Milo Yiannopoulos & Martin Shkreli event canceled at UC Davis after violent protests - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;51669304]Her whole point is to show the world how sexism shows itself negatively in video games. If the existence of sexism was subjective, then the videos would be totally pointless.[/QUOTE] maybe i just don't understand what the word subjective really means but i was under the impression that i could say sexism in video games is subjective in the sense that i accept if you don't believe in it, but i can still argue against it

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51669315]maybe i just don't understand what the word subjective really means but i was under the impression that i could say sexism in video games is subjective in the sense that i accept if you don't believe in it, but i can still argue against it[/QUOTE] Is the sexism real, identifiable by reasons outside of your own personal opinion? If so, then it's not subjective. This is exactly what she does. She points out things that she sees as objective examples of sexism. If you disagree with her, then you're wrong. Making a video game about something subjective would be the equivalent to making a video about how blue is the best color and any movie that doesn't color correct to blue is bad. Or in other words, totally pointless.

Sgman, I'm not really sure what your main argument is. Is it that Anita Sarkeesian is incorrect in her views of sexism? Or is it that it is hypocritical to criticize Milo Yiannopoulos for using language that is merely meant to be provocative while not criticizing Anita Sarkeesian for doing the same?

[QUOTE=Zyler;51669344]Sgman, I'm not really sure what your main argument is. Is it that Anita Sarkeesian is incorrect in her views of sexism? Or is it that it is hypocritical to criticize Milo Yiannopoulos for using language that is merely meant to be provocative while not criticizing Anita Sarkeesian for doing the same?[/QUOTE] My original point was to refute the specific argument that these protests were motivated by the dishonesty and propogandic nature of Milo as opposed to these protestors disagreement with his politics based on the fact that they don't protest people on the left who are also dishonest and spew propaganda. Anita was just an example of someone who is also dishonest and uses propaganda, but who isn't protested because academia generally agrees with her conclusions.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51669325]Is the sexism real, identifiable by reasons outside of your own personal opinion? If so, then it's not subjective. This is exactly what she does. She points out things that she sees as objective examples of sexism. If you disagree with her, then you're wrong. Making a video game about something subjective would be the equivalent to making a video about how blue is the best color and any movie that doesn't color correct to blue is bad. Or in other words, totally pointless.[/QUOTE] people don't make videos on how every movie should be color corrected to blue, but they do make videos about how hundreds of other norms should be adhered to. often times, they don't mention that [I]not every movie[/I] that does a specific cut fails, or that [I]not every movie[/I] without this specific color grading looks bad, because that's kind of a given. [editline]14th January 2017[/editline] the point is that they may very well think these norms are partially subjective, but that there's an underlying reason why so many people flock to those standards, and yet even then think people who disagree with the standards have a valid opinion

[QUOTE=sgman91;51669354]My original point was to refute the specific argument that these protests were motivated by the dishonesty and propogandic nature of Milo as opposed to these protestors disagreement with his politics based on the fact that they don't protest people on the left who are also dishonest and spew propaganda. Anita was just an example of someone who is also dishonest and uses propaganda, but who isn't protested because academia generally agrees with her conclusions.[/QUOTE] So your argument is that people should not protest those they perceive to have a negative influence on society as long as they do not do the same thing to those who also have a negative influence within their own camp, else they are hypocrites? By that logic, shouldn't you not protest and complain about Anita Sarkeesian in this thread without also protesting Milo as well at every opportunity?

[QUOTE=Tudd;51669074][media]https://youtu.be/tbNN6q140K0[/media][/QUOTE] Hasn't Martin explained several times why the prices of the drug was raised? What a retard.

[QUOTE=Zyler;51669394]So your argument is that people should not protest those they perceive to have a negative influence on society as long as they do not do the same thing to those who also have a negative influence within their own camp, else they are hypocrites? By that logic, shouldn't you not protest and complain about Anita Sarkeesian in this thread without also protesting Milo as well at every opportunity?[/QUOTE] That seems like a non-sequitur. I didn't say that they shouldn't protest Milo, but that we should be honest about the reason, that he disagrees with them politically, not because he's dishonest or propaganda driven. They couldn't give a single crap about dishonesty, as long as it's on their side.

