x
Click to expand

krobeles

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:8/08/2012
Last Login:5/03/2015
Location:Denmark
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#2576
Highest Content Rank:#2711
Highest Comment Rank:#1055
Content Thumbs: 1631 total,  1916 ,  285
Comment Thumbs: 5564 total,  11136 ,  5572
Content Level Progress: 30% (30/100)
Level 116 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 117 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 48% (48/100)
Level 245 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 246 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:1
Content Views:101222
Times Content Favorited:72 times
Total Comments Made:4047
FJ Points:6215
Favorite Tags: fucking (2) | shit (2)

latest user's comments

#15 - Are you refer to the sorta-maybe implied rape of Tera, or his …  [+] (12 new replies) 01/28/2015 on Attack on Titans 0
User avatar #16 - aliennova (01/28/2015) [-]
In the comic books Tera and Slade fucked.
User avatar #17 - krobeles (01/28/2015) [-]
Really? I actually didn't know that.
Tera was a teen though. Some teens are fair game. He doesn't have to be a pedo.
User avatar #18 - aliennova (01/28/2015) [-]
At max she was 16. There's no way Robin wasn't younger than 15 though and he could drive a motor cycle without anyone batting an eye. Perhaps the laws are different in that world.
User avatar #26 - krobeles (01/28/2015) [-]
Well, 16 is legal where I live. So technically, no pedo.
User avatar #19 - cptcanada (01/28/2015) [-]
he was batmans sidekick, he can do the fuck he wants
User avatar #20 - aliennova (01/28/2015) [-]
Huh, never occurred to me that the Robin in Teen Titans was Batmans side kick at one point. Where the hell was he when shit go serious!?
#33 - Loppytaffy (01/29/2015) [-]
Batman fired Robin after in incident with either Clayface or Twoface (and a baseball bat). In the former, he wasn't their when Batman needed him (being with the Titans at the time), in the latter Robin got beat up pretty bad and someone died because he went against Batman's order. Batman did not like the Titans at all.
Dick became Nightwing (hero from Kryptonian folk legends) as a way of being a hero but not being Robin. He proved himself capable as an independant hero, regained Batman's trust and Bludhaven was entrusted to him. He became a cop, too. Also has fucked Starfire, Wondergirl, Huntress, some other women...catwoman wanted a bit of Dick.

Also Jericho is Slade's second son, he is mute because his throat was slit during a hostage situation caused by Slade. The headmistress of H.I.V.E. was Slade's ex-wife. She is the one who shot his eye out. See "Deathstroke the Terminator" for more details.
User avatar #21 - cptcanada (01/28/2015) [-]
he became nightwing
User avatar #22 - aliennova (01/28/2015) [-]
Aint that the other teen nigga that worked alone.
#23 - cptcanada (01/28/2015) [-]
yeah it is
User avatar #24 - aliennova (01/28/2015) [-]
So he became Jewish?
User avatar #25 - cptcanada (01/28/2015) [-]
wat
#8 - Slade was such a ******* badass. The voice actor w…  [+] (25 new replies) 01/28/2015 on Attack on Titans +18
#40 - hillbillypowpow (01/29/2015) [-]
I was surprised when I learned how Deathstroke regularly is. A lot less mystery and spoopiness
User avatar #14 - aliennova (01/28/2015) [-]
Except for the part where he's a pedophile.
User avatar #15 - krobeles (01/28/2015) [-]
Are you refer to the sorta-maybe implied rape of Tera, or his creepy clothes-shredding rampage against Raven? Because both are totally valid...
If anything I just think it made him creepier, though.
User avatar #16 - aliennova (01/28/2015) [-]
In the comic books Tera and Slade fucked.
User avatar #17 - krobeles (01/28/2015) [-]
Really? I actually didn't know that.
Tera was a teen though. Some teens are fair game. He doesn't have to be a pedo.
User avatar #18 - aliennova (01/28/2015) [-]
At max she was 16. There's no way Robin wasn't younger than 15 though and he could drive a motor cycle without anyone batting an eye. Perhaps the laws are different in that world.
User avatar #26 - krobeles (01/28/2015) [-]
Well, 16 is legal where I live. So technically, no pedo.
User avatar #19 - cptcanada (01/28/2015) [-]
he was batmans sidekick, he can do the fuck he wants
User avatar #20 - aliennova (01/28/2015) [-]
Huh, never occurred to me that the Robin in Teen Titans was Batmans side kick at one point. Where the hell was he when shit go serious!?
#33 - Loppytaffy (01/29/2015) [-]
Batman fired Robin after in incident with either Clayface or Twoface (and a baseball bat). In the former, he wasn't their when Batman needed him (being with the Titans at the time), in the latter Robin got beat up pretty bad and someone died because he went against Batman's order. Batman did not like the Titans at all.
Dick became Nightwing (hero from Kryptonian folk legends) as a way of being a hero but not being Robin. He proved himself capable as an independant hero, regained Batman's trust and Bludhaven was entrusted to him. He became a cop, too. Also has fucked Starfire, Wondergirl, Huntress, some other women...catwoman wanted a bit of Dick.

Also Jericho is Slade's second son, he is mute because his throat was slit during a hostage situation caused by Slade. The headmistress of H.I.V.E. was Slade's ex-wife. She is the one who shot his eye out. See "Deathstroke the Terminator" for more details.
User avatar #21 - cptcanada (01/28/2015) [-]
he became nightwing
User avatar #22 - aliennova (01/28/2015) [-]
Aint that the other teen nigga that worked alone.
#23 - cptcanada (01/28/2015) [-]
yeah it is
User avatar #24 - aliennova (01/28/2015) [-]
So he became Jewish?
User avatar #25 - cptcanada (01/28/2015) [-]
wat
#13 - hourlyb (01/28/2015) [-]
Voice actor is Ron Perlman. Famous for Hellboy, the Lich in Adventure Time and the narrator in Fallout.
User avatar #35 - irevolutions (01/29/2015) [-]
also, the arbiter
#36 - hourlyb (01/29/2015) [-]
Nope. That's Keith David, who also voices Admiral David Andersen in Mass Effect, Goliath in Gargoyles, the Shadow man in Princess and the Frog & Sgt. Foley RAMIREZ in Modern Warfare 2.
User avatar #43 - mrdeviljho (01/29/2015) [-]
He also played himself as Vice President in Saints Row 4
User avatar #44 - hourlyb (01/29/2015) [-]
And Julius Little in Saints Row.
#38 - Ken M (01/29/2015) [-]
and he's the black bad guy in the Disney Princess and the Frog
User avatar #39 - hourlyb (01/29/2015) [-]
That's the Shadow man, and I already put him in there.
Cunt.
#37 - irevolutions (01/29/2015) [-]
Yep, you're right. My bad, I was thinking of lord hood
User avatar #30 - rockmanfan (01/29/2015) [-]
he also did dinestro in the one episode he was in in green lantern: the animated series. FUCK that was a good episode.
#28 - arkamedies (01/28/2015) [-]
I love that man. All the homo
#23 - Or you could not behave like a total ******* spazz, a… 01/28/2015 on How to ask a girl out 0
#203 - Listen dude, I'm Danish, and I call whoever I want Negro, as d…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/28/2015 on Niggers 0
#204 - Ken M (01/28/2015) [-]
Bruh jeg er også dansker.
Men jeg tvivler voldsomt på at hvis du gik på gaden og havde brug for vejvisning at du så ville kalde ham neger. "Hey neger, ved du hvilken vej Istedgade er".
English again: you might call your friends negro, and you might even call black people on the street for negro. But just because you do it doesn't mean that the entire country does it.
Not even our politicians call black people for negros!
Just because we call black people for negros when they can't hear us say it, or our black friends for it, doesn't make us stand out from any other country in the entire world, who does the exact same thing.

