全 189 件のコメント

[–]KenPopehat 46ポイント47ポイント  (8子コメント)

Nutters gonna nut.

[–]TheColourOfHeartache 33ポイント34ポイント  (36子コメント)

I saw the comments from /u/KenPopehat on your other thread. You simply don't have a legal case.

Taking the facts presented in the Popehat article as true: Chic CEO took money from two men then refused them the service promised because of their sex.

This is a different situation from XOXO giving a finite amount of discounts to people who fit diversity criteria while also charging a flat rate to people of all backgrounds.

Is this difference enough to make one illegal and the other not? IANAL but /u/KenPopehat is and he says it is enough of a difference.

[–]uxyo 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is a different situation from XOXO giving a finite amount of discounts to people who fit diversity criteria while also charging a flat rate to people of all backgrounds.

So I can give out a "white discount" to select whites while charging a flat rate to other white people? Am I allowed to do it in reverse and give higher rates to select blacks while charging others a flat rate? Seems like an easy system to abuse.

[–]Tohsakas_Anus 20ポイント21ポイント  (33子コメント)

endomorphosis is just salty as fuck that his threads don't get upvoted.

Check this for what he feels about the community, and his own role in GG.

Hint: he's trying to leaderfag.

[–]qberr 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

I WAS AT XOXO IN PERSON LAST YEAR AND CHALLENGED SARKEESIAN TO A DEBATE FACE TO FACE IF YOU WANT TO WIN HELP ME TAKE SJWS OUT IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM GO TAKE INITIATIVE AND DO SOMETHING ON YOUR OWN

lol did this really happen? anyone has vids?

[–]Tohsakas_Anus 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

No one has vids. No one has any proof that this person has accomplished any of the things he's said - beyond himself, of course.

[–]ShadistsReddit 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

but but but he's personally gotten several people fired.

[–]qberr 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

holy shit our very own bobby oliveira!

[–]Pteradidactyl [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

If you call standing outside the gate passing out sheets of paper so densely packed with crazy they look like Dr. Bronner's Soap labels, while screaming "WHY WON'T YOU DEBATE ME ANITA SARKEESIAN???" "attending xoxo" and "challenging sarkeesian to a debate", then yes, it happened.

[–]ShadistsReddit 7ポイント8ポイント  (53子コメント)

Was xoxo turning people away?

[–]sweatingbanshee 7ポイント8ポイント  (27子コメント)

He's talking about a California law about services.

There are federal employment laws that websites have to abide by. But they are not common carriers that have to serve people regardless of race, sex. etc.

[–]endomorphosis[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (26子コメント)

a website is a service, but I'm also talking about the hiring practices of reddit, which were where the "affirmative action" comes in.

[–]sweatingbanshee 8ポイント9ポイント  (25子コメント)

A publisher has first amendment rights that kind of trump anti-discrimination laws.

[–]sodiummuffin 13ポイント14ポイント  (10子コメント)

I'll just copypaste from my reply on a previous Endomorphosis post:

This thread is likely bullshit. OP is endomorphosis, for those unfamiliar he's the guy who (impossibly) claimed to be launching an internet server into space for a few thousand dollars and tried to scam GG to fund it before getting BTFO by Hotwheels. Archived thread, search down to "Admin" for Hotwheels' posts:

https://archive.is/aOEH4

He has a long history of crazy bullshit and claims to be an expert in a whole lot of different subjects, like claiming to have singlehandedly revolutionized physics and cryptography. I would take any claims from him such as this thread with a massive grain of salt, since he seems to be crazy and lies constantly. Also check out his /cow/ thread, which has highlights like him trying to steal from the opgameitforward people. See also this discussion of his attempt to rip off #opgameitforward:

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2tqnu2/gamergate_portland_meetup_friday_console_gaming/co1udmq

[–]AzraelBaneDaedric Shitlord 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you for that, literally brought tears to my eyes from laughing so damn hard "he trusts no one not even his own eyebrow" fuckin gold

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]AutoModeratorAutomated sealioness[M] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Your comment contained a link to another subreddit, and has been removed, in accordance with Rule 4.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–]mike20599 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

    This is the guy who got some SJW fired from Mozilla for violating the civil rights of men. At least give him credit for that.

    [–]sodiummuffin 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

    No, he had nothing to do with that person leaving. He made that up.