[QUOTE=Araknid;51669395]Hasn't Martin explained several times why the prices of the drug was raised? What a retard.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=1239the;51641580]I looked up this claim that he spends the profits he makes on daraprim on research. All I could find was him [I]saying[/I] he 'is going to', and a House Oversight Committee hearing [URL="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/02/04/Why-Martin-Shkreli-Has-Been-Godsend-Drug-Industry"]finding this[/URL]: [QUOTE]The industry claims it must target prices so high to recoup the heavy costs of research and development. But the hearing showed that companies like Turing and Valeant don’t spend much on R&D at all. Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) points out that Valeant’s R&D equaled only 3 percent of sales between 2014 and 2015. Turing had a similarly low percentage, until a public relations consultant told them to raise it. To this day, Turing has not brought a single drug from the conceptual stage all the way to market; its profits come solely from drugs it purchases and makes available at a premium.[/QUOTE] Secondly, how has he made it easy for people who need the drug to get it for free? You can say he's just 'taking advantage of the system and gouging the insurance companies' but it doesn't excuse the fact that he's still exploiting a broken healthcare system and the consequences are that people without insurance (or their insurance won't help them) are being fucked over. There's no option for them to bypass this shit and get it for free, as far as I can see. (Please correct me with a source if I'm wrong, I'd genuinely like to be proven wrong here (and a statement from him with no followup is not a correction, this seems to be something he does a lot: i.e. "lying")). [URL="http://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/turing-reduces-cost-of-daraprim%C2%AE-pyrimethamine"]In fact, all I can find on these promises to make daraprim easy to get by opening it up to government medicare at steep discounts is just statements from 2015, and nothing saying these statements have actually been put into effect.[/URL] I don't understand how you have this startling insight into his personality like he's playing one giant 'just kidding bro' character and he's actually a super nice guy with a grounding reality but you know he's going to do great things! From all I can see he's just an asshole who lies a lot. [B]Edit[/B] Finally I found two (admittedly kind of tabloidey) posts about how [URL="https://nypost.com/2016/02/02/i-was-a-victim-of-the-pharma-jackass/"]insurance companies are now refusing to cover the cost[/URL] of the drug for patients, and [URL="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/why-is-martin-shkreli-still-talking"]accessing it through the government is very complicated[/URL]. [QUOTE] Earlier this fall, I got a call from a specialty pharmacy in Michigan.My insurance would no longer cover the cost of Daraprim, a vital medicine in my Lyme disease treatment. They said the drugs would cost me $30,000. “Thirty thousand dollars a year?” I asked, flabbergasted. “No, $30,000 a month,” they responded.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]To his credit, Shkreli wrote to the blog and left his cell number, instructing anyone having troubling finding Daraprim to call him. In the time we spend together, he tells me—many times—that he gives away the pill for free to anyone who can't afford it. Still, patients suffering from toxoplasmosis say that the process to get the drug for free is too complicated for those battling a disorienting illness that disproportionately affects the homeless and indigent. "It's so much harder than an average person would guess to jump through these hoops," says Abigail Schanfield, a 24-year-old from Minneapolis who had brain surgery in October and was diagnosed with congenital toxoplasmosis as an infant. "If you can't afford it, you have to fill out this paperwork to get it for free, which is another barrier to access."[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Interesting video from a person with an interesting disposition. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5FGDFKeg9k[/media] Also some news coverage/segment. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi-VwGBRgig[/media]

[QUOTE=sgman91;51669405]That seems like a non-sequitur. I didn't say that they shouldn't protest Milo, but that we should be honest about the reason, that he disagrees with them politically, not because he's dishonest or propaganda driven.[/QUOTE] Ah okay, I understand now. Your argument is that they cannot be against a person for being dishonest or propaganda driven because they can be vaguely associated with someone who you think is also dishonest or propaganda driven.

