Yvonne

Prescribe precisely how someone must live their life and then see how much social stability you get in the end. Would you be happy being told you couldn't pursue your interests because you weren't an X or a Y? I knew gamers were bad but I didn't realise they were THIS bad. I declare my exit from this thread. Jesus fucking christ, bring a flood.

grunch I'm busy this weekend but next weekend do you want to do me a teaching game? If you're sanbagging 13s I know for sure it's gonna be a wipe but I don't have any buddies with higher rank (cause I discovered it and introduced it to the people I know that I play). Hopefully a handicap can keep it interesting for you ?

aw, that's kinda mean... is the info you have for day 1 going to get you killed, or more valuable in a few days? Or is it ok for you to drop? I'm only voting to get things moving at this stage, so you could be cleared real easy

mmm, you're right. In lieu of anything else going on I will vote Esequiel I can understand it being a quiet weekend but we should really make a bit more progress or we're gonna get in trouble. I might remove vote if we get something useful...then again it could be useful to the baddies too. Nothing ventured

Rummy we could literally play for realz, I bought some nice bowls and some glass pieces!

did you play portal 2? i can't seem to use the spoiler tags, otherwise I'd tell you

I'm not sure, I could be a couple of characters in there, or none...the writeup doesn't quite add up I don't think I'll pop on again in the afternoon see if I can make any sense of things before I go home.

Finally some honest misogyny! while 1 { print signature + "\n"; }

and that just shows how little you know about feminists. You remind me of this guy: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/05/maude-save-us.html Also men get breast cancer too

How do they sleep at night??

The prospect of GLaDOS being in this game is pretty scary...anyone know any decent logical paradoxes? Without the investigator we're going to have to do more writeup analysis. Unless we have more than one that is

I'm not trying to demonise you and I'm not calling you an arsehole, just interrogating your arguments, some of which are dangerously flawed. Will post more tomorrow (possibly, or will be drunk) For now this should tide us over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Giraffes

KGS says 14, though I feel more like a 16, haven't played that many ranked games. Six stones eh? Gimme a year or so.... hehe. But really, would be up for a game sometime

I'm not sure how abortion and religion came up (though that's not to say they aren't relevant), though I find they represent possibly the only cans of worms bigger than making the suggestion that people of all genders should be treated fairly. I feel a bit scattered so I will number my points and they might go back and forth a bit but bear with me. 1. The question of science ever being able to predict the sexuality of a person is a big if at best. There has been some research into it though, and I have heard the theory that as homosexuality is more prevalent in more dense populations (I think including various species of animals) that it could be partly a response to resource management - a gay organism could act as another ally to look after the species without adding more strain on resources through procreation. Citation needed again, will try to track this down (apologies for not having time so far to do any deep research per post). That's one possibility, which would mean in a way everyone has a "gay" design. Another possibility is a gay gene, but this flies in the face of evolutionary theory, unless there is something especially beneficial to the populations that gay organisms bring. This seems shaky, I don't see any advantages/disadvantages. The other possibility or rather factor that could contribute, is that upbringing and environment plays a part. Don't know any papers off the top of my head on this. 2. the suggested link between reproductive rights and eugenics - I think this is the part that upsets me the most, because this is the kind of argument anti-choice advocates love - the narrative that people who seek abortions are choosy selfish sinners. I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but it inadvertently demonises the extremely vulnerable population of pregnant women already struggling for their own autonomy against all kinds of political attacks, and I think it's really important not to fall into this trap. Currently in america there is a war on reproductive rights going on. http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/07/number-of-day_13.html Over here it's catching on too - I believe there is legislation in the works to take the limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks. Chip chip chip... 3. the assumption that people would want to eliminate homosexuality/the assumption that people would want to have sexuality in common with their children - not so much outrage here as just strong disagreement 4. the false dilemma posed between accepting homosexuality or protecting reproductive rights for women - this kind of choice is only ever going to be presented by the republican house to obama... 5. (previously) the false dilemma posed between saving breast cancer patients versus other patients. Massive slippery slope. When you start making comparisons like this where do you end? With the education money for a severely learning impaired child, you could heat X number of homes for old folk? If we unplugged the life support on this coma ward we could reduce the deficit? slip slip slip Also you could use your argument for prostate cancer too - I'm sure everyone here has heard of movember. And you know what, it's good that people are aware of these things and getting checked! A breast exam where a tumour is not found is NOT a wasted exam! If there is a gem like good access to cancer screenings (which is a massive privilege and only available in some countries) and other things aren't doing as well, that's not a viable criticism of feminism. That's showing it works! And that everything else could be so much better too. Feminism's gain is not anyone else's loss. Finally I'd like to say that we shouldn't get adversarial. What I am trying to fight is oppression and the attitudes it perpetuates, attitudes that in turn perpetuate oppression. There's a lot of work to do.

w...what? Am going to need a moment to fully take in the wrongness of that post

brb gonna get in a heated discussion about people's favourite monosyllabic words

I want thanks button ....how many posts is it?

theres even a facebook app! Hard to find though...

http://senseis.xmp.net/?LoseYourFirst50GamesAsQuicklyAsPossible ooh, you don't say...would check out if I had xbox, will have to settle for the gnugo on ogs. Still haven't beaten the best bot though apparently harder to write a good go bot than it is a good chess bot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_%28game%29 Do we have any go players on the forum? I have a great big throbbing desire to play.

Moogle I'm sure you're better than that gross oversimplification and series of logical leaps. Intersectionality is inevitable. There's proof in this very thread - we started on feminism, went to black and civil rights issues, and now are back at sexism. It's a network of oppression, and rarely do you find a feminist who is not also an advocate for civil rights, LGBTQI* positive, fat positive, pro disability rights etc. This is where it gets down to the personal level, and generalisation is impossible. I would pick feminist as the term most accurately describing myself but that's purely because it was my entry point into the world of anti-oppression ideology. I mean, look at your statement. Without meaning to, you've essentially erased the existence of black women by presenting the false dilemma of fighting either for women's rights or for black rights, as if the intersection of the two with their own unique issues did not exist. That's not to say that by declaring yourself feminist or as part of any number of anti oppression groups you are immune from mistakes or wrong headedness - the first wave feminists fighting for suffrage were still very racist and classist, and tackling homophobia wasn't exactly top of the list in the 60s. As soon as you reduce the world to mere dichotomies you sell yourself short and buy into the kind of tribal us vs them, zero sum game mentality that I see festering in this thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality check out the section titled "Interlocking matrix of oppression", and bell hooks if you have time. Eddie - again, the mistake being made is that people are thinking about the taxonomy (i guess that's the right word?) as if it is a mutually exclusive thing. I am pro LGBTQI*, a feminist, pro civil rights, pro disability rights, fat positive and many other things. If you tell me you like pasta I don't respond by saying "oh, well why don't you like pork?"

must have missed that link, will give it a read

I'd like to see a citation on those overtime figures, in my industry there isn't a difference. Also the reason it's called glass ceiling is because the inequality gets worse the further up the chain you get (or don't get, as the case may be). If you've spent any time on feminist blogs or anywhere with comment spaces, you will pretty quickly get a snapshot of the kind of troll posts (frequently from dudes from game forums ) they get flooded with. It's no wonder they start with low expectations from visitors! The main thing I want people to take away from the resources I've posted in this thread is that feminists are not the enemy of men. The gender equality movement's purpose is to get us to stop hurting each other and ourselves, and to discover mutual respect, so we can all have better lives. Sometimes that means checking your assumptions, analysing your own privileges, and doing some active research

hahaha Rummy vote no lynch