Alright, so here goes:

Re: Average Crate Box:

INB4 Feminists mob and call you an evil entitled Nice Guy for liking a woman and being heterosexual.

Re: Single's Table: INB4 Feminists: "IF YOU HAVE SEX WITH A DRUNK GIRL YOU ARE A RAPIST AND YOU NEED TO DIE."

You don't have a right to stipulate 'enough'. Doing so implies you have jurisdiction over others' lives, and means you are a douchebag.

Accumulation of capital, yes, through voluntary exchange. Seeing market needs, and filling them, taking profit for doing so. The Profit Motive is not eeeeeeeeeeeevil, like you think it…

I know what you're sellin', and I ain't buyin'.

Or, to explain more thoroughly:

*You promote entitlement mentality and Victimization instead of Individual Responsibility and positive steps on an Individual level, instead opting for top-down solutions that never work anyway.

Don't you mean "Chronic Gonorrhea"?

Yes.

Ohh, ohh, I see.

Only approved Victim Classes can use ad-hominem and push stereotypes, but 'Cis Scum' like me are barred, right?

I am the king of awesome hats? All right, then.

But you only further prove my point that you didn't want any actual discourse or discussion.

It's not a strawman, I am making the point that if all art were made to conform to everyone's sensibilities, and those books were put for publication by people that espouse diversity for its own sake and stoke outrage when it is not present, that they would have been drastically altered or refused print.

Discarding the rage-bait:

Does your action DIRECTLY harm me - i.e., are you burning my house, stealing my money, killing or injuring me or my family, pointing a weapon at me, taking my property, or preventing my free exercise of liberty - such exercise regardless of your sensitivities or opinions on my behavior?

If so:…

1: You're suggesting that they essentially 'genderwash' the story so that any character would fit? How is that good narrative again?

2: My point is that there's a fundamental difference between enabling people to make choices and face consequence equally, and taking people and forcing them into some conceived notion of…

I understand their position. But I fundamentally disagree.

I could trot out a number of authors, but you would likely discount them, as I'm certain you think I discounted Marx.

I was raised to have a very closed view, so when I became an adult, I explored. I didn't just read analyses of these people, I read their work.…

I've seen you years before this and my characterization ain't false, and it ain't racist.

You admitted to as much.

I did work in the game industry. I got out while the gettin' was good.

Clickbait outrage over something that is already overblown, is manufactured.

*1: Well, it's Revolution-era France. Are you suggesting they not try and make their characters fit? They have had quite a diverse lineup, but they make it fit the setting. It's not enough of a fanfic already?

There's also not a lot of information out, but it's co-op, so whatever character is there would have to make…

He did not advocate that. He has clarified on numerous occasions. The novels were a way to explain complicated and controversial ideas to people who don't read 1000+ page dissertations.

I am not advocating it either. You are mis-characterizing me.

I am sour to people who make demands of artists that their art conform to their specific demands when art is expression.

I am sour to people who on the one hand advocate equality, but on the other hand advocate it in slavery rather than liberty.

I am sour to people who mischaracterize my and others' ideas - whether…

Norman isn't my god. My religious beliefs - which I'm sure you'd caricature and be wrong - are none of your business.

But no, Norman isn't the end-all beat-all. But he certainly didn't deserve what happened, and his ideas are grossly misinterpreted.

I haven't read that one, no. But I am well-read. I believe in treating people equally, - AND I DO - but not forcing them to be or become exactly equal. There is a huge difference.

Perhaps you know DeTocqueville?

I said de-facto censorship. And Philosophically, you only need to eradicate ideas you are afraid of - which…

I read Marilyn French. I read her contemporaries. I know my enemy, and I know them well.

And all I see is another baskin-robbins flavor of victim mentality and 'eat the rich' framed at women.

And all I see her intellectual descendants doing is forcing people to do things the way they think they should be done, i.e.…

No, if you want his Philosophy, read his Philosophy. It's called Ethical Naturalism. It also does not actually espouse slavery. Or even BDSM, by the way.

He talks about the biological relationship of men and women and uses the metaphor to prove a point.

If you are against Naturalist thought, you will disagree. But…