If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

Interesting video on Sarkeesian v. video games:

[youtube]LpFk5F-S_hI[/youtube]

part 1 is more about her general philosophy and is well worth a watch.

decius wrote:Developing a multitude of characters - or even two instead of one - costs time and money to the developer.
If I were a committed gamer, I wouldn't want to wait longer and pay more for a new release unless the game truly is enriched by a modification.

The availability of the male version of Lara Croft in Tomb Raider certainly isn't a sensible expectation in my universe. I played it a couple of times and it was just fine as it were.
Do people truly identify with characters in the videogames? It seems like a stupid idea to pander to.

Expanding on this theme, does it then become necessary for novelists to write two distinct story lines for the same basic plot? In effect writing two novels of the same basic story. What about motion pictures? At what point do(es) the artist(s) vision of his/her story lose out to political correctness?

EdwardGemmer wrote:

welch wrote:
I don't have a problem with the idea that sexism in video games is real, and that it should be considered in a serious, rational manner. But Sarkeesian's book report has effectively fucked that up for the next few years, and THAT is what pisses me off.

I don't see how that's possible - she's not even done with it. Also, she references a bajillion games in her first video. But what is good about it is that it is like a book report. Instead of talking about how she feels for 20 minutes followed by a brief snippet of a game, she presents lots of games and lots of facts and very little personal opinion.

SOURCES are not ANALYSIS. That was literally parroting facts. I can get 100% of the "content" she delivered in ten minutes or so on wikipedia.

THAT is what 160K gets? and yes, I am in fact, bizarrely, basing my opinion of the series on what i have seen of said series. Were she to suddenly provide ACTUAL ANALYSIS, then I would in fact change my fucking opinion.

Do you actually understand what the difference is between analysis and blind regurgitation?

Jack wrote:

AspieAtheist wrote:

Steersman wrote: <snip>
Just a friendly "heads up" ....

Oh ok. Sorry. Thanks for the heads up.

Ignore him, post how you like. Sometimes it is fine to post a whole thing and only have a word or two yourself. I often do it. That comment coming from Steersman of all people is the most ironic thing I have seen all year.

Please do not be put off posting here everyone is welcome.

Only ironic or hypocritical if I was in the habit of quoting long posts only to add a “Quite right” or a smilie. You have some evidence of that?

But I quite agree that she is entitled to post how she likes – as I am entitled to drive on the wrong side of the road. Though not necessarily a wise thing to do in either case.

And, to quibble a bit, not quite true that “everyone is welcome” ….

Submariner wrote:

decius wrote:Developing a multitude of characters - or even two instead of one - costs time and money to the developer.
If I were a committed gamer, I wouldn't want to wait longer and pay more for a new release unless the game truly is enriched by a modification.

The availability of the male version of Lara Croft in Tomb Raider certainly isn't a sensible expectation in my universe. I played it a couple of times and it was just fine as it were.
Do people truly identify with characters in the videogames? It seems like a stupid idea to pander to.

Expanding on this theme, does it then become necessary for novelists to write two distinct story lines for the same basic plot? In effect writing two novels of the same basic story. What about motion pictures? At what point do(es) the artist(s) vision of his/her story lose out to political correctness?

All culture is misogynist, due to patriarchy.
(I've been reading feminism 101's for the past few days)

Tigzy wrote:http://i.imgur.com/WLfBIig.png

:lol:
Protip: I read Russian novels to help develop that bulk – they also provide helpful prototypes for the use of commas … ;-)

EdwardGemmer wrote:

welch wrote:
Bullshit. She COMPLETELY ignored cultural influences on the designers of both video games. The fact someone ELSE did not doesn't erase the fact that Sarkeesian did. What the fuck dude, you keep trying to make it sound like she did anything but the bare minimum for a "C" on her little video book report. Why?

Because for her to get a C, there has to be someone else who can at least get an A. I haven't had time to explore the entire internet for youtube videos about women and games, but please link me to any that are far superior. She talked at length about the history of the damsel in distress - King Kong, World War 2, Popeye, etc. I think it is legitimate criticism to say she didn't bring up the Japanese culture in the development of these games, but hey, legitimate criticism adds to the discussion. The games she brings up were still wildly, wildly popular in the United States and it's not like the United States had never encountered the trope before Japan brought it to them.

"Talked at length"? If you mean "spent a few minutes regurgitating" then yes. Here, any of this look familiar?

http://dsegal900.hubpages.com/hub/Mytho ... n-Distress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damsel_in_distress
http://meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/Ana ... etypes.htm

There you go. Took me five minutes on Google. Now all I have to do is just enough work to not make it plagarism, and I can reproduce the entire history of the Damsel In Distress trope. Ta. Fucking. Da.

All I need now is the history of the Mario and Zelda franchises. Oh look, Wikipedia. I can regurgitate all that shit just as blindly and I don't need $160K do fucking do it.

Again, if she wants to rebundle this as a shallow book report, fine. But that's not what it's being presented as. As far as the "you need A to get to C"...this is the internet. She is not bound by column inches or paper costs.

But I am glad that you have admitted that she gave you what you wanted: an analysis and context-free book report that evidently agrees with what you already thought.

Whilst I dislike the problems eucliwood has brought to the pit, whomsoever is trying to open a back channel to facilitate her permanent exclusion is behaving like a prick. YMMV and i realise it could be the kid herself.

Steersman wrote:

Jack wrote:

AspieAtheist wrote:

Steersman wrote: <snip>
Just a friendly "heads up" ....

Oh ok. Sorry. Thanks for the heads up.

Ignore him, post how you like. Sometimes it is fine to post a whole thing and only have a word or two yourself. I often do it. That comment coming from Steersman of all people is the most ironic thing I have seen all year.

Please do not be put off posting here everyone is welcome.

Only ironic or hypocritical if I was in the habit of quoting long posts only to add a “Quite right” or a smilie. You have some evidence of that?

