Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[JackSkeptic]

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.

Yes which is why I initially said Nugent was wilfully ignorant or had no intention of having a proper debate. Now I think he was just naive and misled by the FtB crowd. In any event it was dead in the water from the start. Starting from assuming morality for relative concepts, such as taking offence, is a guaranteed doom strategy as anyone who has discussed with a theist will know. As an atheist in charge of an atheist movement he MUST have known that so he must have been absolutely sure of the situation. His total ignorance after that shows he did not get that certainty from personal observation.

[Lapsang Souchong]

I would have thought they would be moving to West Vagina.

As in "West Vagina, mountin' Momma, take me home cuntry roads" Eww. What's happens in the shack, should stay in the shack.

Thanks for ruining that song for me. :lol:

[Gumby]

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.

We all know here it's Lsuoma's call, so some fool outside the Pit is trying to make it look like we're doing something we're not.

[Gumby]

<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!

"Me, too!"

[Altair]

<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!

"Me, too!"

THIS ^^^! A THOUSAND TIMES THIS!!!

[cunt]

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

http://i.imgur.com/uX9qfMi.jpg

[AndrewV69]

<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!

Me too!

[Altair]

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

http://i.imgur.com/uX9qfMi.jpg

:clap: masterful image manipulation, cunt!
Of course you realize that you have just planted the seed of serious assault in this very forum, don't you?

Step 1: make a little joke
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit Assault!

[Steersman]

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.

You said:

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?

Looks to me like you're saying I couldn’t “correct, uninvited, an irregular poster”. Apart from being an unevidenced assertion [“ipse dixit”] about cliques and that I was creating one, you’re saying then that you’re the arbiter of what can and cannot be said, and to whom? What each of us enjoy? All I said was that “it is generally considered polite or good manners to not quote more than you have to ….” No “thou shalt not …” there, no claim that the entire Pit was about to descend on those flouting such "laws", at least that I can see ….

[Remick]

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

I am confused by this one, is it the target that makes it bad, or the gender of the person making the generalization that makes it bad?

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Gumby: my apologies. yours are fine as well. I'm just not too keen on basic shops. As the Governor said: it's all in the execution.

[Steersman]

<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!

Me too!

"Ak! Rampant tribalism! Rampant tribalism! Where is ChasC when we really need him? Polly want a cracker" [note: not a racist joke ....] ;-)

[JackSkeptic]

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

I am confused by this one, is it the target that makes it bad, or the gender of the person making the generalization that makes it bad?

Target. It means no one can ever make a comment to or about a woman perceived as sexist which of course can mean anything they choose. It's just another way to control what people say and shut down discussion. A pure appeal to emotion which they consider intellectually valid (post-modernism)

[cunt]

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

http://i.imgur.com/uX9qfMi.jpg[/ig]

:clap: masterful image manipulation, cunt!
Of course you realize that you have just planted the seed of serious assault in this very forum, don't you?

Step 1: make a little joke
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit Assault!

I wish I could claim credit for that, but actually it comes from a super serious feminist tumblr account.

http://i.imgur.com/6O6ldKJ.jpg

[Aneris]

She [Anita Sarkeesian] is ignoring cultural influences on those games.

I don't think she does ignore cultural influences, but I did link to the article talking about how women are treated in Japan and how that might have affected the development of those games.

I took this as a shameless excuse to drop a wall of text into a separate thread: Video Games vs. the Patriarchyâ„¢

[jimthepleb]

in the blue rinse mountains of vagina,
on the trail of of the evil slyHIIIIIIIIIIGHme

[Tigzy]

Have any of you peeps here yet clicked on Brony's name? It takes you to his blog.

It's about neuroscience - or at least Brony's take on it - and, uh, My Little Pony.

It is all exceedingly strange.

A sampler:

This is a big experiment that I am doing on myself. The TL:DR version is that it is a combination art project and therapy. I have ADHD and Tourette Syndrome and I am going to build a computational model of the brain on the pages of this blog. What I mean by that is that I am going to look up all the little tiny pieces that science has discovered so far, and I am going model them and put them together in a way that makes their function sensible by sight. Then I am going to use that model to make connections between what science has discovered about the brain, and tie it to our minds. I want to translate structure and function to experience, and I want to do a way that works like a “Human Brain for Dummies.” That will apply to all of us.