Sources: Living in Denmark, lived in Italy for 3 years, lived in Britain for 2 years, lived in Germany for 2 years, lived in the US for 6 months.
#95 - I need to convince one of the physics chicks to **** in… 01/28/2015 on Subtract clothes, divide... +2
#137 - Dude, what the **** do you want? Do your own ******… 01/28/2015 on That's just sad -3
#200 - Sure we do. "Neger" would be the Danish translation …  [+] (3 new replies) 01/28/2015 on Niggers 0
#202 - Ken M (01/28/2015) [-]
Yes "neger" is the same as negro. But we call our friends that, not complete strangers. Just as white people in America call their homies for negro.

However we don't call strangers who are black for negro when asking for something, our politicians does not call them negros even though some is trying to get rid of "political correctness"

Look here faggot. We call black people for negro just as much as any county does. We just don't do it publicly. We are not special in that manner.
We are
the same
as everyone else

Hanging around a group of friends and calling your black friend negro doesn't mean the entire country calls every black man negro, or when speaking of a black man in general.
User avatar #203 - krobeles (01/28/2015) [-]
Listen dude, I'm Danish, and I call whoever I want Negro, as does anyone else I know.
I've literally never heard anyone refer to a black person as anything other than Negro or Black.
We might not be special - fuck like I know, I've never lived in another country - but if we're not, it just seems that way.
#204 - Ken M (01/28/2015) [-]
Bruh jeg er også dansker.
Men jeg tvivler voldsomt på at hvis du gik på gaden og havde brug for vejvisning at du så ville kalde ham neger. "Hey neger, ved du hvilken vej Istedgade er".
English again: you might call your friends negro, and you might even call black people on the street for negro. But just because you do it doesn't mean that the entire country does it.
Not even our politicians call black people for negros!
Just because we call black people for negros when they can't hear us say it, or our black friends for it, doesn't make us stand out from any other country in the entire world, who does the exact same thing.

Sources: Living in Denmark, lived in Italy for 3 years, lived in Britain for 2 years, lived in Germany for 2 years, lived in the US for 6 months.
#81 - Well he's obviously saying that he had a good thing going with…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/28/2015 on Beached whales returning to... +1
User avatar #100 - indonesia (01/28/2015) [-]
I tried to process your sentence but failed
#91 - Heres what I've been able to gather: Person named Zoe…  [+] (5 new replies) 01/28/2015 on That's just sad +29
User avatar #100 - xjiicx (01/28/2015) [-]
Oh so GamerGate are the "good" guys....

mmk that clears shit up. THank you.
User avatar #138 - kamusioso (01/28/2015) [-]
The problem is, the game journalists, when they found opposition that could break their status quo, they started yelling "RAPE! RAPE! RAPE!" and claiming that gamergate was a movement full of white cis men, made to rape women and not letting them express themselves (even though there are many corrupt journalists that are male, and many gg supporters that arent).

All of which, has evolved in what you see today. It's not that simple as "We are the good guys, they are the bad guys", but almost.
User avatar #137 - krobeles (01/28/2015) [-]
Dude, what the fuck do you want? Do your own fucking research, if you think mines too one-sided. If you aren't ready to do that and only want to point out flaws, you can fuck off.
Frankly, I dont really engage with the thing. I just wrote down my impression since somebody seemed confused.
User avatar #97 - gabemczombie (01/28/2015) [-]
Sounds about right.
#94 - eekthewzrd (01/28/2015) [-]
aaawww shit im way to high for that shitstorm
#165 - I love Denmark. Here we still refer to blacks both as Blacks, …  [+] (5 new replies) 01/28/2015 on Niggers +4
#196 - Ken M (01/28/2015) [-]
Yea' we don't call people negros though
source me: living in Århus.
User avatar #200 - krobeles (01/28/2015) [-]
Sure we do. "Neger" would be the Danish translation of Negro, I think.
#202 - Ken M (01/28/2015) [-]
Yes "neger" is the same as negro. But we call our friends that, not complete strangers. Just as white people in America call their homies for negro.

However we don't call strangers who are black for negro when asking for something, our politicians does not call them negros even though some is trying to get rid of "political correctness"

Look here faggot. We call black people for negro just as much as any county does. We just don't do it publicly. We are not special in that manner.
We are
the same
as everyone else

Hanging around a group of friends and calling your black friend negro doesn't mean the entire country calls every black man negro, or when speaking of a black man in general.
User avatar #203 - krobeles (01/28/2015) [-]
Listen dude, I'm Danish, and I call whoever I want Negro, as does anyone else I know.
I've literally never heard anyone refer to a black person as anything other than Negro or Black.
We might not be special - fuck like I know, I've never lived in another country - but if we're not, it just seems that way.
#204 - Ken M (01/28/2015) [-]
Bruh jeg er også dansker.
Men jeg tvivler voldsomt på at hvis du gik på gaden og havde brug for vejvisning at du så ville kalde ham neger. "Hey neger, ved du hvilken vej Istedgade er".
English again: you might call your friends negro, and you might even call black people on the street for negro. But just because you do it doesn't mean that the entire country does it.
Not even our politicians call black people for negros!
Just because we call black people for negros when they can't hear us say it, or our black friends for it, doesn't make us stand out from any other country in the entire world, who does the exact same thing.

Sources: Living in Denmark, lived in Italy for 3 years, lived in Britain for 2 years, lived in Germany for 2 years, lived in the US for 6 months.
#84 - I just wanna walk up to this arrangement with like two other d… 01/27/2015 on move bitch +1
#105 - As I said; I am not saying they're the exact same. They do hav…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/27/2015 on What is D&D? The Wizard 0
#108 - Stevethewizard (01/28/2015) [-]
The only thing they have in common is the fact they're arcane casters with the same hit die. That's like saying Fighter and Paladin are the same class because they're both melee classes with the same hit die, or like saying Druid and Cleric are close enough to be the same class because they're both divine casters with the same hit die.
There are huge differences between the two classes. A Wizard can potentially know every spell simultaneously, while a Sorcerer has a limit on the number of spells he can know. Sorcerers are also proficient with any simple weapons, while Wizards are extremely restricted in that regard.
The reason they're different classes is that they fill different roles. A Sorcerer has more combat benefits (spontaneous casting, ability to wield a relatively large variety of weapons, more spells per day, and a lower starting age), putting them in the role of Combat Magic-User. A Wizard, on the other hand, has access to more spells, as well as the ability to craft magical items, putting them firmly into the category of Utility Magic-User.
Similar to this is the difference between Cleric and Druid. Druids have the ability to wear Light and Medium armors, wield scimitars (which are a fairly powerful weapon in their own right), and cast powerful combat spells, granting them a role of Divine Combat Caster. Good-aligned, non-War Clerics are unable to deal much damage to anything other than the Undead, and are better suited to cast healing and buffs, making them a Divine Support Caster.

tl;dr: It's party dynamics. You can't have one class do everything, otherwise everyone would only play that class. Wizards fill the Arcane Utility Caster role perfectly, while Sorcerers are Arcane Combat Casters. And of fucking course they're similar. They're Arcane Casters. They have the same spell list. They have tiny hit dice due to the fact they're Arcane Casters, and they don't have much in the way of physical training. Anything smaller than 1d4 for hit dice drifts into "Generic NPC Villager" territory.

tl;dr for the tl;dr: If you compare classes that get their power from the same source, you're going to find that they get their power from the same source. It's the other shit that's important. Apples and oranges are both round-ish colorful fruit that people eat and drink juice from, and they both grow on trees. Sorcerers and Warriors are both Arcane Casters with d4 for hit dice. There are enough differences between the two for them to not be the same.
#60 - True, my useage of statistics was alittle off, so allow me to … 01/27/2015 on Advice -1
#43 - Mandatory. 01/27/2015 on Student +11
#193 - Pretty sure I remember this faggot. Think he posted some *… 01/27/2015 on Busted +3
#135 - Well, honestly, a university is an institute of higher learnin…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/27/2015 on READ DESCRIPTION -1
#136 - gandr (01/27/2015) [-]
#58 - "Go take some ******* classes" He said. He re…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/27/2015 on Advice -1
User avatar #59 - lyiat (01/27/2015) [-]
You do realize that 10% is a fucking huge statistic, right? As in, one out of fucking ten people?

