-1=e^ipi

SJWs.

To be fair, only some gamergaters take that position. Again, it is a diverse group of people, same with blacklivesmatter. That's a possibility, so is the possibility that the flying spaghetti monster made those death threats. But given the intolerance of dissenting opinion that we see from SJWs, especially on universities, I'm inclined to believe it is primarily the SJWs.

1. What is absurd is the belief that somehow the validity of someone's opinion depends on their race, sex, gender, etc. That's sexism/racism/etc. 2. Are you implying that I am cisgendered?

To be fair, that was inevitable given the reaction of anti-GGers slandering all criticism as hate/misogyny by straight white males and given that the people with bad ethics in gaming journalism were primarily SJWs.

It's a mixture of social justice with climate change alarmism. I.e. people claiming that climate change disproportionately harms women, transgender people and 'people of colour' and therefore fighting climate change is socially just.

I never said 'I know', I said 'I think'. Arguably, neither did gamergate. Some argue that it started due to a desire for greater ethics in gaming journalism.

Could you please prove that 'they're almost certain'? How are you determining this? I don't identify as a gamergater but personally I think most of the hateful comments are from trolls. If I find hateful tweets under the hashtag #blacklivesmatter, does that mean I can label the entire movement as a hate movement? No. Same with #gamergate.

No, you have a right to be offended. Rather, you have no right to not be offended. And given the absurdity how neoprogressives define racism and sexism, everything offends them. To quote Anita Sarkeesian 'everything is sexist, everything is racist and you have to point it all out!'. Don't you see the implications? This is going to spill over into the 'real world'. The SJWs will use bully tactics, political pressure and strengthen their position in the media and in educational institutions through cronyism. Political correctness, microaggressions, bias words, trigger warnings, safe spaces, it's all related. They aren't completely different things. Heck I was talking to my SJW roommate this week and he was going on about how he was appalled that one of his friends dared to question PM Trudeau's decision to make his cabinet 50% female, 50% male. He called it 'politically incorrect'. Well this is exactly what Berkley calls 'microaggressions'. Neoprogressives are masters at manipulating language. Fortunately for me, I know how to shut up about these things and blend in. You keep conflating being uncivil/disrespectful with simply having a different political position, such as 'the most qualified person should get the job'. I can be respectful. Heck I've used trigger warnings recently at asexuality.org. Personally, I don't really like the term and am a bit triggered by the word 'trigger'. Why not just call them warnings? And which group of people is the one with the f*** you mindset? The fire-alarm-pulling fascists that try to prevent dissenting opinion from being discussed on campuses and issue bomb threats to groups they disagree with? Are the SJWs being respectful when people like Janice Fiamengo, Cathy Young or Karen Straughan try to speak on campuses? The verb whine is frequently used to try to use gender conditioning to prevent men from discussing their feelings. I'm super triggered by it! Also, what's wrong with being concerned about a hate group that opposes egalitarianism and continually attacks you? And now you are adding nut up to refer to testicles? Wow, that language is so sexist. As a non-cisgendered non-heterosexual person I suggest that you use less sexist language. Dick? Again with the sexist language? Wow. I need to go to my safe space.

Saudi Arabia commits genocide against its homosexual people and apostates. Edit: They are also involved in genocide in Yemen.

Islamism is both a political and religious movement. And I'm sure all the genocide and head chopping that goes on in Saudi Arabia is because... ?

Canadian Oil is basically dead so is a non-issue. We can't build a pipeline north, south, east or west in this country. The Saudi's lowered oil prices to simultaneously hurt many enemies: ISIS, Iran, Russia, Canadian Oil Sands, US Shale oil. They have done what they planned to do and I doubt they ever wanted to permanently keep oil prices low. They will go up eventually.

Wow really? People that post misogynist comments under #gamergate could be in category A, category B, or category C. I claim that due to online anonymity, I cannot know which tweets correspond to which category. You then ask for proof of people in category B or category C, with the implication that tweets are from category A if I cannot prove otherwise. I then point out that due to anonymity I cannot do this. And now you call my position of 'I don't know' unfalsifiable? Where is the proof that all these people are in category A, which you, Anita Sarkeesian and Justin Trudeau seem to take? What I can do is point to people that are NOT anonymous, identify with #gamergate and are in category A. Karen Straughan, Alison Tieman, Christina Hoff Sommers, Milo Yiannopoulous, Cathy Young, etc.

That some SJWs satisfy Poe's law. Apparently you don't understand how online anonymity works.

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee has now declared that 'Politically Correct' is now politically incorrect and a microaggression. http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6907

I don't know, it's an anonymous internet forum. More than zero, that's for sure. That's like asking me to determine how many of the misogynistic comments made under #gamergate are done by trolls, done by SJWs or done by actual gamergaters; Of course according to the MSM and our new prime minister, it's 100% the later group because apparently trolls and SJWs posing as gamergaters for the cause don't exist.

"almost entirely" is not the same thing as entirely. 4Chan users made fake accounts to trick people. How else are they supposed to start a hashtag like that? That doesn't somehow discount the SJW idiots that fell for it.

What?

You think Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi is atheist? Well I'm glad you aren't in charge of foreign policy.

Wow, you really didn't understand what I wrote. I was giving an example of a bullshit narrative that existed before the issue of AGW became well-known by the public and how it relates to confirmation bias for the public when it comes to AGW.

Post WW2 Japan and Germany didn't have any equivalent of ISIS. Many parts of South America are poor, where is the South American ISIS? Where is the Haitian ISIS? You're deluded if you don't think belief in certain magical fairy tails is the primary cause of ISIS. I think poverty is far better at explaining violence than climate. If we perform drastic mitigation measures and increase the cost of energy significantly, do you think there will be more poverty or less?

Based on our previous interactions in other threads, I doubt you did. I don't think your certainty is justified. I think it's due to confirmation bias of narratives that existed before the issue of climate change came about, such as the narrative that humans are sinful creatures that decided to eat the magic fruit in the garden of eden.

And in the case of the CO2 fertilization effect, the benefits have been observed: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CO2_Fertilization_grl_Donohue.pdf As explained by Socrates, knowledge starts once you acknowledge what you do not know and it is better to admit what you do not know rather than pretend to know what you do not know. There are benefits to climate change and there are costs. A priori there is no reason to expect benefits to exceed costs, nor a reason to expect costs to exceed benefits. Thus the optimal response to climate change is not obvious and one must look to empirical evidence to ultimate answer the question of what the best response is.

It's a matter of costs and benefits. You need to consider both to determine the best policy response. Well I'm glad you finally admit that there are benefits. Was that so hard?

- The ability to live below sea level using sea walls has existed for a long time as shown by Holland. - Technology to build up islands exists and China is employing greatly to increase their claim to the Spratly Islands. - It's a matter of costs and benefits. To put things in perspective, Canada is 384000 times the size of Tuvalu. Even if you hypothetically lost Tuvulu, you don't think gains in Canada due to longer growing seasons, CO2 fertilization effect, more precipitation, etc. can't more than offset that?