Why am I going to do this? at least two reasons that I can figure out. I want understand myself and I want to do it in a way that will help other folks understand the brain too. I have a belief that I have a mutation that lets me deal with conceptual information differently than “most people” (whatever that means, that’s the point). For the justification about why this is not just the same average, arrogant statement that you have read everyone else, keep reading. Or not. What is important is that I am really doing science here because the first and most important part is that this is all based on scientific consensus, and I am doing this work by looking of information that would prove me wrong at every point. Most people don’t realize that science is done by having an idea, and then trying to prove it wrong by looking for something that would by true if you are right.

This should have been built a week ago but the strangest thing happened. I got ritualistic about building the first piece. I don’t really have any other way to explain it. Since I have spent the last two months with this brain modeling among my primary interests, the act of bringing it into reality made me get emotionally sensitive about it in weird ways. I did not want to do it unless that was the only thing I was going to do that day (no other distractions). I got anti-social (I have mostly stayed away from internet social areas and real-life social areas). It also distracted me in other areas of my life that has caused some disruption (My hobby needs to be de-emphasized a bit). I guess this has meant more to me than I thought…

It’s weird. I don’t know if I am doing anything unusual here but I have definitely seen some interesting things happen as I have worked on this. It feels like I’m doing something I could call “analogical thinking” where I’m just blurring things a bit in my head and looking for shared elements when I think about all of this, and how to convey the information. This also happens when I am researching and reading the material. Or maybe prying open an “analogical aperture” might be the right word? I’m still trying to figure this out and a lot of the impressions that I get about what is being written about my head are not things that I can really talk about with enough authority yet. I don’t like to carelessly discuss science.

I have seen my physical tics undergo some changes that have actually forced me to slow down as well. Since I started all this typing I have developed hand and knuckle related tics. Also when I am particularly engrossed in what I am doing sometimes I catch myself doing a particularly elaborate thing that goes from my neck all the way down to one arm. The finger ones are concerning me because I am getting sore knuckles. I am investigating Tai-Chi as a means to gain some more physical awareness so that I can perhaps get better at moving these tics around to less sensitive areas.

Even more bizarre is that in-between all this stuff, there's loads of My Little Pony pictures.

And you thought Half-Fish's blog was...odd. :shock:

http://realitybasedbrainponies.wordpress.com/

[Percentage]

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.

Basically, yeah. But seriously, is this shit really anything new? It's all good- I don't identify as a feminist and have no interest in doing so (especially given the rise of the Internet SJWs) so I guess I'm out of the scope of her little rant. I'd imagine it would only work on guys who are in some way emotionally invested in their feminism. Me, I'd rather not tiptoe on shards of glass while the SJWs scrutinize my feet for cuts... because in the end, I couldn't really give a rat's ass what Harriet Page thinks of me. Evil white penis notwithstanding, I'm going to continue to do, say and think whatever the hell I want.

How liberating is that?

[EdwardGemmer]

Current games can create characters with deeper motivations and more intricate characters, and that could allow game writers to expand the characters available, and give them less simplistic motivations.

I don't have any evidence for this, but I have the impression that initially boys were the main consumers of videogames.
But were games with male protagonists created because of this, or were they the main consumers because the available games had male protagonists? that sounds like the chicken-egg problem, and I don't have a clear answer.

There can be no doubt that games were and are marketed to boys and men. I don't think it is even a problem, and Sarkeesian doesn't exactly present it as some sort of evidence of the evil Nintendo. More, it is an observation - one that can be easily modified now, as evidenced by the guy who modified Donkey Kong. The Damsel in Distress is a cliche - of course women can be a "prize." Men's whole lives can be more or less premised on the idea that being more successful can lead to more sex. Video games which tap into our fantasies are no different.

