View Full Version : Anita Sarkeesian forced to cancel Utah State speech after mass shooting threat
Anita Sarkeesian forced to cancel Utah State speech after mass shooting threat
(CNN) -- Anita Sarkeesian is no stranger to graphic threats.
Her vocal criticism about the misogynistic representation of women in video games has invited more than its fair share of hate from defensive gamers and Internet trollers.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/15/tech/utah-anita-sarkeesian-threat/
I can think of a myriad of things to say about this one.
skijunkie55
11-21-14, 11:16
Her vocal criticism about the misogynistic representation of women in video games
I can think of a myriad of things to say about this one.
Representation of women in video games... 3D animated pixels...
http://i.lvme.me/enys03l.jpg
The fact that she even garners any news worthy attention is just mind boggling.
Someone threatens a mass shooting. Not good. Are they a gamer? I don't know, but that is immaterial. What idiot who owns a gun, possibly believes in the 2nd A... would make a threat against someone like that over a right to free speech? This woman may be a fool, but to provide the enemy with justification for their insane phobia of the 2nd A?
This kind of garbage is not good for the gun culture. Not good for 2nd a image on its face. Possibly a setup by anti-2nd activists? Who knows.
So the school investigates the possibility of providing a "gun free zone". Which is asinine.
The school discovers that by law the school cannot prevent someone from coming on campus with a concealed carry permit.
She cancels "because I don't feel safe" garbage.
Now three times I have seen this used as evidence that "the 2nd trumps the 1st and that is so sad".
Seems relative to our interests, no? Guess not. Perhaps I should have posted a useless meme in reply.
skijunkie55
11-21-14, 11:59
Someone threatens a mass shooting. Not good. Are they a gamer? I don't know, but that is immaterial. What idiot who owns a gun, possibly believes in the 2nd A... would make a threat against someone like that over a right to free speech? This woman may be a fool, but to provide the enemy with justification for their insane phobia of the 2nd A?
This kind of garbage is not good for the gun culture. Not good for 2nd a image on its face. Possibly a setup by anti-2nd activists? Who knows.
So the school investigates the possibility of providing a "gun free zone". Which is asinine.
The school discovers that by law the school cannot prevent someone from coming on campus with a concealed carry permit.
She cancels "because I don't feel safe" garbage.
Now three times I have seen this used as evidence that "the 2nd trumps the 1st and that is so sad".
Seems relative to our interests, no? Guess not. Perhaps I should have posted a useless meme in reply.
I'm not talking about the threat of a shooting. That's not something to joke around about which is why I didn't quote that portion.
I'm specifically mentioning the woman herself and what her and her feminist gamer pals are going on about- the portrayal of women in video games. All those poor hookers that got run over, shot, blown up via infinite hand grenade cheat code in GTA IV... They have rights too!
You can almost guarantee the person / persons responsible for the threat are the same people who are butt hurt about gamergate, some chick trading sex for positive game reviews, and whatever else that "culture" gets bent out of shape about lately.
What idiot who owns a gun, possibly believes in the 2nd A... would make a threat against someone like that over a right to free speech?
We have no idea if the person who made the threat even owns a gun, or is even over 18.
My bet is a ~14yo gamer. Much like swatting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting) a false threat like this is part of their culture now.
WickedWillis
11-21-14, 12:56
She is a freaking joke. I don't condone mass violence, but I still believe this was staged at an attempt to grow her bullshit "legend". She has no idea what she's talking about, and the idiot rabid feminist movement uses every opportunity they can to plaster her face on all of their propaganda.
I agree. Smells staged and "convenient" on all fronts. Garners her more attention beyond her initial claim to fame of gamergate. Perhaps she feels her popularity tapering off and this is a cry for recognition.
You mean to tell me the authorities are powerless to discover the identity of the email author? I find that hard to believe in this day and age if IP addresses and tracking.
