SYABM, I had a post about sly inversions and I believe I missed this one, unless it is just subsumed under the “male privilege” sly inversion.

They feel entitled to have the whole world as one big theme park designed expressly for them.

Including men’s safe spaces, such as the controversy about SFU.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/20/robyn-urback-on-shocking-anti-male-hatred-on-the-sfu-campus/

One common retort to people pointing out the need for men’s shelter’s is “the whole world is men’s safe space!” Which does absolutely nothing to convince anyone who didn’t already agree with the speaker. And, of course, if it were true, men wouldn’t really have gender roles they had to adhere to.

Another common retort is to accuse men of being “entitled”. The same men they claim have a responsibility to kowtow to feminist women’s beliefs, for the asking.

They’re my people too, if it helps.

It’s the “mean bottom” power dynamic. Weaponized passivity.

This is an aspect of a wider and deeper problem – they expect the whole world to be their safe space. They want other people, and it is always on men to do this, to femmiform themselves and the whole world so they and their dainty sensibilities will never, ever be challenged or alarmed – unless they happen to want a little adrenaline buzz now and then, and then a Real Man will give them that.

They feel entitled to have the whole world as one big theme park designed expressly for them.

Now, the second problem is that unlike “safe spaces,” we’re really talking about groups that are trying to become mainstream and build up mass appeal. Lots of us had informal groups of friends growing up who would get together after school to play video games, read comics, or whatever else is ostensibly considered “nerdy.” Those were the “safe spaces.” And to my knowledge, women are still wholly uninterested in participating in those groups. The problem only exists in the mainstream aspects of it, and to be honest I just don’t understand why anyone would consider a national comic book convention or something like that to be their “safe space”. If the hipsters want to take over that crap, let them.

However the two main objections I can find to the caterwauling condemnation of this throw-away game were these:

1) Game-makers are not beholden to the most cranky and shitty of their audiences any more than movie makers, song writers, novelists, or any other artist. They are aware gay people exist, just as they are aware people who think they are really other animals exist, who think they are several historical figures at once, and people who are married to a pillow. They don’t acknowledge these people either, for the same reason vector theory isn’t taught to people in schools: you start with the basics, lie to young people, and then reveal the complexities later. Tamogotchi Life is for young children. It’s why the subjects of “Sex” and “Sexuality” aren’t even mentioned, nor is “Bride” or “Husband”. Even gay children emulate their parents by having a “girlfriend” or “boyfriend” at pre-pubescent stages without any “social construct” telling them to. And Fuck You, Mr and Mrs “culture-is-a-conspiracy” Theorists.

2)The only interesting thing about Tamagotchi Life was circumventing the strict partnering rules (simply by giving the men women’s names and vice versa) which actually reveals a stark and great universal truth: people really do find their way around arbitrary social rules set up for group survival if it means enough to them. Nowhere is this more clear than Japan, a stringent culture of shame. People really do find ways around these things – which completely flew over the heads of blubbery-brained, bloviating retards like Jim Sterling (Fuck you too, you limey bulging bully)

Nothing matters more than “setting the tone”. They don’t care about “nerd spaces” like video games, comics, sci-fi, fantasy, science and math, etc…except than someone, somewhere is thinking about and exploring the universe without the Hipster say-so. These people are the epitome of degradation.