• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About StepStark

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,316 profile views
  1. But I did no such thing. There is nothing in my posts that says or even suggests that. That's just you reading into it. Thanks for explaining myself to me... Now please try not to do that any more, so I can leave in peace. This is rich coming from a moderator who has no problem with other people calling me "idiot" and other names and accusing me of immoral things I never said in any way.
  2. Well you seem very certain that you'd see it or recognize it, and that you know what women are really going through. I guess that it's based on two things: 1) because you're a woman yourself and that makes you think that you understand women better than I as a man could, and 2) because you're familiar with and believe in the dominant liberal-feminist narrative of today. Point number one is not without base because I do think that women understand other women much better than men do. But it goes both ways because men understand other men better than women do. In that sense, expecting that feminists can understand what's wrong with men and how can they be corrected would be just like expecting a male chauvinist to understand what's wrong with women and how can they be corrected. Point number two is not for this thread obviously. To tell you honestly, I'm not even interested in discussing it here, seeing how much hostility there is toward anyone who challenges that narrative. Again and again it shows that liberals and feminists are much less tolerant toward opposing opinions than conservatives. That's probably because you think you have the right to, because you yourself feel victimized or because you think you're speaking of someone who's been victim. What saddens me the most is that such a feeling is usually based on some statistics ("almost all women were victims of sexual assaults") that are questionable at best. Seeing how upset you all were with my posts, I'll leave the discussion, because with that much hostility it's not a discussion actually.
  3. But they do with you?
  4. I don't think that discussing things on a forum is something to be proud of, so no I'm not proud of myself because of what I'm posting here, but I'm also not ashamed of anything I posted here. You on the other hand seem to be quite proud of what you're posting. That's probably the only explanation of your ability to accuse me of being insulting and condescending, while at the same time you're asking me questions like that one, or asking me why did I even join the discussion and what is my goal in it. If anything, you just proved that you have no tolerance for opinions you disagree with. That makes your opinions pretty worthless in my eyes, and that makes any discussion with you even more so. Goodbye.
  5. If that satisfies definitions you adhere to, then I'm pretty sure that women are as guilty (or almost as guilty) as men. I'm in late thirties and it happened to me quite a few times that I express to a girl that I'm not interested but she continues to hit on me. It happened to every one of my friend and colleagues as well. And of course all of us were "guilty" of the same thing, because sometimes we do/did continue with hitting on even after we're told that she's not interested. Most usually it resulted in an embarrassment for the person who'd continue to hit on (whether it's a man or a woman). Rarely it resulted in success, because the target actually changed his/her mind. But I don't know a single case where it resulted in any sexual violence. Now of course, I'm not speaking for the entire gender. Of course that sometimes things like that go too far and someone gets really hurt. But if it was as often as people here are saying, I'd definitely see something like that at least once, especially considering that I happen to know quite a lot of people due top my profession and that my social circle is bigger than average.
  6. That's as closeminded as it comes, sorry to say.
  7. If you really think that, then you're probably in the wrong species. Because if you're right, that would mean that for thousands and thousands of years and civilization men still didn't learn how to respect women. But that would also mean that great many women also didn't learn how to respect women, because the vast majority of those women-hurting men had mothers and other female influence in their childhood and still grew into women-hurting machines. I happen to have an alternate explanation. I don't think women in general are as mistreated as you say. But some undoubtedly are and precisely by people like Harvey Weinstein. If you think you're helping them by throwing all those ridiculous accusation against men and against thousands of years of human civilization, you're not. Quite the opposite. But if "female anger" makes you feel better, go on. I won't be in your way any more. If I ever was at all.
  8. "Facts" you're quoting here are ridiculous. I don't live in USA and never have been there, but I happen to know quite a few people from there and I don't know anyone who'd agree with your statistics that "almost every woman experiences sexual assault" (whether by a man or another woman). In Europe where I live in, and I traveled throughout it, that is definitely not the case. Vast majority of women never experienced sexual assault. Almost every one of them experienced inappropriate approaching and hitting, but that is another matter. Not to equalize the two but I'll just say that almost every men experienced inappropriate response to appropriate approaching. But even that is not the point. Let's say that you are right and that I'm wrong, and that almost every woman indeed experienced sexual assault by a man. That would mean that decades and decades (or even centuries) of modern education simply failed, and failed miserably, and created society that is evil in its core. If you think that more of the same (education) can solve that, I think you're in for quite a disappointment. And also, if you really think that my post was about "hurting some male feelings", then I'm sorry but you're doing the very mansplaining only in the opposite direction.
  9. You're discussing something not with powerful Hollywood rapists, but with other posters. But you think that "female anger" in this thread should not only be acceptable but also seen as significant. No wonder I "genuinely don't understand" such a position.
  10. If I needed just one good example of what is wrong with the dominating liberal culture of today, then "don't rape" education for boys would be it. Effectively it's saying among other things that sexual violence is inherently associated with men and possibly even that all men are prone to sexual violence if not educated against it. It puts boys into drastic choice: either accept the premise that men are inherently prone to sexual violence if not educated against it, and by doing that also start with the rejecting of manhood in it's essence, OR rebel against such education which in that age pretty much means that those boys will probably grow into angry outcasts.
  11. But it is for men to be told the same? Someone should be told to be nicer and less angry if he/she is not nice and acting very angry. Gender doesn't have anything to do with it. Perhaps someone was told to be nicer and less angry not because she's a woman, but because she was acting in a way that wasn't nice and was very angry.
