediate prevention of substantial harm, but I recognize that's a massive ideological gray area. Maybe that gray area is where most of these disputes come from, but I kind of doubt it.
For example, a white shirt works better at night because white frames the face better under artificial lighting. Likewise, smooth calf, particularly in black, can look considerably more stunning than a matte suede. Calf will gleam from the reflecting streetlights, whereas suede will look rather unremarkable when there’s not enough light to show off its nap. This is why I think every man should have a pair of black calf shoes, even if he doesn’t go to many formal functions.
I also don’t think certain lighter-colored garments should ever be worn at night, but this is a rather fuzzy area. If you have the occasion, a classic white or cream dinner jacket will obviously look quite fantastic, as can a cream linen or solid tan wool suit on a casual summer’s evening. However, I think the acceptability starts to weaken once you get into those brighter garments that principally express the cheerfulness of daytime - for example, loud chinos or light-colored shoes. Those are best worn when it’s sunny out, in my opinion.
So, when I can, I try to get dressed according to the time of day that I’m going out. If it’s in the morning or afternoon, I may wear a blue shirt, mid-toned jacket, and brown suede shoes. If I’m wearing a tie, it might also be of a brighter color, but doesn’t have to be. If it’s at night, I’ll wear a white shirt, darker jacket, and black calf shoes. The tie will likewise be dark. In this way, I think I better reflect the time of the day’s mood and work well with my environment. After all, the expressions of these two kinds of ensembles are as different as night and day.
For example, a white shirt works better at night because white frames the face better under artificial lighting. Likewise, smooth calf, particularly in black, can look considerably more stunning than a matte suede. Calf will gleam from the reflecting streetlights, whereas suede will look rather unremarkable when there’s not enough light to show off its nap. This is why I think every man should have a pair of black calf shoes, even if he doesn’t go to many formal functions.
I also don’t think certain lighter-colored garments should ever be worn at night, but this is a rather fuzzy area. If you have the occasion, a classic white or cream dinner jacket will obviously look quite fantastic, as can a cream linen or solid tan wool suit on a casual summer’s evening. However, I think the acceptability starts to weaken once you get into those brighter garments that principally express the cheerfulness of daytime - for example, loud chinos or light-colored shoes. Those are best worn when it’s sunny out, in my opinion.
So, when I can, I try to get dressed according to the time of day that I’m going out. If it’s in the morning or afternoon, I may wear a blue shirt, mid-toned jacket, and brown suede shoes. If I’m wearing a tie, it might also be of a brighter color, but doesn’t have to be. If it’s at night, I’ll wear a white shirt, darker jacket, and black calf shoes. The tie will likewise be dark. In this way, I think I better reflect the time of the day’s mood and work well with my environment. After all, the expressions of these two kinds of ensembles are as different as night and day.
Assuming a woman doesn't know how to do something for the sole reason that she is a woman is misogyny.
read the comments
i dare you
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
Almost.
However, if he gets the shit kicked out of him part way through by a real homeless person I’ll bite.
Don't most advocates for the homeless agree on this? I know I've seen studies before claiming most homelss don't panhandle and most panhandlers aren't homeless.
this gave me cancer
the only charity i give is handing out bootstraps* to people on the street. Teach a man to fish and all that
*no boots though
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
Probably a decent bit in the summer.
give a man a bootstrap, and he'll pull himself up for only a day.
teach a man to bootstrap, and he'll pull himself up for a lifetime.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
I think there's some merit to that perspective that has almost nothing to do with anything seen at the above link...