I would not be surprised if it is discovered that she or her following wrote the threatening email.
Moose-Knuckle
11-21-14, 17:04
I bet she has bogus accounts and generates threats against herself to get media attention.
I agree. Smells staged and "convenient" on all fronts. Garners her more attention beyond her initial claim to fame of gamergate. Perhaps she feels her popularity tapering off and this is a cry for recognition.
You mean to tell me the authorities are powerless to discover the identity of the email author? I find that hard to believe in this day and age if IP addresses and tracking.
I would not be surprised if it is discovered that she or her following wrote the threatening email.
I mean if they loaded a virtual machine, spoofed their MAC address, went to a far away Starbucks or McDonald's parking lot to get free Wifi, then went through TOR to sign up for a free email account and sent some emails, then deleted their vm after leaving... It'd be pretty hard if not impossible to track this person.
wildcard600
11-21-14, 19:27
I mean if they loaded a virtual machine, spoofed their MAC address, went to a far away Starbucks or McDonald's parking lot to get free Wifi, then went through TOR to sign up for a free email account and sent some emails, then deleted their vm after leaving... It'd be pretty hard if not impossible to track this person.
Don't even have to go to that much trouble. get a $50 android tablet from your local WM or target, find a wifi hotspot to jump on and sign up for your free email account with bogus info. When you're done you can dispose of the tablet in a handy campfire or incinerator.
Don't even have to go to that much trouble. get a $50 android tablet from your local WM or target, find a wifi hotspot to jump on and sign up for your free email account with bogus info. When you're done you can dispose of the tablet in a handy campfire or incinerator.
But that costs more money if you already have a laptop!
I for one am sick of her misandrist hatred.
I for one am sick of her misandrist hatred.
Did you see where she blamed mass shootings on "manhood"?
From her twitter:
We need to seriously address connections between violence, sexism and toxic ideas of manhood before boys and men commit more mass shootings.
3:49 PM - 24 Oct 2014
Not a coincidence it’s always men and boys committing mass shootings. The pattern is connected to ideas of toxic masculinity in our culture.
4:38 PM - 24 Oct 2014
So who do we blame for this...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_female_serial_killers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_female_murderers
Personally I blame Anita.
Moose-Knuckle
11-21-14, 21:03
Maybe we should blame her/women/feminazis for abortion and infanticide?
So who do we blame for this...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_female_serial_killers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_female_murderers
Personally I blame Anita.
The patriarchy. Men made those women do it because women are institutionally oppressed by men to do what men want or to emulate men.
Do you even feminazi bro?
MountainRaven
11-21-14, 23:06
Did you see where she blamed mass shootings on "manhood"?
From her twitter:
We need to seriously address connections between violence, sexism and toxic ideas of manhood before boys and men commit more mass shootings.
3:49 PM - 24 Oct 2014
Not a coincidence it’s always men and boys committing mass shootings. The pattern is connected to ideas of toxic masculinity in our culture.
4:38 PM - 24 Oct 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNYPKvOZ7B4&list=UUaGoVAB64Ojh3JU_VPis8ig
The video raises some valid points regarding violence, but it also came across as confused about how to go about preventing unnecessary violence.
It also doesn't mention some violence is necessary i.e., self defense, cops fighting criminals, war combatants, and so on.
All I heard is how as a society violence is bad, Mkay...and men are just so guilty of being violent actors.
Men are bad / Women are mostly good.
What crap.
Moose-Knuckle
11-22-14, 15:37
The video raises some valid points regarding violence, but it also came across as confused about how to go about preventing unnecessary violence.
It also doesn't mention some violence is necessary i.e., self defense, cops fighting criminals, war combatants, and so on.
All I heard is how as a society violence is bad, Mkay...and men are just so guilty of being violent actors.
Men are bad / Women are mostly good.
What crap.
This, the guy in the video is some skinny armed/hipster/metrosexual in his horned rimmed glasses . . . he doesn’t represent me. Violence and sex are a part of life, without either our species would be extinct with in one generation.
