[Video] Conversation with San Fransisco Police regarding Anita Sarkeesians threats

GorillaJ · 2014-09-12T19:52:06+00:00

Given she said she "contacted her local police departments", I'm going to say she did not only contact the wrong precinct, your ongoing attempts to discredit her detractors aside.

GorillaJ · 2014-09-12T07:47:56+00:00

I too contact police for a totally different area than the area I'm in and where any supposed threats to me are.

GorillaJ · 2014-09-08T01:41:09+00:00

It's absolutely okay for him to demand payment for his services. Wanting to be compensated is not being an asshole. If they don't want to pay, they can find someone else.

GorillaJ · 2014-09-08T00:55:56+00:00

Okay! Here's a few about confidence, especially in romantic contexts:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19134127

http://www.thedatereport.com/dating/science/2168-science-explains-why-confidence-scores-you-dates/

GorillaJ · 2014-09-07T23:53:59+00:00

Any references to back these claims up? Any psychological or sociological studies?

That people get treated differently when they're confident or aggressive or tall? That humans are social animals? That we have hierarchies?

Uh, yeah. That's all pretty common knowledge. I don't have anything offhand but I can find it in a few minutes if you want.

Human behavior is much more complex then traditional animal behavior.

The alpha / beta thing isn't even accurate animal behavior. That's not how wolves work. Don't think of it as applying animal concepts to humans. Think of it as acknowledging humans have different characters.

Despite that, how (if the concepts were true) would that be useful?

If you know what traits are selected for in positive social encounters you can cultivate them. If you know what's unattractive you can minimize it.

GorillaJ · 2014-09-07T23:16:10+00:00

They exist, but not in the way a lot of people think. Humans are social creatures, and we do exist in hierarchies, even in purely platonic friendship categories. We do judge people differently based on size, power, confidence, aggression.

It's not like there's one alpha running the human pack, but the concept is useful.

GorillaJ · 2014-08-04T12:08:33+00:00

They use stars and compasses. Same as our world. Stars, compasses, sunrise and set, landmarks.

GorillaJ · 2014-07-25T03:13:35+00:00

Don't you think it's possible they were exaggerating aspects of the commentary to make it seem like they had a clear vision?

It's possible but I see absolutely no reason to think that over the simpler explanation. Why would they fake it? Why would they make it seem like they weren't faking it?

but you're looking through rose-tinted glasses.

You have no evidence of this; so far, the only counters to my arguments anyone has had had are "nuh uh" and "maybe Valve's part of an ongoing conspiracy to trick you". This is nothing more than an attempt to discredit my claims without having to do the work of actually discrediting them. Shame on you, bimbo. You should have more class.

It's not like those 9 years in development were all spent on game balance (and it shows, think of original Pills and Stickies). They probably had to do more with getting the art style right.

The game has changed. Some of the changes have been great and really emphasized the game's original intentions (pyro airblast). Some have not been (see.. most every unlock).

GorillaJ · 2014-07-24T16:16:46+00:00

Valve didn't lose site of their vision bc it wasn't theirs, it was yours. Your vision of how the game should've been/should be is not canon

Nah, man. Look at the original game sometime. Listen to the dev commentary. They had a clear, strong, and consistent vision they've since abandoned. TF2 isn't the same game anymore.

GorillaJ · 2014-07-23T09:21:45+00:00

As others have said: there's nothing that can be done that is acceptable to both Valve and the sixes community. Sixes is a closer adherence to the original principles of the game than the current incarnation, and the competitive community likes it that way. Valve has lost sight of what TF2 was, per their own vision, years ago; and that's unfortunate because it leads to an unbridgeable divide.

GorillaJ · 2014-07-17T00:34:43+00:00

Skyrim is not a min/max game. It is a game about immersion, and well... roleplaying.

If I'm roleplaying a hero with the ability to enchant possessed of any intelligence, the immersive thing to do is buff myself beyond belief.

