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

[QUOTE=SenhorCreeper;51669825]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. 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] It would be really nice if people would stop acting like I'm the one holding this belief. I'm not. I don't have an opinion on Hitman Absolution because I haven't played it, all I'm saying is that Anita's argument is consistent with what she believes. [sp]I did some reading on the Dom Osmond guy to see for myself. It seems the reason he's a target to begin with is because he has connections to the main antagonist, not because of his attitudes towards women. I'm not sure how that then proves that Hitman Absolution isn't sexist, saving the strippers from him would be a pleasant side effect at best. Osmond's importance to the player is because he is an informant, not a strip club owner, so the story would not have been impacted if he weren't a strip club owner.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51669036]Are you referring to all of the protesters in general? Because while I agree that people getting violent/rioting goes too far, there isn't really any problem with peaceful agitation so long as they cooperate with law enforcement.[/QUOTE] You knew exactly what he was talking about, cut the crap and stop pulling strawmen to attack.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;51669907]It would be really nice if people would stop acting like I'm the one holding this belief. I'm not. I don't have an opinion on Hitman Absolution because I haven't played it, all I'm saying is that Anita's argument is consistent with what she believes. [sp]I did some reading on the Dom Osmond guy to see for myself. It seems the reason he's a target to begin with is because he has connections to the main antagonist, not because of his attitudes towards women. I'm not sure how that then proves that Hitman Absolution isn't sexist, saving the strippers from him would be a pleasant side effect at best. Osmond's importance to the player is because he is an informant, not a strip club owner, so the story would not have been impacted if he weren't a strip club owner.[/sp][/QUOTE] I understand that you do not hold that position, but I want to make you understand that Sarkeesian's logic is not sound. She is a puritan, plain and simple, and she doesn't think Hitman is sexist because it portrays strippers in a sexist way, she thinks Hitman is sexist because she believes strippers are sexist in and themselves. And this is even supposing she believes this thing, this could just her being the usual McIntosh puppet saying dumb shit to get fem cred.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;51669833]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...[/QUOTE] This is not true. I don't understand where people are getting this notion that Sarkeesian wants to censor video games or make them disappear, it simply isn't true. She criticises them for portraying sexist attitudes (that she admits exist in other media, she criticised Mad Max yet didn't get dogpiled by Mad Max fans), and she is well within her rights to do this. [editline]15th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;51669910]I understand that you do not hold that position, but I want to make you understand that Sarkeesian's logic is not sound. She is a puritan, plain and simple, and she doesn't think Hitman is sexist because it portrays strippers in a sexist way, she thinks Hitman is sexist because she believes strippers are sexist in and themselves.[/QUOTE] I've been trying to say again and again that it is perfectly valid for her to say that if she believes strippers are sexist in and of themselves. Free speech is still on her side and she can be puritan if she wants.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;51669913]This is not true. I don't understand where people are getting this notion that Sarkeesian wants to censor video games or make them disappear, it simply isn't true. She criticises them for portraying sexist attitudes (that she admits exist in other media, she criticised Mad Max yet didn't get dogpiled by Mad Max fans), and she is well within her rights to do this.[/QUOTE] Except her critiques are absolutely bat shit insane at worst and simply wrong at best, and yes, she does want videogames to be censored to some extent, she made that very clear. I mean, how do you call "They put a strip club in a game and did nothing but faithfully represent one" being sexist as more than "You should never put strip clubs in your games"?

