A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Things That Make You Go Hmmm (part 3647)

The list of Greatest Hits for my very favorite Really Awful Political Candidate keeps growing.  In a discussion about the GOP war on women, a political gadfly once again tried to derail the discussion by calling President Bill Clinton a rapist.  ~yawn~  What perked up my interest, however, was a comment from candidate Norma Duffy (slogan: Fuck off and get a life!)  It was typically reactionary, and full of her trademark mangling of the written word.  She wrote:

Ah Ingy, let’s just say there were no victims in the Clinton /Lewinsky thing. She was an immature sleaze( yes a woman can call another a sleaze, but a man shouldn’t) who had done this sort of thing before and President Clinton was an Testosterone accident looking to happen.

Let's just disregard, for a moment, that men have "Testosterone accidents" (I think I've only really had those while sleeping, and it's kind of embarrassing), and the implication that women's sexual desire is simply an 'estrogen accident' .?.   The part that stands out is the claim that women can call each other "a sleaze", but a "testosterone accident" prone man shouldn't.  Hmmm.

Now, it could be the case she was alluding to the idea that the term can rightly be used ironically or as a bridge of conspiratorial comradery, the way that some folks use "nigga" or how girlfriends might call each other a 'slut' or 'bitch' in fun.  But that's not the manner in which Norma Duffy used it.  She referred to Monica Lewinski in purely judgmental terms as a "sleaze", a mark of shame for desiring sex with a man who is attractive, powerful and receptive.  By extension, it was okay that Ann Coulter referred to Sandra Fluke as a slut, but not that Rush Limbaugh did so.  Hmmmm.

My response was inquisitive:

This is only tangentially related to the topic, but someday, just once, I’d love to read you posting a moral, or even rational, foundation for such idiocy, Norma.

It is my bad for calling her pronouncement "idiocy".  After all, it's possible that she did have a moral and/or rational reason for why women can judge other women's sexuality and men "shouldn't".  After all, we don't have 'estrogen accidents' the way women do.  Ms. Duffy's response was - disappointing.  Certainly not moral and absolutely not reasonable.

And then we Hear from the Righteous Man who continually believes he is better at knowing a woman’s definitions about others, then the woman herself.

So, apparently, I was wrong to even ask for a definition.  Two things:

This kind of bullshit is what makes it very very difficult for men to get involved in the ideal and cause of feminism, or be accepted if we already are.  There are apparently some unwritten rules which we aren't even allowed to ask about.  (that isn't typical of most women who espouse feminism, but very typical of RAPC Duffy.)

If I were Jeffrey Welborn, I would publicize this comment from Norma Duffy widely across Beaverhead County.  I'm certain every voter who believes in gender equality would love to know that, as a legislator, Norma would reserve to herself the right to decide what you are allowed to think and questioning what she thinks is merely 'sexism', if you are prone to testosterone accidents, of course.

Hmmmmm.

No Wonder She Supports Max

I honestly think I have encountered the funniest comment ever online.  Norma Duffy, famous for her electoral battle cry of "fuck off and get a life", thinks she has grant of right over online comments.  Her dictate:

"I can’t and won’t give you permission to add your addled Bull shit reasoning to my comments."

I don't remember the last time I've laughed that hard at an online comment.  Seriously.  Permission?  Online?  Really?

Programming Notes

1)  Left In The West lives.  No, I'm not the one posting, nor should that influence participation.  It might be at least polite to say hello to Carla Augustad.

2)  I have a fantasy football league that will be hella fun.  The general scoring is set to be prolific.  I've altered the scoring to punish bad play, and have included a whole lot of defensive aptitude.  We're lookng for about 3 more 'team owners'.  If you have an interest just for fun's sake, let me know.  My email addy is easy to find.

3)  The most viewed post I've exposed to the wild in the last 3 years is the post where Stoya has an orgasm.   It's funny to me how many lefty folk claim that ignoring me is wise, and yet their IP addresses seem to have viewed that post.  ~heh~.