I'm really done talking to you and your bullshit self-confirmation bias. I have schooling and peer-reviewed journals that demonstrate just how fucking pointedly wrong you are. Grow up, get an education, and stop using your personal experience as universal law. You're a tiny fraction of reality; you are in no way statistically relevant to studies about explosive anger.
#60 - krobeles (01/27/2015) [-]
True, my useage of statistics was alittle off, so allow me to change it. 0.5-1%.
You seem angry. Are you gonna go all "explosive anger" on me, now? Or are you just gonna continue being a doormat?
Maybe link some of those "peer reviewed" studies, eh? I am patiently waiting, faggot.
#32 - Keep telling yourself that. Honestly, I was just trying to hel…  [+] (11 new replies) 01/27/2015 on Advice -5
User avatar #42 - lyiat (01/27/2015) [-]
In psycology, we have two basic forms of angry people. The first is 'normal' or 'standard' anger, which is what the typical person is. They react to negative stimulus in a predictable fashion.

Then you have explosive anger. People who normally react to negative stimulus with positivity or neutral fashions, until they meet a threshold. Their angry outbursts are almost universally more violent and unpredictable. This has been a phenomenon known since the Middle Ages. You've obviously never actually taken classes on psychology, or had to see one thanks to anger issues.
#49 - Ken M (01/27/2015) [-]
Did you get that from Anger Management? You know the Movie with Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson? Is that the extent of your psychology knowledge? Not every one who reacts positively or neutrally will eventually explode in a violent rage. time heals wounds and rage a like, eventually the things "Stored up" die down and are snuffed out. I remember thinking like you when I was younger, I would bottle up my anger and just let it simmer, thinking I'll snap one day I'd just beat the shit out of some one. But it never happened, why? because as time passed I wasn't mad any more, the rage tank emptied and I moved on. This is normal, much more normal then what you've described.
User avatar #51 - lyiat (01/27/2015) [-]
And, yes, I described a much more simplified version than the absolute reality. I'm eating and I have work in an hour and don't have time to go into the specific details.
User avatar #50 - lyiat (01/27/2015) [-]
Never seen it. Sounds like they did their goddamn research.

You ever wonder why every school-shooter was such a "nice, good, quiet kid" before they suddenly snapped one day? Explosive anger. People who don't know how to handle their anger are dangerous people. Go take some fucking classes. Seriously.
#58 - krobeles (01/27/2015) [-]
"Go take some fucking classes" He said. He recommended psycology, he did. How cute...
Frankly, I dont really care what your psycology textbook has convinced you. Over here in actual the sciences, we have this thing going, where if a hypothesis doesnt fit the observable data, we change the hypothesis accordingly. I can understand that psycology, being the pseudoscience that it is, will have a different method, but as a none-retarded person, I dont give a shit about such pseudo-hypothesie.
If that type of "explosively angry people" actually exist, then its something like 5-10% of the population who suffers from that. In others words; Practically nobody you will ever meet does.
The mass-shooters were mostly described as creepy loners, not "nice, good, quiet kids".
This is the type of bullshit myth invented to make you sour twats feel better about yourselves, even that jocky dude dunks your head in the toilet for the fifth time this week and steals your lunch money, and you're - once again - too much of a doormat to do anything about it.
Stop living in this fantasy world you've constructed, where you aren't a doormat, and wake up the real world, where you lack character, willpower and a spine. And then change that. Living behind a percieved and self-diagnosed mental disorder isn't a healthy choise.
Also, stop being 14 at some point, please.
User avatar #59 - lyiat (01/27/2015) [-]
You do realize that 10% is a fucking huge statistic, right? As in, one out of fucking ten people?

I'm really done talking to you and your bullshit self-confirmation bias. I have schooling and peer-reviewed journals that demonstrate just how fucking pointedly wrong you are. Grow up, get an education, and stop using your personal experience as universal law. You're a tiny fraction of reality; you are in no way statistically relevant to studies about explosive anger.
#60 - krobeles (01/27/2015) [-]
True, my useage of statistics was alittle off, so allow me to change it. 0.5-1%.
You seem angry. Are you gonna go all "explosive anger" on me, now? Or are you just gonna continue being a doormat?
Maybe link some of those "peer reviewed" studies, eh? I am patiently waiting, faggot.
User avatar #33 - Bryle (01/27/2015) [-]
If I was a doormat I would say you have a valid point. In reality I'm not. I don't let people walk over me or anything. I just don't let them do whatever they want to me. I said i try to be a nice person Krobeles. Not that I am. I will respond anger with anger. I've been over my tipping point in the past. I like the phrase "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Not for its peaceful nature but because of the other meaning. If am to blind in this world I will take others away from it as well. I will not sit and let others take away my sight. If they feel they can take mine then they are also ready for others to take theirs. I am not nice Krobeles. I am controlled. I am able to act nice in front of others but I do not hesitate to push back. Right now most of what I feel towards life is anger. I just know better than to let others have my anger.
#54 - Ken M (01/27/2015) [-]
Holy shit, you sound just like a 14 y/o trying to sound impressive
#61 - Ken M (01/27/2015) [-]
Hi krobeles
User avatar #56 - Bryle (01/27/2015) [-]
I Really don't care how I sound. I just want to make my point in at least a civilized manner. Sounding impressive isn't something I strive for. I take what ever path I can to get my point across. If I wanted to sound impressive i would prefer to do it by writing a book with the full extent of a vocabulary beyond my age at my disposal. But quite frankly. I am not that patient. Nor is my vocabulary quite that vast.
#30 - Holy **** , Bryle. Are you 14? That isn't how the w…  [+] (14 new replies) 01/27/2015 on Advice -8
#39 - Ken M (01/27/2015) [-]
you sound more like a 14 year old than he does
User avatar #31 - Bryle (01/27/2015) [-]
I draw the conclusions because I am A) An Asshole. and B) I try to be nice to everyone I meet. I never show anger, hate, or contempt to those I meet. But in my head I say everything I want to. People call me nice when I am in reality a very pessimistic person. The point of the matter is I look to be nice so as to keep hurt towards others at a minimum. This does not mean that I don't know how to hurt. It just means I find no meaning in it. Do you truly believe that if they are nice they aren't jerks? Seriously that is the early teen mind set. Do you believe that all jack asses are mean as well? A lot of them can be nice as well. The world is not in fucking black and white Krobeles. If you think it is than you really need to get your eyes checked.
User avatar #32 - krobeles (01/27/2015) [-]
Keep telling yourself that. Honestly, I was just trying to help.
What you describe sounds alot like what I used to do, untill I realized that people were walking all over me, and I had no idea how to respond to that.
You'll realize that too, eventually. Untll you do, enjoy being a doormat. Wear those blinders proudly, untill then!
User avatar #42 - lyiat (01/27/2015) [-]
In psycology, we have two basic forms of angry people. The first is 'normal' or 'standard' anger, which is what the typical person is. They react to negative stimulus in a predictable fashion.