[QUOTE=Zyler;51669434]Ah okay, I understand now. Your argument is that they cannot be against a person for being dishonest or propaganda driven because they can be vaguely associated with someone who you think is also dishonest or propaganda driven.[/QUOTE] If I'm protesting person A for reason X, then I need to also protest person B for reason X. If I actively choose to not protest person B for reason X because I like their political conclusions, then I'm a hypocrite. The fact that they also protest conservative speakers who aren't inflammatory gives more credence to the argument that they are protesting due to differing political views.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51669439]If I'm protesting person A for reason X, then I need to also protest person B for reason X. If I actively choose to not protest person B for reason X because I like their political conclusions, then I'm a hypocrite. The fact that they also protest conservative speakers who aren't inflammatory gives more credence to the argument that they are protesting due to differing political views.[/QUOTE] Let's break this down. Lets say that Person A is the protesters, Person B is Milo Yiannopoulous and Person C is Anita Sarkeesian. Your argument is that Person A cannot believe that Person B is dishonest because Person C is dishonest and Person A does not identify Person C as dishonest. However, whether or not Person C is dishonest has no bearing on whether or not Person B is dishonest or vice versa. Therefore, both Person C and Person B can be dishonest and Person A can be correct in identifying Person B as dishonest even if they don't identify Person C as dishonest. In summary, it is not hypocriticial to dislike Milo Yiannopoulos for being dishonest and not dislike Anita Sarkeesian for being dishonest, and in fact the two relationships have no relation to each other.

[QUOTE=Zyler;51669450]Let's break this down. Lets say that Person A is the protesters, Person B is Milo Yiannopoulous and Person C is Anita Sarkeesian. Your argument is that Person A cannot believe that Person B is dishonest because Person C is dishonest and Person A does not identify Person C as dishonest. However, whether or not Person C is dishonest has no bearing on whether or not Person B is dishonest or vice versa. Therefore, both Person C and Person B can be dishonest and Person A can be correct in identifying Person B as dishonest even if they don't identify Person C as dishonest. In summary, it is not hypocriticial to dislike Milo Yiannopoulos for being dishonest and not dislike Anita Sarkeesian for being dishonest, and in fact the two relationships have no relation to each other.[/QUOTE] What about if we dislike Milo Yiannopoilous not necessarily for his views, but because he's a deliberately antagonistic, unpleasant, inflammatory person?

Shkreli's recording of their after-dinner talking about the protest. [url]https://www.facebook.com/martinshkr/videos/vb.16400586/10101357309807225/?type=3&theater[/url] Warning: Super punchable face. Spoilers: [sp]Shkreli doesn't seem like the most entertaining dinner guest.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Sonador;51669464]What about if we dislike Milo Yiannopoilous not necessarily for his views, but because he's a deliberately antagonistic, unpleasant, inflammatory person?[/QUOTE] Likewise, you are not a hypocrite if you do not dislike a person who is generally associated with a left-leaning point of view or any other political position who is also deliberately antagonistic, unpleasant or inflammatory. Your view of one individual does not affect the validity of your view of another individual. Another way to put it would be to say that even if the dumbest person in the world said that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, they would still be correct even though they are the dumbest person in the world. The attributes of that one individual has no bearing on the validity of a wholly disconnected claim.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51669290]Secondly, right, that's what she said. What she failed to mention is that you were there to kill some bad dude who wouldn't surprisingly be found in a seedy place like a strip club, and that there's literally no reason to kill the strippers. It actually makes the mission harder. She either purposefully misrepresented the game or she was so incompetent that she had no idea what she was talking about.[/QUOTE] You disagreeing with her doesn't mean she's wrong or her point has no merit. Why have a mission where you kill a bad dude in a strip club? Why write that character in? It is entirely possible that he was written in to give the player an excuse to go to a strip club. Her view may very well be that the depiction of strippers and strip clubs is sexist, and her beliefs would be pretty logically consistent with each other if that were the case. And "there is literally no reason to kill the strippers" doesn't detract from the fact that the devs purposefully made that option possible. Killing civilians in the Hitman series has pretty much always been a bit of a slap on the wrist anyway (and might actually be preferable if they are witnesses to assassinations), and there is also no penalty for knocking them out.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;51669481]You disagreeing with her doesn't mean she's wrong or her point has no merit. Why have a mission where you kill a bad dude in a strip club? Why write that character in? It is entirely possible that he was written in to give the player an excuse to go to a strip club. Her view may very well be that the depiction of strippers and strip clubs is sexist, and her beliefs would be pretty logically consistent with each other if that were the case. And "there is literally no reason to kill the strippers" doesn't detract from the fact that the devs purposefully made that option possible. Killing civilians in the Hitman series has pretty much always been a bit of a slap on the wrist anyway (and might actually be preferable if they are witnesses to assassinations), and there is also no penalty for knocking them out.[/QUOTE] I hope you realize how logically fallacious it is to demerit a game about murder for hire for having seedy/immoral settings and characters

