[yt]toa_vH6xGqs[/yt]
And the comments are disabled, unsurprising.
Took her long enough.
That's IT??? She got all that money and she's just doing another talking-head-in-front-of-a-greenscreen thing? Content aside, this is something that could be done cheaply in an afternoon. The audio's not even any better! Either she's ripping off her donors, or whoever she's paying to do her videos is ripping her off.
I think her supporters are stuck in "protect the scammer" mode where they fiercely defend her just to convince themselves they didn't get swindled.
If she wouldn't purposolsolely misrepresent the sources she's puting up I wouldn't mind so much. At least I hope she's doing it deliberately or else she's falling into the tired old trope of girls having no clue about video games.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on May 29, 2013, 07:58:20 AM
I think her supporters are stuck in "protect the scammer" mode where they fiercely defend her just to convince themselves they didn't get swindled.
This woman needs to play lollipop chainsaw the love interest of the main character (Juliet Starling) is basically a belt ornament. (look at trailer bellow)
[yt]RbeCAfMuwXg[/yt]
See what I mean?
How about in Metal Slug 3? In the final mission the playable character gets abducted by a bunch of aliens. If male (Marco & Tarma) they have to get rescued by the female characters (Eri & Fio) note: Do not watch video bellow if you do not like spoilers.
[yt]I-OeM0xiL_0[/yt]
How about Resident evil Code Veronica when Steve Burnside the love interest of the female character Claire Redfield turns into a monster and dies at the last moment when he saves her from a himself and a killer tentacle. spoiler bellow
[yt]GvnxUrMK0Y0[/yt]
Original Resident Evil/Remake? If you play as Jill Valentine you have to rescue Chris Redfield.
House of the Dead 3? In this game one of the main playable characters is a girl (Lisa Rogan) and they have to rescue A MAN (Thomas Rogan).
I can go on and on.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on May 29, 2013, 04:23:17 AM
And the comments are disabled, unsurprising.
Took her long enough.
Ratings too.
Lollipop chainsaw is a real deceptive game. On the cover it looks like a gold mine for the feminists but it's actually quite the contrary. Juliette is always in control of the situation and has a perfectly healthy relationship with her family and with her boyfriend Nick who just acts as a straight man to all the zaniness that goes on.
That isn't to say that there is sexism and objectification of women in games. I just think Sarkeesian isn't really the ideal spokesperson for this issue.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on May 29, 2013, 05:46:36 PM
Lollipop chainsaw is a real deceptive game. On the cover it looks like a gold mine for the feminists but it's actually quite the contrary. Juliette is always in control of the situation and has a perfectly healthy relationship with her family and with her boyfriend Nick who just acts as a straight man to all the zaniness that goes on.
Feminist response: But look at the revealing clothing, its all a patriarchal conspiracy...waaaaahhhhh!!!!!!!!
I also remember several other female characters who are non victims. Regina from Dino Crisis, Alyssa Hamilton (for most part) from Clock tower 3, Miku Hinasaki from Fatal Frame series.
any others?
Hey, Bayonetta doesn'twear revealing clothing ;)
Quote from: tnu on May 29, 2013, 08:00:07 PM
Hey, Bayonetta doesn'twear revealing clothing ;)
She is a little fetish.
Wait, she is STILL going on with the Damsel in Distress BS? I thought this was supposed to be "Tropes vs Women", not "This one trope in particular vs Women"
Quote from: VectorM on May 30, 2013, 03:37:26 AM
Wait, she is STILL going on with the Damsel in Distress BS? I thought this was supposed to be "Tropes vs Women", not "This one trope in particular vs Women"
eeyup. All I can say to her supporters is that they have been scammed out of their money.
Ugh, where to begin with all this...
First of, I'm not a fan of her work, as she falls into the typical feminist cliché of invoking things like "the patriarchy," "misogyny," and "objectification." She egregiously misuses those words in my opinion.
Taken by herself, she pretty innocuous in her message...but what really gets me is how too many people whom should know better are taking her and her message seriously. Go look up youtube user (and fellow New Zealander) Dangerous Analysis:http://www.youtube.com/user/dangerousanalysis (http://www.youtube.com/user/dangerousanalysis) to see how shaky her arguments are. Yet it is galling to see a lot of gaming journos and general internet commentators take her seriously, and consider her series "well researched and informative" :/
If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the reason for a lot of her support is due to the fact that said journos and commentators are self-conscious regarding the supposed state of gender and gaming culture, and are supporting her more as a show of "see see, we're not sexist!" than of her message.