[free thoughtpolice]

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:

*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/

Oh yeah!!? Think you'll still be laughing when an army of fierce SJ warriors prances up here on their pink ponies?

[jimthepleb]

<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!

"Me, too!"

THIS ^^^! A THOUSAND TIMES THIS!!!

But why?
But why?

[cunt]

Have any of you peeps here yet clicked on Brony's name? It takes you to his blog.

It's about neuroscience - or at least Brony's take on it - and, uh, My Little Pony.

It is all exceedingly strange.

[snip]

http://realitybasedbrainponies.wordpress.com/

At least, like me, he's honest enough to put right in his username that he's not somebody worth listening to.

[John Brown]

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

I am confused by this one, is it the target that makes it bad, or the gender of the person making the generalization that makes it bad?

Target. It means no one can ever make a comment to or about a woman perceived as sexist which of course can mean anything they choose. It's just another way to control what people say and shut down discussion. A pure appeal to emotion which they consider intellectually valid (post-modernism)

I've never understood this insistance that my feelings are hurt or my pride is damaged when I object to generalizations. Not only is the insistance that this occurs a generalization in itself, it's blatant projection. Just because *your* feelings are hurt or *your* pride is damaged when someone makes a generalization about you, doesn't mean that my reaction is the same.

What a person says and how they say it often speaks more to the character of the person saying it than the person its being said to. People react to generalizations in a negative fashion because generalizations are lazy and can be antithetical to critical reasoning.

[Gumby]

Gumby: my apologies. yours are fine as well. I'm just not too keen on basic shops. As the Governor said: it's all in the execution.

Oh trust me I'm not offended. I know I'm a noob. It's more than just clipping and pasting... the style and wit has to be there as well. It's like editorial cartooning. I'll just keep annoying everyone until I get it right.

[Gumby]

Have any of you peeps here yet clicked on Brony's name? It takes you to his blog.

It's about neuroscience - or at least Brony's take on it - and, uh, My Little Pony.

It is all exceedingly strange.

[snip]

http://realitybasedbrainponies.wordpress.com/

At least, like me, he's honest enough to put right in his username that he's not somebody worth listening to.

I'd rather listen to a cunt than a brony any day.

[Tigzy]

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:

*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/

Oh yeah!!? Think you'll still be laughing when an army of fierce SJ warriors prances up here on their pink ponies?

And furthermore, and army fierce SJ Warriors that have been trained by and honest-to-goodness X-man!

"I believe I have a mutation that lets me deal with conceptual information differently than “most people”'

[Gumby]

Oh yeah!!? Think you'll still be laughing when an army of fierce SJ warriors prances up here on their pink ponies?

Yes. Very hard.

[JackSkeptic]

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:

*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/

Oh yeah!!? Think you'll still be laughing when an army of fierce SJ warriors prances up here on their pink ponies?

Not the pink ponies !!!! I think there was a picture of him a few pages back (which here means about 30)

[Guest]

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

What's LBP?

[JackSkeptic]

<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?

"Me, too!"

THIS ^^^! A THOUSAND TIMES THIS!!!

But why?
But why?

You're so brave you're an inspiration to me. I don't know how you manage it through all that terrible abuse. You're so kind and gentle but these people......what can I say? You're my hero. I love you and I want you to have my babies.

[EdwardGemmer]

I don't think anyone here is disagreeing that she has a point. But, the point is blatantly obvious. It's nothing new. If she wants to educate her audience, why not expatiate on the reasons why this trope exists? Delve into cultural norms. Was this a trope that was birthed in Japan and was exported to the United States? Is it universal? If it's universal, that begs some pretty interesting questions.

Is it universal because of rampant cultural stereotypes or is it something innate in all of us? How do cultural norms change over the years? Indeed, has this particular trope evolved?

What was video game culture like in the 80s? Was it something women were even interested in? Who were the main programmers back then? What were they influenced by?

The questions are legion and I would love for someone to do a detailed analysis of them. All we get here is someone pointing out what everyone already knows. It's boring and it feeds into the whole, "all feminists care about is deconstructing every single thing to fit their ideology" trope. Which, by the way, is also boring.