[QUOTE=Samiam22;51669481]You disagreeing with her doesn't mean she's wrong or her point has no merit. Why have a mission where you kill a bad dude in a strip club? Why write that character in? It is entirely possible that he was written in to give the player an excuse to go to a strip club. Her view may very well be that the depiction of strippers and strip clubs is sexist, and her beliefs would be pretty logically consistent with each other if that were the case. And "there is literally no reason to kill the strippers" doesn't detract from the fact that the devs purposefully made that option possible. Killing civilians in the Hitman series has pretty much always been a bit of a slap on the wrist anyway (and might actually be preferable if they are witnesses to assassinations), and there is also no penalty for knocking them out.[/QUOTE] Those are intellectually dishonest arguments. Why? Because they are based on nothing more than assertion. Conspiracy theories have more evidence. Being "entirely possible" doesn't equate to being a legitimate argument.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51669502]Those are intellectually dishonest arguments. Why? Because they are based on nothing more than assertion. Conspiracy theories have more evidence. Being "entirely possible" doesn't equate to being a legitimate argument.[/QUOTE] I don't think you understood Samiam's point at all. They are making an argument based on logical extrapolation rather than empiricism, so they do not need empirical evidence. They were also explaining the internal logic behind Sarkeesian's argument and why it is therefore not hypocritical or dishonest, not arguing the empirical validity of that argument. So to recap, you argued that the protesters were hypocrites for being against Milo based on his dishonesty and not being against Sarkeesian for her dishonesty. We have now established that it is not hypocritical to be against one person who is dishonest and not against another person who is also dishonest. We have also established that we cannot say that Sarkeesian is dishonest, which you defined as her not believing what she herself had said, because her points are logically internally consistent.

[QUOTE=Zyler;51669516]I don't think you understood Samiam's point at all. They are making an argument based on logical extrapolation rather than empiricism, so they do not need empirical evidence. They were also explaining the internal logic behind Sarkeesian's argument and why it is therefore not hypocritical or dishonest, not arguing the empirical validity of that argument.[/QUOTE] "Logical extrapolation" still needs to be based on evidence (unless you're making some [I]a priori[/I] argument, but that's not the case here).

[QUOTE=sgman91;51669526]"Logical extrapolation" still needs to be based on evidence.[/QUOTE] It's not a form of empirical reasoning, so it doesn't require empirical evidence. Samiam explained the internal logic behind Sarkeesian's argument, not why it is or is not valid. It's okay to admit you don't understand. [QUOTE](unless you're making some [I]a priori[/I] argument, but that's not the case here)[/QUOTE] It is a logical extrapolation of the multiple [i]a priori[/i] statements you have made throughout the thread, in the same way I deconstructed your logic with the Person A/B/C example. Your argument was that Sarkeesian purposely or accidentally misrepresented the game by pointing out that the game allows you to kill strippers npcs while the game does not actually encourage the player to do so. You further argued that she is therefore dishonest because her expressed opinion is that the game is sexist because it allows you to kill stripper npcs. Samiam countered your argument by pointing out that the merit of Sarkeesian's argument stands regardless of whether the game encourages the player to the kill the stripper npcs because the developers chose to include them in the game in the first place. Therefore, Sarkeesian is not logically inconsistent with her argument and as a result she is not dishonest by your definition. To reiterate, this is wholly separate from the empirical validity of the claim. So to recap once again, you argued that the protesters were hypocrites for being against Milo based on his dishonesty and not being against Sarkeesian for her dishonesty. We have now established that it is not hypocritical to be against one person who is dishonest and not against another person who is also dishonest. We have also established that we cannot say that Sarkeesian is dishonest, which you defined as her not believing what she herself had said, because her points are logically internally consistent.

Maybe no one gets upset about Sarkeesian because she just spends her time fucking complaining about video games instead of advocating bigotry and harassing people?

