Activision-Blizzard Sued By California

[Levelfive]

I pretty much agree with the mod edit breakdown in the first post of the thread.


https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post29033004

Or you could just read the first page to test your estimate.

[Darth Vowrawn]

Equality looks like oppression when you've been privileged your entire life, I guess.

The Left doesn't want "equality". They want "equity", which is forcing everything and everyone to be materially, socially, physically, and mentally equal. To make everything "fair". It boils down to the left just not agreeing that individual human beings are fundamentally unequal, and will thus never be equal. The only "equality" that can be achieved is thus, the bare minimum of legal rights and responsibilities, which was already attained in the 1960's. Anything trying force more "equality" usually comes off as tyrannical, simply because that's the only way of "progressing" past that neutral point.

[Elegiac]

Seeing as Socialism, by definition, is totalitarianism

[Grimbold21]

What about you?

Nothing about pointing out that toxic masculinity is a thing is "making a complaint at the expense of men" or "targeting men". Nor is it erasure of the male victims of Blizzard's environment of toxic masculinity.

If you're exhausted hearing about it imagine how exhausted the victims are to have to live through it.

What about me? Surely you suspect, from our punctual and brief exchanges, that I'm antithetical to this line of thinking.

I have no qualms in stating that I often use male issues - issues that concern me too - to demonstrate the facetious nature of (some) people that make complaints regarding inequality, because their concern about inequality is, well, unequal.

I have no qualm in stating that the very existence and use of toxic masculinity is itself evidence of the premise we're discussing here. We've gendered (genderfied?) toxic behavior, we're holding hostage a collective when toxic behavior isn't an inherent characteristic of a specific group.

Further evidence of that premise is this very discussion, or rather, the reactionary response from both men and women to when someone states "well, we have this issue too".

This actually reminds of a guy friend of mine that openly stated once smth like "Yea, that's right, I do think men have had it good. It's time for women to have it too". If only there were more straightforwardness like that.

[uuuhname]

Seeing as Socialism, by definition, is totalitarianism, and thus makes all Socialists by definition the same as Nazis, it doesn't really matter.

how do you think corporations are run? like democracies? do you think every employee gets a say in what the company does?

[Elegiac]

The Left doesn't want "equality". They want "equity", which is forcing everything and everyone to be materially, socially, physically, and mentally equal.

No, that would be equality.

Equity is a function of fairness while still permitting differences in merit.

[Orange Joe]

Or you could just read the first page to test your estimate.

Cause the first few pages is everything that happened? Nothing happened after that? no other things came to light and no one changed their opinions at all?

[downnola]

Seeing as Socialism, by definition, is totalitarianism, and thus makes all Socialists by definition the same as Nazis, it doesn't really matter.

I don't care how far on the right you are, just leave Orwell out of it.

[Elegiac]

We've gendered (genderfied?) toxic behavior, we're holding hostage a collective when toxic behavior isn't an inherent characteristic of a specific group.

That is literally not what it means.

It refers to an ideal of masculinity that is toxic. It's like saying using the term "toxic positivity" is saying toxicity is a function of positive thinking, when... No?

[Levelfive]

Cause the first few pages is everything that happened? Nothing happened after that? no other things came to light and no one changed their opinions at all?

It's pretty representative, yeah.

[Orange Joe]

It's pretty representative, yeah.

Gonna have to agree to disagree then. Your whole things reeks of "but her emails" Instead it's "but zoe"

[Elegiac]

It boils down to the left just not agreeing that individual human beings are fundamentally unequal, and will thus never be equal. The only "equality" that can be achieved is thus, the bare minimum of legal rights and responsibilities, which was already attained in the 1960's.

Whatever you say.

2. "The Rejection of Modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity.

Someone get Alanis Morrissette on the line.

[Levelfive]

Gonna have to agree to disagree then. Your whole things reeks of "but her emails" Instead it's "but zoe"

You said "99% of the people who mentioned her or brought her up" were defending her. Are you standing by that?

[Grimbold21]

That is literally not what it means.

It refers to an ideal of masculinity that is toxic. It's like saying using the term "toxic positivity" is saying toxicity is a function of positive thinking, when... No?

Except men don't adhere to this "ideal". This is taking acceptable qualities and traits and building a behavioral theory around their extremes.

Emotional repression? It's bad? Of course it is, but it's a positive thing to be moderate and in control of your emotions. Being self-reliant? This is only horrific if you pair it with the unwillingness to reach out.

Also you intentionally ignored the point that toxic behavior is traditionally (read: in the media & academia) discussed in relation to men. It's male version is the most known and mediatic.

Pretty much toxic masculinity is more often discussed as is the issue of female aesthetics in media products. We're approaching what is really a holistic issue via one single lens, most likely due to pre-set ideological leanings.

[Orange Joe]

You said "99% of the people who mentioned her or brought her up" were defending her. Are you standing by that?

pages 50-700+ Was she still mentioned? sure. Was she still attacked in some of those posts? sure, but rarely.