5 More Ways That Diablo III Is Better Than Diablo 2.

I know that a lot of this stuff is familiar to those who play WOW.  I don't.  So, to me, a lot of this is kind of like "wow".

1)  Story.  The storyline is just plain more rich in detail and import.  Let's face it.  In D 2, you chased a bad guy across contrived geography so that you could waste the big bad guys. That's like playing the Japanese army against Gojira.   In D III, the end goal is the same, of course.  That's what has driven the fantasy narrative since the Epic of Gilgamesh.  But the story of how you get to the Final Conflict is so much more interesting.

2)  Checkpoints.  In D 2, if you died, you resurrected in whatever town you left on your quest from sans any of your goods.  You had to restart the game, find your corpse to re-equip your gear and then you had to work your way back to whatever spot got you kilt in the first place.  In D III, there are frequent checkpoints, places where you resurrect with all your stuff albeit a tad weaker.  No, neither of those is 'realistic', an argument I've actually heard.  But the D 2 method is just the grist for grind.  The D III method actually advances the game, and enhances how much the player enjoys it.

3)  Non-Player Characters.  In D 2, you could hire folk to tag along on your missions and 'help you'.  Frankly, I found myself spending as much time trying to keep their happy asses alive as I did my own.  In D III, you actually get to make decisions about who and what you want tagging along with you.  I've already made a few bad ones, but that adds to the game.  Not once have I found myself trying to save an NPC before myself.

4)  Bad guys.    The monsters are much more dynamic in D III.  They actually have many levels of difficulty, even among the same critter or tribe of critters.

5)  Inferno will break me.  In D 2, there really simply wasn't that much to look forward to except a whole lot more grind and simple strategy of leveling up.  That Jon tells me I will be broken in D III just tells me that I have something to really look forward to.  When i reach it with either character, I might post again then.

This is Erotic

That should mean, adults only.

 

The back story:

Stoya's tale of the event.

5 Ways in Which Diablo III is Better Than Diablo 2

1)  Hugely magical weapons are not just 'given' to you.  Yes, the game provides good arms for you to use in your quests, but it's up to you to find (create) the best of the best.

2)  You don't have to be a total bad-ass to achieve a goal.  The marriage of goals to skills is superior in this version of the game.  In Diablo 2, if you wanted to enjoy success, you had to to fight big bad bosses which meant achieving an appropriate level of experience.  In Diablo III, you get the joy of victory at most stages, even if you aren't at the level that game design decided before hand that you should be.  Which leads me to ..

3)  In Diablo 2, the default tactic was run away and let the bad guys chase you so that you could slay them one on one.  That's tiresome.  In D III, you actually get rewarded for playing to character.  In the two characters I have played so far, the strategies for victory are different.  But the rewards are the same for playing to character.    A Barbarian actually gets plus experience for wading into a slaughter when the smart money of game control says run away and let them chase you.  No.  The fun is in playing to type, and being rewarded for doing so.  A Barbarian is better used and actually favored for wading into hopeless battle just to kill every MoFo in the area.  My Demon Hunter is rewarded for thwarting every MoFo in the area.  If it's not the same character, it shouldn't involve the same tactics.  D III got that right.

4)  You actually have a role to play in the story as it unfolds.  The story is the same (no spoilers.)  But you, as a player, have an engaged and important role to play, unlike Diablo 2 where you were a tool that had to fulfill your function just so that what was predeclared would happen.   Put more distinctly ...

5)  No damned grind.  You are always doing something of import save just leveling up.  If you're killing things and smashing objects just to get gold or experience so that you might one day be important, then you are grinding.  That's boring.  As a player, all you are thinking is "how long do I have to do this until I actually get to play the game?"  That's not so much, or at all, with Diablo III.  Killing bad guys by smash or shooting or spell is not just making your avatar on the screen 'better' so that something good might happen later.  The writers have written goals into almost every effort.  When you play D III there is almost always something you want beyond just being able to kill the next bad guy so you can get good enough to get to the very next bad guy.