    [–]endomorphosis[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

    https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3ib84l/mozillas_fired_employee_was_fired_because_she/cuexntb

    Yep, i totally made it up, including going to their events, and reporting them to the police, when the police would arrive.

    Observe how quickly I changed the "women only" policy yesterday, after they refused me entry to their "Women Only" club. https://archive.today/3Z6e3 https://archive.today/AfGsW

    [–]Hope915 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Well at least you're willing to admit it.

    [–]FSMhelpusall 10ポイント11ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Excuse me /u/KenPopehat but I'd like to ask a question or two.

    1) What makes the law written badly? Despite implying that feminists have been using it abusively (by saying that they only noticed when one of the wrong people uses it on one of the right people, it implies that the latter has been the case many times) you give no example.

    2) How can the law be written better without falling afoul of the 14th Amendment? Surely it's not acceptable to write laws that say that "Women" only may benefit from it. Not sure how it is in the US, but EU Courts have been very clear that laws must apply equally, though enforcement is a different can of worms.

    [–]TheCodexx40k GET! 22ポイント23ポイント  (5子コメント)

    It's "badly written" because if the lawsuit is frivilous then it might still cost a defendant a ton in legal fees they can never recover. I assume the logic is "if they could counter-sue for legal fees (which no person could feasibly cover out of pocket, especially if they're being discriminated against) then they might be dissuaded from suing in the first place". The idea is to prevent fear tactics scaring off legitimate complaints. "If you lose, you're financially ruined".

    So then the only defense is for the court system to consistently throw out frivolous lawsuits. But it can't get all of them.

    How can the law be written better without falling afoul of the 14th Amendment? Surely it's not acceptable to write laws that say that "Women" only may benefit from it.

    In terms of audience, it can't be better written. It can't realistically favor any particular group without being used as a tool for one group against another. Doesn't mean it will result in fewer frivilous lawsuits, just that one group might have a harder time filing said lawsuits. You could make laws that target specific issues, for example, denial of leave for medical issues specifically related to pregnancy. Men aren't going to be taking advantage of that any time soon, but one could complain it's unfair that there isn't a similar leave for men having children or who wish to attend to their wife when she's in the hospital. Ironically, many "progressive" nations, especially in Scandinavia, offer paternity leave for this reason.

    In other words, it's not poorly written because men being discriminated against can use it. It's poorly written because it gives too much power to plaintiffs with no counter-balance or consequence for stupid lawsuits. Lawyers have a lot to gain from them and nothing to lose, because someone is paying their court fees regardless.

    If he really wants to imply it's badly written because exclusive events are okay for one group and not another, then I simply disagree. Either you can have events that discriminate on who is invited or everyone must sell tickets to all sorts of people. And like the article says, if you're worried about one group you dislike "misusing" something that is a blanket policy, then maybe the problem isn't the policy but your idea of who should be allowed to do what.

    [–]KenPopehat 16ポイント17ポイント  (1子コメント)

    This is an awfully good summary.

    1. Gives plaintiffs attorney fees if they win, but not defendants. Distorts the incentives.

    2. That is compounded by a very vague and broad definition of discrimination that doesn't exclude even de minimis (petty) violations.

    3. That's compounded by the general systemic flaw that it's easy to half-ass a case from the plaintiff's side with little or no cost, but expensive to defend effectively.

    As TheCodexx said it has nothing to do with whether or not men can use it equally.

    [–]KiltmanenatorInexperienced Irregular Folds 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I just wanted to take the opportunity to say "thanks" for writing such an informative and entertaining blog.

    And for stopping by here and demonstrating the appropriate way to deal with clowns and trolls.

    [–]KiltmanenatorInexperienced Irregular Folds 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Re: Scandinavia

    I don't there there is any reason to write "progressive" in quotes. AFAIK, it really is progressive to offer parental leave, and not just maternal leave because in countries where only maternal leave is offered, women are going to spend less time at work after having a kid. Now, that's good for mom and good for the kid, but if you're worried about social engineering and women in the workplace, etc.......only offering maternal leave is essentially subsidizing traditional gender roles. Child rearing duties more easily fall primarily on the mother, thanks to maternal leave. Parental leave (where both parents get leave, or both are offered the option of leave) makes it more likely that mom returns to work and dad shares in the child rearing.

    [–]FSMhelpusall 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I appreciate the answer, but I'd like his take on it.

    [–]DeeDoubsFounder of Kek's Giving Day 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Well, that's not entirely true. You could have women benefit from laws exclusively in the case where those laws simply don't apply to men such as issues pertaining to specific medical requirements for insurance companies and such.