But I quite agree that she is entitled to post how she likes – as I am entitled to drive on the wrong side of the road. Though not necessarily a wise thing to do in either case.

And, to quibble a bit, not quite true that “everyone is welcome” ….

The last thing I want is to turn this place into a clique. By correcting, uninvited, an irregular poster you are helping to create one. Clearer now? Be a pedant all day long it does not bother me but I will comment on it if I think it detracts from anything I enjoy.

I wonder what feminist critics make of LBP. Or Flower. Or Journey...

John Brown wrote:

welch wrote:
Bullshit. She COMPLETELY ignored cultural influences on the designers of both video games. The fact someone ELSE did not doesn't erase the fact that Sarkeesian did. What the fuck dude, you keep trying to make it sound like she did anything but the bare minimum for a "C" on her little video book report. Why?

And this is exactly why P.Z's pile one with his "This would have been so easy for Nintendo to have done, it’s rather revealing that they didn’t," comment is so incredibly vapid.

In the follow on comments he asks: "Why is it OK for people 30 years ago to have been tacitly sexist? Was it OK for people a150 years ago to be pro-slavery?"

Remind me again. Where was Donkey Kong developed? Who were the programmers? Who was playing these games? Where were they playing them? What was video game culture like 30 years ago? How were people who played these games viewed?

Let's follow on with some more questions. How is the game tacitly sexist? How would P.Z. Myers had fixed the supposed tacit sexism were he in charge of Nintendo back on 1981? Would he have had two games shipped? One with a male hero and one with a female hero? Would he have had a console that would have let you choose between the two? How would having that choice affected production and shipping costs? Did the technology exist back in 1981 to even do that?

Furthermore, does P.Z. Myers understand that modding games is pretty fucking commonplace in today's gaming culture?

In three or four sentences, Myers has pretty much proven that he knows dick all about video games, its culture, basic economics or how technology works. He's also shown that he's incredibly myopic and American-centric in his thinking.

what pz myers knows about tech at this point could be written on a snail's dick in 24-point type.

That's the thing about this kind of "Was it okay to be sexist then?" shit. Well, no, it wasn't. But you can't just say "because we've changed across the last 30 years, we should have not needed thirty years to get here" and not be incredibly stupid. Change of any kind, especially large scale social change happens in fits and starts. For example, one could point to the civil rights movements of the 60s and use that as an example of how you can force change to happen faster. However, had that been attempted say, in the 1880s, well, there would have been a lot of dead black people and probably a lot of regression in terms of racist laws.

It took things like WWI and WWII, Jesse Owens, Jackie Robinson, Joe Louis, George Washington Carver, Brown and eisenhower and a myriad other things to set things up so that the pushing could be successful, even as partially successful as it was.

The same thing with comparing videogames in the early 80s with today. it took a generation of women who loved videogames, but wanted to see more of themselves in them to be inspired to become programmers and engineers, and financiers and actually make that change happen. Yet according to PeeZus, that could have all happened then with ease. That took time. About 30 years. Nowadays, in my field, working with women is about as exciting as...well, it isn't. A woman sysadmin, while not as common as a male one, is not news on any level. When I first started, that was not the case, not even slightly.

That, by the way for our little SJW lurkers, is how it should be. THe fact that a given job is filled by a man or a woman should not matter any more than the brand of undergarments they wear while filling it. in other words, not at all. But to think that kind of change just happens because we wish really hard?

what a completely ignorant fuckwit he is.

EdwardGemmer wrote:

John Brown wrote:
In three or four sentences, Myers has pretty much proven that he knows dick all about video games, its culture, basic economics or how technology works. He's also shown that he's incredibly myopic and American-centric in his thinking.

I don't take all that out of it. He's just lazy. He could say, Nintendo never did this, but someone else did. This would be a factual statement. Instead, he says it is "revealing" that Nintendo didn't do this. What is revealed is left to your own imagination but obviously the insinuation is that Nintendo hates women. But hey, he didn't actually say that, so why on earth would anyone assume that? Lazy lazy lazy.

because that's his intent in saying it

EdwardGemmer wrote:

Maximus wrote:

decius wrote:Look, if you sit down at the console your intent is supposed to be recreation, not looking for facile reasons to be offended.
The lack of a Supermaria sis character is the equivalent of refusing to play ball because it's of the wrong colour.
Encouraging a kid in these attitudes is not the wise thing to do. It's weird that you don't see it.

Exactly. Should you encourage kids to adaptable to what's available, or throw a tantrum and blame society because the world isn't how they think it should be.

I think it's best if they can do both. Sometimes it is worth throwing a tantrum.

only if you think being loudly stupid is a good way to get things done.

EdwardGemmer wrote:

welch wrote:
Bullshit. She COMPLETELY ignored cultural influences on the designers of both video games. The fact someone ELSE did not doesn't erase the fact that Sarkeesian did. What the fuck dude, you keep trying to make it sound like she did anything but the bare minimum for a "C" on her little video book report. Why?

Because for her to get a C, there has to be someone else who can at least get an A. I haven't had time to explore the entire internet for youtube videos about women and games, but please link me to any that are far superior. She talked at length about the history of the damsel in distress - King Kong, World War 2, Popeye, etc. I think it is legitimate criticism to say she didn't bring up the Japanese culture in the development of these games, but hey, legitimate criticism adds to the discussion. The games she brings up were still wildly, wildly popular in the United States and it's not like the United States had never encountered the trope before Japan brought it to them.

So Mario was popular because he was a fat italian guy, or because it was the best platforming game to come out at that time.

Back then, with small teams making these games, 95% of the effort went into gameplay, graphics and level design. You can see it start to branch out in the 90s as there was more competition then.

Stating nintendo games in the mid-late 80s were popular is like saying a lot of people went to see the first movies. OK, and? Was it actually about the message in the movies or was it about the fact that there were now "moving" pictures? Early games were about the technology and figuring out what gameplay was popular, couple that with 95% of developers being male(who would shocking make the characters male) and there you go. Let's see, spend a lot of billable hours working on a story, or shoehorn old fable involving princess in tower guarded by dragon as story, hire 3 less people... sounds good!

