Yeah, potholer54 should just stomp a pothole (I guess) into his stupid face.

At least he didn't go on for like 10 minutes. But that's probably soon to follow.

Thunderf00t is a voice of rationality towards creationism, which was what he originally was into debunking/commenting on, as far as I've loosely followed his youtube career. And we all know what happened when the atheist community decided to address sexism and misogyny within itself.

Not to be a dick but, atheists get death threats a lot; he's probably gotten some personally. However, Anita has probably gotten a hell of a lot more in a shorter period of time, and rape threats, and even a bomb threat? Didn't know about that one. I really can't defend him, he's just kinda become a disappointment.

>>At least he didn't go on for like 10 minutes. But that's probably soon to follow.

>>http://youtu.be/XTSQbLt9DS8

Homer, I think we had this discussion before. I like Maud, too, though I have to believe that either Maud or Pinkie must be adopted.

Catie's wardrobe has built up over time, and that a very early episode. Catie's busy and always moving forward, but if you'd like to see a remastered Maud Pie, you could tweet catie and let her know

@catiewayne

Unless he was directly involved with Anita's harassment I think censoring him was a pretty bad move, and it's only going to make things worse. I realize I defended him, and while I find the criticism of him (he's an annoying, condescending asshole) to be valid, I also think he's been misrepresented by his critics. So has Sarkeesian for that matter. I just think he's going to be a martyr now, like Sarkeesian! And people are going to defend him instead of his ideas as if he encapsulated more than the sum of his vlogs, just like Sarkeesian!

In the other video, he's actually claiming that Sarkeesian directly had him banned. I haven't watched the whole video yet, but I don't see him having any evidence of that, so he may be trying to be as incendiary as possible.

Fuck it. Sooner or later, there's going to be the shitstorm that teaches people that life on the internet is real life. When Boxxy was being harrassed, people just uploaded their stalking crimes and posted them on 4chan. They think it's just a big MMOG, and there are no consequences. Now the FBI is getting involved, so let's just get it over with. In the words my hero, of GWBush, bring it on.

The bomb threat was at the ceremony where Anita received her ambassador award
http://tinyurl.com/nw93z6v

What do you guys think of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqSwzFy5w&list=PLytTJqkSQqtr 7BqC1Jf4nv3 g2yDfu7Xmd

Title: "Are video games sexist? "
By the American Enterprise Institute.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K4s7cV4Us4

I sort of refuse to believe that she's really that stupid, so I'm guessing she just thinks her audience needs to be talked to like idiot children in order to recruit them to the Right Wing Aggrieved White Guy Corps.

Baleen beats me to what I was thinking again.

What happened to the attitude of "Give them more rope to hang themselves with" ? That comment pops up here every time a FOX news video is posted, and the pundits there are going on with much more dangerous opinions than depictions of princesses in video games.

This guy reminds me of the majority of atheist videos out there: annoying smug delivery even if you agree with the core message. The only video of his I've seen was where he mimicked a Skarkeesian video talking about the negative male trope of disposability in movies and games. Ironically it ended up being a more effective argument than Tropes vs Women because most games and action movies really ARE about mowing down hordes of disposable men unlike Anita's blatant lying about necrophilic rape bonus rounds.

Given how the internet has led to a deconstructive approach to everything, it's not surprising that most of its activism is about tearing down opposition rather than any kind of practical constructive solution. Everyone just wants to yell about what shitlords people who disagree are rather than focus on the original argument. Breitbart opening his dumb hole about the thing means about as much as any given Jezebel article.


Sidetracking here, but I keep seeing "Nerds are paranoid that Anita will come and take away their copy of Dragon's Crown" as a means of discrediting. I'm serious when I ask what other logical conclusion is there to her stance other than outright banning any material you find offensive? The goalposts are always moving, but it started out as "Teenagers will cease being horrible shits once Zelda gets her own game." After everyone kept pointing out all the games with solid (for a video game plot) women characters that she was ignoring, the line towed by her and her major supporters shifted to, "Just because some games aren't sexist doesn't excuse the ones that are." What else could that possibly be interpreted as but a call to ban that which they don't approve of? Forget Tipper Gore, that's some straight up Bill Donahue shit.

"I'm serious when I ask what other logical conclusion is there to her stance other than outright banning any material you find offensive? "

This is, I think, the heart of the Great Sarkeesian War.

My interpretation of Sarkeesian is that she was simply pointing out tropes that maybe people hadn't given much thought to before in the hopes that once they were an object of conscious analysis they'd wither away. "Hey, why is it that you're always a dude and have to save the princess? That's a) kind of boring and b) probably sort of weird for women to play. It would be interesting to see something different."