Then you have explosive anger. People who normally react to negative stimulus with positivity or neutral fashions, until they meet a threshold. Their angry outbursts are almost universally more violent and unpredictable. This has been a phenomenon known since the Middle Ages. You've obviously never actually taken classes on psychology, or had to see one thanks to anger issues.
#49 - Ken M (01/27/2015) [-]
Did you get that from Anger Management? You know the Movie with Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson? Is that the extent of your psychology knowledge? Not every one who reacts positively or neutrally will eventually explode in a violent rage. time heals wounds and rage a like, eventually the things "Stored up" die down and are snuffed out. I remember thinking like you when I was younger, I would bottle up my anger and just let it simmer, thinking I'll snap one day I'd just beat the shit out of some one. But it never happened, why? because as time passed I wasn't mad any more, the rage tank emptied and I moved on. This is normal, much more normal then what you've described.
User avatar #51 - lyiat (01/27/2015) [-]
And, yes, I described a much more simplified version than the absolute reality. I'm eating and I have work in an hour and don't have time to go into the specific details.
User avatar #50 - lyiat (01/27/2015) [-]
Never seen it. Sounds like they did their goddamn research.

You ever wonder why every school-shooter was such a "nice, good, quiet kid" before they suddenly snapped one day? Explosive anger. People who don't know how to handle their anger are dangerous people. Go take some fucking classes. Seriously.
#58 - krobeles (01/27/2015) [-]
"Go take some fucking classes" He said. He recommended psycology, he did. How cute...
Frankly, I dont really care what your psycology textbook has convinced you. Over here in actual the sciences, we have this thing going, where if a hypothesis doesnt fit the observable data, we change the hypothesis accordingly. I can understand that psycology, being the pseudoscience that it is, will have a different method, but as a none-retarded person, I dont give a shit about such pseudo-hypothesie.
If that type of "explosively angry people" actually exist, then its something like 5-10% of the population who suffers from that. In others words; Practically nobody you will ever meet does.
The mass-shooters were mostly described as creepy loners, not "nice, good, quiet kids".
This is the type of bullshit myth invented to make you sour twats feel better about yourselves, even that jocky dude dunks your head in the toilet for the fifth time this week and steals your lunch money, and you're - once again - too much of a doormat to do anything about it.
Stop living in this fantasy world you've constructed, where you aren't a doormat, and wake up the real world, where you lack character, willpower and a spine. And then change that. Living behind a percieved and self-diagnosed mental disorder isn't a healthy choise.
Also, stop being 14 at some point, please.
User avatar #59 - lyiat (01/27/2015) [-]
You do realize that 10% is a fucking huge statistic, right? As in, one out of fucking ten people?

I'm really done talking to you and your bullshit self-confirmation bias. I have schooling and peer-reviewed journals that demonstrate just how fucking pointedly wrong you are. Grow up, get an education, and stop using your personal experience as universal law. You're a tiny fraction of reality; you are in no way statistically relevant to studies about explosive anger.
#60 - krobeles (01/27/2015) [-]
True, my useage of statistics was alittle off, so allow me to change it. 0.5-1%.
You seem angry. Are you gonna go all "explosive anger" on me, now? Or are you just gonna continue being a doormat?
Maybe link some of those "peer reviewed" studies, eh? I am patiently waiting, faggot.
User avatar #33 - Bryle (01/27/2015) [-]
If I was a doormat I would say you have a valid point. In reality I'm not. I don't let people walk over me or anything. I just don't let them do whatever they want to me. I said i try to be a nice person Krobeles. Not that I am. I will respond anger with anger. I've been over my tipping point in the past. I like the phrase "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Not for its peaceful nature but because of the other meaning. If am to blind in this world I will take others away from it as well. I will not sit and let others take away my sight. If they feel they can take mine then they are also ready for others to take theirs. I am not nice Krobeles. I am controlled. I am able to act nice in front of others but I do not hesitate to push back. Right now most of what I feel towards life is anger. I just know better than to let others have my anger.
#54 - Ken M (01/27/2015) [-]
Holy shit, you sound just like a 14 y/o trying to sound impressive
#61 - Ken M (01/27/2015) [-]
Hi krobeles
User avatar #56 - Bryle (01/27/2015) [-]
I Really don't care how I sound. I just want to make my point in at least a civilized manner. Sounding impressive isn't something I strive for. I take what ever path I can to get my point across. If I wanted to sound impressive i would prefer to do it by writing a book with the full extent of a vocabulary beyond my age at my disposal. But quite frankly. I am not that patient. Nor is my vocabulary quite that vast.
#69 - >age old Pretty sure you got killed for doing that…  [+] (3 new replies) 01/26/2015 on i lost 50cent in a vending... +13
#73 - xxitzchubbsxx (01/26/2015) [-]
It's a saying. Pretty much gone on for a long time. Don't take things literal all the time.
#88 - youxbarstard (01/26/2015) [-]
But where's the fun in that?
#89 - xxitzchubbsxx (01/26/2015) [-]
true you barstard.
#98 - Yes, I know how they work. I've played Pathfinder for years. …  [+] (3 new replies) 01/26/2015 on What is D&D? The Wizard 0
#104 - Stevethewizard (01/27/2015) [-]
I stated several differences between the two.
1. Sorcerers can't take feats to create magical items, as they lack the fundamental understanding of magic required to make said items.
2. Sorcerers can't learn additional spells at any point aside from level-up. This is, again, due to lacking the fundamental understanding of magic required to reverse-engineer magic.
3. Sorcerers can't identify magic. As for why, see the above explanations.
4. Sorcerers can't specialize into specific schools of magic, due to their magic not requiring them to study.
5. Sorcerers can't teach or explain magic. This is due to never having studied magic, and, as a result, having nothing to base the teaching or explanation on.

As a Wizard, you have far more utility than a Sorcerer. It makes sense for a Wizard to pick a spell like Cone of Silence, Featherfall, or any of the other hundreds of spells that have no combat applications. Why? Because Wizards aren't designed for combat.
I say this for multiple reasons. First off, the starting age for a Human Wizard puts them close to the "Middle Aged" age category, which is the age category where you start getting stat penalties. Second, Wizards have to prepare their spells in advance. This means that in order to prepare for combat, you would have to either know what you're going up against in advance or prepare nothing but Force-damage spells (and there are very few of those, spread out sparsely between a few spell levels). This means you would be much better off preparing utility spells (Light, Wish, Prismatic Wall, etc.) or generic buffs (which are plentiful and spaced out evenly over several spell levels) than you would be trying to prepare for combat. Finally, a Wizard is capable of crafting magical items (potions, weapons, staffs, misc. magic items, scrolls, etc.). This is something that no other class can do, giving the group Wizard a role that no other party member can fill, making them someone that they can't afford to lose in combat, because magic items are always nice.

Sorcerers, on the other hand, are combat-oriented. A Sorcerer always benefits most from learning combat spells, as they can't gain more spells at any point other than a level-up. Any non-combat spells learned hurt their combat ability, which cuts down on their ability to survive in and contribute to combat. They can't make magical items, they can't teach others how to do magic, and they can't identify magic, so the only way they can contribute magically to the party is by using magic in combat, which is an area they excel in. They don't have to prepare their spells in advance, they get quite a few spells per day, and they can access all schools of magic (unlike Specialist Wizards).