EdwardGemmer wrote:

John Greg wrote:EdwardGemmer said:

Because for her to get a C, there has to be someone else who can at least get an A.

No, no there does not. That is a false dichotomy, or false equivalence, or something like that. I have been in many, many classes in college where the best marked obtained by anyone was a B- or C+.

That may be true, but if a professor never hands out a grade better than a B-, then a B- is effectively an A, because it is more likely that the teacher simply refuses to give an A than to say he has never in his life encountered an A worthy paper.

Look, I don't know what your grading standards are. Her video clearly has a point, has many, many examples, she shows her work, and the presentation is great. What is she missing?

any form of original thought? something that isn't a regurgitation of what other people have done? Not mistaking adeptness with software as talent?

the presentation is something a high school film student could do. FUck, do you think that kind of video is hard nowadays? An even HALF-decent camera, a copy of premier pro or final cut pro, a mike that doesn't suck for the voiceover work and a decent laptop is all you need. Five grand gets you the gear. Maybe six if you want nice fast hard drives and many of them.

That's the hardware cost for this shit, and i'm including the video game consoles.

Let's see... Mario busts his hump just to scrounge a few coins. He gets shot by giant bullets and fireballs. He gets constantly harassed by flying turtle monsters while trying to avoid falling down bottomless pits, or getting caught in spinning flame thingies. From Mario's perspective, his entire world is an endless, horrifying, Kafkaesque death trap. I guess I could get upset about how it conditions men to value women over their own lives. Or I could realize it's a game about fighting flying turtle-monsters and what appear to be ambulatory penis tips and just roll with it.

When she was a kid, Anita Sarkeesian must have been the worst playdate ever for some poor kid with a Nintendo.

welch wrote:

EdwardGemmer wrote:

John Brown wrote:
In three or four sentences, Myers has pretty much proven that he knows dick all about video games, its culture, basic economics or how technology works. He's also shown that he's incredibly myopic and American-centric in his thinking.

I don't take all that out of it. He's just lazy. He could say, Nintendo never did this, but someone else did. This would be a factual statement. Instead, he says it is "revealing" that Nintendo didn't do this. What is revealed is left to your own imagination but obviously the insinuation is that Nintendo hates women. But hey, he didn't actually say that, so why on earth would anyone assume that? Lazy lazy lazy.

because that's his intent in saying it

I bet he wrote letters to Nintendo about it at the time. Oh no, he didn't. He's like a born again Christian full of guilt who then tries to project it on others.

EdwardGemmer wrote:

welch wrote: I haven't had time to explore the entire internet for youtube videos about women and games, but please link me to any that are far superior. She talked at length about the history of the damsel in distress - King Kong, World War 2, Popeye, etc. I think it is legitimate criticism to say she didn't bring up the Japanese culture in the development of these games, but hey, legitimate criticism adds to the discussion. The games she brings up were still wildly, wildly popular in the United States and it's not like the United States had never encountered the trope before Japan brought it to them.

I already did:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... InDistress
and
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... ressedDude
(I hope you aren't pedantic enough to complain that these are web pages, not videos.)

Of course, these pages are far more nuanced and unbiased than her video.

AndrewV69 wrote:

Jack wrote:

Tigzy wrote:http://i.imgur.com/WLfBIig.png

They'd need 10 people just to handle Steersman. Although knowing him he will go into contrarian mode and attack us. That would be fun too:)

More likely he would attack both them and us concurrently while supporting both.

It would be complete chaos. :mrgreen:

As you’ve quite reasonably and accurately said several times, any two pitters are likely to have three opinions. Sort of an edge-of-chaos thing that I find quite refreshing; far better than the rigor-mortis of group-think.

Somewhat apropos of which, I was thinking earlier this morning about Chas C Peterson caviling about “tribalism” on one of Nugent’s posts, and his comparisons between that of the Pit and that of FfTBs. I think he is failing to differentiate between group-think imposing opinion on slaves, on the one hand, and, on the other, free and autonomous individuals thinking and reaching the same conclusion. While the latter is probably a consequence, at least to some degree, of common premises and rules of inference, I figure that one can’t really throw stones at that without having analyzed those premises and rules of inference. Some difference between the “E pluribus unum” “tribalism” of America, and that of “Great Leader” North Korea.

YMMV …. ;-)

Remick wrote:

EdwardGemmer wrote:

welch wrote:
Bullshit. She COMPLETELY ignored cultural influences on the designers of both video games. The fact someone ELSE did not doesn't erase the fact that Sarkeesian did. What the fuck dude, you keep trying to make it sound like she did anything but the bare minimum for a "C" on her little video book report. Why?

Because for her to get a C, there has to be someone else who can at least get an A. I haven't had time to explore the entire internet for youtube videos about women and games, but please link me to any that are far superior. She talked at length about the history of the damsel in distress - King Kong, World War 2, Popeye, etc. I think it is legitimate criticism to say she didn't bring up the Japanese culture in the development of these games, but hey, legitimate criticism adds to the discussion. The games she brings up were still wildly, wildly popular in the United States and it's not like the United States had never encountered the trope before Japan brought it to them.

So Mario was popular because he was a fat italian guy, or because it was the best platforming game to come out at that time.

Back then, with small teams making these games, 95% of the effort went into gameplay, graphics and level design. You can see it start to branch out in the 90s as there was more competition then.

Stating nintendo games in the mid-late 80s were popular is like saying a lot of people went to see the first movies. OK, and? Was it actually about the message in the movies or was it about the fact that there were now "moving" pictures? Early games were about the technology and figuring out what gameplay was popular, couple that with 95% of developers being male(who would shocking make the characters male) and there you go. Let's see, spend a lot of billable hours working on a story, or shoehorn old fable involving princess in tower guarded by dragon as story, hire 3 less people... sounds good!

the amount of ignorance Sarkeesian posesses about the state of early video games requires scientific notation to properly assess.