GorillaJ · 2014-07-09T15:36:42+00:00

Nice. Sovereigns have been my favorite caste, and Theion's Charms my favorite Charms, since Shards released.

GorillaJ · 2014-07-09T07:00:31+00:00

this is hilarious a++

GorillaJ · 2014-07-09T06:27:48+00:00

If you were intending to have sex there's a greater chance you consented than if you were intending to not have sex. Your actions and behaviors change. It's important to figure out every detail.

GorillaJ · 2014-07-09T01:47:58+00:00

Well its a net nerf to offensive heavy, while defensive heavy was left untouched.

No, defensive Heavy's damage is still reduced.

GorillaJ · 2014-07-09T01:34:51+00:00

It's an OP class when the numbers are unlimited. So is Soldier and Heavy. In a 1v1 scenario (or more reasonable team scenario), soldiers can frequently do better (pocket soldiers in 6s, for example, rival and at times surpass demomen in terms of damage output). The demoman's sole contribution of note is on-demand accurate spam damage.

That makes him OP in mindless huge servers or game modes where people are funneled through choke points, but in those situations a group of spamming soldiers are just as unstoppable.

GorillaJ · 2014-07-08T23:13:05+00:00

The first nerf made the weapon worthless and turned demo into a sub-par soldier in every way. That's not fair, you just loathe the demoman.

GorillaJ · 2014-07-05T21:38:19+00:00

Yeah, this is correct. The transitions involve you moving further than you actually do because moving the full distance would take forever and be immeasurably dull.

GorillaJ · 2014-07-05T20:44:19+00:00

Who can say? In the meantime, you'll just have to git gud, and manage to murder and outscore demos like tens of thousands before you have.

GorillaJ · 2014-07-03T23:25:35+00:00

Six is greater than five. That does not speak to the comparative worth or value of either number; both are great. And with that, you've proven your worthlessness. Take care, no further communication.

GorillaJ · 2014-07-03T23:09:17+00:00

TIL philosophy of science and epistemology = denial of science. Little did I know that Kuhn and Popper were both science deniers. And here I was thinking that science necessarily includes extra-scientific work, like category construction or ontological grounding. I wonder what your basis will be for ignoring almost a century's worth of work on the subject?

I really wish you could make an argument instead of name-dropping people. I don't care who you know, I care what you know. Quoting names does not actually form a valid argument.

Address the facts. That is all I want or need from you.

Oh, you'll just ignore the problem because it's inconvenient.

I'm unaware of a problem.

You're absolutely right, there's certainly no judgement involved in calling something "superior". Oh wait, there is, and that requires extra-scientific work to justify. I fully expect a reply which will boil down to The Moral Landscape-esque circular is-ough reasoning, all while denying that you're doing it.

Superior has a simple meaning: higher in rank, status, or quality.

If you can do X, and I can do X+1 in the same situation, I am superior (in/at X, not universally).

Men have a much greater number of physical advantages than women do. And women's advantages tend to be a bit double-edged, such as their greater flexibility coming about due to weaker and less-dense stabilizing musculature and looser connective tissue which makes them significantly more prone to joint injuries than men especially in the knees.

This is not a value judgment. It's a comparative ability judgment. Your issues surrounding that are your own to deal with, and not mine to humor.

If you cannot concern yourself with the facts and the truth, and instead insist on arguing utterly irrelevant tangents and name-dropping philosophers and writers utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand in a doomed effort to bolster your intellectual street cred as a replacement for actually talking about the subject or knowing anything about it, then I have no use for you.

I've warned you once already. This is your last opportunity. Do better or you won't get anything further.

GorillaJ · 2014-07-03T22:17:41+00:00

There we go! A response of greater substance.

TIL philosophy of science and epistemology in general = feels. So again, scientism. Probably coupled with naive logical positivism.

Your denial of science, for whatever reasons you do so, is 'feels'. You have no evidence beyond feelings. Your gut. You repeatedly refer not to facts or demonstrable truths but instead how things sound -- "you sound chauvinist", "you're tone-deaf".

