• UN talk about how Pokemon is full of killing, D&D is Santanic, reddit and harddrives used as sources
    193 replies, posted
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;48781678]This report was pretty laughable but I feel I should point out that the first two points listed in the title are false, and citing Reddit is no worse than citing Voat, 8chan, or Breitbart. It's already extremely easy to tear this thing apart, making up additional flaws in it is just going to make yourself look bad and clickbaity. Incoming shitpost from HoodedSniper in 3...2...1...[/QUOTE] I think you handled the shitpost part just fine, no need for an additional one. Go back to gamerghazi and blogging about gamergate on some failed blog site and defending pedophiles.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;48782744]It's silly to say than Anita Sarkeesian and others aren't "true feminists". No one has any authority to say who is and who isn't a feminist. Sarkeesian represents her particular brand of feminism, and to her followers it's what "true feminism" is about.[/QUOTE] That's a perspective I understand but my view remains: feminism is about equality, Anita doesn't want equality, Anita is not a feminist. Simple.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48783058]That's a perspective I understand but my view remains: feminism is about equality, Anita doesn't want equality, Anita is not a feminist. Simple.[/QUOTE] She doesn't want equality? Based on what?
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48783058]That's a perspective I understand but my view remains: feminism is about equality, Anita doesn't want equality, Anita is not a feminist. Simple.[/QUOTE] I don't want to get into the whole semantic conversation here, but there are multiple interpretations of what 'equality' means in terms of social, political and cultural studies; the big two being 'equality of opportunities' and 'equality of outcomes'. Sarkeesian believes in equality of outcomes (complete homogenization, everybody acts exactly the same and does the same thing, the collectivist and iliberal version) while what your talking about is 'equality of opportunities' (everybody has the same opportunities and can do whatever they want but doesn't have to do the same thing, the liberal and libertarian version). Which version you prescribe to depends on your exact interpretation of cultural studies and socialization theory, specifically whether you believe that people would be completely homogeneous if social constructs were removed or if people naturally enjoy different things and have different likes and attitudes (which is the liberal and libertarian way of looking at things). This isn't really a complete definition of those terms, but I hope that at least makes sense. Technically you can believe that 50% of the population should be put into camps (or a 'zoo', if that somehow sounds less horrible) a la Julie Bindel and still believe in 'equality'. It's all about what your personal definition of equality is, and how you define it.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48782360]im no expert on her kickstarter but i dont think the donations were all large sums of money[/QUOTE] So alot of people gave her money and support her as I said?
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48782360]im no expert on her kickstarter but i dont think the donations were all large sums of money[/QUOTE] Wouldn't that prove the point that a lot of people donated and that she has a lot of mainstream support, as opposed to if a very small number of people donated a large amount of money each (which would be more indicative of a fringe special interest group)? [QUOTE=Rangergxi;48784226]So alot of people gave her money and support her as I said?[/QUOTE] This pretty much. Also, does this mean that we all agree that Sarkeesian was to some extent a scam artist that either misrepresented what she was advertising or put forward points that were inaccurate for the purpose of garnering more attention? Because that was implied in RichyZ's post earlier that other people agreed with. Emphasis Mine: [QUOTE=RichyZ;48782117]and all of this could have been avoided if people didn't make a bitch fit when sark did her [b]dumb[/b] kickstarter but now she has all the attention in the world gg[/QUOTE] This is implying that Sarkeesian's kickstarter was 'dumb' to begin with.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48784287] This is implying that Sarkeesian's kickstarter was 'dumb' to begin with.[/QUOTE] It was so dumb it raised bags of cash and still hasn't been fulfilled.