Just in case you weren't sure whether you're a Sexistâ„¢, Ophie has cadged a Dana Hunter post of someone's facebook piece on how men are pigs. There's a list 'splaining that you are a sexist if:

Ophie, quoting Harriet Page wrote:-You think jokes about rape and domestic abuse can be funny.

- You know that victim-blaming is wrong, but you also feel that in purely logical terms, it’s obvious that women who wear provocative clothing are taking stupid risks.

- You have ever told a woman to ‘get over it’ because she was upset by a sexist joke, a catcall or a whistle.

- You have ever felt that a woman’s frustration or anger invalidated the content of her argument.

- You believe that you have as much right as a woman to determine what does and doesn’t count as offensive material, even though you are not the subject of the material in question.

- You believe that the world is full of men who are potential-feminists, and that they’d be mobilised to help if only women would be a bit nicer to them.

- You believe that a woman making a generalisation about men is just as harmful and oppressive as a man making a generalisation about women.

- You did consider yourself a feminist. Then one upset you when she pointed out some problematic behaviour, and now as far as you’re concerned the feminists are on their own!

- You believe that it’s counterproductive for feminists to call you out on your accidental sexism when there are men whose behaviour is so much worse than yours.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... tt-romney/

A reply, just for fun: you might be a hypocritical, irrational, bigot if you call yourself a "feminist" but:

- You think jokes about rape or domestic abuse are deeply offensive and unacceptable in all cases, even if they are not at the expense of the victim.

- You feel that anyone who believes there are steps women can take to mitigate their risk of being raped are victim-blaming rape apologists.

- You have ever told someone to "get over it" when they called you out for a hypocritical joke at the expense of men, or have sarcastically said something like, "what about the menz?" when someone brought up men's issues.

- You have ever felt that a woman's frustration or anger excused her from making a coherent argument, or that women should be able to lash out at their opponents, whereas if a man does so he is being "threatening" or manifesting "toxic masculinity."

- You believe that men have no right to an opinion about what counts as sexist or offensive material, and that men should "shut up" and defer to women's opinions in all conversations about gender politics.

- You believe that men should, in general, be respectful of and deferential to women, even if those women are rude, aggressive, or insulting toward them.

- You believe that it is sexist for men to generalize about women, but that it is "feminism" for women to propagate harmful stereotypes about men.

- You didn't consider yourself a victim of the patriarchy until a feminist activist informed you that you were a victim of the patriarchy, at which point you began seeing most men as privileged "dudebros" and "potential rapists" and all societal problems as presumably caused by patriarchal oppression.

- You believe that it's counterproductive for people to ask feminists for solid data and coherent arguments justifying their claims, since such skepticism about feminism is itself proof that the questioner is a misogynist (cf. JAQing off).

Steersman wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:

Jack wrote:

Tigzy wrote:http://i.imgur.com/WLfBIig.png

They'd need 10 people just to handle Steersman. Although knowing him he will go into contrarian mode and attack us. That would be fun too:)

More likely he would attack both them and us concurrently while supporting both.

It would be complete chaos. :mrgreen:

As you’ve quite reasonably and accurately said several times, any two pitters are likely to have three opinions. Sort of an edge-of-chaos thing that I find quite refreshing; far better than the rigor-mortis of group-think.

Somewhat apropos of which, I was thinking earlier this morning about Chas C Peterson caviling about “tribalism” on one of Nugent’s posts, and his comparisons between that of the Pit and that of FfTBs. I think he is failing to differentiate between group-think imposing opinion on slaves, on the one hand, and, on the other, free and autonomous individuals thinking and reaching the same conclusion. While the latter is probably a consequence, at least to some degree, of common premises and rules of inference, I figure that one can’t really throw stones at that without having analyzed those premises and rules of inference. Some difference between the “E pluribus unum” “tribalism” of America, and that of “Great Leader” North Korea.

YMMV …. ;-)

The pit is not particularly tribal. It is more compromising in every definition of that word.

Steersman wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:

Jack wrote:

Tigzy wrote:http://i.imgur.com/WLfBIig.png

They'd need 10 people just to handle Steersman. Although knowing him he will go into contrarian mode and attack us. That would be fun too:)

More likely he would attack both them and us concurrently while supporting both.

It would be complete chaos. :mrgreen:

As you’ve quite reasonably and accurately said several times, any two pitters are likely to have three opinions. Sort of an edge-of-chaos thing that I find quite refreshing; far better than the rigor-mortis of group-think.

Somewhat apropos of which, I was thinking earlier this morning about Chas C Peterson caviling about “tribalism” on one of Nugent’s posts, and his comparisons between that of the Pit and that of FfTBs. I think he is failing to differentiate between group-think imposing opinion on slaves, on the one hand, and, on the other, free and autonomous individuals thinking and reaching the same conclusion. While the latter is probably a consequence, at least to some degree, of common premises and rules of inference, I figure that one can’t really throw stones at that without having analyzed those premises and rules of inference. Some difference between the “E pluribus unum” “tribalism” of America, and that of “Great Leader” North Korea.

YMMV …. ;-)

The whole tribalism discussion is a total distractor and a waste of time, the same as the arguments about who is the most moral.

The whole of Nugent's approach missed what is important about this, the clash of ideas. That's what my last post there was trying to convey but it's like pissing in the wind as people wander off to discuss irrelevances instead of sticking to the whole point of disagreement.

In the meantime I hope some from FtB come here but if gets to a 'He said this, she said that' discussion or stuck on petty semantics it won't get anywhere.

Bloody hell apples have you been reading the same shit I have?

Apples wrote:Just in case you weren't sure whether you're a Sexistâ„¢, Ophie has cadged a Dana Hunter post of someone's facebook piece on how men are pigs. There's a list 'splaining that you are a sexist if:

Ophie, quoting Harriet Page wrote:-You think jokes about rape and domestic abuse can be funny.

