> If you can't call it marriage, the group denied that right is second class, full stop.
People can use different terms to distinguish between different things, but that doesn't necessarily make any of those things "second class," full stop.
All label the upper/dominant class uses to show they are giving those below them everything they are entitled to, except actual equality, while firmly keeping them where they belong.
> It's not hyperbole. If you're not allowed to hold a job because you're female, how is that much better than slavery?
You serious? Just to point out a few of the glaring problems with your position:
1) you're essentially offering up a straw man to over-broadly condemn a wide range of social practices (which you haven't demonstrated much understanding of);
2) your general assertion that married women (globally, I assume) were generally not allowed to "hold a job" is questionable on many levels (for instance, on a family farm, do you think the husband had a "job" but the wife did not?);
3) if you weren't aware: slaves are legally property that can be bought, sold, and killed if it suited their master, serfs weren't slaves and neither were wives.
In the United States 100 years ago, women were not allowed to have very many jobs. Usually, they could be a schoolteacher, but only until a certain age or when they got married, at which point they were fired. Women were basically the property of their husbands, since they had no real ability to support themselves otherwise. That, to me, sounds just like slavery.
>> he's honest with potential partners about being in an existing open relationship then the pool of women willing to date him evaporates
> I believe already having one or more lovers makes you much more attractive since the fact that those people chose you (among others) means you are probably a good choice.
Attractive to steal or attractive to share? That's an important and relevant difference.
If you make it clear that you are already have friends with benefits (or in fact just that you are only interested in that kind of arrangement), that that's your lifestyle choice and that holding to your values is the most important thing to you, "stealing" is not really an option.
I think you misunderstand. Whatever extra appeal you have to potential partners from having other people who "chose you (among others)" may be effectively negated because you're unwilling to abandon those others for the new partner. The people you attract probably don't want to share you.
So you and the person you were responding to can both be right. You're made "more attractive" but the "pool of women willing to date [you still] evaporates.
> Just for the record: GamerGate was 100% founded on harassing women. The "ethics in games journalism" thing was only ever a front to build popular support, which unfortunately worked. I'm happy to post more details if you're unconvinced.
GamerGate wasn't coordinated enough and lacked the centralized leadership to have been "founded" for a purpose or be a "front" to achieve specific clandestine goals.
From what I gather, it was sort of like Occupy Wall Street in that there was really no there there besides a vague ethos shared by the people who took up its flag to pursue their disparate pet causes.
Saying that GamerGate lacked leadership is wrong. It had multiple important figureheads that directed the movement over time, starting with Eron who turned a personal affair into an open-internet vendetta under the guise of 'ethics in video games' (of which the reviews and corruption people claim simply does not exist).
It blew up from there as many people became leaders of multiple subsections of GamerGate, many of whom we see today in the alt-right parts of the internet which I am sure is entirely coincidental. The difference between Occupy Wall Street and GamerGate is that GamerGate rallied behind multiple different leaders which would push the the movement towards various directions. This was all stuff I saw from personal experience.
Eron posted a blog post venting about how his ex-girlfriend who was being held up as a feminist success story had treated him in an abusive manner as well as cheated on him.
He did nothing to direct Gamergate, most of what I saw him post in the early days was trying to put the cat back in the bag.
Both of those statements would be objectively wrong. The first being that not only did he shop around the story at multiple places, but he ended up posting it on 4chan and the like because he knew it would be the perfect place to incite trolls. He was banned from multiple forums due to posting his rants.
The second was that he was constantly active in various chat channels encouraging and pushing the movement forward while lying about his claims that he was trying to back away from it.
Thank you, I was there in the beginning and I had seen the nastiness on both sides. I don't see where it was Eron who originally posted on 4chan but it does look like he did respond to the 4chan thread.
The author of that post says that Eron abused Zoe but has not provided any evidence, do you know of anything to back that up? All the evidence that Eron posted was never denied by Zoe afik.
However, that was not the claims of corruption and reviews made during the course of GamerGate (ie that Zoe had slept with reviewers for positive coverage). None of GamerGate dealt with the actual issues of corporate influence on reviews and the policies thereof.
No, clearly not. There are a lot more problems with the paragraph than can be solved by a simple substitution.
The root problem is that it's very hard (almost impossible) to make statements about the whole of an uncoordinated, loosely defined group that are both specific and true. Also, when you think you can easily make such statements, it probably doesn't mean that you're right but rather your thinking is being driven by biases and group-prejudice.
It doesn't provide any value to the regular user; most people I know receive lots of emails mostly from body shops but rarely get a job from LinkedIn. The UI is designed to make it hard to configure privacy, and to make you casually spill your contact list. They are always trying to sell premium accounts.
To be fair it should provide some value to a junior dev who doesnt have a Network yet but LinkedIn doesn't even try to hide the fact that you are the product (unlike say fb).
Shameless plug here but I'm also so sick of LinkedIn that I've started building an alternative for developers by myself - https://able.bio/
Still very much alpha but the idea is to have a clean UI and allow developers to write their own insightful articles for the community to read and reward the author with reputation. Like Medium but with more specific language, library, framework topics etc. Then use that to help recruiters who can't code advertise and source candidates for technical interviews. No inbox spamming free for all, they can only contact you when you've applied for a position.
I'd be interested to know what people think of this and if they have any feedback.
> That's the literal reading at least. However since CoC violations are filtered through basically one person, personal biases will weigh heavily in how the rules are applied.
Yeah. To me, that part of the explanation read something like "we found democratic governance to be a lot of work, so we've given all our power to a dictator to make things easier for ourselves."
Democratic and consensus-based governance is hard and takes work, but there are well-understood reasons why it's a better way to run a community.
I suppose it bears some structural similarities. "You don't need to worry about X if Y." The X and Y are different, though, so as with many cases where the variables change, the relationship may or may not hold.