Don't worry, the UN is a paper tiger. You'll likely never see any effects from this.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48785300] when it first popped up in the news, i didnt get why it was so controversial, yeah women get some dumb representation in games whatever make a series i dont care and yeah its dumb she got a lot of money but also a ton of people go see transformers and paranormal activity so its not like some grave injustice to the medium ya know[/QUOTE] Fair enough, honestly. I do think people should openly criticize stuff (Like for example, people should keep criticizing Michael Bay films for being flashy and shallow so that maybe people will change their viewing habits and we'll start getting more money from Hollywood put into slightly better films), people should criticize everything all the time 24/7, that's how we create a dialogue about any number of social issues. On the other hand, it's understandable to feel exasperated after hearing a single issue brought up so many times (potentially at the expense of other issues), I feel like Sarkeesian and others have made a conscious effort to push themselves into public attention and inject themselves into issues that they previously had nothing to do with (people had pretty much forgotten about her before Feminist Frequency injected itself into GamerGate). Point is, people will always wish to push themselves into the public dialogue in order to get their 5 seconds of fame as a celebrity, powerful people will always use those celebrities in order to push for political changes and people on the internet will always discuss those celebrities while arguing for or against those changes. It would be nice if we could talk about the actual issues and the arguments being brought up instead of the celebrities, but it's extremely unlikely that will occur when the individuals being discussed and their cohorts actively want to keep the spotlight on them personally and not the beliefs they are supposedly supporting. In this case, the same relatively powerful political people who were pushing for video game censorship in the 90s are doing it again today, they are using the star power of Zoe Quin and Anita Sarkeesian as well as whoever else is involved to do this. People who support the celebrities will defend them and will be mixed in with people who either support the UN proposal, are against it, have political views that align or go against those of the celebrities, don't like the celebrities for personal reasons, and the people who are actually arguing against the ideas of the proposal itself. It's a mess designed to obfuscate any actual talking points while drumming up attention and controversy (judging by the existence of this thread, it worked) and it's the same reason advertisements for cars or sports or fast food use celebrities to deliver their message; it's a purely cynical effort to push a message through star power as opposed to functional rhetoric. They have no argument and so they must use celebrities to push their message (and it works).
[QUOTE=RichyZ;4878530] i think everyone can agree shes a scam artist (or at least everyone who knows what is going on) i just think that people should have never given her the attention or light of day when it first popped up in the news, i didnt get why it was so controversial, yeah women get some dumb representation in games whatever make a series i dont care and yeah its dumb she got a lot of money but also a ton of people go see transformers and paranormal activity so its not like some grave injustice to the medium ya know[/QUOTE] Not only that other mediums are just as bad, but we've got characters like The Boss from MGS3 who have just been sitting there silently proving their point wrong to anyone who knows what they're talking about for over a decade.
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;48781415]TIME magazine is written by baby boomers who just want their paycheck, and they are just invited to talk in the UN. Don't get the wrong idea.[/QUOTE] TIME magazine is written by hipster progressive millenials whom have a definite political agenda.
[QUOTE=27X;48786241]TIME magazine is written by hipster progressive millenials whom have a definite political agenda.[/QUOTE]Irrelevant, they have a lot of influence, that's what matters.
The UN went full mcintosh! You [I]never[/I] go full mcintosh!
Shit I think even the proposals in middle school MUNs have better references than this.
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;48781415]TIME magazine is written by baby boomers who just want their paycheck, and they are just invited to talk in the UN. Don't get the wrong idea.[/QUOTE] Its like one of the top magazines. Being mentioned on that is a big deal. [editline]29th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=kila58;48781579]Feminism shouldn't be the face of equality anyhow, the name itself even implys differently. It's should be completely neutral.[/QUOTE] A person entirely dedicated forwarding mens rights isn't a feminist but a person entirely dedicated to forwarding womens rights is. [editline]29th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=RichyZ;48785300]i read the post as a small group of people with a large sum of money gave it to her as one big donation or something, sorry[/QUOTE] Look at the mainstream games media and pro-feminism communities. They rabidly support her.
can someone give me the lt'dr of this video 2 hours of this kinda of crap and seeing the world leaders fall for it make me sad.