As for her genuine supporters, I wonder what will happen if and when she decides to abruptly stop doing tropes vs. women...actually, I already know, you already know: They'll finger us criticisers saying that this is "all your fault," even when our criticisms (for the most part) are quite valid.
Quote from: ebalosus on June 07, 2013, 09:50:35 AMFirst of, I'm not a fan of her work, as she falls into the typical feminist cliché of invoking things like "the patriarchy," "misogyny," and "objectification." She egregiously misuses those words in my opinion.
They're just zombie terms, words that people can brainlessly utter to shut down discussion. Like "mansplaining."
If a supposed 'expert' or 'commentator' uses a term like 'Patriarchy' as if it actually applied to anything in mainstream Western culture in the last 30 years, you know you've got yourself an outright fraud who isn't going to say anything worth hearing.
Quote from: ebalosus on June 07, 2013, 09:50:35 AM
As for her genuine supporters, I wonder what will happen if and when she decides to abruptly stop doing tropes vs. women...actually, I already know, you already know: They'll finger us criticisers saying that this is "all your fault," even when our criticisms (for the most part) are quite valid.
Even though that shouldn't be an excuse. 1. As TAA already explained, if you voice an opinion on the internet, you will get flak for it. Period, end of discussion. Put on your (talking about Anita, not you) big girl pants and grow a thicker skin. 2. Even then, I'd like to know how said criticism matters. I mean, last I checked, she pulled a classic creationist move and disabled ratings, comments, statistics and (most likely) video responses as well. So what? Just knowing that criticism will exist makes her sad in the pants? Lady, I believe that anarchyinyourhead bloke, Dale Everett said it best: If you can't stand the anarchy, get off the fucking internet.
Part 3 is up
[yt]LjImnqH_KwM[/yt]
...She's STILL going on about this one trope?
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on August 03, 2013, 11:32:33 PM
...She's STILL going on about this one trope?
What makes you think she has any others?
Even if she has others, why should she change any time soon? She's gotten gobs of cash and loads of media praise for what is now three poorly made, ineptly researched videos. She probably thinks somebody will offer her a tenured professorship before the end.
Quote from: evensgrey on August 04, 2013, 04:01:56 AM
She probably thinks somebody will offer her a tenured professorship before the end.
The sad thing is that she's probably right...
Quote from: evensgrey on August 04, 2013, 04:01:56 AMWhat makes you think she has any others?
I never said she had.
Quote from: Skm1091 on August 03, 2013, 11:21:15 PM
Part 3 is up
[yt]LjImnqH_KwM[/yt]
Those kickstarters SERIOUSLY need to demand a refund. She can't even properly normalize her audio!
Okay, now I'm really not feeling sympathetic towards her or her defenders. Did she actually need people to fund these snorefests? Just a few seconds of listening to her almost puts me to sleep.
Quote from: MrBogosity on August 04, 2013, 09:16:52 AM
Those kickstarters SERIOUSLY need to demand a refund. She can't even properly normalize her audio!
Wait a minute..isn't that available as an automated feature in just about all the packages you might want to use to make YouTube videos? All you have to do is TURN IT ON?
Quote from: evensgrey on August 04, 2013, 12:00:22 PM
Wait a minute..isn't that available as an automated feature in just about all the packages you might want to use to make YouTube videos? All you have to do is TURN IT ON?
It's not 100%, you have to make some adjustments yourself, but it's not hard!
I haven't sloughed my way through the whole video yet (just too much stupid for one sitting), but why is a female character with breasts furthering a female stereotype but a male character with at least a 4-pack isn't?
Quote from: MrBogosity on August 04, 2013, 01:18:34 PM
It's not 100%, you have to make some adjustments yourself, but it's not hard!
I haven't sloughed my way through the whole video yet (just too much stupid for one sitting), but why is a female character with breasts furthering a female stereotype but a male character with at least a 4-pack isn't?
BECAUSE CIS/MALE/WHITE/STRAIGHT/CHRISTIAN/FIRSTWORLDPRIVILEGE! HUR DUR!
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on August 04, 2013, 02:52:16 PM
BECAUSE CIS/MALE/WHITE/STRAIGHT/CHRISTIAN/FIRSTWORLDPRIVILEGE! HUR DUR!