  12. Many fanboys are actually more talented than D&D and when they try to "explain" plot holes from the show they usually come up with better stories than what was actually shown on screen. Sorry to say but you're definitely not one of them. I remember the time when talking about certain book meant that you actually read it and really tried to understand it.
  13. LOL!!! I need to tone it down? This is hilarious, really. Do I need to remind you that you were the one who introduced the arrogance and rudeness into this conversation. "I don't think you understand what really makes the show popular" - does that sound familiar to you? If you're so sensitive about other people's replies, then maybe you shouldn't strawman and nitpick (you're doing both!) their posts. That scene is all kinds of stupid. And you think you're going to make it look better if you nitpick my complaint? LOL!!! You know what, okay, let's say it wasn't shocking. Happy now? But it was still insanely stupid. Jon's uncle appears literally out of nowhere to save Jon and then die: it doesn't even matter if they wanted it to be shocking or something else, it's monumentally stupid. LOL!!! Out of nowhere? Are you saying that Brienne's face getting bitten off was supposed to be hinted at previously? That that moment was supposed to be built-up? And same for Ramsay's bestiality? Seriously? I see that you're obviously confused so let me try to clear some things for you. Brienne getting bitten has to be "out of nowhere" because in good storytelling and real life things like that happen really happen "out of nowhere". It comes "out of nowhere" in the same way Jorry's death comes "out of nowhere" in the first novel, or like Tyrion losing his nose comes "out of nowhere" in the second novel, or like The Hound getting "fatally" wounded at the inn in the third novel. It is the nature of physical confrontations: they are nasty and sometimes people are really hurt beyond repair. What matters is that the confrontation itself doesn't come "out of nowhere" and that it isn't resolved by some "out of nowhere" moment. Seeing that Brienne is going through confrontations pretty much in her entire storyline it's hardly "out of nowhere" that she's hurt beyond repair in one of those. And for what it's worth, at least she's bitten by Biter, who doesn't carry that name for nothing. As for Ramsay, I'm not really sure what is your problem with that. Given how sadistic he is, it's hardly surprising that he's willing to humiliate his wife like that, but actually his bestiality is only hinted at and it's never described, so I really don't get what you're trying to say here. Seeing how nitpicky you were about my examples of "out of nowhere", it's funny that you came up with these two which have nothing to do with what we discussed. "Out of nowhere" would be if Brienne was miraculously saved by someone whose whereabouts were completely unknown up to that moment. "Out of nowhere" would be if Jeyne Pool was saved in the last second by someone who was secretly hiding inside Winterfell all that time. Do you understand the difference now? Another strawman argument. It's not that something was invented for the show, but that is was monumentally stupid. If your'e such a big fanboy that you can't even realize what's wrong with Benjen saving Jon that way, that's your right of course, but mental gymnastics doesn't help your case. And please spare me the reverse scenario. If Martin wrote a stupid story, and D&D adapted it into something brilliant, then I'd be celebrating D&D and bashing Martin. But that didn't happen. It's the opposite: Martin wrote a brilliant story, and D&D adapted it into something stupid. I'm pretty sure that even religions require less faith than what you're saying here. If I allow myself to be saved by D&D, I'll be able to enjoy the show, right? It's not Catch-22, it's the biggest fanboyism I've ever seen, honestly.
  14. The only thing here that doesn't make sense is you posting without thinking it through first. And you do that a lot and this is not our first rodeo of that kind. You misinterpret someone else's post and make a ridiculous assumption and then you write a lengthy "reply" to that assumption which never existed in the first place. You wrote this for what exactly? What in my post lead you to think that you need to write this? This refers to what? This corresponds to what from my post? I'm dying to find out. In fact, it looks like you had a nervous reaction to my post without even thinking about it, or maybe even reading it through. You assumed that I have something against shocking moments. Guess what, I don't. In fact, that's one of the reasons I like ASOIAF. Nothing in my post suggests that I have problem with shocking moments in principal. I have a problem with the way shock is achieved in GOT and I elaborated on it enough so that nobody thinks that I have problem with shock in principal. And yet you managed to misunderstand everything. Congratulations. Are you for real? You're the one misunderstanding things left and right, but you nevertheless find it necessary to lecture other people on something that's basically a common knowledge? You really don't think that anyone with at least half of a brain can figure out what makes the show popular? Seriously? A ghost of a Japanese schoolgirl may make more sense than Benjen appearing literally out of nowhere to save Jon. Or Bronn appearing also out of nowhere (though unlike Benjen at least he was involved in the battle up to that point) to save Jaime from Drogon in the last possible moment. Or armies constantly surprising other armies. Ghosts are necessary in ghost movies. But in what genre is necessary to have something as ridiculous as Benjen arriving just in time to save Jon? Again, a very wrong example because Freddy Kruger operates in dreams, so if he was to harm Jon then Jon actually wouldn't wake up. Do you even understand what internal logic actually means? Freddy killing someone in a dream is following internal logic. Benjen appearing out of nowhere follows no logic at all. This is so disingenuous. Shocking moments in GOT can't compare even to cheap horror flicks like Freddy Kruger. Even ghosts of Japanese schoolgirls have more logic than GOT's shocking moments. But you think that D&D are keeping it with the books? Have you even read the books, or are you just one of those people who read summary on internet and pretend they've read the novels?
  15. Speaking of condescension... But if you insist, yes, I am aware that music can be important for different reasons in film/television. But that is not what we were talking about, wasn't it? We were talking about Game Of Thrones and there music is used for one reason only: to create atmosphere, or more precisely to create something D&D think is atmosphere (preparing viewers to be in the right emotional state). Is there any other way the music is important for GOT?