tl;dr: The big difference between the classes is the best way to use them. Wizards are a magical utility class. Sorcerers fare best when they're combat-oriented.
User avatar #105 - krobeles (01/27/2015) [-]
As I said; I am not saying they're the exact same. They do have strenghts and weaknesses each their very own.
But you have to concede that they're far more identical than a Rogue and Barbarian. Or even an Arcane Trickster and an Eldritch Knight, the latter of which are two prestige classes which could be as identical as the developers would like without causing a fuzz.
You cant seriously be saying that you dont at all think that its an issue that they're as simmilar as they are...
#108 - Stevethewizard (01/28/2015) [-]
The only thing they have in common is the fact they're arcane casters with the same hit die. That's like saying Fighter and Paladin are the same class because they're both melee classes with the same hit die, or like saying Druid and Cleric are close enough to be the same class because they're both divine casters with the same hit die.
There are huge differences between the two classes. A Wizard can potentially know every spell simultaneously, while a Sorcerer has a limit on the number of spells he can know. Sorcerers are also proficient with any simple weapons, while Wizards are extremely restricted in that regard.
The reason they're different classes is that they fill different roles. A Sorcerer has more combat benefits (spontaneous casting, ability to wield a relatively large variety of weapons, more spells per day, and a lower starting age), putting them in the role of Combat Magic-User. A Wizard, on the other hand, has access to more spells, as well as the ability to craft magical items, putting them firmly into the category of Utility Magic-User.
Similar to this is the difference between Cleric and Druid. Druids have the ability to wear Light and Medium armors, wield scimitars (which are a fairly powerful weapon in their own right), and cast powerful combat spells, granting them a role of Divine Combat Caster. Good-aligned, non-War Clerics are unable to deal much damage to anything other than the Undead, and are better suited to cast healing and buffs, making them a Divine Support Caster.

tl;dr: It's party dynamics. You can't have one class do everything, otherwise everyone would only play that class. Wizards fill the Arcane Utility Caster role perfectly, while Sorcerers are Arcane Combat Casters. And of fucking course they're similar. They're Arcane Casters. They have the same spell list. They have tiny hit dice due to the fact they're Arcane Casters, and they don't have much in the way of physical training. Anything smaller than 1d4 for hit dice drifts into "Generic NPC Villager" territory.

tl;dr for the tl;dr: If you compare classes that get their power from the same source, you're going to find that they get their power from the same source. It's the other shit that's important. Apples and oranges are both round-ish colorful fruit that people eat and drink juice from, and they both grow on trees. Sorcerers and Warriors are both Arcane Casters with d4 for hit dice. There are enough differences between the two for them to not be the same.
#74 - Thats not really a significant difference, though. I agree, it… 01/26/2015 on What is D&D? The Wizard 0
#67 - To be honest, I think its a glaring oversight on the part of t…  [+] (8 new replies) 01/26/2015 on What is D&D? The Wizard -1
#85 - Stevethewizard (01/26/2015) [-]
Except that Sorcerers are what are referred to as "spontaneous casters". A Sorcerer can cast any spell they know, provided they have an open spell slot for a spell of that level or higher.
Wizards can do a spontaneous substitution, typically with a spell like "Summon Magical Creature" or "Narhal's Reckless Dweomer", but that use typically takes a spell slot higher than the spell normally would take, and the spells that can be used for that are typically shit-tier combat spells.
Another big difference is that Sorcerers learn their spells through sudden insight, while Wizards learn through study. This means that a Wizard can learn new spells at points in time other than on level.
Wizards can also perform a few other tricks beyond what a Sorcerer can. These feats include the creation, identification, and proper use of magical items; the ability to teach magic (Sorcerers can't explain how they use magic, as it's an inborn talent for them. This makes a Wizard far more of a team player than a Sorcerer, as a Wizard can get the Fighter another class); the ability to specialize in a specific type of magic and gain bonuses from doing so; and the ability to have a familiar (which also grants bonuses).

tl;dr: Sorcerers are like Wizards that don't understand what they're doing, can't explain how they do it, can't learn how to do a whole bunch of things, and can't do things using things. There's a reason Sorcerers have the starting age for a simple class while Wizards have the starting age for a complex class. Wizards know what the fuck they're doing. Sorcerers just sort of make it up as they go along.
User avatar #98 - krobeles (01/26/2015) [-]
Yes, I know how they work. I've played Pathfinder for years.
As I said below, its essentially "[insert class], but with a slight twist".
A Sorcerer and Wizard are almost functionally interchangeable, bareing a few minor differences. It wouldn't be an issue if one of these were a prestige or alternate class, but both of these are core classes. Core classes shouldn't so very nearly identical.
#104 - Stevethewizard (01/27/2015) [-]
I stated several differences between the two.
1. Sorcerers can't take feats to create magical items, as they lack the fundamental understanding of magic required to make said items.
2. Sorcerers can't learn additional spells at any point aside from level-up. This is, again, due to lacking the fundamental understanding of magic required to reverse-engineer magic.
3. Sorcerers can't identify magic. As for why, see the above explanations.
4. Sorcerers can't specialize into specific schools of magic, due to their magic not requiring them to study.
5. Sorcerers can't teach or explain magic. This is due to never having studied magic, and, as a result, having nothing to base the teaching or explanation on.

As a Wizard, you have far more utility than a Sorcerer. It makes sense for a Wizard to pick a spell like Cone of Silence, Featherfall, or any of the other hundreds of spells that have no combat applications. Why? Because Wizards aren't designed for combat.
I say this for multiple reasons. First off, the starting age for a Human Wizard puts them close to the "Middle Aged" age category, which is the age category where you start getting stat penalties. Second, Wizards have to prepare their spells in advance. This means that in order to prepare for combat, you would have to either know what you're going up against in advance or prepare nothing but Force-damage spells (and there are very few of those, spread out sparsely between a few spell levels). This means you would be much better off preparing utility spells (Light, Wish, Prismatic Wall, etc.) or generic buffs (which are plentiful and spaced out evenly over several spell levels) than you would be trying to prepare for combat. Finally, a Wizard is capable of crafting magical items (potions, weapons, staffs, misc. magic items, scrolls, etc.). This is something that no other class can do, giving the group Wizard a role that no other party member can fill, making them someone that they can't afford to lose in combat, because magic items are always nice.

Sorcerers, on the other hand, are combat-oriented. A Sorcerer always benefits most from learning combat spells, as they can't gain more spells at any point other than a level-up. Any non-combat spells learned hurt their combat ability, which cuts down on their ability to survive in and contribute to combat. They can't make magical items, they can't teach others how to do magic, and they can't identify magic, so the only way they can contribute magically to the party is by using magic in combat, which is an area they excel in. They don't have to prepare their spells in advance, they get quite a few spells per day, and they can access all schools of magic (unlike Specialist Wizards).

tl;dr: The big difference between the classes is the best way to use them. Wizards are a magical utility class. Sorcerers fare best when they're combat-oriented.
User avatar #105 - krobeles (01/27/2015) [-]
As I said; I am not saying they're the exact same. They do have strenghts and weaknesses each their very own.
But you have to concede that they're far more identical than a Rogue and Barbarian. Or even an Arcane Trickster and an Eldritch Knight, the latter of which are two prestige classes which could be as identical as the developers would like without causing a fuzz.
You cant seriously be saying that you dont at all think that its an issue that they're as simmilar as they are...
#108 - Stevethewizard (01/28/2015) [-]
The only thing they have in common is the fact they're arcane casters with the same hit die. That's like saying Fighter and Paladin are the same class because they're both melee classes with the same hit die, or like saying Druid and Cleric are close enough to be the same class because they're both divine casters with the same hit die.
There are huge differences between the two classes. A Wizard can potentially know every spell simultaneously, while a Sorcerer has a limit on the number of spells he can know. Sorcerers are also proficient with any simple weapons, while Wizards are extremely restricted in that regard.
The reason they're different classes is that they fill different roles. A Sorcerer has more combat benefits (spontaneous casting, ability to wield a relatively large variety of weapons, more spells per day, and a lower starting age), putting them in the role of Combat Magic-User. A Wizard, on the other hand, has access to more spells, as well as the ability to craft magical items, putting them firmly into the category of Utility Magic-User.
Similar to this is the difference between Cleric and Druid. Druids have the ability to wear Light and Medium armors, wield scimitars (which are a fairly powerful weapon in their own right), and cast powerful combat spells, granting them a role of Divine Combat Caster. Good-aligned, non-War Clerics are unable to deal much damage to anything other than the Undead, and are better suited to cast healing and buffs, making them a Divine Support Caster.