Well, (1) the point may be obvious to you. I found it interesting because I'd never really thought of video games in that manner. I like video games, but I don't play them too much, but when I do think about them, especially now with two daughters, I am kind of miffed that the representations of women are often so silly. I can imagine that Sarkeesian, who obviously is a fan of video games and an outspoken feminist, would be frustrated with some of the representations of women in games.

(2) There is a difference between criticizing something for not being good and criticizing it because it isn't what you want to know. If you already knew all this stuff and would be more interested in other things, then great. However, I've never played Wind Waker or many other of the games she references, and I never really thought about the women being a glorified ball that you fight over. In retrospect, it is obvious, but that doesn't mean it is poor criticism. Lots of things are obvious in retrospect.

[codelette]

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.

Yeah, I agree with the critique of her cherry-picking.
Our first console at home was an Atari 2600. Games played on it? Pac-Man, Centipede, Frogger, Space Invader, Combat, Boxing...where's the rampant sexism on those early video games?
When we got ahold of the Nintendo NES, we played Tyson's Punch Out, Duck Hunt, Running Stadium, Mortal Komabt...there's even mixed gender fights on that last game...

[EdwardGemmer]

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?"

Shitting hell, I wonder what the average african-american would make of that statement. 30 years ago people didn't get all butt-hurt about the fact they couldn't choose to play as the girl in a specific arcade game. Its was just like slavery!!

LOL exactly! PZ experiences his own little bit of slavery by not being able to play as Princess Peach in Super Mario Brothers 3. Though the raccoon suit was a little bit feminine and that tail could have a few extracurricular uses.

[Altair]

There can be no doubt that games were and are marketed to boys and men. I don't think it is even a problem, and Sarkeesian doesn't exactly present it as some sort of evidence of the evil Nintendo. More, it is an observation - one that can be easily modified now, as evidenced by the guy who modified Donkey Kong. The Damsel in Distress is a cliche - of course women can be a "prize." Men's whole lives can be more or less premised on the idea that being more successful can lead to more sex. Video games which tap into our fantasies are no different.

I would agree with the "were" part but not so sure about the "are". I think they are now marketed to both genders, and that's what's brought the change in male/female characters ratio.
Videogames are a business. I don't think companies care a lot about social justice, but they care about the money they make. And if they find out that there's a lot of girls/women out there who want to buy games, and would buy more if they had a certain type of characters, they probably will end up making that kind of game to boost their sales.

I don't think Sarkeesian presents as evidence of the evil Nintendo, but from what I can gather she presents it as evidence of a sexist against women mindset. I think that's a too simplistic analysis. After all, the fact that tomb raider, resident evil, portal and mirror's edge have female protagonists says nothing about sexism against men.
I think those games can be used to analyze the culture of a time and place, and maybe even to wonder about men's and women's way of thinking, and how all these things influence the media, but it seems to me that she's just looking for examples to increase women's victim points.

For example, the original Silent Hill game has a father brave all the ghosts and monsters in the town in order to save his daughter. In the movie, the character was replaced by the girl's mother. Some people think it was done because women look more vulnerable and would increase the tension. Some people think it was because society considers that a father cannot love their children and just risk everything to protect them, like a mother would. One of them is sexist against women, one of them against men.

Is it one thing? Both? none? This thing requires a deeper analysis, one that doesn't start with the premise of "there is sexism and it's directed against women".

[jimthepleb]

Have any of you peeps here yet clicked on Brony's name? It takes you to his blog.

It's about neuroscience - or at least Brony's take on it - and, uh, My Little Pony.

It is all exceedingly strange.

[snip]

http://realitybasedbrainponies.wordpress.com/

At least, like me, he's honest enough to put right in his username that he's not somebody worth listening to.

I'd rather listen to a cunt than a brony any day.

QFT
but he's not a cunt he's a dick.

[cunt]

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?"

Shitting hell, I wonder what the average african-american would make of that statement. 30 years ago people didn't get all butt-hurt about the fact they couldn't choose to play as the girl in a specific arcade game. Its was just like slavery!!