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;48788041]can someone give me the lt'dr of this video 2 hours of this kinda of crap and seeing the world leaders fall for it make me sad.[/QUOTE] You can be cyber touched, Pokemon is a killing game for toddlers, disagreeing with Anita is in the same vein as physical beatings, D&D is satanic, reddit and harddrives used as sources. UN isnt world leaders, the UN is a joke actually. World leaders arent a part of the UN.
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;48781415]TIME magazine is written by baby boomers who just want their paycheck, and they are just invited to talk in the UN. Don't get the wrong idea.[/QUOTE] at what point are we allowed to argue with these people without being subject to "nah these guys are powerless why are you wasting your time lol". Also considering most of these posters watch stuff and play video games, plenty of "time wasting" there. [editline]29th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=RichyZ;48787768]they wouldnt support her if people didn't get so outraged when the kickstarter hit anything above the goal[/QUOTE] Often when you see attention whores on the internet trying to make some dumb point or make big bucks its a good strategy to ignore them. Their craziness speaks for themself and they wont gain any traction if theyre left alone. However, in the case of the LW's and SJWs, their brand of crazy is well disguised, see what anita said when she went on the colbert report. She said "if you beleive in equality, your a feminist just like me" and wore a shit eating grin. In reality, her brand of feminism is extremely diverged from equality. Their brand will gain support from the attention we give them, but they'd also gain support if left unopposed. To counter this kind of PR positive thing they have going, our only option is mass-reasoned debunking of everything they stand for. I think it's been pretty effective thus far. Before gamergate the SJWs were already entrenched in gaming journalism and high up positions at big sites like reddit and 4chan. These people were already numerous and in somewhat meaningful positions.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48782142]I dunno. The feminists who gave her like $200,000 kinda matter :wavey:[/QUOTE] tbh that wouldn't have happened if dumb fuckers on Reddit and 4Chan didn't blow the whole thing the fuck up. The Kickstarter wasn't doing great at all until outraged Channers and Redditors decided to talk about it non-stop. Her funding was mostly given as a response to people actually attacking her and the kickstarter at the time. Denying people were attacking her is fucking asinine because the people doing so hadn't realised she was capable of using something like that against them yet. Very few targets of Internet outrage had done that before this loon came along. (Also a talk at the UN doesn't really mean much, almost anybody can talk there if they can provide some kind of evidence they have a decent amount to talk about, it's a open platform for discussion after all, even if the speaker in question isn't the best for the task) [editline]29th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Rossy167;48785991]Not only that other mediums are just as bad, but we've got characters like The Boss from MGS3 who have just been sitting there silently proving their point wrong to anyone who knows what they're talking about for over a decade.[/QUOTE] Other mediums have received this backlash already though, multiple times. Games are still quite young and hadn't until recently. Shit, games only had the whole "violence corrupting our kiddies" thing a few decades ago, TV had that multiple decades ago, comics in the 50s or something, a film before that. There are tons of hardened critiques of those forms of media. Sarkesian was totally misguided in her attempt, but it should have created a basis for others to actually work from (and some critics have used it, largely to say "you got this wrong, but you tried gold star I suppose").
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48788365]tbh that wouldn't have happened if dumb fuckers on Reddit and 4Chan didn't blow the whole thing the fuck up.[/QUOTE] The kickstarter made a ton of money, she made shitty videos and got flak for it which lead to even more donations. [QUOTE=RichyZ;48785300]i read the post as a small group of people with a large sum of money gave it to her as one big donation or something, sorry[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RichyZ;48789218] and it isn't just hindsight, ive been posting this since the original anita kickstarter thread days[/QUOTE] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1295347&p=41678095&viewfull=1#post41678095[/url] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1307770&p=42204773&viewfull=1#post42204773[/url] You haven't always thought that she was scam artist and have always supported her.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48789325][url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1295347&p=41678095&viewfull=1#post41678095[/url] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1307770&p=42204773&viewfull=1#post42204773[/url] You haven't always thought that she was scam artist and have always supported her.[/QUOTE] The first post is simply stating a fact and the second one is satire, I don't see how that shows disagreement in her status and shows a long-running support for her
anita made a lot of money because a lot of people liked the things she said her detractors are responsible for her success in the same way that donald trump's detractors are responsible for his success I mean, what's the alternative? Not criticizing popular opinions because you're afraid they'll get more popular?
