hakase

They're not "just" misandrist; that is to say, they definitely have good reasons for existing outside of misandry, and I'm glad that they can provide that space for the people who need it. It's also certainly not inherently misandrist to be queer or woman oriented.

In the case of Lemmy, though, yes, all of the queer and women oriented instances are very clearly also misandrist. Openly and proudly so, in fact. Your comments here are an excellent, though comparatively mild, example of that.

I knew someone from one of the misandry instances would chime in to prove my point, so thanks! ^_^

Bravo! Spoken like a true feminist, the last bastion of gender equality!

You could have listened to me, sympathized, and told me my misandrist experience is valid, but, then again, that's a privilege reserved for women experiencing misogyny, isn't it? Wouldn't be very feminist of you to acknowledge just how widespread misandry is among feminists, eh?

Of course, but with some more equal than others, as my outspoken feminist boss demonstrated earlier this week. She insisted that feminist research into matriarchal societies had proven beyond a doubt that women govern better than men can, and that if we would just replace all men in power with women the US's problems would practically solve themselves. This was one day after complaining to me about how unreliable her male coworkers were, and how you can really only rely on women when you want something taken care of.

Feminists truly are beacons of equality.

You must not have been very good at geometry proofs in high school. Even though yes, both are true at the same time, one can't know that initially because one leads to the other. Descartes couldn't conclude that he was thinking until he had concluded that he was doubting.

Came here to say Civ IV

Jokes aside, this is kinda the opposite of Descartes' point. He was doubting everything, and that included his own existence.

In fact, literally the only thing he could be sure of was that he was doubting, not that he was thinking, which is why it's so weird to me that everyone leaves off the first part of the idea, since it's arguably the most important part.

Dubito, ergo cogito. Cogito, ergo sum.

I doubt, therefore I think. I think, therefore I am.

I could not stand The Stand. It was an absolute slog from start to finish.

Being psychologically manipulated into continuing to play a game that I wouldn't otherwise certainly doesn't sound very enjoyable and rewarding, but that may just be me.

I avoid achievements specifically because video games are supposed to be enjoyable and rewarding. A game should succeed or fail on its merit alone, not how well it plays the manipulative achievement metagame.

Imo this mindset is everything wrong with video games today.