LOL exactly! PZ experiences his own little bit of slavery by not being able to play as Princess Peach in Super Mario Brothers 3. Though the raccoon suit was a little bit feminine and that tail could have a few extracurricular uses.

Just remember this pale tub of lard is here to tell you all about cultural sensitivity.

[EdwardGemmer]

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.

I watched most of it, but honestly, I'm not that interested in the moral character of Anita Sarkeesian. I don't know her, she isn't watching my kids, she's not my neighbor, so I don't care if she once moderated someone's YouTube comment. Her video is good. That's it. I can't speak for her ethics or morals. I'm not a fan of trying to find ways to dismiss things that clearly have value. For example, the Crommunist had a big hissyfit because I was posting on his blog and he didn't like that. For whatever reason, he didn't want me posting there. Maybe he thinks I'm a racistsexist slymepitter, maybe he just hates white men, maybe he just can't handle disagreement, I don't know. He insulted me and my family and called me out on his blog and on Twitter. There is no reason for me to personally like him, but I told him, and still maintain, that he does a good job with his blog. He often makes interesting posts and clearly tries to think outside the box. The fact he doesn't like me is no reason for me to dismiss everything he ever says.

Similarly, I don't know what Sarkeesian has or hasn't said in the past. I saw one video attacking her master's thesis. So what/ It doesn't matter who she is as a person, because I don't value her for her great morals. I just like her videos.

[TheMudbrooker]

I'm getting sick of listening to the computer gamers here whining about this game or that being or not being sexist/misogynisitic/racist/whateverthefuck. If you want a game with exactly the characters, motivations and storyline you want all you have to do is unplug the console and paly an RPG the way it was meant to be played: a bunch of people sitting around a table, rolling dice, passing a bong and creating their own world as the gameplay evolves.

And while you're at it, you kids can get off my fucking lawn too.

[Percentage]

FWIW, I enjoyed Sarkeesian's gamer video. You can't deny that the video game industry is extremely male-dominated, and has been since its inception; I don't see anything wrong with deconstructing that, especially since video games have become more mainstream and thus culturally important in the past decade. I think I can concede all that without joining the batshit brigade. There's a middle ground to be found here.

I'm looking forward to her second video.

[Maximus]

Current games can create characters with deeper motivations and more intricate characters, and that could allow game writers to expand the characters available, and give them less simplistic motivations.

I don't have any evidence for this, but I have the impression that initially boys were the main consumers of videogames.
But were games with male protagonists created because of this, or were they the main consumers because the available games had male protagonists? that sounds like the chicken-egg problem, and I don't have a clear answer.

There can be no doubt that games were and are marketed to boys and men. I don't think it is even a problem, and Sarkeesian doesn't exactly present it as some sort of evidence of the evil Nintendo. More, it is an observation - one that can be easily modified now, as evidenced by the guy who modified Donkey Kong. The Damsel in Distress is a cliche - of course women can be a "prize." Men's whole lives can be more or less premised on the idea that being more successful can lead to more sex. Video games which tap into our fantasies are no different.

Until it is established that video games have an effect on reality, such as the much discussed 'violence in video games ', thoerising is just mental masterbation. Fantasies are just that, fantasies, merely entertainment and art.

[codelette]

- 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.

I have never had to tell a women to get over a sexist joke, a catcall or a whistle.
Maybe it is because the women around me -and myself- usually do not give a fuck about those. If a guy is crossing the line -i.e. if the guy starts following me- I inform the aforementioned man to get lost (usually a "keep moving, motherfucker" suffices).
Some training for Ophie and Co. on how to dispatch nuisances (1:36 fwd):
[youtube]uP_3goBZj1Y[/youtube]
lol

[jimthepleb]

LAIDEEEES and Gnlmn we announce the retirement of the 9000 time champion steersman for most Pointless obtuse and verbose poster for our NEW CHALLENGER Edward the Teddy Gemmer in a match we have called Descent into the Depths of Well meaning compromise.
Look we all would like to be fair to them, but are these sjw's playing by the rules of 'standard social discourse'?