This is pretty much the least coercive way to do anything. Which is why it's weird that so many people so fervently believe that internet feminists want to censor and redact and ban things. Counter question: have you ever actually heard any feminists calling for banning/censoring games?

ashtar.: very astute. I haven't been following this closely so I could be wrong, but ultimately it comes down to both sides wanting to be driven to ideological extremes rather than the boring grey area in the middle, where clear misogyny can be found in some games and women are treated in exemplary fashion in other games and there's room for improvement in others. Why end up there when you can decide you've been provoked into defending All That Is Dear To You? (The misogynist shitheads are the worst offenders here by far, but as Nominal points out, Team Anita could do a better job of saying, "we have problems with a lot of games but that doesn't mean we are trying to take GTA away from you".)

There hasn't been a game worth playing since Omega Race anyway. And if you know anything about the Omegan space fleet, they're remarkably equal opportunity; the Komar Times won a Pulitzer in 2003 for their reporting on Omegan pilots.

I'm serious when I ask what other logical conclusion is there to her stance other than outright banning any material you find offensive?

I guess I don't understand the question. Do you think that Roger Ebert was trying to get Rob Schneider movies banned?

Team Anita could do a better job of saying, "we have problems with a lot of games but that doesn't mean we are trying to take GTA away from you".

Here's what she actually says, and she says it more than once. I think the implication is there.

"This series will include critical analysis of many beloved games and characters, but remember that it is both possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects."

Not only is she not trying to ban games, she's making a point of saying that some of the games she's talking about are really good games, and she's totally not telling you to not play them.

I think this is thing about feminist criticism. There's nothing that involves humans that doesn't contain gender singnifiers. If you were to ban everything that's sexist, you'd be throwing out an awful lot of babies with that bath water. It's about redefining and reconciliation.

I think the haters had it backwards with that lecture video. I think she lied when told that class she didn't like videos. I think that, as a feminist, she felt guilty, and was a closet gamer, and Tropes Vs Women is her way of coming out of the closet and working it all out. At lhat makes more sense than an elaborate plot to swindle people out of a 180K while only asking for 6K.

>> I think she lied when told that class she didn't like videos.
Of course, i meant video games.

"Here's what she actually says, and she says it more than once. I think the implication is there."

Fair enough; I told you I wasn't following this very closely. That said, when you're making a contentious argument that stirs up a lot of ill will, there is something to be said for being perfectly explicit. Not because Anita "owes" it to the hatchet-wielding toddlers to be nicer, but because she's the only adult in the room and as such she stands the best chance of calming things down.

"What else could that possibly be interpreted as but a call to ban that which they don't approve of?"

I don't know, Nominal. Maybe, just maybe, it's a call for designers to give better treatment to women in future games.

"...because most games and action movies really ARE about mowing down hordes of disposable men..."

What does that have to do with anything? How is their gender relevant? When a woman is objectified in a game, the focus is entirely on her gender. Do you see how this might be different than a drone with a gun being mowed down?

A great deal, actually. But I share your concerns. I hope that one day, when we're strapped in to our genocidal murder simulators, and you are pumping round after round into my now lifeless body ( what with the special x-ray mode I can actually see the bullets ripping into my muscle tissue ) that you do so with the utmost respect for my sexual identity.

That said, when you're making a contentious argument that stirs up a lot of ill will, there is something to be said for being perfectly explicit.

See, people think there's a "contentious argument" in there, a thesis, a premise, that all these examples are supposed to point to something. "we need to ban games" or "Games make you sexist" This is, of course how everybody does everything on the internet. This is why people think she's being misleading, because she only shows material that supports the presumed "contentious argument"

But what if the point of the images is simply "these images are in there; please see them!

Has anyone seen this article I keep linking to? In the New Statesman?
http://tinyurl.com/m2fabzs

>>There's a common trope of framing Sarkeesian's work as "cherry-picked", as she takes isolated examples from many games and presents them as a stream of misogyny in order to create the illusion that all of these games are entirely misogynist, the entire way through. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is Sarkeesian is doing with TvsWVG, and what cultural criticism in general is. These are tropes - they're fragments of a whole. By definition they don't make up the entirety of a work of art by themselves, but are instead definable cultural touchstones which artists, writers, developers etc, can use when creating a fictional reality.

>>In other words, Anita Sarkeesian only presents sections of games as sexist because she's only talking about the sexist bits of games, and how, of the tropes developers choose to put in their games when designing for female characters, they frequently fall back on sexist ones.

As the quote above about "beloved games and characters" makes clear, she's not even saying that you shouldn't play the games, or that they aren't awesome.

Bort, I'd be a lot more open to criticizing Sarkeesian for how she handled the message if the monkey shit hadn't started flying months before the first video. There was never a moment when she could have finessed this, and she's not exactly all about finesse I've talked to some of these people. They have an agenda to be angry. Whatever you tell them, it makes them angrier.

To clarify, the difference between the two is that when a woman is objectified in a game, it happens *because* she is a woman. When a horde of drones is mowed down in a game, does it happen because they are men? How does their gender play a role? This isn't a difficult distinction to make.