[QUOTE=SenhorCreeper;51669825]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. 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] To add to this, if you get spotted in Hitman Absolution, the screen gets a little red vibe for a fraction of a moment and you hear a small siren sound no matter on what difficulty you play on, even on the HUD-less Purist mode. On other difficulties, it is even harder to hide that getting spotted and sack innocent people in the face is a thing you get punished for, as it gets shown in a scorelist on the upper left of the screen. Getting spotted voids you from getting Shadow or Silent Assassin rank instantly, and docks you an additional 2500 points. Pacifying people detracts 200 points. Killing civilians and innocent people detracts a massive 5000 points from what I remember. And from what I remember about the exact same discussion from probably 1-2 years ago, is that Sarkeesian decided to show off how Hitman Absolution is supposedly sexist, was by literally running into the staff room of the Vixen Club and slugging five strippers to death while pretending that it is something the game orders you to do, despite the deducted points tally racking up in the top left corner of the screen and the screen flashing red from getting spotted. While in the situation of playing normally, you will very easily sneak around the room while hearing how the strippers are really fearful of the earlier mentioned Dominic Osmond and his associates, including one Edward Wade, who is the target in the next chapter. Wade is searching for 47's acquaintances in Chicago, including his intel man Birdie, with as end goal, to kidnap Victoria, who is Diana's adopted daughter, and the person 47 is trying to protect for the entire story. To add up how fucked up Osmond is, the strippers are talking about how he threatens them to ''take them to Hawaii'' if they aren't needed anymore. There have been several of those strippers who went missing and turned up dead after that, most of that being told by said strippers in their conversations. Literally five minutes later, you stumble upon what it really means. [sp]Escaping through a derelict building next to the Vixen Club, 47 finds out that the Chicago Police, who is not only in search of 47 after that whole Terminus debacle, but the missing strippers as well from reports from other stripper, are holding a crime scene investigation in that building. One of the rooms has apparently been used as a snuff film set, with Hawaii posters hanging in it. The cleanest way to get through that section, is to find a corpse of one of the strippers Osmond had killed, and drop it onto the floor below where the Chicago PD is searching below for clues. One of the cops on the scene mentions how this will cause a breakthrough in a criminal investigation to Osmond and his associates.[/sp] Of course, everyone who would have played the game knows that that part happens not even five to ten minutes after entering the Vixen Club, and serves to show how much of a bunch of utter monsters Osmond and Wade are, and that assassinating them both is more than 100% justified, yet Sarkeesian and her supporters pretend that it is about 47 entering a random stripper club in Chicago to slug all the female employees to death there while leaving Osmond alone. She purposefully misrepresented everything in that scene just to push her bullshit agenda further through.

[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;51669923]Except her critiques are absolutely bat shit insane at worst and simply wrong at best, and yes, she does want videogames to be censored to some extent, she made that very clear. I mean, how do you call "They put a strip club in a game and did nothing but faithfully represent one" being sexist as more than "You should never put strip clubs in your games"?[/QUOTE] I have looked and I can't actually find any claim of hers that states she wants games to be outright censored. Can you enlighten me, because I am clearly missing something.

I'm more worried we've gone completely offtopic. I'm sure there's an Anita Sarkeesian thread around here somewhere, the topic is Milo, Martin, and the Protestors.

this is why I hate these ultra right wing pundits, they don't treat others with respect then bitch to more people about how they're not respected. Also they just exist to shit on 'liberals' and give conservatives a complete pass from scrutiny

[QUOTE=Samiam22;51669940]I have looked and I can't actually find any claim of hers that states she wants games to be outright censored. Can you enlighten me, because I am clearly missing something.[/QUOTE] Yes because people who want to control and censor media to fit their ideals go tell everybody they want to control and censor media to fit their ideals, that's a wonderfully clever idea.