[jimthepleb]

fuck punctuation i go ee cummings from now

[welch]

I don't think anyone here is disagreeing that she has a point. But, the point is blatantly obvious. It's nothing new. If she wants to educate her audience, why not expatiate on the reasons why this trope exists? Delve into cultural norms. Was this a trope that was birthed in Japan and was exported to the United States? Is it universal? If it's universal, that begs some pretty interesting questions.

Is it universal because of rampant cultural stereotypes or is it something innate in all of us? How do cultural norms change over the years? Indeed, has this particular trope evolved?

What was video game culture like in the 80s? Was it something women were even interested in? Who were the main programmers back then? What were they influenced by?

The questions are legion and I would love for someone to do a detailed analysis of them. All we get here is someone pointing out what everyone already knows. It's boring and it feeds into the whole, "all feminists care about is deconstructing every single thing to fit their ideology" trope. Which, by the way, is also boring.

Well, (1) the point may be obvious to you. I found it interesting because I'd never really thought of video games in that manner. I like video games, but I don't play them too much, but when I do think about them, especially now with two daughters, I am kind of miffed that the representations of women are often so silly. I can imagine that Sarkeesian, who obviously is a fan of video games and an outspoken feminist, would be frustrated with some of the representations of women in games.

(2) There is a difference between criticizing something for not being good and criticizing it because it isn't what you want to know. If you already knew all this stuff and would be more interested in other things, then great. However, I've never played Wind Waker or many other of the games she references, and I never really thought about the women being a glorified ball that you fight over. In retrospect, it is obvious, but that doesn't mean it is poor criticism. Lots of things are obvious in retrospect.

The fact you chose to remain ignorant of video games and a thousand-year-old trope doesn't make shitty analysis better.

[cunt]

At least, like me, he's honest enough to put right in his username that he's not somebody worth listening to.

I'd rather listen to a cunt than a brony any day.

Thanks, I think.

[welch]

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.

I watched most of it, but honestly, I'm not that interested in the moral character of Anita Sarkeesian. I don't know her, she isn't watching my kids, she's not my neighbor, so I don't care if she once moderated someone's YouTube comment. Her video is good. That's it. I can't speak for her ethics or morals. I'm not a fan of trying to find ways to dismiss things that clearly have value. For example, the Crommunist had a big hissyfit because I was posting on his blog and he didn't like that. For whatever reason, he didn't want me posting there. Maybe he thinks I'm a racistsexist slymepitter, maybe he just hates white men, maybe he just can't handle disagreement, I don't know. He insulted me and my family and called me out on his blog and on Twitter. There is no reason for me to personally like him, but I told him, and still maintain, that he does a good job with his blog. He often makes interesting posts and clearly tries to think outside the box. The fact he doesn't like me is no reason for me to dismiss everything he ever says.

Similarly, I don't know what Sarkeesian has or hasn't said in the past. I saw one video attacking her master's thesis. So what/ It doesn't matter who she is as a person, because I don't value her for her great morals. I just like her videos.

what about her thesis was it attacking? If it was crap research and analysis, I'd say that based on what I've seen, that's a valid criticism

[Aneris]

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

Yeah, I agree with the critique of her cherry-picking.
Our first console at home was an Atari 2600. Games played on it? Pac-Man, Centipede, Frogger, Space Invader, Combat, Boxing...where's the rampant sexism on those early video games?
When we got ahold of the Nintendo NES, we played Tyson's Punch Out, Duck Hunt, Running Stadium, Mortal Komabt...there's even mixed gender fights on that last game...

Especially as video games didn't really have a tradition at that time. Her methodology was flawed, as the storytelling of games belong to culturally different traditions that are more or less sexist. Zelda belongs to the adventure genre. Donkey Kong perhaps to the early cinema (King Kong). Action games are in their presentation closer to the action flicks and so on. She has to take the contexts into account, or focus on the video-game-only aspects (multi-medial-interactivity) to make her point.