BECAUSE PENIS!! HUR DUR DUR!!!
So 3 videos in and STILL jsut ONE GODDAMN TROPE.
Quote from: VectorM on August 08, 2013, 11:09:33 AM
So 3 videos in and STILL jsut ONE GODDAMN TROPE.
he who lives on the hope of another trope in her videos, will die fasting.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on September 30, 2013, 09:44:24 PM
he who lives on the hope of another trope in her videos, will die fasting.
My bet is that the next trope won't be out for another year or two. :P
What cares what she thinks? She'd say a man holding a door open for women is sexist.
[yt]mrActT_7X6U[/yt]
This guy goes into detail about explaining the economics of male disposability and brings up a point of contention against Sarkeesian saying how "patriarchy" was never intended to be a means of male domination over women. Rather, it is an accident of history and economics. Hearing a feminist describe patriarchy in non-Marxist terms was refreshing to say the least, even though I still deny the existence of patriarchy.
I deny patriarchy because, although feminine traits might be viewed negatively as week, masculine traits are likewise often viewed negatively as crude or primitive. If a man is too masculine, he might actually be called a "cave man", "ape" or some other similar pejorative. It is no less easy to say that patriarchy is the reason men aren't allowed to cry or have empathy as it is to say that matriarchy is the reason women aren't allowed to get dirty, fight in combat or be goal oriented. We know Feminism uses inherently sexist language because if seeks out equality between the sexes by focusiong only on one of them. Feminism says that women should be equal to men, but it doesn't ever say that men should be equal to women. It assumes women have lesser status in society then men, even though men are the disposable sex. This is why feminism is stupid, yet pointing this out to a feminist will be ignored every time. Rather then address this very valid point many MRAs point out, they would rather just change the subject or tell you to shut the fuck up.
Quoteyet pointing this out to a feminist will be ignored every time
No, the last thing that will happen is you being ignored. What will happen is you'll have a tirade coming at you ad nauseum, at the end of which you will feel 2" tall, and wondering if you can ever show your face in public again. For your own safety, you understand. If said feminist happens to share accommodation with you, you may find your self on the other side of the door, even though YOU own the house.
What's an MRA?
Quote from: Skm1091 on August 03, 2013, 11:21:15 PM
Part 3 is up
[yt]LjImnqH_KwM[/yt]
Her criticisms seem to be women in games don't conform to her vision of how women should be portrayed (thank god for that, as they'd all be boring imitations with absolutely no personality or character of their own), so it has to be sexist.
Quote from: dallen68 on October 03, 2013, 10:15:42 AM
What's an MRA?
Men's Rights Advocate. If anything, it's an even worse title than "feminist."
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 03, 2013, 11:25:31 AM
Men's Rights Advocate. If anything, it's an even worse title than "feminist."
Until recently, all I have known about Feminism and MRM is what I've learned from Stefan Molyneux and two friends (a sociologist and a social psychology PhD student), so I'm still forming my opinions. So far, all I have found is a ton of stuff on Feminism but very little on the Men's Rights Movement. All I can tell is that MRM is a sort of counterbalance to Feminism, filling in the gaps that the gynocentric ideology leaves behind. Both groups seem to be quite adversarial to one another as well, leading people like Dr. Warren Farrell to say we need a new "Gender Equality" movement.
Exactly how is it worse to be called an MRA then a Feminist? I would really appreciate your insight because this opinion you have expressed is unique to all those I have heard before.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on October 05, 2013, 03:39:41 AM
Exactly how is it worse to be called an MRA then a Feminist? I would really appreciate your insight because this opinion you have expressed is unique to all those I have heard before.
In my opinion, it's one of those "they should know better" situations. As you said, the two sides are adversarial to each other, but being adversarial is the very problem the MRM purports to oppose. They also chose a name that was exactly as gender-exclusive as the feminists they oppose, again ostensibly for that very reason.
That's why I again say it's better to be an individualist. None of that crap comes along with it.
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 05, 2013, 07:43:08 AM
That's why I again say it's better to be an individualist. None of that crap comes along with it.
Why is this so hard to explain this to people, even to Libertarian Feminists? It seems straight forward, but I have some clues.
I have a friend who is a Libertarian who is Canadian. I've mentioned him before as being a social psychologist, but he's also a Feminist. It gets really hard to discuss feminism because, ironically, I'm dealing with an in-group/out-group wall inside his own head. He's more sympathetic to and less critical of Feminists, because he's already taken on this identity, and is less sympathetic and less critical of the critics of Feminism. As for his Libertarianism, that comes mostly from Milton Friedman and no other source.