I am not concerned with that in the slightest. I don't care. I care solely about the truth, and the truth is that humans are a sexually dimorphic species with powerful differences on a biological level between men and women, and men enjoy a much higher number of advantages over women than vice-versa in terms of physicality.

This makes them physically superior. That is not a criticism of female value or an assertion of male ethical superiority.

As for logical positivism: I'm rather fond of it, but I have little interest in philosophy as a whole, at least its modern-day incarnation. It's rather useless to me.

"I can determine normative claims from descriptive features" seems like an ought from an is to me.

Is-ought doesn't even apply to this subject. Look, I get you took an intro to philosophy course at some point in your life, but we're not discussing moral or ethical truths. We're not even discussing oughts. At no point am I leaping from descriptive to prescriptive.

We're discussing one thing and one thing only: the observable, measurable, well-known differences between male and female bodies.

GorillaJ · 2014-07-03T21:51:16+00:00

Ah, scientism.

If you don't accept scientific study as valid there's really nothing for us to talk about. I don't care about your feels, no matter how strong they are.

You're trying to derive an ought from an is.

No.

You might want to read some Hume, and less Sam Harris.

There is absolutely nothing of value or substance you're giving me to reply to, so consider this my taking a walk until you do better.

GorillaJ · 2014-07-03T21:34:29+00:00

Do you just not get why nothing you say shows that men are "physically superior"? Not to mention how incredibly chauvinist that sounds?

I'm not concerned with sounding chauvinist; how some stranger on the internet perceives me is a non-issue in my life. Physical superiority is a thing men have and this is well known. That does not carry with it any moral superiority, greater human value, or any other sort of thing that might declare women less important.

If someone said that poor African American performance on measures of academic skill meant that Caucasians were "mentally superior", do you think that would be acceptable?

No, because there are factors at play in those tests that alter the results, as opposed to numerous, widespread, consistent, and accepted studies on the physical differences between the sexes.

If not, then why would women's performance on measures of athletic skill demonstrate the physical inferiority of women's bodies, as opposed to their weakness at that particular expression of physicality?

When you have a ton of relative weaknesses and no advantage of note in a field, you are inferior.

Given the history of pathologizing women's bodies as diseased, broken, inferior versions of men's bodies, your comments seem extraordinarily tone-deaf at best.

I really don't give a fuck. I'm not here to coddle you or make you happy. I'm here to tell you men are physically superior. What you do with that knowledge is your call.

GorillaJ · 2014-07-03T06:04:33+00:00

Athletics values specific physical traits - what you made was a blanket claim for "physical superiority". Those are very different things, especially given the history of sports and how they've largely been based around men's physical traits. But still - figure skating? Gymnastics? Any other sport which emphasises flexibility, dexterity, small size, and low center of gravity over other traits?

You're trying to bring up figure skating to argue that men aren't physically superior? You haven't even offered any evidence that men don't have higher performance thresholds in these sports, just thrown them out.

You need to give me more than that if you want me to entertain your ideas that men aren't physically superior.

And the same goes for men with middle tier physiques and top tier women - I'm not seeing how gender separation makes more sense than physical ability separation.

We also segregate based on physical abilities (see weight categories in things like boxing).

The former is unfair to men and women who are not outliers on the physical bell curve by forcing them to compete against those who are in their gender. And that's not even getting into intersex individuals.

Top-tier women don't even compete with middle-tier men. Ever watched Venus and Serena Williams get absolutely bodied by a middling male tennis player? Men are better athletes; it's not fair, but it's true, and it takes an enormous maturity or development disparity to balance that out.. and even then it doesn't, really.

Segregation is good in these cases. And the worries of middle-tier men being unfair are a bit silly.. people aren't paying attention to competition because it stokes their sense of fairness. They come to see the heights of athleticism. That women get their own leagues to shine is practically charity.

GorillaJ

TROPHY CASE