- You know that victim-blaming is wrong, but you also feel that in purely logical terms, it’s obvious that women who wear provocative clothing are taking stupid risks.

- You have ever told a woman to ‘get over it’ because she was upset by a sexist joke, a catcall or a whistle.

- You have ever felt that a woman’s frustration or anger invalidated the content of her argument.

- You believe that you have as much right as a woman to determine what does and doesn’t count as offensive material, even though you are not the subject of the material in question.

- You believe that the world is full of men who are potential-feminists, and that they’d be mobilised to help if only women would be a bit nicer to them.

- You believe that a woman making a generalisation about men is just as harmful and oppressive as a man making a generalisation about women.

- You did consider yourself a feminist. Then one upset you when she pointed out some problematic behaviour, and now as far as you’re concerned the feminists are on their own!

- You believe that it’s counterproductive for feminists to call you out on your accidental sexism when there are men whose behaviour is so much worse than yours.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... tt-romney/

A reply, just for fun: you might be a hypocritical, irrational, bigot if you call yourself a "feminist" but:

- You think jokes about rape or domestic abuse are deeply offensive and unacceptable in all cases, even if they are not at the expense of the victim.

- You feel that anyone who believes there are steps women can take to mitigate their risk of being raped are victim-blaming rape apologists.

- You have ever told someone to "get over it" when they called you out for a hypocritical joke at the expense of men, or have sarcastically said something like, "what about the menz?" when someone brought up men's issues.

- You have ever felt that a woman's frustration or anger excused her from making a coherent argument, or that women should be able to lash out at their opponents, whereas if a man does so he is being "threatening" or manifesting "toxic masculinity."

- You believe that men have no right to an opinion about what counts as sexist or offensive material, and that men should "shut up" and defer to women's opinions in all conversations about gender politics.

- You believe that men should, in general, be respectful of and deferential to women, even if those women are rude, aggressive, or insulting toward them.

- You believe that it is sexist for men to generalize about women, but that it is "feminism" for women to propagate harmful stereotypes about men.

- You didn't consider yourself a victim of the patriarchy until a feminist activist informed you that you were a victim of the patriarchy, at which point you began seeing most men as privileged "dudebros" and "potential rapists" and all societal problems as presumably caused by patriarchal oppression.

- You believe that it's counterproductive for people to ask feminists for solid data and coherent arguments justifying their claims, since such skepticism about feminism is itself proof that the questioner is a misogynist (cf. JAQing off).

And here is where I always make the most obvious point. There are an incredible number of women who disagree with one or all of those points. What does that make them?

Ophelia believes that she speaks for every woman, everywhere. Dissent does not exist. But, if it does exist, it's only because those women want to be one of the boys.

I mean, I'm not offended by this nonsense, but if I were a woman, I would be telling people like Ophelia that they do have the sanction to speak for me.

Steersman wrote: :lol:
Protip: I read Russian novels to help develop that bulk – they also provide helpful prototypes for the use of commas … ;-)

Glad it amused you, Steers - though there's no way I'm gonna wade through a shit-ton of Russian morosity in order to improve my use of commas. It's like having to tolerate hours of grainy French existentialist cinema in order to to find a decent lighting setup for monochrome porn.

Jack wrote:

Steersman wrote: <snip>
Only ironic or hypocritical if I was in the habit of quoting long posts only to add a “Quite right” or a smilie. You have some evidence of that?

But I quite agree that she is entitled to post how she likes – as I am entitled to drive on the wrong side of the road. Though not necessarily a wise thing to do in either case.

And, to quibble a bit, not quite true that “everyone is welcome” ….

The last thing I want is to turn this place into a clique. By correcting, uninvited, an irregular poster you are helping to create one. Clearer now?

You mean like traffic laws create a “clique”?

Be a pedant all day long it does not bother me but I will comment on it if I think it detracts from anything I enjoy.

Fine. No problemo. But if you’re going to insist on your right to “comment on something if [you] think it detracts from anything [you] enjoy” then I’m quite sure that you’ll have no difficulty in accepting that I have the same right. Which I exercised by pointing out, in effect, that at least several people here – franc and I, among others if I'm not mistaken – generally do not “enjoy” it when people respond to a long comment by quoting the entire thing followed by an “I agree” or the like. So your problem is then, what?

Steersman wrote:

Jack wrote:

Steersman wrote: <snip>
Only ironic or hypocritical if I was in the habit of quoting long posts only to add a “Quite right” or a smilie. You have some evidence of that?

But I quite agree that she is entitled to post how she likes – as I am entitled to drive on the wrong side of the road. Though not necessarily a wise thing to do in either case.

And, to quibble a bit, not quite true that “everyone is welcome” ….

The last thing I want is to turn this place into a clique. By correcting, uninvited, an irregular poster you are helping to create one. Clearer now?

You mean like traffic laws create a “clique”?

Be a pedant all day long it does not bother me but I will comment on it if I think it detracts from anything I enjoy.

Fine. No problemo. But if you’re going to insist on your right to “comment on something if [you] think it detracts from anything [you] enjoy” then I’m quite sure that you’ll have no difficulty in accepting that I have the same right. Which I exercised by pointing out, in effect, that at least several people here – franc and I, among others if I'm not mistaken – generally do not “enjoy” it when people respond to a long comment by quoting the entire thing followed by an “I agree” or the like. So your problem is then, what?

Irrelevant.

Ophie, quoting Harriet Page wrote:
- You have ever told a woman to ‘get over it’ because she was upset by a sexist joke, a catcall or a whistle.

I make sure to tell women to never get over it. Obsess, and seethe, and rage unceasingly for the rest of your life over that sexist joke.

The term 'stupid bitch' seems to be gaining momentum around some circles. Ophie clearly takes offense to it.
If only she knew what it really meant. Perhaps this illustration will make it clear.

http://i.imgur.com/IgUFPvA.jpg

BannedAid wrote:Or I could realize it's a game about fighting flying turtle-monsters and what appear to be ambulatory penis tips and just roll with it.