    That's not discrimination though.

    [–]furluge 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Why don't you go and ask them on their blog? Ken and Clark have both been good about answering comments in my personal experience.

    [–]frankenmine/r/WerthamInAction - #ComicGate 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

    This law is specific to California. It cannot be leveraged on a federal level, or at any other state level.

    Could XOXO Festival's price discrimination be sued or convicted via some other legal avenue? Possibly. But not via this specific law.

    [–]endomorphosis[S] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Who said it it needed to?

    Oregon has similar laws on the books.

    Both ban affirmative action on a constitutional level.

    [–]frankenmine/r/WerthamInAction - #ComicGate 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

    To have any hope of a case at all, we'd need someone to have tried to buy a ticket at the reduced price, to have been denied, and to have documented the process.

    We may have missed the window of opportunity to sue this year, unless you can think of some other angle of discrimination besides the price discrimination.

    [–]endomorphosis[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I was a target from last year, so... probable cause?

    [–]frankenmine/r/WerthamInAction - #ComicGate 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm not sure what you mean by target, and probable cause will probably not be enough to secure a civil judgment. I mean, anybody can sue for anything in the US, but it helps to begin with a promising case.

    [–]ObliteratedRectum 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

    This is a dumb waste of time and nobody is going to take it seriously. Focus on things we can win.

    [–]goodreverend 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Shouldn't you be preparing an amicus brief for Marbury v. Madison

    [–]ObliteratedRectum 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Who care so? It isn't a government event. If your stupid SJW gathering for navel gazing only wants pedos, patreon beggars, and trans dwarf pan-Asian gender fluid attendees, as a libertarian, I have no problem with that. It's their event. They can have whoever they want at it, why do we give a fuck?

    [–]mnemosyne-0000#BotYourShield / https://i.imgur.com/6X3KtgD.jpg 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Archive links for this post:


    I am Mnemosyne, goddess of memory. I remember so you don't have to.

    [–]ShadowPyronic 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Gonna agree with Ken on this.

    [–]scrivenerjones 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Posting in another failed /u/endomorphosis thread.

    [–]ShadistsReddit 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Are you collecting them?

    [–]scrivenerjones 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Ten threads of incomprehensible pseudo-legal gibberish and your eleventh one's free!

    [–]TheMindUnfetteredGrand Poobah of GamerGate 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    ... why would you want the eleventh one, free or not?

    [–]ShadistsReddit 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Well we all have a skill which we can help GG with.

    [–]aetfopuc 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    He certainly is special.

    [–]DaeBixby 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

    SSL Connection error. :/

    [–]endomorphosis[S] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (8子コメント)

    its not SSL

    [–]DaeBixby 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

    I don't know what it means. It's all that Chromium tells me. :/

    [–]frankenmine/r/WerthamInAction - #ComicGate 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

    [–]DaeBixby 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Didn't work, but thanks!

    [–]frankenmine/r/WerthamInAction - #ComicGate 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Turn off HTTPS Everywhere altogether and try again. You may also have another (or an additional) extension redirecting popehat.com to its HTTPS version (it's HTTP as stated). Go through all your extensions, try to figure out which one(s) might be doing that, and turn them off for testing.

    [–]DaeBixby 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'mma try a different browser; it isn't working. Thanks a bunch for telling me what was up, but I did try that before (as the name HTTPS everywhere implied the HTTPS-lock was the problem).

    [–]DaeBixby 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I just used my phone. Disturbing read.

    [–]Anonymoose15 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Ha ha attacking him cause he called you out on your shit?

    [–]endomorphosis[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Where did he make a single statement of fact?

    [–]YESmovement 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

    A good thing I read on the webz many years ago for law writing: imagine how the biggest asshole in the world would use it on their worst enemy.

    [–]TehRawk 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

    Link is busted, you will have to repost.

    [–]endomorphosis[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

    It seems to work just fine.

    [–]TehRawk 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

    I just get "SSL connection error"

    edit:- Jesus. Down voted for trying to help you...

    [–]Ligno 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I did as well. Disable HTTPS Everywhere for popehat.com and it will work fine.

    [–]Asraised_Bymom 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    This. HTTPS Everywhere go crazy some times.

    [–]TehRawk 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Ah, that is it all right. Good sleuthing.

    [–]minecraftimous 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Double Edged Swords.

    I love the law.