[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;51669968]Yes because people who want to control and censor media to fit their ideals go tell everybody they want to control and censor media to fit their ideals, that's a wonderfully clever idea.[/QUOTE] So basically you assert that Anita wants to censor any media and don't have any proof.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51669945]this is why I hate these ultra right wing pundits, they don't treat others with respect then bitch to more people about how they're not respected. Also they just exist to shit on 'liberals' and give conservatives a complete pass from scrutiny[/QUOTE] It's not like that the far left is not guilty of doing this either. In my country, you see groups like Antifa desecrating graveyards, making bomb threats in public places and assaulting law enforcement members purely because a right-wing group is allowed to have a protest for once. Why do far left groups have to resort to violence all the time? Even worse is, that those groups even have political support as well from left-wing parties, while it is clear to many people that they are just a group of bussed-in thugs who aren't that much different in their acts than the Blackshirts, Ennio Flaiano was right about them after all.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;51669983]So basically you assert that Anita wants to censor any media and don't have any proof.[/QUOTE] Are her actions not enough? Trump never said he wanted to fuck the american people right in the butt, that doesn't change that's exactly what he's doing right now. Anita may not be saying she wants anything to be censored, but the fact that she is complaining about a completely neutral depiction of something that doesn't like makes me think that she simply does not want anything she doesn't like into media. Without forgetting all the dumb shit her and her writer write all the time. McIntosh complained that NeoDoom is too violent, and that people should not glorify gore. In Doom. [I]In Doom[/I]. You can be sure that if Sarkeesian\McIntosh were in power, yup, they sure would be censoring shit left and right.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51670021]You cite one, and say "Why all of them all the time?" Before you can ask for reason of a phenomenon, you have to prove the phenomenon, which you havent done yet Start by defining far left in a non-vague manner[/QUOTE] You know, people like anarchists, leninists, marxists and communists. That sort of far left, and not your run-of-the-mill liberal. The kind of people who think that all four of those ideologies cannot fail when they want to impose it, despite it always ending up in massive famines and purges. What I find funny though, is how the most devout ones completely forget how totalitarian regimes on both sides of the spectrum knocks off the most devout members first when they get in power for a number of reasons. Firstly, because keeping those hopped-up attack dogs around isn't a fine long-term plan. Secondly, because when those devout members realise that their ideals aren't shaping up the ideal world that they previously thought would happen, they either keep being neck-deep into their subversion, or, which is what a totalitarian regime would fear the most, is that said person either revolts in the country itself, or defects and then openly exposes the lies and crimes of said totalitarian regimes. Yuri Bezmenov had some really interesting lectures on that in the 1980s.

[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;51670042]Are her actions not enough? Trump never said he wanted to fuck the american people right in the butt, that doesn't change that's exactly what he's doing right now. Anita may not be saying she wants anything to be censored, but the fact that she is complaining about a completely neutral depiction of something that doesn't like makes me think that she simply does not want anything she doesn't like into media. Without forgetting all the dumb shit her and her writer write all the time. McIntosh complained that NeoDoom is too violent, and that people should not glorify gore. In Doom. [I]In Doom[/I]. You can be sure that if Sarkeesian\McIntosh were in power, yup, they sure would be censoring shit left and right.[/QUOTE] This is literally you making stuff up. Her "actions" are a bunch of videos criticising video games for portraying sexism. Criticism is not a call for censorship. Sarkeesian is not in any position to censor or change what is portrayed in video games, nor does she seem to want to be. She has not vied for any positions of game development, nor any sort of censorship lobby, even a media rating establishment like ESRB. This is completely at odds with Trump who wanted the run of the show from the start. Sarkeesian has absolutely nothing to gain from censoring video games. Sarkeesian hasn't said a thing on censorship of video games, and you state that she secretly wants to start censoring things "left and right" with [I]literally no evidence[/I]. Jack Thompson, the previous favoured hatred target of gamers, did in fact want to censor video games, and he was very, very open about it. You are, completely straight-faced, saying "Sarkeesian wants to censor games because I think she does".

She can criticize as much as she wants, but if all the critics boil down to "I don't like this thing for completely subjective reasons and i don't wan't anybody to use it" then that IS censorship, especially when she misrepresents the things she criticizes in order to further push her agenda.