[QUOTE=Sonador;51669490]I hope you realize how logically fallacious it is to demerit a game about murder for hire for having seedy/immoral settings and characters[/QUOTE] It's not my argument. Tell Sarkeesian if you think her arguments are fallacious. [QUOTE=sgman91;51669502]Those are intellectually dishonest arguments. Why? Because they are based on nothing more than assertion. Conspiracy theories have more evidence. Being "entirely possible" doesn't equate to being a legitimate argument.[/QUOTE] Premise 1: Portraying strippers as objects is sexist Premise 2: Hitman portrays strippers as objects Conclusion: Hitman is sexist That is what Sarkeesian thinks and it really is that simple. Those premises are her beliefs and are logically consistent with each other. This is valid. It might not be sound if you disagree with a premise, but it is valid. The reason she brought it up is because Hitman didn't [I]have[/I] to have a strip club level, it didn't have to have strippers. However, the developers decided to put in strippers and decided that the player would have no meaningful interaction with them besides looking at them or attacking them, and Sarkeesian takes issue with this. I don't know what about this is so hard to understand. It reminds me of the pub hideout place in The Saboteur, which had a bunch of showgirl types sitting around shirtless, with a code that came with the game (to discourage pre-owned copies) that removed their nipple coverings so they'd be completely topless. They didn't do anything meaningful, they were just there for you to look at, which carried the same sexism that Sarkeesian is talking about that Hitman did.

[QUOTE=Zyler;51669532]It's not a form of empirical reasoning, so it doesn't require empirical evidence. Samiam explained the internal logic behind Sarkeesian's argument, not why it is or is not valid. It's okay to admit you don't understand. It is a logical extrapolation of the multiple [i]a priori[/i] statements you have made throughout the thread, in the same way I deconstructed your logic with the Person A/B/C example. Your argument was that Sarkeesian purposely or accidentally misrepresented the game by pointing out that the game allows you to kill strippers npcs while the game does not actually encourage the player to do so. You further argued that she is therefore dishonest because her expressed opinion is that the game is sexist because it allows you to kill stripper npcs. Samiam countered your argument by pointing out that the merit of Sarkeesian's argument stands regardless of whether the game encourages the player to the kill the stripper npcs because the developers chose to include them in the game in the first place. Therefore, Sarkeesian is not logically inconsistent with her argument and as a result she is not dishonest by your definition. To reiterate, this is wholly separate from the empirical validity of the claim. So to recap once again, you argued that the protesters were hypocrites for being against Milo based on his dishonesty and not being against Sarkeesian for her dishonesty. We have now established that it is not hypocritical to be against one person who is dishonest and not against another person who is also dishonest. We have also established that we cannot say that Sarkeesian is dishonest, which you defined as her not believing what she herself had said, because her points are logically internally consistent.[/QUOTE] I'm not going to respond to your whole post because you can't seem to accurate represent the arguments being presented. I'll give you one example: [QUOTE]You further argued that she is therefore dishonest because her expressed opinion is that the game is sexist because it allows you to kill stripper npcs.[/QUOTE] I never said this. She thought it was sexist because the strippers were there for the express purpose of ogling or killing, not because you were able to kill them.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51669648]I'm not going to respond to your whole post because you can't seem to accurate represent the arguments being presented. I'll give you one example: I never said this. She thought it was sexist because the strippers were there for the express purpose of ogling or killing, not because you were able to kill them.[/QUOTE] Is it not functionally identical to say that the strippers exist for the purpose of killing as it is to say that they exist so that you are able to kill them? I corrected your misinterpretation of Samiam's post because you seemed to be unable to read it correctly. I also had to spend half a page trying to figure out your main argument from your meandering posts. If anyone is struggling to accurately represent the arguments being presented, it's you.

