Wikipedia editors consider Buzz-feed a reliable source, I repeat wikipedia editors consider Buzz-feed a reliable source. They're gonna call the #GG page ''Gamergate Harassment Campaign'' lol : http://www.reaxxion.com/8848/wikipedia-to-rename-gamergate-page-to-gamergate-harassment-campaign
I'm sorry to report, but the hipster is strong in this Wikipedia bullying campaign, so yah, lets wait to see ABC providing reliable information to Fox News!

If you think the no-fun brigade are just going after Gamergate, think again.
But of special interest, look at the comments...of course our neo-fem friends will probably claim they are all Gamergaters or "the Patriarchy"...
http://mashable.com/2015/05/05/jeremy-renner-black-widow-slut-conan/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_520606&utm_cid=mash-synd-zergnet

I didn't watch that new video but I thought that the first one was just 2 guys blowing off steam and trying to lighten the mood because they were probably exhausted by a long and boring press junket answering the same questions again and again, having to sound perky and fresh, like it was the first time they'd been asked, constantly for hours on end

I think the whole thing is making something out of nothing and blowing stuff out of proportion, to be honest

- there that's confused you hasn't it?

Sums up most SJW protests and outrages

Some additional concerns:
Why don't SJWs rage against real persecution of LGBTQ people?
Why do SJWs think they are fit to decide what everyone else can see if they can't handle something like a rape scene in a TV show and doing so disturbs their mental equilibrium into such a tizzy as for them to get so distressed as has happened in the The MarySue GoT thingy or the Quiet action figure outrage? If they are so easily set off, they're not good for society, and that's a fact. Its like putting a rabid monkey in charge of the drinking water supply.

Exactly. They live in an echoing bubble of groupthink where they are only exposed to what they perceive as correct. They have become so used to the media supporting their actions and in their mind, making them credible (but actually just being sensationalist and greedy) that they have gotten used to being heard, being taken seriously, and having their thoughts and actions seen as better than others. They are privileged and are set off when their authority, which they believe to be theirs is challenged. So IMO, SJWs are the most privileged group of bigots who use their waning credibility to hold on to the importance they perceive as self-value that was given to them by the mainstream media and its brainwashed audience, and exceed in exploiting their entitlement more than the SWM and other S_Ms of the world.
/Satire based on SJLogic

No low rated and still down on rep? What gives? Is dis Dark Souls or just Flappy Bird you idiots? Anyhow, good to see you're self censoring and trying to hide evidences of the dubfuckery of your cult, from what I hear; yellow-media will only last so long. If only your brain power was half of your finger power..........

I think you lose rep for the amount of 'minuses' you get overall while an individual posts gets 'low rated' after a certain amount of de-reps soo.. you must be getting enough minuses overall to lose rep without any individual post getting enough minuses to be 'low rated' which is like a tight-rope walking feat in itself!
Unlike me how gets 'low rated' all the time and haemorrhages rep like a stuck pig, although I AM a troll, after all, apparently *rolls eyes in sickenly Sarkessianesque way*

So some transgender dolphin must to be downrepping every post I make. Kinda creepy and very stalker-like to hunt down and harass me like this. But the downrepper isn't to blame. Its just a poor retard poisoned by the patriarchy. Anyhow, I'm trying to increase rep-talk tolerance. Anyone willing to bleed can join in.

I'm already quixotic enough...

1.) I'm not sure about you, but fully-functional humans can maintain multiple stances at once and act upon many of them simultaneously.
In short: People are angry about more than one injustice. If you don't see it expressed constantly, that might be because it's tiring or not relevant to the particular subject.
(ie: "BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE QUEERS YOU LOVE?" isn't a rebuttal to "This thing is shitty and sexist".
It's a non sequitur.)

2.) You mean the fact that the TV adaptation of a book series that is thoroughly mauling the canon and including rape scenes that were not in the books and being rather voyeuristic about it?
Or, y'know, the fact that some people have actually experienced sexual assault & don't appreciate that sort of treatment of it?
Or is it the fact some people might like the setting & characters but have zero interest in the excessive focus on rape?
Even for Game of Thrones, the incident to which you're referring was gratuitous.
Is the 'artistic integrity' of non-canon rape scenes really the hill you want to die on?