The only "big gun" I have to defend my position, because he has the knowledge of and access to all scientific papers that are in his favor, is that sociologists think in terms of social constructs and are very prone to dismiss biological causes that might explain what it is they observe. In other words, everything looks like a social construct when you are trained to look at things in terms of social constructs, even when you observe things that clearly are not social constructs. This opens the door wide open for all sorts of vial confirmation bias.
When you take a gender biased word like "Feminism" and you say "Hey, that word is gender biased", they always tell you that its justified because we live in a "patriarchy" and Feminism apposes patriarchy, because patriarchy is a social system that oppresses women to the benefit of men. So then you tell them that patriarchy is an abstract construct that we can't test for, they then pull out all there statistics about who gets the worst deal, and they always paint a picture of women being the victim of society.
But then you point out things like mother bias in child custody, greater numbers of male suicide and male disposablility and you ask, "If men have it so bad, how can this society legitimately be called patriarchal?"
"Oh, but you see," the feminists will say, "patriarchy hurts men, too. You should join us, become a male Feminist and fight patriarchy with us!" But then you point out how they just told you that patriarchy benefits men at the expense of women, and that they have made a contradiction since they now say that "patriarchy hurts men, too".
When the conversation comes to this point, they always bring you the trump card "Well, you are just a white male who hasn't experienced what women have experienced, so you just don't get it". That usually ends the conversation right there.
However, if you continue to dispute feminist claims, they then resort to more ad hominem, calling you names like "rape apologist", "victim blamer" and "bigot". Just like with Creationists, Statists and Religious apologists, they resort to insults when they have nothing left.
However, this guy is my friend and a fellow Libertarian. What can I do to reach him and pull him away from postmodernism?
QuoteHowever, this guy is my friend and a fellow Libertarian. What can I do to reach him and pull him away from postmodernism?
Girlwriteswhat is a great youtuber who does her homework on the subject and they can't pull the "you're a guy so you don't count!" nonsense on her.
[yt]5eqYEVYZgdo[/yt]
One of her best ones where she explains that what women view as priviledge are in fact men being handed the tools they need to fulfill the MANY obligations women happily dump on their shoulders.
[yt]P4zDPAxjsZE[/yt]
A vid by Stefbot that demolishes feminist theory and explains how all this special pleading for women is one of the main causes of violence in society.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on October 05, 2013, 05:53:06 PM
Girlwriteswhat is a great youtuber who does her homework on the subject and they can't pull the "you're a guy so you don't count!" nonsense on her.
[yt]5eqYEVYZgdo[/yt]
One of her best ones where she explains that what women view as priviledge are in fact men being handed the tools they need to fulfill the MANY obligations women happily dump on their shoulders.
[yt]P4zDPAxjsZE[/yt]
A vid by Stefbot that demolishes feminist theory and explains how all this special pleading for women is one of the main causes of violence in society.
Those are excellent videos.
[yt]b1pJ8vYxL3Q[/yt]
[yt]IzNwjfbVt-U[/yt]
Wow, even Richard Dawkins is taking a bite out of Feminism.
[yt]C8K1Hchmt_A[/yt]
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 05, 2013, 07:43:08 AM
In my opinion, it's one of those "they should know better" situations. As you said, the two sides are adversarial to each other, but being adversarial is the very problem the MRM purports to oppose. They also chose a name that was exactly as gender-exclusive as the feminists they oppose, again ostensibly for that very reason.
That's why I again say it's better to be an individualist. None of that crap comes along with it.
This is why I really do not like the MRA shtick, even though I am subscribed to 2 or 3 people who identify as MRA.
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 05, 2013, 07:43:08 AM
In my opinion, it's one of those "they should know better" situations. As you said, the two sides are adversarial to each other, but being adversarial is the very problem the MRM purports to oppose. They also chose a name that was exactly as gender-exclusive as the feminists they oppose, again ostensibly for that very reason.
That's why I again say it's better to be an individualist. None of that crap comes along with it.
In reading Warren Farrell's book "The Myth of Male Power", I've come to realize why Stefan Molyneux. Under Dr. Farrell's model, women are property [of the state] and men are less then property [of the state]. Its the difference between how a farmer treats breeding cows vs. how he treats the bulls sold to market for their meat. You only need a few breeding bulls, but you need a lot of cows to make the next generation. This fits the Tax Farm analogy perfectly.