Universities should never be a place of censorship, these protesters are entirely in the wrong here.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;51669598] The reason she brought it up is because Hitman didn't [I]have[/I] to have a strip club level, it didn't have to have strippers. However, the developers decided to put in strippers and decided that the player would have no meaningful interaction with them besides looking at them or attacking them, and Sarkeesian takes issue with this. I don't know what about this is so hard to understand. [/QUOTE] But how is it sexist? Sexism is discrimination based over gender. Hitman is a game that is entirely based around giving you some setpieces - a hotel, a market, a winery, or in this case, a strip club - modelling them so they're realistic, putting a bunch of NCPs in the make up environment so that they can act like they would in real life (as far as their AI allows them to, obviously) and tell you "Make a plan, and kill that person". In every single of these setpieces there is a very clear hierarchy of importance, where every person in the environment could be considered more or less important because of the security clearance it gives you when you steal their identity. Civilian NPCs are usually at the bottom of this hierarchy, so they serve little to no purpose whatsoever in most stages, as they usually are little more than a nuisance. Despite this, the levels are littered with dozens of Civilian NPCs simply to make the environment more believable, and to make it feel more alive. In any given Hitman I'd say more than half of the NPCs serve literally no purpose. Now imagine you decide to make a level set in a strip club. You do everything you'd usually do - you put your target in the level, you put your guards in the level (high quality targets in that they give you more clearance) and so on and so on. And then you start putting the low level useless NPCs in the level, and this being a strip club, obviously the low level useless NPCs are going to be guests and strippers. Now, despite the fact that strippers have literally no more or less interaction than any other NPC in the game, it is sexist to put them in the game. But why? I mean look at this shit: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKxyWfdZr0I[/media] There are what, 4 strippers and around a hundred civilian npcs. The strippers and the guests are exact on the same exact level, i.e. they're completely useless to your purpose, yet it's only sexist for the strippers to be useless. It makes no sense. The real reason Sarkeesian doesn't like strippers in Hitman is that she doesn't like strippers in any way shape or form and she used her dislike simply to throw dirt on the game.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;51669598] The reason she brought it up is because Hitman didn't have to have a strip club level, it didn't have to have strippers. That is what Sarkeesian thinks and it really is that simple [/QUOTE] So you're telling me a game about a Hitman is completely fine, but the strip club level is a no-no because somehow you came to the conclusion that it portrays strippers as objects with no actual evidence apart from the game just having a strip club, [B]with strippers[/B]? If you ever actually played Hitman: Absolution. You should know that your mission in the Vixen Club is to assassinate [sp]the owner of Vixen Club, Known as Dominic Osmond, later in the game you find out that Dominic threatened woman and forced woman into working in his club as prostitutes[/sp]. The strip club in the story of the game has actually a purpose, instead of what people believe that it's only purpose is getting your dick hard. [QUOTE=Samiam22;51669598] That is what Sarkeesian thinks and it really is that simple. Those premises are her beliefs and are logically consistent with each other. However, the developers decided to put in strippers and decided that the player would have no meaningful interaction with them besides looking at them or attacking them[/QUOTE] Except her beliefs are incredibly fucking stupid and doesn't hold water, Like I mentioned [sp]the entire purpose of Vixen Club in the story of the game is to assassinate a man known for forcing woman into prostitution, and threatening them.[/sp] If you actually played the game or at [I]least[/I] researched it before coming into conclusion that Anitta's logic somehow holds water, you would instantly realize that the game is not sexist, you're killing a rapist and a sexist guy in the same mission, how can you associate that to sexism, it's the complete opposite. You're SAVING the strippers from an abuse, rapist guy. Also by the way. Like any person who actually played the game, you do know you get punished, often severely if you kill or harm an innocent person throughout the game, and if you happen to be looking at the strippers too much, they can notice you and blow your disguise up.

[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;51669793][...] The real reason Sarkeesian doesn't like strippers in Hitman is that she doesn't like strippers in any way shape or form and she used her dislike simply to throw dirt on the game.[/QUOTE] This is my main issue with what she does. She's essentially using her platform to promote discrimination against certain people's (as far as research is available fundamentally [I]benign[/I]) job choices just because they aren't something she personally likes. I'd have no problem with it if she simply said she disliked it and wouldn't buy those games that depict it for that reason or even if she tried to go for stronger parental controls (even though the US is pretty unreasonably crazy about sex anyway), but she's trying to make them [I]not exist for anyone on the basis of emotional arguments that contradict available science and logical arguments based on blatant lies[/I]. And that doesn't even go into the whole issue with Sarkeesian effectively promoting the discrimination of certain women purely based on body type, which is a whole other can of worms...