tl;dr: It's party dynamics. You can't have one class do everything, otherwise everyone would only play that class. Wizards fill the Arcane Utility Caster role perfectly, while Sorcerers are Arcane Combat Casters. And of fucking course they're similar. They're Arcane Casters. They have the same spell list. They have tiny hit dice due to the fact they're Arcane Casters, and they don't have much in the way of physical training. Anything smaller than 1d4 for hit dice drifts into "Generic NPC Villager" territory.

tl;dr for the tl;dr: If you compare classes that get their power from the same source, you're going to find that they get their power from the same source. It's the other shit that's important. Apples and oranges are both round-ish colorful fruit that people eat and drink juice from, and they both grow on trees. Sorcerers and Warriors are both Arcane Casters with d4 for hit dice. There are enough differences between the two for them to not be the same.
User avatar #72 - redstonealchemist (01/26/2015) [-]
another thing would be that sorcerers can only use a certain amount of spells. once they learn it, they keep it. no exceptions.
personally i prefer to play cleric/bard mix as bards are skillmonkeys almost as much as rogues, but they can use magic! going for bard gives you diet wizard and diet rogue as a single class, i freaking love it.
as for cleric? i dunno i guess i just really like their spells. especially as i can boost the orc in the team's stats once i'm high enough of a level.
not forgetting that i'd get two different +4AC spells THAT STACK UP!
and that's not even the best part.
if you get the craft wondrous item feat and put enough skills in blacksmithing and spellcraft/use magic device, then you can enchant stuff with these spells!
pity that most GMs won't allow identical enchantments on different pieces stack up, but i can understand why.
i'd make myself Robes of Advanced Keks, which would boost the necessary rolls for blacksmithing and crafting magical items by the (i think) max of +4.
also a friend of mine had a hilarious idea: you know the cursed item that swallows everything you put in it and can basically chop your hand off? put that as a 'charm' on a shield. fucking brilliant! and i dunno, maybe make some bullshit thing that allows you to put your hand into the sub-dimension by exploiting a spell/magical item that allows you to move through different plains of existence so you can grab whatever you want from it without taking damage and you basically have a 'Shield of Everlasting Hunger' or something.
User avatar #71 - LordRaymond (01/26/2015) [-]
Unless you're going off a different version, sorcerers are actually quite different from Wizards. Sorcerers are better in early levels but Wizards scale harder. However, at all levels, Sorcerers are FAR more versatile: they spend much less to prepare spells, and they prepare spell SLOTS rather than spells themselves. Thus, they simply spend a spell slot to cast any spell they know within that slot, rather than Wizards who must anticipate what spells to take and if they don't expect a situation and thus didn't take a spell appropriate for it, they're SoL and more or less useless.
User avatar #74 - krobeles (01/26/2015) [-]
Thats not really a significant difference, though. I agree, its not exactly the same class, but if a class (core class, that is) can be summarized by "Essentially [insert class], but with a slight twist", then thats a problem in my opinion.
#131 - I agree. Essentially, what this punishment would say is; "… 01/26/2015 on Dindu Nuffins +1
#248 - Well, yeah. He does. A specific man, but yes. 01/25/2015 on This kid 0

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2250

Comments(58):

[ 58 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#72 - krobeles ONLINE (12/12/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #62 - lifeisnocabaret (08/30/2014) [-]
Now you wanna be civil?! Where did that come from? Fine, we'll have a discussion.

Women have to fear death too. Like, usually the fear of rape comes with the fear of death. And you can argue what you did when it comes to gangs messing with guys on the street, but that's the same for women by other women. Like, I know some girls who get messed with by the Latin Kings because they're Hispanic girls. I do not see how these issues even out. Maybe quantitatively, but not when it comes to the level of danger and effect. But if they did (and please clarify for me with legitimate examples), these issues have one thing in common: notions of masculinity, whether it be inter-gendered or intra-gendered. Those guys that beat you up started messing you because they thought you looked like a faggot. That's a hierarchy of sex right there: straight males have the right to attack homosexual males in an attempt to display their masculinity. Men are affected negatively by notions of masculinity also, but the effect of masculinity on males is seen more in the male treatment of women. And these notions of masculinity, while also in part perpetuated by women, are largely and more easily perpetuated by men. This is why feminism is here, and this is why women are more affected than men: men are taught masculinity, which shapes them as people and shapes their treatment of women, which leads to women taking more of the damage than men.

This is not creating a culture of victims. This is giving people something tangible to fight against. Naming a common cause of this type of gendered violence allows the fight to be fought more realistically. Naming a more specific root of a problem is more effective than just generalizing everything because violence is born and molded in different ways.

You're right about more women being accepted into universities, but when it comes to professional studies (law school, med school, etc.) less women are being accepted.

Hold on. I'm not done.
User avatar #63 to #62 - lifeisnocabaret (08/30/2014) [-]
A flaw of feminism is that there is not enough discussion on the oppression faced by people experiencing the intersectionality of being minority and a woman. That's in part why womanism was born, but many feminists incorporate intersectionality into their beliefs.

And that story about your mom? One success story doesn't mean equality. Many of the women in my family immigrated from Mexico and became pregnant as teenagers. Many of the women in my family were also raped or molested. My grandmother was beaten by her husband, and many of the women in my family and in this culture are expected to stay in the house and fulfill their roles as women. This isn't just limited to my family, it's everywhere. These issues do exist.
User avatar #64 to #63 - krobeles ONLINE (08/30/2014) [-]
Alright, lets try something alittle different.
We can agree that women face some issues, yes? We can also agree that men face some issues, yes? We can furthermore agree that they share a number of common issues and that atleast a few of them share a common cause? If we can agree on this, why are we having this discussion in the frame of womens issues and why is the movement called Feminism?

To a degree, I agree with you on the masculinity thing. I have this skirt that I think I love just lovely in, but I rarely find it aproriate to wear that, because I know what people will think of a dude in a skirt. And thats sort of my issue with the feminist movement. I am not saying that women dont face issues and I am not saying the issues they do face are allways insignificant. But forming a humanitarian movement which attacks a grand social problem, but to face solely on the issues faced by one gender, is subtle sexism in and of itself.

Its also important to note that assholes and idiots will always exist. I see alot of these feminists attacking the "How not to get raped" things, with stupid ******** like "Dont teach women not to get raped, teach not to rape!", which is just silly.
We could apply this logic to common acts and thievery and see it fall apart. "Dont tell me to lock my door, tell thieves not to rob my house!". It is true that thieves and thugs never have the right to rob/rape you, but if you dont take steps to pretend and desentavise them from doing so, then you automatically forfiet a small part of your right to complain.
And in that same regard, I dont go around spouting ******** like "Teach people not to assault men people in skirts with long hair!", I just accept that such savage behavior is inherent in some particularily nasty people, and find ways to prevent it myself. I own a few weapons in my home, and I know a basic few things of self defence.

I dont believe that feminism gives women "something tangible to fight against". It provides a nebulous threat of the ominous "Patriarchy" and "Male-opression" to fight against. Since the easily explained (very dumbed down) cause this is white males, you suddenly have alot of these women who feel disenfranchised and run-down, who suddenly find something to point at and go "Thats the cause of all my problems!". Since they've forgotten to mention that the thing they're fighting against hurts all parts of society equally, these women never really stop to consider if perhaps they're attacking the problem from the wrong angle or if they're attacking the wrong people.

Just as you say that one success story doesn't a trend make, I dont feel like your family experience is anymore valid an example. Rot festers in places in which it is not cleaned out, and if there has been an unfortunate trend in your family of abuse, then it is a given that it will continue unless someone makes an effort to cut out the rot.