[Tigzy]

Course, the old girl couldn't resist. In fact, I think Ophie has found her new cunt-kick:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... sentiment/
http://www.freezepage.com/1363127732ENULBVVVQY

Intriguing that the tweet which piqued her curiosity wasn't directed at her - would be even more intriguing if she has Blackford blocked/unfollowed on twitter...

[welch]

FWIW, I enjoyed Sarkeesian's gamer video. You can't deny that the video game industry is extremely male-dominated, and has been since its inception; I don't see anything wrong with deconstructing that, especially since video games have become more mainstream and thus culturally important in the past decade. I think I can concede all that without joining the batshit brigade. There's a middle ground to be found here.

I'm looking forward to her second video.

What part of "I don't mind analysis, but that was a shallow book report that a 14-year-old could have done on an off day" translates to LEAVE MY VIDEO GAMES ALONE YOU VICIOUS HARRIDAN?

Nothing you say has fuck anything to do with the major criticism of her fucking films presented here.

I don't give a fuck that she's a woman.
I think a solid, complete analysis of gender roles in video games is highly welcome, especially the early days of video games when the "images" were barely recognizable as HUMAN, would be honestly quite interesting.
I give a lot of fucks that she did a shit job.
I give a lot of fucks that people are using the poor behavior of many people to try to make a shitty book report of a video into insightful analysis.
I give even MORE fucks that if someone, especially a woman tries to do a SERIOUS analysis of gender roles in video games, that you know, has some actual analysis, Sarkeesian's shittastic Google University thesis will make their job a LOT harder.

She may pull her head out on the later films. If so, I will *welcome* that. But what I've seen so far gives me zero hope for that.

[Maximus]

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.

I watched most of it, but honestly, I'm not that interested in the moral character of Anita Sarkeesian. I don't know her, she isn't watching my kids, she's not my neighbor, so I don't care if she once moderated someone's YouTube comment. Her video is good. That's it. I can't speak for her ethics or morals. I'm not a fan of trying to find ways to dismiss things that clearly have value. For example, the Crommunist had a big hissyfit because I was posting on his blog and he didn't like that. For whatever reason, he didn't want me posting there. Maybe he thinks I'm a racistsexist slymepitter, maybe he just hates white men, maybe he just can't handle disagreement, I don't know. He insulted me and my family and called me out on his blog and on Twitter. There is no reason for me to personally like him, but I told him, and still maintain, that he does a good job with his blog. He often makes interesting posts and clearly tries to think outside the box. The fact he doesn't like me is no reason for me to dismiss everything he ever says.

Similarly, I don't know what Sarkeesian has or hasn't said in the past. I saw one video attacking her master's thesis. So what/ It doesn't matter who she is as a person, because I don't value her for her great morals. I just like her videos.

So you don't mind that she is neglecting to tell you information that would undermine her point? Or that she is biased? Do you like fox news :lol:

[debaser71]

I vote book report.

[BarnOwl]

Have any of you peeps here yet clicked on Brony's name? It takes you to his blog.

It's about neuroscience - or at least Brony's take on it - and, uh, My Little Pony.

It is all exceedingly strange.

A sampler:

This is a big experiment that I am doing on myself. The TL:DR version is that it is a combination art project and therapy. I have ADHD and Tourette Syndrome and I am going to build a computational model of the brain on the pages of this blog. What I mean by that is that I am going to look up all the little tiny pieces that science has discovered so far, and I am going model them and put them together in a way that makes their function sensible by sight. Then I am going to use that model to make connections between what science has discovered about the brain, and tie it to our minds. I want to translate structure and function to experience, and I want to do a way that works like a “Human Brain for Dummies.” That will apply to all of us.

Why am I going to do this? at least two reasons that I can figure out. I want understand myself and I want to do it in a way that will help other folks understand the brain too. I have a belief that I have a mutation that lets me deal with conceptual information differently than “most people” (whatever that means, that’s the point). For the justification about why this is not just the same average, arrogant statement that you have read everyone else, keep reading. Or not. What is important is that I am really doing science here because the first and most important part is that this is all based on scientific consensus, and I am doing this work by looking of information that would prove me wrong at every point. Most people don’t realize that science is done by having an idea, and then trying to prove it wrong by looking for something that would by true if you are right.

