X.Org Women Outreach Program Only Turns Up Two Applicants So Far

[blackout23]

Everyone should use systemd

[anda_skoa]

You must be a female.... but I'll bite.

If you were hoping for an easy "you don't know what it is like", I have to disappoint you.
I do know what I am talking about and I do understand why you think what you are thinking as I have been there myself.

There's no artificial need for aggression. It's a real need.

There is no natural need for aggression
It does sometimes look like that but this is because is that it is one of the few emotionally driven outlets that society allows us.
If one doesn't restrict himself to these artifical limits, it becomes quickly apparent that aggression is not only unnecessary but also a very ineffective form of emotional stress relieve.

There's no artificial need for wanting to have sex and/or intimacy with females (or males). It's a real need.

You are misunderstanding my point.
Obviously there is natural need, however there is artificial greed on top of that, greed that we have been trained into us.
Also hard to recognize since one is told that it is a need. Once you've discovered that it is not, it really stands out when you compare it to the actual need.

At our core, whether you "like" this.... or not, call it "artificial" or not... this is who men are.

Nope.

Your 'artificial' comment was also addressed in my post- it is God's morals that guide this primal nature, or else we'd be no different than animals.

Humans, as a species, have evolved beyond instinct based decision making.
Not following an instinct driven urge does not require any mental effort, otherwise we would constantly have to battle the urge to flee when someone lights a match.

If they are not... bad things happen.

Really?
Self combustion maybe?

Games...with stereotypes of women, bad as it may sound, are just that - games.

Sure, but as a part of our culture they are a valid topic for analysis and criticism, just like movies, books, paintings, etc.

Do these games invite a certain type of behavior that will spill over in real life - which is what Anita contends? Yes they do. And I don't deny it. The boundary between real life and games is clear, and the responsibility of those who play games with the tropes Anita is referring to lies with the person. Not the game. Not the environment.

Obviously, but pointing out these things is still valid as an analysis and related criticism.
Also because it is often used unnecessarily.

You are correct - she does not say she dislikes men. However, she strongly implies it, or else why would she be going through the lengths that she does to "criticize certain aspects" of games?

How does that imply dislike of men in general. I would say it is a dislike of bad job certain story line writers do.

If someone analyses restaurant food and finds overuse of certain ingredients and criticises that, does this imply that this person hates all humans (assuming that the respective cooks in questions have been humans)?

Yes, she makes valid points in her arguments - none of which will ever obviate the need for men to be men, however crude that may seem to you.

Sorry, no.
I understand that it is hard to believe if you haven't reached that point in life yet when you discover the real you, but once you do, you have a hard time believing that it wasn't obvious all the way back.

Cheers,
_

[MartinN]

There is no natural need for aggression

Then why are the games that have aggression in them the most popular ones? Aggression is a need. A need to assert ourselves as being right.. as being little "gods", demi-gods. To get our way. To win. To be right, almost at any cost. You just proved it. I am stating it as it is - and you seem to disagree. I find that very funny.

Yeah..Anita "doesn't hate men". She just loves herself a tad too much.

[Luke_Wolf]

Then why are the games that have aggression in them the most popular ones? Aggression is a need. A need to assert ourselves as being right.. as being little "gods", demi-gods. To get our way. To win. To be right, almost at any cost. You just proved it. I am stating it as it is - and you seem to disagree. I find that very funny.

Yeah..Anita "doesn't hate men". She just loves herself a tad too much.

Anda is actually half right here, aggression isn't a need, it's an outlet for stress relief, as well as a reactionary behavior against those who we believe wronged us. However it is not strictly speaking a path you need to take. On the other hand conflict and aggression/violence are very interesting subjects to the human mind as well as being exciting. Which is why most stories, movies, and games are about conflicts whether it's people stirring up drama in soap operas or a guy going postal, humans are in love with conflict. That said it's a nicety not a necessity and there's plenty of things that aren't conflict driven like raising a dog, learning new things, going out camping and exploring nature, or building stuff.

That said are conflict-free activities better than conflict-based activities? Not necessarily, conflict often times creates the impetus required for us to grow and better ourselves, and push past limits we never knew we could.
To wit:

Consider also for a moment the immune system, if an immune system is never challenged it will be weak and a person could very well die from the common cold, whereas being in an environment where the immune system is often under attack allows us to consider them an annoyance as opposed to a life threatening problem.

[nils_]

Anda is actually half right here, aggression isn't a need, it's an outlet for stress relief, as well as a reactionary behavior against those who we believe wronged us.

Animals never wronged us, but we still kill them to feed ourselves. I'd count that as aggression.

[Luke_Wolf]

Animals never wronged us, but we still kill them to feed ourselves. I'd count that as aggression.

Well yes, our consumpution of any living organism (Including plants) can technically be counted as aggression towards another living being. That said it completely misses what's being gotten at, that kind of aggression against plants and animals is based in the need for food not the desire for conflict, and most people prefer to have someone else take care of it for them as opposed to mucking their hands up doing the gardening or slaughtering themselves which ultimately makes eating for such final consumers a conflict-free activity as no aggression is being asserted on their part nor does any of the conflict touch them.

Now that said, yes there are individuals out there who do happen to enjoy the conflict of putting themselves against animals or nature, we call these hunters and farmers, Is there anything objectively wrong with their actions? As long as the hunter is going after herbivores, and the farmer is neither exhausting his fields or becoming so greedy as to result in situations that would be animal cruelty or environmentally harmful, not really no. Man can foist morality about all day but in the end what really matters is whether the individuals are operating in compliance with the rules of the system and thus acting in a sustainable fashion. I will tell you one thing though, stopping the consumption of animals would result in the complete extinction of the earth, that may sound like a bit of an extreme statement but it's 100% correct, Because herbivore populations grow at an explosive rate (almost like you know... they were designed to be killed and eaten), they need to be killed to keep them in check. Because in that system everyone is all kumbaya and not killing each other the number of herbivores will quickly become larger than the planet can sustain and rather shortly it'll become a barren wasteland which means that everyone starves to death. Whether you like it or not, regardless of whatever morals you might want to have or not, it is a duty thrust upon us and all other carnivore and omnivore species to keep them in check to prevent this from happening.

[profoundWHALE]

Well yes, our consumpution of any living organism (Including plants) can technically be counted as aggression towards another living being. That said it completely misses what's being gotten at, that kind of aggression against plants and animals is based in the need for food not the desire for conflict, and most people prefer to have someone else take care of it for them as opposed to mucking their hands up doing the gardening or slaughtering themselves which ultimately makes eating for such final consumers a conflict-free activity as no aggression is being asserted on their part nor does any of the conflict touch them.

Well, personally I think I would only be able to kill and eat a puppy while I was aggressive.

[Luke_Wolf]

Well, personally I think I would only be able to kill and eat a puppy while I was aggressive.

Since when were dogs herbivores?

[gsmith]

These projects need to be forked, they're not the same thing they were a few years ago. They've been taken over by SJWs

[johnc]

These projects need to be forked, they're not the same thing they were a few years ago. They've been taken over by SJWs

SJWs have taken over everything.