You know what, since anyone who is reading this thread clearly loves train wrecks, I'm going to go ahead and just continue to call Crissa on her bullshit.
Let's look at both my posts in the thread where I "Encouraged other posters to drive women away, I mean, cheered Roy on while he drove women away, well, a woman, well, not because of her gender, well, he was attacking her because she likes 4e, not because she's a women, and he wasn't driving her away."
First post:
Kaelik wrote:Wow, I've never seen such a huge dick in my life.
You are so full of Strawmen that I can only assume you actually shit actual straw.
And to say it all with that condescending tone as you lie through your teeth. It's simply amazing.
Okay, so here I:
1) Call someone a dick.
2) Point out that they are Strawmanning.
3) Point out their condescending tone.
4) Call them a liar.
Now, why do I call them a dick and liar? Is it because of their gender? No, it seems to be because I disagree with their claims about what Denners are actually arguing.
Second Post, bold added now to make a point and prove even more how stupid Crissa is:
Kaelik wrote:violence in the media wrote:3. You state that you got great ideas about how to divvy up treasure parcels by delving the forums here after staking out your position as an immersive roleplayer? Are you fucking kidding me? What the hell is wrong with you?
I believe
his actual point is that the rules* don't say you can't include stuff not on the list** and so therefore all the stuff that we complained the rules don't actually let you pick up***
he is going to include in treasure parcels. PROVING US ALL WRONG!!!111one11!!1
In other words: "The rules don't say you can't so you can."
*AKA the list of appropriate treasures to give
** Well technically they don't. They also don't say you can't make up your own Wizard powers that do 400d6 damage on an at will. But they do say you can pick your Wizard powers from the appropriate lists, and they do say you can pick treasure parcels from the appropriate lists.
*** Because they don't
So here I attempt to rephrase the person's argument, and in the process, mock it, because it's a terrible argument.
Also, I seem to be under the impression they are male.
So what can we determine from this:
Things Kaelik did not do:
1) Drive away women.
2) Drive away a woman.
3) Encourage other people to drive away women.
4) Encourage other people to drive away a woman.
5) Cheer Roy on while he drove away women.
6) Cheer Roy on while he drove away a woman.
7) Cheer Roy on at all.
Things Kaelik did do:
1) Address the flaws in someone's argument.
2) Call that person a liar and dick.
Now, I'm going to go out on a limb and say with some certainty that we can tell from these posts that I would have responded identically to a male making these posts.
So now that we know that literally everything Crissa claimed I did earlier is false:
Crissa, how does me insulting both the arguments and personage of a male poster demonstrate male privilege?
You have three options here:
1) Not answer this question, because you are wrong, and you know it.
2) Answer the fucking question, so I can mock your stupid answer, and everyone else can see what stupid lengths you will go to to label anything or one you don't like sexist or male privilege.
3) Attempt to sideline away from answering this question because you know you are wrong. The most obvious one that you would normally attempt would be to claim that the fact that I assumed the poster to be male demonstrates my male privilege, but since I am specifically calling it out, you should probably pick something else, since I am already prepared for that sideline.