Ultimately, what I said about feminism not not attacking the right issues can be linked to this. If what you claim happened to your family is the general trend amongst Mexican/African famillies, then that is a serious problem which needs to taken care of. However, it seems to me that the general feminist movement are far more interested in applying their efforts towards comparatively harmless videogames and TV-shows, which are totally and entirely insignificant in comparison to actual family abuse and rape.

This leads me to believe that the new feminist movement isn't really about equality, but rather just a fandom-esque circlejerk in which its members are more concerned with the tiny minute issues they might concievably face, rather the actual big and serious issues which actually needs their attention.

Well, to comment on the civil discussion thing, taking a few minutes to play a game of tower defence, and making a conceded effort to appear less of an angry shouty person in order to facillitate more constructive debate, does its thing rather well. Also, I largely view insults and shouty-debates as a form of humor. So long as I'm just trying to trying to get a rail out of people, I insult them. Theres a certain art to a well constructed and imaginative insult, I find. However, if the says or does something that belies the potential for actually interesting debate, its another matter entirely.
User avatar #65 to #64 - lifeisnocabaret (08/30/2014) [-]
We're having this discussion in the frame of women's issues because it does effect women in a more detrimental way and it *is* more perpetuated by men. I mentioned that men go through oppressions also, like the pressure to be masculine, but many of those pressures are self-perpetuated and the result is displayed in their relationships toward women. And it is called feminism because femininity is not limited to women. It is not subscribed to one gender or sex.

The concept of a humanitarian movement is good in theory, but there's issues in that we wouldn't be able to prevent the perpetuation of oppression without knowing where it comes from. Let's take gangs as an example. A lot of inner city groups are preaching to kids that "violence is bad," something everyone has been hearing for the longest time. However, things like this aren't working. What works instead is legislation that targets poverty and expands opportunity and education, which is keeping kids off the street. We can have a whole anti-violence movement, but fighting violence in general is too grand of a scale to address realistically. Narrowing down oppression allows us to take the fight one step at a time. Not to mention that forming groups like these also give people a sense of community in what they're facing.

Hold on I"m not done
User avatar #66 to #65 - lifeisnocabaret (08/30/2014) [-]
Okay, honestly with the "don't teach women how to not get raped, teach not to rape" thing, I only agree 50%. Yeah, we do have to put more of the focus in preventing sexual assault on the perpetrator, but we also need to teach everyone how to stay safe and stay away from risky behaviors in a way that doesn't result in someone saying, "well, she was hanging with the wrong crowd, so maybe she wouldn't have gotten raped if she wasn't where she was" or something like that. Victims see enough of a reason to blame themselves without stuff like this being said. And if by "complain" you mean be angry or upset, then you do still have a right to complain, because while steps could have been taken to prevent stuff like this, the perpetrator could have *not* raped the victim. You mention "teach people not to assault men in skirts with long hair." While I am sorry you were assaulted, and while this should NOT have happened to you, there is no trend of men wearing skirts and getting assaulted. There is a big trend of women and men getting raped by males though.

Feminism exists past the internet, past funnyjunk, past 4chan and past tumblr. Don't make the mistake of wrongly labeling a whole group of people because of popular opinion on these websites. True feminists are not attacking anyone. White males are pointed at (not attacked) as a cause because (1) they have the most power in society, and (2) the fact that most don't have to deal with discrimination based on sex, race or gender creates a feeling of disdain in the white male community for these people that are fighting these issues. Honestly, that's how it is. If you're more exposed to racism, you'd care more about ending it. The same goes with sexism. I mean, look at funnyjunk. The largest community here is white, male and straight. Look at how much easier this anti-feminism thing floated compared to a place like tumblr, where a good fraction of the users are female and not white.

Hold on
User avatar #67 to #66 - lifeisnocabaret (08/30/2014) [-]
I was wary about mentioning my family, but I thought it was okay since I don't know you and you don't know me. I can assure you that these issues are not limited to my family, and please refrain from comparing them to "rot," even if you do see it as fit.

The grand feminist movement is not focused on video games and such. The internet/tumblr feminist movement is. And I definitely wouldn't argue these video games and whatever are harmless. I'm gonna make a cliche argument, but just because it's cliche doesn't mean it's not true: it hurts self esteem. Seeing all these sexy girls in video games, music videos, and everywhere else in the ******* media sucks. Seeing guys drool over those girls also sucks. Women are oversexualized and we're pressured to look like them. It's cliche but it's true.

Feminism is not a circle jerk. I'm just saying feminism concerns more than tumblr and the internet.

Okay now I'm done
User avatar #68 to #67 - krobeles ONLINE (08/30/2014) [-]
The thing about teaching people "not to rape" though, is that that is impossible. As I said, there will allways be assholes, and they know full well that rape is wrong. They just dont care, because they're egotistical asshats.
I was just useing myself as an example (I've never been assaulted while wearing the skirt, actually), of something that would be equally silly.
Of course you still have some right to complain - it is still wrong to rape or assault people regardless of what they wear or how they behave - but you have to admit that the complaint falls alot shorter if the person in question took active steps to put himself/herself in harms way to begin with?
You could liken it to a person climbing onto a scaffolding and then falling down and breaks both legs. Is it regrettable that the person fell and broke both legs? Yes. Was it rather expected, based on circumstance and the poor safety measure the person had set up? Yes.

I am not so sure about the "Feminism exists past the internet"-thing. Of course it is reasonable to assume that there is the odd feminist every now and again, but on a grander scale, the only people I've ever met who claimed themselves feminists is two girls who associate with the Tumblr crowd on the internet. They're more a physical extension of the internet-Tumblr-feminists than actual feminists. Other than them, I've never anyone who claimed themselves feminist. It might because all of what you've happened is more of an issue in the states, than it is in Denmark, but it still doesn't do much to make me convinced that actual - none-Tumblr - feminists actually exists.
This is why I largely allow the Tumblr-feminists view to be indicative of all feminists. I've never met a non-tumblr feminists in all my 21 years, and I therefor dont really have faith that they exist outside of the internet.

Which is actually another thing I've come to consider. Since many of the Tumblr feminists seem to be American and preoccupised with strictly American issues, I am starting to consider that perhaps America might suffer infinitely more from these issues discriminatory issues than the European countries (Well, Denmark, atleast). But I dont see the Tumblr-feminists treating it as an American problem dispite the fact that it might be a strictly American problem. This comes back to what I mentioned with the feminists being an angry hate-club which're just looking for their next big issue to be offended over. I'm sure that if they stopped for five minutes and looked at some of the silly things they get offended over, they would see how silly it is. Instead though, they're much too busy yelling and shouting angryly at game developers, who had the audacity to make their female character busty.

I wasn't comparing your family to rot. I was comparing the aparent trend of violence and rape to rot. Just because a person commits a rotten action, does not a rotten person make. I actually intended to write something along those lines in my comment, but I must've forgot. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.

As I explained above, I dont think that there really is a true divide between "the grand feminist movement" and the tumblr feminists.
If the video game thing hurts the self esteem of some people, then I honestly think that they those need to grow a spine, sorry to say. There are dudes in video games too, who are insanely buff and masculin beyond anything realistic. The dudes that aren't, are insanely intelligent and sucessful in busness or whatever. Should men be offended at this depiction of dudes?
Thats why we call it fiction. Its not suposed to be taken as seriously as some feminists do and claim other women do as well. Its an idealized version of a woman marketet to a predominantly white male teen audience. What do you think sells well with white teenage dudes? Tits, of course. Its not a question of discrimination or objectification, its a question of marketing. White teenage guys likes tits, so the corporations gives them tits.
Add this to the fact that almost all of my female friends I've asked directly if they feel offended or objectified by fictional works, says they find it silly and of course they dont. I think this problem lies with the self-esteem of the people who complain about it. Its not that these images and materials cause bad self esteem in women, its that these images remind women who allready suffer from bad self esteem, how ****** they feel about themselves. Sorry if this seems a bit cynical; but we cant pander to a group of mentally ill people, who complain about something no person with proper self esteem and self image would find the least bit offensive. The lowest common denominator should not dictate the direction the crowd moves.
This is not to say that I nessesarily condone the way females are portrayed in games and general media. I think they hamstrings themselves, by reducing females in the way they do. This goes for men aswell. No interesting plots are going to arise from a story in which all females are card-board cutouts with latex tits plastered onto, and all males are gruff handsom flawless Adonis wanna-bes who can solve 3rd grade differential equations in their heads while bench pressing 4 times their own weight.
Outside of the detrimental effects to storytelling that it has, I cant view this as anything other than one of those silly null-issues I complain about the feminists being all too keen to focus on, while ignoring the grander problems.