But this tells me that the narrative of Feminism, that patriarchy exists only to advantage men at the cost of female oppression, isn't just patently false but a misdirection away from the true villain, The State. The only thing men and women get out of the system are a few privileges in the community bestowed upon them from the state, as well as a positive identity and perception among the community. Neither one get any amount of self determination at all.
hey jsut as an aside has anyone here ever ehard of anarcha-femenism?
I've heard of Libertarian Feminism. Its the belief that a woman can best achieve independence and self actualization through individualism.
It still holds to the quaint notion of patriarchy, though. Patriarchy is a central tenant of Feminist dogma, where women are exploited by men for the benefit of men.
In Anarchist thinking, per Stefan Molyneux, "The Patriarchy" is replaced by the "Tax Farm", where both sexes are exploited for the benefit of the Archons of a given society. Women are the property of the state that function as breeders, and men are the throw away warriors and factory workers nobody gives a damn about.
I don't see how anarchism is even remotely compatible with any form of anarchy, even anarchocommunism.
uh...what?
QuoteI don't see how anarchism is even remotely compatible with any form of anarchy, even anarchocommunism
Also, isn't "anarcho-" and "communism" mutually exclusive?
Quote from: dallen68 on October 08, 2013, 03:34:53 AM
uh...what?
Also, isn't "anarcho-" and "communism" mutually exclusive?
Anarchocommunism is anarchy without money. Example: [yt]rAaWvVFERVA[/yt]
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on October 08, 2013, 06:17:08 AM
Anarchocommunism is anarchy without money. Example: [yt]rAaWvVFERVA[/yt]
That's actually anarcho-syndicalism; he says that in the sketch: "We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune."
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on October 08, 2013, 06:17:08 AM
Anarchocommunism is anarchy without money. Example: [yt]rAaWvVFERVA[/yt]
That would be a market without money, which is far less efficient than a market with money. It might even be less efficient than Communism.
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 08, 2013, 06:19:53 AM
That's actually anarcho-syndicalism; he says that in the sketch: "We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune."
Closest example I could find, though.
The only other example I can think of is Catalonia for a very short period of time.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on October 08, 2013, 06:17:08 AM
Anarchocommunism is anarchy without money. Example: [yt]rAaWvVFERVA[/yt]
And of course the problem there as I always say....
"So what if I want to use money anyway? Are you going stop me? By force if neccessary?
If so, congrats, you just invented government!"
According to Wikipedia, Anarcho-communism is libertarian communism, which is an extension or form of libertarian socialism, which is defined as "Any of a group of political philosophies dedicated to opposing coercive forms of authority and social hierarchy: prominent examples being capitalism and the State; especially one that encourages the direct seizure by the people of the means of production with the aim of moving toward the creation of a radical direct democracy."
Doesn't the "direct SEIZURE" part negate the claims to the "LIBERTARIAN" part? I mean I *don't care* if the asshat seizing my bank account is the government, or some random person that thinks my money is better used by the group. Why not go ahead and call it communism? Just because you're not CALLING yourself the government, if you're using the strength of the group to force compliance, you are a government.
Quote from: dallen68 on October 08, 2013, 11:58:44 PM
According to Wikipedia, Anarcho-communism is libertarian communism, which is an extension or form of libertarian socialism, which is defined as "Any of a group of political philosophies dedicated to opposing coercive forms of authority and social hierarchy: prominent examples being capitalism and the State; especially one that encourages the direct seizure by the people of the means of production with the aim of moving toward the creation of a radical direct democracy."
Doesn't the "direct SEIZURE" part negate the claims to the "LIBERTARIAN" part? I mean I *don't care* if the asshat seizing my bank account is the government, or some random person that thinks my money is better used by the group. Why not go ahead and call it communism? Just because you're not CALLING yourself the government, if you're using the strength of the group to force compliance, you are a government.
The definition doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. How can you be opposed to the existence of a state and still insist on being able to perform classical state actions? Pretty much the definition of a state is the entity that is not bound by the same rules that govern every other entity.
Quote from: evensgrey on October 09, 2013, 08:20:54 AM
The definition doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. How can you be opposed to the existence of a state and still insist on being able to perform classical state actions? Pretty much the definition of a state is the entity that is not bound by the same rules that govern every other entity.