[Elegiac]

Except men don't adhere to this "ideal". This is taking acceptable qualities and traits and building a behavioral theory around their extremes.

Emotional repression? It's bad? Of course it is, but it's a positive thing to be moderate and in control of your emotions. Being self-reliant? This is only horrific if you pair it with the unwillingness to reach out.

Cool; the issue is that the current ideal of masculinity encourages the former without its moderating elements.

Also you intentionally ignored the point that toxic behavior is traditionally (read: in the media) discussed in relation to men. It's male version is the most known and mediatic.

Man it's almost as if we live in a patriarchy and the relative level of focus on toxic masculinity is reflective of that. Funny that.

Pretty much toxic masculinity is more often discussed as is the issue of female aesthetics in media products. We're approaching what is really a holistic issue via one single lens, most likely due to pre-set ideological leanings.

The ideological leaning that we don't live in the Bronze Age and the aspirations suitable for such a society are no longer applicable in today's?

It's certainly a more useful lens of analysis than the Crash/Pocahontas Theory of Social Injustice in which every incident must be treated as an individualist aberration, lol.

[Levelfive]

pages 50-700+ Was she still mentioned? sure. Was she still attacked in some of those posts? sure, but rarely.

I'm on page 1004 and it's still going on. Seriously, c'mon.

[Darth Vowrawn]

how do you think corporations are run? like democracies? do you think every employee gets a say in what the company does?

Funny you mention corporations, as corporations originated in Nazi Germany as companies enslaved to/in-league with the State. It's why they are called CORPorations, like corpse, because the company is enslaved to the collectivist authoritarian state like an undead zombie. Many businesses function similar to a dictatorship in terms of the boss owning everything, which he does by right. However, workers have the right to take their labor where they want, and to sell it at what they want, and businesses colluding with government tends to result in the above horror, just ask Google.

Under Socialism, your entire life, every action you take, every purchase you make, everything you own, is owned by the collective. That is why it is totalitarian, it does not allow you to own anything, as private property is by nature freedom from the group and allows for individuality. That would include, and require, the government on a larger scale, which is why every Socialist government turns into a horrific tyranny where everyone is either fleeing from the starvation, or being horrifically oppressed for not being "equal".

do you think every employee gets a say in what the company does?

No, because they don't share in the profits made from sales, they sign a contract for unchanging hourly wage not dependent on profits. It would also be highly inefficient, as individuals make choices much faster and more decisively then a mass vote. And half of those voting are idiots that shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place.

[Elegiac]

Funny you mention corporations, as corporations originated in Nazi Germany as companies enslaved to/in-league with the State. It's why they are called CORPorations, like corpse, because the company is enslaved to the collectivist authoritarian state like an undead zombie.

*squints*

The word "corporation" derives from corpus, the Latin word for body, or a "body of people". By the time of Justinian (reigned 527–565), Roman law recognized a range of corporate entities under the names Universitas, corpus or collegium. Following the passage of the Lex Julia during the reign of Julius Caesar as Consul and Dictator of the Roman Republic (49–44 BC), and their reaffirmation during the reign of Caesar Augustus as Princeps senatus and Imperator of the Roman Army (27 BC–14 AD), collegia required the approval of the Roman Senate or the Emperor in order to be authorized as legal bodies. These included the state itself (the Populus Romanus), municipalities, and such private associations as sponsors of a religious cult, burial clubs, political groups, and guilds of craftsmen or traders. Such bodies commonly had the right to own property and make contracts, to receive gifts and legacies, to sue and be sued, and, in general, to perform legal acts through representatives. Private associations were granted designated privileges and liberties by the emperor.

Welp, you just chucked whatever credibility you had in the bin.

[uuuhname]

Funny you mention corporations, as corporations originated in Nazi Germany as companies enslaved to/in-league with the State. It's why they are called CORPorations, like corpse, because the company is enslaved to the collectivist authoritarian state like an undead zombie. Many businesses function similar to a dictatorship in terms of the boss owning everything, which he does by right. However, workers have the right to take their labor where they want, and to sell it at what they want, and businesses colluding with government tends to result in the above horror, just ask Google.

Under Socialism, your entire life, every action you take, every purchase you make, everything you own, is owned by the collective. That is why it is totalitarian, it does not allow you to own anything, as private property is by nature freedom from the group and allows for individuality. That would include, and require, the government on a larger scale, which is why every Socialist government turns into a horrific tyranny where everyone is either fleeing from the starvation, or being horrifically oppressed for not being "equal".



No, because they don't share in the profits made from sales, they sign a contract for unchanging hourly wage not dependent on profits. It would also be highly inefficient, as individuals make choices much faster and more decisively then a mass vote. And half of those voting are idiots that shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place.

wow, clearly you have no clue what you're talking about, I'll let the mods deal with this absurdity.