Making love with his ego
Ziggy sucked up into his miiiiiind

[cunt]

Course, the old girl couldn't resist. In fact, I think Ophie has found her new cunt-kick:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... sentiment/
http://www.freezepage.com/1363127732ENULBVVVQY

Intriguing that the tweet which piqued her curiosity wasn't directed at her - would be even more intriguing if she has Blackford blocked/unfollowed on twitter...

Gotta love the logic of the commenters so far.

Remove the embed: You're all immature and can't appreciate the beauty of an old womans body. Not like me, a sophisticated man of the world.
Leave the image: You're all immature and you're harassing Ophelia and intentionally trying to make her feel bad about her body. Let's boo-hoo about it for 6 months.

[JackSkeptic]

Course, the old girl couldn't resist. In fact, I think Ophie has found her new cunt-kick:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... sentiment/
http://www.freezepage.com/1363127732ENULBVVVQY

Intriguing that the tweet which piqued her curiosity wasn't directed at her - would be even more intriguing if she has Blackford blocked/unfollowed on twitter...

She had to wait a respectable amount of time to get over her 'upset' and 'ruined life' but hey, victim points is victim points right?

Of course it's all our fault, wouldn't want to blame the poster after all who posted on an open site.

[EdwardGemmer]

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?

No, apparently I don't. She clearly throws in a few opinions, but emphasis on few. "I could get this off of Wikipedia," may be true. You can get many things from other sources. Is it packaged as cleanly as on her video? Probably not. It's like arguing that evolution textbooks are garbage because you could just read the primary sources. Again, you aren't required to like it. But good criticism isn't based solely on your personal opinion. If you took someone who knew nothing about video games or video game cliches, would this be a helpful video? Yes, I think.

[AbsurdWalls]

Have any of you peeps here yet clicked on Brony's name? It takes you to his blog.

It's about neuroscience - or at least Brony's take on it - and, uh, My Little Pony.

It is all exceedingly strange...

... Since I have spent the last two months with this brain modeling among my primary interests, the act of bringing it into reality made me get emotionally sensitive about it in weird ways…

I can sympathise. I'm just finishing my thesis on brain modelling and I'm feeling pretty emotionally sensitive about it at the moment.

[Gumby]

Course, the old girl couldn't resist. In fact, I think Ophie has found her new cunt-kick:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... sentiment/
http://www.freezepage.com/1363127732ENULBVVVQY

Intriguing that the tweet which piqued her curiosity wasn't directed at her - would be even more intriguing if she has Blackford blocked/unfollowed on twitter...

From her post:
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... e846e1.png

Hey, I'm famous! :lol:

Ophie and her commenters are getting it all wrong, of course. Ophie neglected to mention that in that very same post of mine, I said I didn't care whose body - attractive or not - her head was pasted on, it was WRONG to do. The fact that the pic was WRONG was universally agreed to by the whole damn site, but these facts wouldn't mesh with Ophelia Benson's dual victimization/Slymepit is horrible narratives.

And her commenters are already horking up the "freeze peach" meme, and similar such standard nonsense. Idiots.

[EdwardGemmer]

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

Yeah I get that but it also gives him an out. By not being clear on what's actually saying, he can alwasy weasel out of it, which is something he often does (re: calling The Hellfire Club guy a liar, then claiming he didn't, then claiming it was a misunderstanding). It's weasel language that attacks someone without nailing down what the criticism. Kind of like the Social Justice 101 handbook that you aren't allowed to read but can always get judged for not following.

[JackSkeptic]

Oh EU posted there, wonder if they know who 'she' might be?

As to disgusting pic no one said the woman was only the fact Benson's head was on it. People felt bad for Benson. They are SO BAD at evidence.

[Gumby]

Oh EU posted there, wonder if they know who 'she' might be?

As to disgusting pic no one said the woman was only the fact Benson's head was on it. People felt bad for Benson. They are SO BAD at evidence.

Intentionally SO BAD at evidence.