Mario World was a bit darker.

[youtube]j-gP7sSR458[/youtube]

Submariner wrote:

EdwardGemmer wrote:

Jack wrote:

EdwardGemmer wrote:

katamari Damassi wrote: I understand where the Gears of War guy is coming from, but if he thinks his efforts to make his games more inclusive will be appreciated by the Sarkeesians of the world, he's in for a rude awakening.

I dunno, it seems likely that Gears of War will be mentioned in her next video, so we shall see.

Sarkeesian is finding the evidence she is looking for instead of following it. Fail.

I don't find that to be true. It isn't like Donkey Kong, Mario, and Legend of Zelda are bit players in the history of video games and she had to work really hard to find a damsel in distress in a video game. My oldest daughter is just getting into video games a bit. We play Spelunky together and she likes to choose the female character. I don't think it's cherry picking to say that in Mario you simply can't choose a girl character in all the games except for the one which wasn't really designed to be a Mario game.

Choosing a female character ( ala Mass Effect) will likely not be praised by AS either. It will be seen as the "man with boobs" trope. The only thing which might appease her is for game designers to create two separate story lines depending on which gender the player chooses./serious

Even then, the outcry will be "What about the other 21 genders" /sarcasm

Submariner wrote:

EdwardGemmer wrote:

Jack wrote:

EdwardGemmer wrote:

katamari Damassi wrote: I understand where the Gears of War guy is coming from, but if he thinks his efforts to make his games more inclusive will be appreciated by the Sarkeesians of the world, he's in for a rude awakening.

I dunno, it seems likely that Gears of War will be mentioned in her next video, so we shall see.

Sarkeesian is finding the evidence she is looking for instead of following it. Fail.

I don't find that to be true. It isn't like Donkey Kong, Mario, and Legend of Zelda are bit players in the history of video games and she had to work really hard to find a damsel in distress in a video game. My oldest daughter is just getting into video games a bit. We play Spelunky together and she likes to choose the female character. I don't think it's cherry picking to say that in Mario you simply can't choose a girl character in all the games except for the one which wasn't really designed to be a Mario game.

Choosing a female character ( ala Mass Effect) will likely not be praised by AS either. It will be seen as the "man with boobs" trope. The only thing which might appease her is for game designers to create two separate story lines depending on which gender the player chooses./serious

Even then, the outcry will be "What about the other 21 genders" /sarcasm

Well, I hope she then ackowledges the game Threads of Fate - you could choose between the boy Rue or the girl Mint, each one with their own perspectives over the storyline. And Mint's storyline is so much more enjoyable (she's a bratty and snarky princess that was expelled from her country by her younger and more lady-like sister; she now wants a magic relic to pay back, and then it's "WORLD DOMINATION, BABY!").

Also, Donkey Kong Country was actually an aversion of Damsel in Distress; both in DK2 and DK3, the dudes were the one needing rescue (in the first one, DK's bananas stash was the distressed part).

jimthepleb wrote:Bloody hell apples have you been reading the same shit I have?

:) I learned almost everything I know about internet rage feminism from Pharyngula commenters - at first I was kind of shocked, then numbed.

Jack wrote:

Steersman wrote:

Jack wrote: <snip>
Be a pedant all day long it does not bother me but I will comment on it if I think it detracts from anything I enjoy.

Fine. No problemo. But if you’re going to insist on your right to “comment on something if [you] think it detracts from anything [you] enjoy” then I’m quite sure that you’ll have no difficulty in accepting that I have the same right. Which I exercised by pointing out, in effect, that at least several people here – franc and I, among others if I'm not mistaken – generally do not “enjoy” it when people respond to a long comment by quoting the entire thing followed by an “I agree” or the like. So your problem is then, what?

Irrelevant.

Ipse dixit .... and "sauce for the goose" is apparently not "sauce for the gander" in your play-book ...

Steersman wrote:

Jack wrote:

Steersman wrote: <snip>
Only ironic or hypocritical if I was in the habit of quoting long posts only to add a “Quite right” or a smilie. You have some evidence of that?

But I quite agree that she is entitled to post how she likes – as I am entitled to drive on the wrong side of the road. Though not necessarily a wise thing to do in either case.

And, to quibble a bit, not quite true that “everyone is welcome” ….

The last thing I want is to turn this place into a clique. By correcting, uninvited, an irregular poster you are helping to create one. Clearer now?

You mean like traffic laws create a “clique”?

Be a pedant all day long it does not bother me but I will comment on it if I think it detracts from anything I enjoy.

Fine. No problemo. But if you’re going to insist on your right to “comment on something if [you] think it detracts from anything [you] enjoy” then I’m quite sure that you’ll have no difficulty in accepting that I have the same right. Which I exercised by pointing out, in effect, that at least several people here – franc and I, among others if I'm not mistaken – generally do not “enjoy” it when people respond to a long comment by quoting the entire thing followed by an “I agree” or the like. So your problem is then, what?

I agree!

Apples wrote:

Elyse wrote:I want to talk to you about how you talk to me about how I talk about my body, and how I talk about how I feel about my body, and what’s wrong with everything you have to say about what I have to say.

In short, fuck you.

I don’t love my body. My body is awful. I will never love my body. I never have. And I’m 35 and maybe you think that’s too old to have real hang ups about my body. But I do. And I always will. And maybe you think that because I’ve lost a bunch of weight I should feel great about my body. But I don’t. And I won’t.

Dear Elyse, I don't know why you want to talk to me about this, but I can assure you I have never talked to you about how you talk about your body, and I never even gave your body a single thought until you wrote this rant and posted all those awful pictures of your awful body. In short, fuck you, too.

http://skepchick.org/2013/03/dont-tell- ... e-my-body/
http://www.freezepage.com/1363111576IGFKWRYYLD

Dear Elyse, Dr. Cox may have one thing to teach you about hating your body:

[youtube]o_HAXan1wSQ[/youtube]

To be more serious, editing a posts cascade is a good help for general forum load time. But sometimes, it's also good to quote the full cascade in order to represent the context.

bhoytony wrote:

decius wrote:
Who fucking cares, seriously? It's a bloody mindless game.