MountainRaven
11-22-14, 16:07
The video raises some valid points regarding violence, but it also came across as confused about how to go about preventing unnecessary violence.
It also doesn't mention some violence is necessary i.e., self defense, cops fighting criminals, war combatants, and so on.
All I heard is how as a society violence is bad, Mkay...and men are just so guilty of being violent actors.
Men are bad / Women are mostly good.
What crap.
The video is made by a guy who is employed by the NRA and is pro-Second Amendment. So he obviously believes that there is a time and a place for violence.
This, the guy in the video is some skinny armed/hipster/metrosexual in his horned rimmed glasses . . . he doesn’t represent me. Violence and sex are a part of life, without either our species would be extinct with in one generation.
He's also an intelligent, well-spoken libertarian. And no where during the video does he suggest that violence doesn't have a time and a place and that it cannot be used positively, neither does he say that sex is horrible.
Sweet Jesus. 90% of homicides committed where the victim is known by the perp are committed by men. How many more prisoners do we have who are men? Either there's a problem with our society and how it defines masculinity and rewards violence or our system and society is not only inherently racist (most prisoners are black or hispanic, not white) but also inherently misandrist. I cannot even begin to imagine the level of cognitive dissonance going on in y'all's brain pans if you believe that our system is racist against white people (while white people serve shorter sentences, have lower conviction rates for crimes, and are not prosecuted for crimes as often as other races are for the same crimes - but then again, white folks are less likely to commit crimes in the first place) and misandrist (yes, men serve longer sentences, have higher conviction rates, and are prosecuted for crimes more often than women are for the same crimes - but then again, women are less likely to commit crimes in the first place).
Heaven forfend that anybody on this forum should ever hear any fact that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions of how the universe works!
Is it societal (pressure to be "manly") or is it biological (more testosterone)? That's where I disagree with both Johnson and Sarkeesian. It's like how feminists believe that simply telling men not to rape will prevent rapes. Sure it may prevent a few, but not many. For better or for worse, being violent and taking life into your own hands is hard wired into men from thousands of years of natural selection. Most men can control their urges, but all men get them and I'd imagine much stronger than women.
Basically, their facts (men commit most violent crime) are true. I, however, take issue with their conclusion of the cause of those facts.
MountainRaven
11-22-14, 16:57
Representation of women in video games... 3D animated pixels...
http://i.lvme.me/enys03l.jpg
The fact that she even garners any news worthy attention is just mind boggling.
The fact that she only garners attention is because of the antics of those who disagree with her.
She's like a feminist gaming version of Ann Coulter.
I'm not talking about the threat of a shooting. That's not something to joke around about which is why I didn't quote that portion.
I'm specifically mentioning the woman herself and what her and her feminist gamer pals are going on about- the portrayal of women in video games. All those poor hookers that got run over, shot, blown up via infinite hand grenade cheat code in GTA IV... They have rights too!
You can almost guarantee the person / persons responsible for the threat are the same people who are butt hurt about gamergate, some chick trading sex for positive game reviews, and whatever else that "culture" gets bent out of shape about lately.
Never read and don't care to read or watch any of Ms Sarkeesian's feminist... whatever you want to call it, but I'm pretty sure she doesn't care about the characters. She cares about what the way the characters are treated and what that says about how much penetration the feminist movement has achieved in the video game industry.
And Gamergate was never about a woman giving sex for positive reviews. She was simply a target of opportunity. And, as so frequently happens, there was not a basis in fact for the accusations. Gamergate is the video game world's He-man Woman-Haters Club throwing a fit and it being latched onto by celebrities for whom the cause is merely a vector for them to attack something in society that they don't like, without either caring about the underlying issues involved or even caring about their erstwhile gamer allies.
We have no idea if the person who made the threat even owns a gun, or is even over 18.