Anita already lost anyways. She cant change laws. Her audience is very clearly NOT the gaming audience, even the most casual one. Her audience is literally just people that dislike video games. If you are for Anita, at this point you are against video games as a whole since everything down to Pokemon is bad. So her audience are the people that dont even support games, makes them, or even plays them. Her views have also gotten so far out their shes actually lost a lot of support from people who used to agree with her. You are only hearing about her because she has PR hookups and she has money. So really you can shit all over her and bringing more attention to her at this point is good. Its actually very good. She cant take back all the things she said so far, its all archived and people have videos. Only thing shes ultimately gaining from all of this is money, which is what its always been, but its not our money and it never will be. Id much rather have her getting on the news non-stop these days due to how fucking insane she is. No one needs to prove that shes fucked up, she does it just fine by talking now.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;48789907]Anita already lost anyways. She cant change laws. Her audience is very clearly NOT the gaming audience, even the most casual one. Her audience is literally just people that dislike video games.[/QUOTE] No it really isn't. Her fanbase includes quite a few popular and influencial game developers and people who work in games media.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48789939]No it really isn't. Her fanbase includes quite a few popular and influencial game developers and people who work in games media.[/QUOTE] don't act like video games are different now because of her, she's accomplished nothing but fame and money out of this [editline]29th September 2015[/editline] and are you just going to ignore the little lie you told up there?
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48789939]No it really isn't. Her fanbase includes quite a few popular and influencial game developers and people who work in games media.[/QUOTE] People who work in games media mean fuck all, they dont make games. What devs? And how do you even know any of these devs have much power where they are? It also comes down to the fact, how many devs support anita that are working on worthwhile games vs devs who dont support her and work on worthwhile games. Her audience ISNT people who like and play games, even if some of it is. Most people that play games dont even know Anita or her ideology exist at all or would even care. Anita is a nobody with money and a name going around, thats it. She hasnt even changed gaming and she would do nothing but hurt a companies image if they associated with her. Shes done absolutely nothing but make money.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48789939]No it really isn't. Her fanbase includes quite a few popular and influencial game developers and people who work in games media.[/QUOTE] A few game devs who have killed their reputation just as hard as Sarkeesian and McIntosh did over the last few years. Just remember Tim ''The 3.3 Million Dollar Man'' Schaffer and and another horde of irrelevant ''artsy'' Indie hipsters from San Francisco. About the only person in that circle I can think of who hasn't released only utter garbage in the last few years is Vlambeer's Rami Islami (fucking why though, given that Vlambeer's games are good enough to get noticed on merit without sucking up that hard to the SF Indie clique) Every other dev worth their salt should disregard Sarkeesian and McIntosh given how they will willingfully misinterpret your game as being ''muh soggy knees'' anyways if they feel like it. Plus bending over to a crowd that doesn't actually play games instead of the crowd that does play games would be a fantastically stupid economical decision.
Since when did UN get involved with this inane video game bullshit? Also has Anita ever been as hell bent on sexism in movies films&TV as she is on video games? Like, what the hell. Make an actual good game with cast and characters the way you fucking want, and people are probably going to like it because they don't really care. Hideo Kojima may just a pervert, like openly so, for some reason. It's the way people is, driven by sexual frustration, and hunger. I'm sure Anita knows it too.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;48790078] Also has Anita ever been as hell bent on sexism in movies films&TV as she is on video games?[/QUOTE] I think it was her that talked about Avengers being sexist which lead to Whedon dropping out of twitter.
Or is Aneeta even about anything more than video games etc.? What's she done for the good of truly underprivileged women anywhere? Even spoke for them?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.