Bort, I think you're being naive in assuming that being "perfectly explicit" would have changed anything at all. (I'm not sure how much more explicit she could have been beyond the statement JHM posted but whatever.) By your own admission these people are children (sometimes literally) and are unable or unwilling to engage in reasoned debate. Does it really seem plausible that her saying "We're not trying to take away your toys," at the start of each video would have calmed down the Nominals of the world? I doubt it.

I think it would have calmed down Nominal, but you're right that there are plenty it wouldn't have had any impact on.

"He needs to go to the middle east, so he can see what REAL censorship looks like!"

Anita needs to go to the middle east, so she can see what REAL sexism looks like!

Oh! Hello! I didn't see you there. I was busy running EXPERIMENTS ON A NUCLEAR REACTOR.

It's a Nuclear Reactor, you wouldn't understand, but basically special rocks go in one end and TV comes out the other, ok?

He means is that he's tending someone else's experiments in a nuclear reactor.

This is the episode in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKmuYg97G9c

Offending character reveal is at 0:45.

I thought we had this discussion. I also like Maud. It's an early episode, she started out with a limited wardrobe and built it up.

Did we? I know I've asked you about Friendship is Recapped before, but I wasn't sure if I asked you about Maud. She does a fairly good Maud impression, but the lack of costume breaks the illusion and takes me out of the fantasy.

"Oh, Smithers he's not ready yet for harvesting. I thrive on genuine bile, not fake bile, you know that.

*****

Okay, that made me laugh so loudly I embarrassed myself. Stars for you.

>>I love yet again how Poetv's SJW double standards shine through. I miss when you guys weren't detestable faggots.

>>If a woman is treated unjustly then it's unfair sexism and she's a victim of the patriarchy, but if a guy gets fucked over and has the NERVE to complain he's acting like a "drama queen".

Really? "Fucked over?" Gosh, DQL you don't seem to know shit about this. That's SO out of character for you!


If you watch the video in the hopper, you'll see a screen cap he got from Twitter. You Tube did this to me, once. It's just standard bolierplate. All this piece of shit has to do to get his account back is certify that he read the rules, and understands them. THAT'S ALL.

This piece of shit literally laughed at the death threats, derisively comparing Anita to Salman Rushdie. But this minor inconvenience? He's playing THAT up like he's in a Wagner Opera about Rosa Parks on 9/11, cause, you know, it's like when Salman Rushdie was forced to say he'd read the Twitter TOS. That was a dark day for humanity...

I could be wrong, but I'm not exaggerating or joking when I say that I think he's going full Colonel Kurtz. He's making this whole volatilize situation about him.

I still find the newer video in the hopper too disturbing to watch all the way through with the sound up, Right now it looks to me like he is convinced that Anita Sarkesian is obsessed WITH HIM. He seems to think she's now harassing him directly. Oh my god.

>>"He needs to go to the middle east, so he can see what REAL censorship looks like!"

>>Anita needs to go to the middle east, so she can see what REAL sexism looks like!

So apparently you think you're zinging me with the anti-feminist cliche (often repeated by Thunderf00t) that I'm mocking. Kind of awkward, isn't it?

>>> Anita Cuntkeesian claims that someone threatened her life, but provides no evidence, and she's fucking coddled while anyone who dares to question her story is labeled a mansplaining MRA rape supporter.

You're acting like this is somehow unusual, as if crime victims have always been expected to publicly prove that the crimes happened in order to be taken seriously, and you seem to think that this crime seems unlikely to you. Why, I can almost hear you ask, would anyone want to threaten Anita Cuntkeesian?

I think that you and I have different ideas of what "questioning" means. I know that shit like that really happens. When I was in college, there was a case where the Jewish Student Union was vandailized, and the perp turned out to be the JSU president. Ask me if I know for a fact that she didn't fake the threat, and I'll tell you that I don't, show me some evidence that isn't easily explained bullshit. Someone contacted that award ceremony with a bomb threat, and that's a damn crime. The FBI is supposed to be investigating. Unless Anita Cuntkeesian is Lex Cuntthor, the FBI should be able to spot the deception.

The time between the news of the threats hitting the internet and the accusations that she's faked it was approximately zero seconds. I saw a thread in a gaming forum where the FIRST POST suggested that she's faking, and for two pages everyone in the forum piled on ridiculous "evidence". That is not my idea of "questioning". That's my idea of a witch hunt.

>>Anita Cuntkeesian is fucking coddled

I think we may also have different definitions of "coddle".

So how long until Dairyqueenlatifah fucks off?

It's like we're in San Francisco, and dairyqueenlatifah is a gay guy who keeps going into a redneck bar and keeps insulting the straight men because they refuse to suck his dick. And it's San Fransisco! There's a gay bar on every corner! None of it makes much sense until finally a light goes on, and you realize he enjoys the beatings.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. As far as I'm concerned, DQL can keep coming back as long as he likes. I ALSO enjoy the beatings.