My bet is a ~14yo gamer. Much like swatting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting) a false threat like this is part of their culture now.
'Their' culture? Who are 'they'?
I agree. Smells staged and "convenient" on all fronts. Garners her more attention beyond her initial claim to fame of gamergate. Perhaps she feels her popularity tapering off and this is a cry for recognition.
You mean to tell me the authorities are powerless to discover the identity of the email author? I find that hard to believe in this day and age if IP addresses and tracking.
I would not be surprised if it is discovered that she or her following wrote the threatening email.
Her claim to fame predates Gamergate. She was only peripherally involved.
But the critics that delivered her fame in the first place overwhelmingly fell in lockstep behind the Gamergate movement.
As for the possibility that it was a false flag? Sure, it's possible. But the only evidence I've seen of anybody engaging in such behavior is from the Gamergaters. Maybe the Gamergaters just aren't as smart as their critics are. Considering the technological savvy of the most vehement, out-spoken Gamergaters, that seems unlikely, however.
Is it societal (pressure to be "manly") or is it biological (more testosterone)? That's where I disagree with both Johnson and Sarkeesian. It's like how feminists believe that simply telling men not to rape will prevent rapes. Not many, no. For better or for worse, it's hard wired into men from thousands of years of natural selection. Most men can control their urges, but all get them.
As with so many things in life, I feel that it is a little bit of both: A little nature and a little nurture. Or a little biology and a little sociology, as the case may be.
But if we treat it as purely a biological issue, we then create the demand for a chemical solution. If you think it's bad now, with the chemical cocktails being handed out to kids to deal with attention deficit disorders and depression, just wait until you create the specter of hormone imbalance driven pathological violence. What may begin - benignly - as an effort to keep the most pathologically violent as constructive members of society will very, very rapidly devolve into little Timmy being put on drugs because he drew a handgun or a knife or a swastika in his notebook. And we end up in the wet dream of our imagined liberal progressive misandrist feminist villain: A world where violence doesn't necessarily inspire fear, but the idea of being violent is so revolting and reviled that all law-abiding citizens would rather lay down their lives than resist a criminal, a terrorist, or a tyrant.
As I see it, the only other alternatives to treating it as mostly or entirely a biological/chemical issue involve fundamentally transforming our society: One that takes us back to a time when we had positive (for the, well, a community) outlets for pathological violence - but that's essentially the Mad Max/Road Warriors route, where we fight over precious resources, and the Montana tribe fights the North Dakota tribe for control of the northern Great Plains. Or we take another dystopian path and institute universal conscription and universal, unrelenting, unending warfare, with those most likely to be pathologically violent herded into great meat grinders and pray that it weeds out the most depraved and spares those most likely to be constructive to society.
I feel that treating it as a social issue - one where violence for violence's sake is censured, but violence for cause (such as in defense of self or community) is condoned - is a far safer path for our civil liberties and more moral than any of the alternatives resulting from treating it purely as a biological/chemical issue.
Moose-Knuckle
11-22-14, 21:13
He's also an intelligent, well-spoken libertarian. And no where during the video does he suggest that violence doesn't have a time and a place and that it cannot be used positively, neither does he say that sex is horrible.
He did not mention sex, I did as sex and violence are go hand in hand in the feminazi cause and is lectured along with violence by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman.
http://www.killology.com/
Sweet Jesus. 90% of homicides committed where the victim is known by the perp are committed by men. How many more prisoners do we have who are men? Either there's a problem with our society and how it defines masculinity and rewards violence or our system and society is not only inherently racist (most prisoners are black or hispanic, not white) but also inherently misandrist.
Sweet Muhammad. Maybe it has something to do with . . .
"After researching the FBI numbers for "Suicide of a Superpower," this writer concluded: "An analysis of 'single offender victimization figures' from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study."