Dear Muslima...

Amen Brother. I can't believe that supposed grownups get so fucking upset over some video games they play. The whole western world is slowly becoming infantalised, it's no wonder the FTB crowd act like overgrown toddlers.

Oh, the old grumpy farts cannot play those damn kids game and are getting butthurt over it.

Cry, my dears, cry and feed me with your tears.

Southern wrote:
Dear Elyse, Dr. Cox may have one thing to teach you about hating your body:

Love ya! Scrubs has kept me aloft through two years of intense depression. I owe this show a lot.

Tigzy wrote:

Steersman wrote: :lol:
Protip: I read Russian novels to help develop that bulk – they also provide helpful prototypes for the use of commas … ;-)

Glad it amused you, Steers - though there's no way I'm gonna wade through a shit-ton of Russian morosity in order to improve my use of commas. It's like having to tolerate hours of grainy French existentialist cinema in order to to find a decent lighting setup for monochrome porn.

It did – and it was quite clever and quite topical. But then a question of taste or the goal to be reached; one does not live by bread alone - at least most people apparently don't ….

Southern wrote:
Oh, the old grumpy farts cannot play those damn kids game and are getting butthurt over it.

Cry, my dears, cry and feed me with your tears.

There's two things I can't fucking stand, warm beer and cheeky kids.

Steersman wrote:

Tigzy wrote:

Steersman wrote: :lol:
Protip: I read Russian novels to help develop that bulk – they also provide helpful prototypes for the use of commas … ;-)

Glad it amused you, Steers - though there's no way I'm gonna wade through a shit-ton of Russian morosity in order to improve my use of commas. It's like having to tolerate hours of grainy French existentialist cinema in order to to find a decent lighting setup for monochrome porn.

It did – and it was quite clever and quite topical. But then a question of taste or the goal to be reached; one does not live by bread alone - at least most people apparently don't ….

Except the French...

:whistle:

Apples wrote:

jimthepleb wrote:Bloody hell apples have you been reading the same shit I have?

:) I learned almost everything I know about internet rage feminism from Pharyngula commenters - at first I was kind of shocked, then numbed.

I'm going deeper into the rabbit hole...my life insurance just went up ten-fold.
This rope doesn't come cheap either but at least I know it will hold me when the agony becomes too much.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:To be more serious, editing a posts cascade is a good help for general forum load time. But sometimes, it's also good to quote the full cascade in order to represent the context.

Yes, quite agree. It’s a suggestion or request rather than a hard and fast rule. Why I included “generally” in my posts above:

… it is generally considered polite or good manners to not quote more than you have to for the context of what you're replying with ….

Steersman wrote:

Jack wrote:

Steersman wrote:

Jack wrote: <snip>
Be a pedant all day long it does not bother me but I will comment on it if I think it detracts from anything I enjoy.

Fine. No problemo. But if you’re going to insist on your right to “comment on something if [you] think it detracts from anything [you] enjoy” then I’m quite sure that you’ll have no difficulty in accepting that I have the same right. Which I exercised by pointing out, in effect, that at least several people here – franc and I, among others if I'm not mistaken – generally do not “enjoy” it when people respond to a long comment by quoting the entire thing followed by an “I agree” or the like. So your problem is then, what?

Irrelevant.

Ipse dixit .... and "sauce for the goose" is apparently not "sauce for the gander" in your play-book ...

Another non sequitur.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Southern wrote:
Dear Elyse, Dr. Cox may have one thing to teach you about hating your body:

Love ya! Scrubs has kept me aloft through two years of intense depression. I owe this show a lot.

Scrubs was actually the only "hospital" show I ever cared to watch. - not even House is comparable. And of course Dr. Cox was such a snarky asshole, it's impossible to not love him.

Hopefully in the next mario game they'll give him massive tits and a 18 inch dildo instead of Yoshi. Now he battles patriarchy and societally enforced gender-roles.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Steersman wrote:

Jack wrote:

Steersman wrote: <snip>
Only ironic or hypocritical if I was in the habit of quoting long posts only to add a “Quite right” or a smilie. You have some evidence of that?

But I quite agree that she is entitled to post how she likes – as I am entitled to drive on the wrong side of the road. Though not necessarily a wise thing to do in either case.

And, to quibble a bit, not quite true that “everyone is welcome” ….

The last thing I want is to turn this place into a clique. By correcting, uninvited, an irregular poster you are helping to create one. Clearer now?

You mean like traffic laws create a “clique”?

Be a pedant all day long it does not bother me but I will comment on it if I think it detracts from anything I enjoy.

Fine. No problemo. But if you’re going to insist on your right to “comment on something if [you] think it detracts from anything [you] enjoy” then I’m quite sure that you’ll have no difficulty in accepting that I have the same right. Which I exercised by pointing out, in effect, that at least several people here – franc and I, among others if I'm not mistaken – generally do not “enjoy” it when people respond to a long comment by quoting the entire thing followed by an “I agree” or the like. So your problem is then, what?

I agree!

I am indifferent to the contents of the above post but have had a few beers and wanted to make a post myself but was far too lazy, unlike Ophelia Benson and I realise that one sentence is never satisfactory but that is all you are getting.

Jack wrote:

Steersman wrote:

Jack wrote:

Steersman wrote:

Jack wrote: <snip>
Be a pedant all day long it does not bother me but I will comment on it if I think it detracts from anything I enjoy.

Fine. No problemo. But if you’re going to insist on your right to “comment on something if [you] think it detracts from anything [you] enjoy” then I’m quite sure that you’ll have no difficulty in accepting that I have the same right. Which I exercised by pointing out, in effect, that at least several people here – franc and I, among others if I'm not mistaken – generally do not “enjoy” it when people respond to a long comment by quoting the entire thing followed by an “I agree” or the like. So your problem is then, what?