Plus they want a direct democracy, which worked out really well for the last group that tried it.
[yt]eYqYLfm1rWA#t=99[/yt]
This was on fail quote. But I'm putting it here so it won't be lost in the fail quote thread.
Quote from: Skm1091 on November 24, 2013, 01:53:19 PM
[yt]eYqYLfm1rWA#t=99[/yt]
This was on fail quote. But I'm putting it here so it won't be lost in the fail quote thread.
I'm I the only one finding it ironic that she's complaining about gender identifiers while wearing make-up, lipstick. and hoop earrings?
[yt]gqJCCnued6c[/yt]
Sounds like the verdict is in:
1) She never was a fan of video games; so she lied. This really was a con all along.
2) Her white knights/sycophants/rabid fans will defend her to their graves no matter how much money she swindles out of them
3) She is actually going to influence the design in games like Mirror's Edge 2. Despite not being a gamer, not playing games.
If this shit keeps up, video games will be just like movies/TV are today--as hyper regulated, token and 'safe as not to offend any special interest group' and pathetic as can be. Thankfully, at least I still have South Park and MLP:FIM, but damnit two data points an entire trend does not make.
[yt]QJeX6F-Q63I[/yt]
And of course:
[yt]g0dZIQZIfkg[/yt]
Stay classy, feminists and Atheism+. Stay classy.
[yt]iNoH6yGJoyA[/yt]
rolls eyes
Quote from: Skm1091 on April 07, 2014, 01:57:39 AM
[yt]iNoH6yGJoyA[/yt]
rolls eyes
I saw that the video was posted on April 1st, so I naturally assumed it was an April Fool's joke. Then I realized this was made by Feminist Frequency.
new vid
[yt]4ZPSrwedvsg[/yt]
Are bumbling husbands, irredeemably evil warmongering men and expert men being outperformed by "female intuition" still getting free passes?
Then I don't want to hear about it feminists. Fuck off.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on June 22, 2014, 06:02:58 PM
Are bumbling husbands, irredeemably evil warmongering men and expert men being outperformed by "female intuition" still getting free passes?
Then I don't want to hear about it feminists. Fuck off.
Shared on Google+ with a link to the video in question.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on June 22, 2014, 06:02:58 PM
Are bumbling husbands, irredeemably evil warmongering men and expert men being outperformed by "female intuition" still getting free passes?
Then I don't want to hear about it feminists. Fuck off.
One thing I found just mind numbingly dumb was when she put forth the idea that since the bodies of women fading is a part of objectification. LADY every dead npc fades in those games INCLUDING THE MEN. As for hookers dropping cash men drop both guns and cash.
Guess who's back
[yt]5i_RPr9DwMA[/yt]
She didn't even bother to edit out the fact that her score was being PENALIZED for killing prostitutes and such in Hitman...
Sheesh, if you're going to tell lies at least tell convincing ones.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on September 18, 2014, 11:15:00 AM
She didn't even bother to edit out the fact that her score was being PENALIZED for killing prostitutes and such in Hitman...
Sheesh, if you're going to tell lies at least tell convincing ones.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed that. Also, where she's talking about the random pimp beating ho scenes (she featured at least 3 different games with kinda that scenario), she says that the PC has a choice of watch the scene and nothing and watch the scene and kill the bad guy. In at least 2 of them, it is clearly possible, from her own video, to kill the bad guy BEFORE the beat down happens.
Quote from: Skm1091 on September 17, 2014, 10:26:48 PM
Guess who's back
[yt]5i_RPr9DwMA[/yt]
Dear God, She is Jack Thompson.
And of course, she uses the 1 in 5 bullshit! Did she just call me a rapist?
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on September 18, 2014, 12:44:01 PM
Dear God, She is Jack Thompson.
And of course, she uses the 1 in 5 bullshit! Did she just call me a rapist?
The source of that (and why it's bogus):
[yt]pXVpalqXdIk[/yt]
Quote from: Travis Retriever on September 18, 2014, 01:12:26 PM
The source of that (and why it's bogus):
[yt]pXVpalqXdIk[/yt]
I just find it mental that Sarkeesian actually thinks rape isn't abnormal.
Of course, it is. Rape is a form of violence and violence (unless its the state) is rare thing in most people's lives.
Hell, the last violent encounter I had was almost seven years ago.