I dont believe that men systematically opress women. Not here in the rest anyway. Those in power opress those not in power. Its been like that forever and it'll likely continue to be like that a long time into the future too. A good bunch of those in power are white males, which is a left-over from a time in which white males did actually opress everyone not white and not male. Non-white non-males just haven't had the chance to bleed up through the molasses-like power structure that we've instituted. Thats not opression, thats just a matter of fact.

I feel like you handicap the conversation by framing it this context, when what you're really complaining about is a grander social problem, not singularily suffered by women. It would be like discussing war casualties as a mens issue, because the majority of soldiers are men. Dont you think the female soldiers would be slightly pissed off, about the fact that they're role and their pains in the army is effectively being ignored?

User avatar #69 to #68 - lifeisnocabaret (08/30/2014) [-]
See? No. It shouldn't matter if people took "active steps to put themselves in harm's way." We're way to focused on that. If "harm's way" qualifies as being with a man late at night, than that vilifies men way more than anything else. We need to teach people not to rape. And rape is a preventable thing, because the main reason men--and yes, the majority of perpetrators are men--rape is because they want to feel power. Power, of course, is a characteristic of masculinity. The male need to feel power is the male need to feel masculine. Again, the reason this whole feminism thing exists is to fight trends. There is a trend of men who rape. The is a trend of women getting raped. There is a trend of masculinity being pushed by men and there is a trend of men needing to feel power. This is not silly.
The connection to the scaffolding isn't valid because there is no perpetrator. An accident is different than flat out assault. You cannot, by any means, blame a victim like that. No one deserves rape and we shouldn't treat any case as lesser because "she was wearing a skirt too short" or "she was out with the wrong crowd." That's always the first thing people think about--what the girl was doing wrong--rather than why the guy raped her or what he shouldn't have done. And how many times can guys catch themselves doing the same thing with no consequence? Men can be out late at night with women. Men can walk around with no shirt and not be raped. It just happens on a much larger scale with women.

hold on
User avatar #70 to #69 - lifeisnocabaret (08/30/2014) [-]
A big part of the feminism we're discussing is feminism in America. I can definitely contest that feminism exists outside of the internet. I know many feminists who are not using social networks in their practice at all. There are many thinkers--bell hooks, for example--that are held up to a high standard and that would disagree with the things that the "tumblr feminists" say. If you really aren't exposed to this group and are actually ignorant to it, then how can this part of your argument have a good foundation?

There is a problem with that. You mention a white male audience when it comes to video games, but about half of the gaming audience is women. And women are sexualized more in games, that's just it. I'll take Resident Evil as an example. Leon and Chris have big muscles, yes, but look at the females in the game. Clare is wearing tight clothes and whatever, but what bothers me most is that in every RE games she's in, the camera focuses on her ass and pans up her body at least like 3 times per game. And look at Ada (if you never played these games you should google these characters). She runs around in a ******* long red, sexy dress and high heels in RE4, and it is clear that Leon is caught in a spell because of her. It's always Leon sexualizing her, not the other way around. And the villains in RE. The majority of the male villains are old men, like Salazar in RE4 and Birkin in the Darkside Chronicles--while the female villains are like, almost naked and sexy in a weird monster way. But if you still think that "males are just as sexualized as females," and if you have a problem with it, say something. Don't get mad at other people for saying something they have a problem with by claiming you have a problem with something else--fix it.
And all of this oversexualization is related to MASCULINITY. That's what I've been saying. The oversexualization of men is also related to masculinity and the idea that men can't be heroes unless they're masculine. hold on
User avatar #71 to #70 - lifeisnocabaret (08/30/2014) [-]
These video games enforce these notions of masculinity both ways and in turn enforce notions of power. It's all about the mindset these things perpetuate.

It is oppression because it is a matter of fact. That's how ingrained it is--we believe we can't fight it. You can't say oppression doesn't exist, even in places like America, because there is a type of person that succeeds and there is a type of person that doesn't, and it mostly doesn't boil down to laziness or true inferiority. It's about who's "at risk" to fail and who's not "at risk." Not everyone has equal opportunity and not everyone is born to the same circumstances, and it mostly depends on race, class and gender, and that's why these individual tiers have individual activism groups. We can't just say "well people are always gonna be oppressed" and not do anything about it, because no where in America's history (and hardly anywhere in world history) were white, straight males oppressed. Everyone else was.

For the last part of your argument, again, females are more negatively affected by this. Masculinity is related to power and sex and it is displayed in the male treatment of women. I've addressed this already.
User avatar #42 - revengeforfreeze (11/06/2013) [-]
yYOUS AN BRON?!
User avatar #43 to #42 - krobeles ONLINE (11/06/2013) [-]
ehm, say what now??
User avatar #44 to #43 - revengeforfreeze (11/09/2013) [-]
you're a brony?
User avatar #45 to #44 - krobeles ONLINE (11/09/2013) [-]
I dont identify as one, no.
Why?
User avatar #46 to #45 - revengeforfreeze (11/09/2013) [-]
>joined ponytime
>posted pony content
User avatar #47 to #46 - krobeles ONLINE (11/09/2013) [-]
So? That dosen't make me a brony. That makes a dude who watches My Little Pony.
I recon theres a differance.
User avatar #48 to #47 - revengeforfreeze (11/09/2013) [-]
well okay
i didnt know the difference tbh
User avatar #49 to #48 - krobeles ONLINE (11/09/2013) [-]
Its more of a personal thing, actually.
I view the "Bronies" as the greezy fat neck bearded Otaku-wannabies who attend cons and cosplay girls.
I'm not one of those.
User avatar #51 to #50 - krobeles ONLINE (11/09/2013) [-]
Why'de you ask anyway?
User avatar #52 to #51 - revengeforfreeze (11/09/2013) [-]
don tnkow.
User avatar #53 to #52 - krobeles ONLINE (11/09/2013) [-]
Weeell...Aaalright then..G'day...
#33 - danzeebass **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#32 - warlordvegeta **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #30 - gemleonn (12/21/2012) [-]
Why is it every time I go to someone's profile to call them a ****** , there's always some weird pony **** going on?
#28 - usernameiskill **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#26 - verminator (12/21/2012) [-]
Sup ***** !
#25 - unbentgodfather ONLINE (12/21/2012) [-]
User avatar #23 - elitefourkoga (12/21/2012) [-]
You're a ****** , harry.
User avatar #22 - orx (12/21/2012) [-]
This ******** got some kinky **** on his profile.
User avatar #21 - swifterly (12/21/2012) [-]
****** .
User avatar #17 - nunc (12/21/2012) [-]
User avatar #16 - martiini (12/21/2012) [-]
Hey, ****** .
User avatar #15 - orx (12/21/2012) [-]
****** .
#13 to #12 - zonryu (10/26/2012) [-]
and the last one is of fluttershy as a witch
User avatar #14 to #13 - zonryu (10/26/2012) [-]
good day to you sir
[ 58 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)