I cannot even begin to imagine the level of cognitive dissonance going on in y'all's brain pans if you believe that our system is racist against white people (while white people serve shorter sentences, have lower conviction rates for crimes, and are not prosecuted for crimes as often as other races are for the same crimes - but then again, white folks are less likely to commit crimes in the first place) and misandrist (yes, men serve longer sentences, have higher conviction rates, and are prosecuted for crimes more often than women are for the same crimes - but then again, women are less likely to commit crimes in the first place).
The above is an abosolute crock of bovine feces and speaks volumes as to the "cognitive dissonance" that resides in your brain pan.
Heaven forfend that anybody on this forum should ever hear any fact that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions of how the universe works!
Paradise forbid that anybody on this forum should have any point of view other than that of your own. As for how the unvierse works we all know by now that the answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42.
The fact that she only garners attention is because of the antics of those who disagree with her.
She's like a feminist gaming version of Ann Coulter.
Never read and don't care to read or watch any of Ms Sarkeesian's feminist... whatever you want to call it, but I'm pretty sure she doesn't care about the characters. She cares about what the way the characters are treated and what that says about how much penetration the feminist movement has achieved in the video game industry.
And Gamergate was never about a woman giving sex for positive reviews. She was simply a target of opportunity. And, as so frequently happens, there was not a basis in fact for the accusations. Gamergate is the video game world's He-man Woman-Haters Club throwing a fit and it being latched onto by celebrities for whom the cause is merely a vector for them to attack something in society that they don't like, without either caring about the underlying issues involved or even caring about their erstwhile gamer allies.
'Their' culture? Who are 'they'?
Her claim to fame predates Gamergate. She was only peripherally involved.
But the critics that delivered her fame in the first place overwhelmingly fell in lockstep behind the Gamergate movement.
As for the possibility that it was a false flag? Sure, it's possible. But the only evidence I've seen of anybody engaging in such behavior is from the Gamergaters. Maybe the Gamergaters just aren't as smart as their critics are. Considering the technological savvy of the most vehement, out-spoken Gamergaters, that seems unlikely, however.
As with so many things in life, I feel that it is a little bit of both: A little nature and a little nurture. Or a little biology and a little sociology, as the case may be.
But if we treat it as purely a biological issue, we then create the demand for a chemical solution. If you think it's bad now, with the chemical cocktails being handed out to kids to deal with attention deficit disorders and depression, just wait until you create the specter of hormone imbalance driven pathological violence. What may begin - benignly - as an effort to keep the most pathologically violent as constructive members of society will very, very rapidly devolve into little Timmy being put on drugs because he drew a handgun or a knife or a swastika in his notebook. And we end up in the wet dream of our imagined liberal progressive misandrist feminist villain: A world where violence doesn't necessarily inspire fear, but the idea of being violent is so revolting and reviled that all law-abiding citizens would rather lay down their lives than resist a criminal, a terrorist, or a tyrant.
As I see it, the only other alternatives to treating it as mostly or entirely a biological/chemical issue involve fundamentally transforming our society: One that takes us back to a time when we had positive (for the, well, a community) outlets for pathological violence - but that's essentially the Mad Max/Road Warriors route, where we fight over precious resources, and the Montana tribe fights the North Dakota tribe for control of the northern Great Plains. Or we take another dystopian path and institute universal conscription and universal, unrelenting, unending warfare, with those most likely to be pathologically violent herded into great meat grinders and pray that it weeds out the most depraved and spares those most likely to be constructive to society.
I feel that treating it as a social issue - one where violence for violence's sake is censured, but violence for cause (such as in defense of self or community) is condoned - is a far safer path for our civil liberties and more moral than any of the alternatives resulting from treating it purely as a biological/chemical issue.
I was considering the ramifications that you mentioned too. I do think that the gang culture is a huge societal influence in crime, but mass shooters aren't gang members. What they are is mentally damaged and usually are prescribed meds for that disability.
I don't know how to fix mass shooting, but I don't believe the answer is societal in broad terms (masculinity).