Seriously.
You see people being strongly affected by rape as somehow irrational.
Is that what you're saying here? Because quite frankly that's bloody silly.

Note:
If you were to put a rabid monkey in charge of the drinking water supply, you would have to hire someone new in less than a month.
(Monkeys die pretty damn quickly from rabies.)
[Also, a rabid creature displaying all of the typical symptoms would in fact not be anywhere near a drinking water supply due to the hydrophobia.]
{Not that any of the above would necessarily be any worse than the current mismanagement of water supplies, which I don't believe was the point you were making a pitifully weak attempt at pushing.}

Since there appears to be a distinct lack of any moderation whatsoever and that RW person seemed to get a free pass...
Go fuck yourself.

"They want r*pe to get more attention" is fucking farcical. Beyond farcical even.
Its farcicality is excessive to the point that no living being may possibly even conceive of the true extent of its farcical nature.
Oh, and it's also a really shitty fucking scummy thing to say about a group of people whose reaction tends to actually stem from having experienced sexual assault (including rape).

How about recognising that there's a massive fucking difference between 'Those who have experienced sexual assault need greater support' and a fucking rape scene in a TV show renowned for its focus on naked women and sex.
Or is that too great a fucking cognitive feat for you to accomplish that you must resign yourself to maintaining dissonance and making ridiculous assertions with no basis in reality?

(& seriously. 'Hyperventilation' is your fucking definitive symptom for PTSD? Really?
Don't know how bloody many people you know with PTSD, but I'd actually be willing to bet it's somewhere in the region of fucking zero.)

Bonus points:
Medication does fuck all for PTSD.
Most people with PTSD (or related disorders) that can access therapy are going through therapy.
This thread is funnily e-fucking-nough not about shitting on those with mental illnesses, nor is it remotely related to dismissing the mentally ill or disabled people on the basis of their affliction as if it makes them less important.
So mayyybe you could try not being a shriveled sphincter demonstrating complete ignorance of both mental illness and the medical treatment thereof.


Oh, and of course the nail in the proverbial coffin of your stupendous shitstreak of a stance:
Most people with PTSD aren't asking that shit be banned or censored or anything of the sort.
They just want some fucking respect and tend to figure that a warning might be nice.
(Although of course some people would like particularly shitty treatment of sensitive issues to go the fuck away, but that's in the approximate realm of wanting actual literal Nazis to fuck off too.
It's of no benefit to anyone and merely furthers harm to already-suffering subsections of society.

Again: Is rape really the fucking hill people want to die on?
Because I honestly can't see how defending shitty writing that relies overly much on the shock value of abuse & rape is going to reflect well on anyone.)


Oh, and one final 'protip' :
CRITICISM IS NOT CENSORSHIP.
Free speech, etc.
Something something free markets.
(Libertarians and Republicans love that shit, right?
Except, apparently, when the market doesn't do as they'd like and complains that things are shit and should stop being shit or suffer appropriate consequences like complete and utter failure.)
Blatant lies.
You have a positive rep'. :P

In the book Bolton rapes and abuses Jeyne a girl of Winterfell who was passed off as Arya Stark. The only change the TV show made was to change the character raped. Also its a TV show the entire point is to be voyeuristic.

The entire show has been dark and violent from season 1. Rapes happen in the books and in the show. I find it silly that this rape is suddenly an issue. Is it because a main character got raped? Is it because the pretty girl got raped? Why is this rape so much worse than all the others?

No I find the hypocrisy annoying. Sansa is a popular character and she got raped; Outrage. Craster's wives get gang raped, but they don't matter. Various males get killed, sexually assaulted or castrated, but that doesn't matter either. Hizdahr Zo Loraq is going to be raped on his wedding night with Daenerys and these same people aren't going to say anything.

Yes I consider it rape because his choice is marry or die and Daenerys has the power and privilege to make it happen.

Get a grip and think again, you do not see anything apart from "Reek"/Theon crying:

Irreversible

btw trigger warning concerning the music, people have actually experienced nausea and disorientation in the cinemas.

That is a scene that disturbed me and left a mark in my brain for life, the music still gives me a chill. And I could understand if people would argue about such a scene, if it is appropriate to show such things.

Watch that movie and complain again about the mean mean GoT scene which is so graphic and inappropriate.