Irrelevant.

Ipse dixit .... and "sauce for the goose" is apparently not "sauce for the gander" in your play-book ...

Another non sequitur.

In your opinion. Which seems to tend somewhat to hypocrisy ….

Fuck this "can we quote" shit, lets get back to things that actually matter. 1980s/90s videogames.

jimthepleb wrote:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Steersman wrote:

Jack wrote:

Steersman wrote: <snip>
Only ironic or hypocritical if I was in the habit of quoting long posts only to add a “Quite right” or a smilie. You have some evidence of that?

But I quite agree that she is entitled to post how she likes – as I am entitled to drive on the wrong side of the road. Though not necessarily a wise thing to do in either case.

And, to quibble a bit, not quite true that “everyone is welcome” ….

The last thing I want is to turn this place into a clique. By correcting, uninvited, an irregular poster you are helping to create one. Clearer now?

You mean like traffic laws create a “clique”?

Be a pedant all day long it does not bother me but I will comment on it if I think it detracts from anything I enjoy.

Fine. No problemo. But if you’re going to insist on your right to “comment on something if [you] think it detracts from anything [you] enjoy” then I’m quite sure that you’ll have no difficulty in accepting that I have the same right. Which I exercised by pointing out, in effect, that at least several people here – franc and I, among others if I'm not mistaken – generally do not “enjoy” it when people respond to a long comment by quoting the entire thing followed by an “I agree” or the like. So your problem is then, what?

I agree!

I am indifferent to the contents of the above post but have had a few beers and wanted to make a post myself but was far too lazy, unlike Ophelia Benson and I realise that one sentence is never satisfactory but that is all you are getting.

:lol:

Keep digging. Show me the evidence....


'....then I’m quite sure that you’ll have no difficulty in accepting that I have the same right. Which I exercised by pointing out, in effect, that at least several people here – franc and I, among others if I'm not mistaken – generally do not “enjoy” it when people respond to a long comment by quoting the entire thing followed by an “I agree” or the like. So your problem is then, what.....''''


....that I said you could not do that. How does it follow from what I said. A complete strawman.

cunt wrote:Fuck this "can we quote" shit, lets get back to things that actually matter. 1980s/90s videogames.

Quoted FTW!

This Harriet Page femsplanation is hilarious. My favorite quote:

So while a feminist making a generalisation might hurt your feelings or your pride, and might make you feel maligned and misunderstood, it could NEVER, ever, be the same as sexist generalisations about women. Never forget that the consequences for you are hurt feelings; the consequences for us are dismissal, humiliation, aggression, rape and assault.

:o

Jack wrote: The whole tribalism discussion is a total distractor and a waste of time, the same as the arguments about who is the most moral.

I agree, it's just a smokescreen. The "dialogue" threads always seem to attract those FTB defenders who don't believe in dialogue and insist in repeating that over and over. But the problem with trying to discuss ideas at this point is that the well has been poisoned, filled in and cemented over.

[youtube]UAeqVGP-GPM[/youtube]

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:No, really, Tigzy's latest offering is a work of marvel (haha). If this whole mess were just a battle of wit and humour, that panel would win the war. I don't usually find photoshops posted here extremely funny (save Jan and Skep Tickle) but really. Ali is looking at me in a weird way as i'm still laughing out loud.

Well played, Tigzy!

I take that as a challenge!

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Weird tweet I jost got, as well as other Pitters, linking to a petition to keep Eucliwood banned:



Petition here:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/keep ... anned-lwp/

Da fuck?!?

I would have received the tweet too, had the blithering idiot who sent it bothered to spell my twitter name correctly. I call BS on that petition.

Percentage wrote:This Harriet Page femsplanation is hilarious. My favorite quote:

So while a feminist making a generalisation might hurt your feelings or your pride, and might make you feel maligned and misunderstood, it could NEVER, ever, be the same as sexist generalisations about women. Never forget that the consequences for you are hurt feelings; the consequences for us are dismissal, humiliation, aggression, rape and assault.

:o

Here's my favorite:

Harriet wrote: We must be flawless, all the time, because on the one occasion that we’re not we will be pilloried as feminazis, as aggressive, prejudiced bitches whose very existence discredits the entire feminist movement.

Harriet wrote: Being a feminist means believing ALL the time, regardless of whether women are nice to you, that the struggle for gender equality is on-going and real and essential. It means condemning all those ‘harmless’ little jokes about nagging women, female drivers and periods because you recognise that from the fertile soil of casual, unconscious sexism sprout the seeds of justification for serious assault

So female feminists can't be flawless ALL the time, and it's bad if you call them out for it, but male feminists must believe in gender equality ALL the time, even if they're dealing with women who are agressive or hostile.

Apples wrote:Brony is back in T'dome, following up on his "Rhetorical Assassins" recruitment post. If FTBers were more self-aware, I might guess their apparent coolness to his idea was related to their seeing a bit too much of themselves in this list of attributes of potential targets:

Brony wrote:*They avoid answering your questions, no matter how many of theirs you answer
*They take more complicated issues and run off on incorrect tangents and pretend it is your subject to confuse readers
*They load their paragraphs with assertions offered as fact and resist all attempts to link them to reality
*When they do give you a link to reality it is usually more opinion! No actual primary sources!
*When they describe the content of the position of another you discover that what is represented as paraphrase is dishonest hyperbole at best. You are made into an exaggeration.
*They engage in projection over and over and over. What they do, they attempt to place on you while they obfuscate.
*They strike the abused victim stand themselves and try to scream louder than the real victim while offering no evidence that they have been victimized

Sounds like an average afternoon in baboon-land. He then goes on to drone for awhile about his techniques.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-577680
http://www.freezepage.com/1363112549VAKSBVARGW

That laughable moron sounds like the Mall Ninja of FtB.

http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/