MountainRaven
11-22-14, 22:44
The above is an abosolute crock of bovine feces and speaks volumes as to the "cognitive dissonance" that resides in your brain pan.
The system is sexist and racist, even though most criminals are minorities and male. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact the fact of the latter is what pushes the former.
Paradise forbid that anybody on this forum should have any point of view other than that of your own. As for how the unvierse works we all know by now that the answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42.
I'm a liberal libertarian. I'm used to nobody agreeing with me. All of the time, anyway.
And 42 is incorrect. The true answer is AK-47.
I was considering the ramifications that you mentioned too. I do think that the gang culture is a huge societal influence in crime, but mass shooters aren't gang members. What they are is mentally damaged and usually are prescribed meds for that disability.
I don't know how to fix mass shooting, but I don't believe the answer is societal in broad terms (masculinity).
No, they're not gang members. But we're not just talking about mass shooters, we're talking about criminal violence in general. And mass shooters (and gang-bangers) do watch movies and TV shows where cool anti-heroes use violence against people who annoy them - and it's hilarious. But it also can generate the perception that such casual violence is acceptable and even condoned by society (or at least the types of society they care about). Not entirely related, but I recall reading a study recently that showed that how people communicate - in person and on social media - correlates with the types of television shows they watch. If the types of TV shows one watch is what causes the change in communication style, then what does that mean for violent criminals and the sorts of media they enjoy?
Not that I'm arguing that the solution is censorship. Or that those sorts of stories shouldn't be told. Maybe we need to put the blood and guts back into Grimm's fairy tales or something, I don't know.
Is it societal (pressure to be "manly") or is it biological (more testosterone)? That's where I disagree with both Johnson and Sarkeesian. It's like how feminists believe that simply telling men not to rape will prevent rapes. Sure it may prevent a few, but not many. For better or for worse, being violent and taking life into your own hands is hard wired into men from thousands of years of natural selection. Most men can control their urges, but all men get them and I'd imagine much stronger than women.
I don't know. But as a child I found Bruce Lee to be very impressive and did my best to follow his example. Really doesn't matter if it was societal or genetic, either way it was inevitable, and more importantly...one of the best things I ever did. A capacity for aggressiveness and violence has served me well over the years and allowed me to protect myself and those I care about.
The problem is people who view "violence" as always bad. When violence is directed against evil / bad people it is always a good thing. When passivity is directed to evil / bad people it is always a bad thing.
Moose-Knuckle
11-23-14, 01:52
The system is sexist and racist. . .
We can agree here.
As a white heterosexual man the system affords me and my kind no special rights or protections, we can never be offended nor receive any sort of monetary assistance due to our crotch luggage and the color of our skin. I'm still waiting on all these privileges that white privilege is supposed to give unto me but I guess my membership card must have gotten lost in the mail.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
MountainRaven
11-23-14, 03:03
We can agree here.
As a white heterosexual man the system affords me and my kind no special rights or protections, we can never be offended nor receive any sort of monetary assistance due to our crotch luggage and the color of our skin. I'm still waiting on all these privileges that white privilege is supposed to give unto me but I guess my membership card must have gotten lost in the mail.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
If only it were so simple....
Sexist against males, racist against people who aren't white. But it's not that simple. System versus society versus law. The system favors you, the law disfavors you. If your SO takes you to court to take your kids from you, you're probably going to lose. Because you're a man. If you get taken before a jury for theft or murder, the fact that you're white will work in your favor. But the fact that you're a man will work against it.
As a rule, the whole "White man says something vaguely racist and/or sexist, inspires global outrage" thing is more the exception than the rule. So long as you avoid that fifteen minutes of fame, you're better off being a white dude than anyone else in America. Higher incomes, higher levels of education (although women are quickly overtaking men in this area), more likely to have been raised in a traditional nuclear family, &c. Your race and sex will rarely, if ever, be used to qualify you. You are, in essence, the societal norm. The standard issue movie/novel protagonist. What you do qualifies you and not the color of your skin or your penis.
That being said, while white guys are generally favored by society, white guys are generally less racist and less sexist than men of other races. (One recent study showed that white folks were marginally more likely to hire white folks instead of comparably qualified minorities when told to do so strictly on the basis of merit, while black and hispanic folks were overwhelmingly more likely to hire persons of their race instead of comparably qualified white folk. In other words, white people are racist. But black and hispanic people are very racist.)
The issue of race and sex in America is incredibly nuanced. Pretending that it's all just a bunch of people who hate white men and a bunch of people who hate everything that's not a white man is hilariously simplistic, IMHO.
Perhaps the simplest way to put it is that our society is built to favor white guys, but white guys are contrariwise generally less racist and less sexist than the minorities disfavored by society. With the subsequent result that we have people who believe the systemic favoritism for white guys is as a result of white guys, while we also have people (generally white guys) who feel that they are less racist than other folks and any effort to "correct" the system unfairly discriminates against them. With neither side realizing how right the other one is, and each favors their own side of the equation, rather than the whole in totality.
Impressed with the discussion in the topic. I got a lot out of that read.
wildcard600
12-05-14, 14:45
I'd hit it.
The nerds are just angry cause she wont show them her boobs.
WickedWillis
12-05-14, 14:53
The nerds are just angry cause she wont show them her boobs.
Nah, we are angry because she is completely out of her element. Trying to bleed feminism into everything, and having zero basis on her accusations. If you think she's worth the air, you must love the Kardashian's. Stop making stupid people famous, and Anita has banked off of these stupid followers she has.
wildcard600
12-05-14, 15:12
Nah, we are angry because she is completely out of her element. Trying to bleed feminism into everything, and having zero basis on her accusations. If you think she's worth the air, you must love the Kardashian's. Stop making stupid people famous, and Anita has banked off of these stupid followers she has.
Well all i am saying is that a little boob showage wouldnt hurt.
And i happen to like the Cardassian story arc in DS9. To say it wasnt worth the air time is way harsh. it wasnt the best ST series, but far from the worst.
WickedWillis
12-05-14, 15:24
Well all i am saying is that a little boob showage wouldnt hurt.
And i happen to like the Cardassian story arc in DS9. To say it wasnt worth the air time is way harsh. it wasnt the best ST series, but far from the worst.
Haha that was good.
MountainRaven
12-05-14, 22:07
Well all i am saying is that a little boob showage wouldnt hurt.
And i happen to like the Cardassian story arc in DS9. To say it wasnt worth the air time is way harsh. it wasnt the best ST series, but far from the worst.
I like Q. Love Picard. And Sisko is pretty awesome. Worf was pretty cool when he wasn't getting his ass kicked to prove how powerful the bad guys of the week are. But I think Elim Garak has to be my most favoritest Star Trek character in the history of ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TREQGl54BU8
wildcard600
12-06-14, 01:23
I like Q. Love Picard. And Sisko is pretty awesome. Worf was pretty cool when he wasn't getting his ass kicked to prove how powerful the bad guys of the week are. But I think Elim Garak has to be my most favoritest Star Trek character in the history of ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TREQGl54BU8
Garak was the man and made DS9 IMO the most interesting Star Trek series overall. I loved the complex and haunted character of Garak and his portrayal by Andrew J. Robinson was nothing short of mesmerizing. Its just a shame that Garak really didn't come into his own until the later seasons of the show.
I really think DS9 is under appreciated by most ST fans, but I personally believe its mostly due to the fact that I think they just tried to do too much with the series and it really became overwhelming for the viewer. The sheer number of story arcs and ensemble characters doesn't lend itself to easy television viewing. I try to watch the series in its entirety ever couple of years or so and I still take away something different that I hadn't seen before every time I watch it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.