[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] Pretty sure people are protesting him and not Anita because he writes articles titled Gay Rights Have Made Us Dumber, It’s Time to Get Back in the Closet Trannies are Gay

[QUOTE=Samiam22;51669230]Firstly, the decision that something is racist or sexist is subjective. If she finds something sexist but you don't, that doesn't make her wrong. Secondly, the point of her argument against Hitman was that the developer purposefully included strippers that were either designed to be looked at by the player or attacked in some fashion. To put it into better terms, if the developers didn't want people interacting/looking at strippers, why did they make a level inside a strip club?[/QUOTE] Hahaha what the FUCK. Let me quote, verbatim, what she says in regards to Hitman. [quote]Hitman absolution features a mission in which the player can create a diversion by picking up and dumping the body of an exotic dancer near police officers. ... The play comes from figuring out the boundarie sand possibilities within the gamespace. So in many of the titles we've been discussing, the game makers have set up a series of possible scenarios involving vulnerable, eroticized female characters. Players are then invited to explore and exploit those situations during their playthrough. [B]<clip of 47 knocking out two strippers in a dressing room>[/B] The player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon, because they were designed, constructed, and placed in the environment for that singular purpose. Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters. It's a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality. [B]<47 storing knocked out strippers in box after noodling around their ragdolls for a good minute>[/B] Ingame consequences for these violations are trivial at best and rarely lead to any failstate or game over. [B]<clip of courier in new vegas shooting wrangler crier in head>[/B] [/quote] I've played Absolution, have you? Because the room featured as an example of her shitty argument is not used to allow the players to ogle and assault and control these women like some sort of crazed sex monster. It's a trite obstacle that the player can pass solely by waiting for 15 seconds and then sneaking past. It's an obstacle to the player stealth. Maybe you should go back and re-watch her video, because quite honestly, what you've said is complete bullshit. [B]The player was tracking down a seedy mob-boss or somesuch who ran the strip club, because they had information.[/B] In other words, you have it backwards. [B]They didn't set the story so they could make a strip club level[/B], [B]they made a strip club level to fit the story.[/B] Let me provide other examples of Anita providing awful disingenuous propaganda! [quote]in many open world or sandbox style games, developers construct their virtual world in such a way as to enable players to directly abuse non-playable sex objects. [B]<Sleeping Dogs protagonist grabs closest female NPC and slams her into trunk, then stuffs her inside and speeds away>[/B][/quote] [quote]Some games directly incentivize this behavior by having murdered women drop bundles of cash for the player to add to their own stash. [B]<clip 1: GTA 4 protagonist shooting normal (i.e. not stripper) woman with shotgun, then picking up money bundles> <clip 2: GTA 5 Franklin shooting normal (i.e. not stripper) woman with shotgun, then picking up money bundles> <clip 3: Godfather 2 protagonist hitting knocked down stripper with a downward swing of a baseball bat, then picking up money bundles>[/b] [/quote] In both of these cases, she implies that developers either 1) ONLY allow this to happen to female characters and reward the player for doing so, AND/OR 2) should only allow such circumstances to happen to men. In other words, to remove all women from the sandbox game, or put them in such a position where they cannot be harmed. Wow, so empowering! [editline]14th January 2017[/editline] Hell, in the hitman quote, she even implies the player CANNOT HELP BUT BRUTALIZE THE WOMEN, GIVEN THE CHANCE. As if every video game player just becomes an instinctual rutting animal. And it just so happens that, in an earlier video, she portrayed games as a boys only club. Really makes u think huh 🤔

What a bunch of fucking idiots

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;51670205]Hahaha what the FUCK. Let me quote, verbatim, what she says in regards to Hitman. I've played Absolution, have you? Because the room featured as an example of her shitty argument is not used to allow the players to ogle and assault and control these women like some sort of crazed sex monster. It's a trite obstacle that the player can pass solely by waiting for 15 seconds and then sneaking past. It's an obstacle to the player stealth. Maybe you should go back and re-watch her video, because quite honestly, what you've said is complete bullshit. [B]The player was tracking down a seedy mob-boss or somesuch who ran the strip club, because they had information.[/B] In other words, you have it backwards. [B]They didn't set the story so they could make a strip club level[/B], [B]they made a strip club level to fit the story.[/B] Let me provide other examples of Anita providing awful disingenuous propaganda! In both of these cases, she implies that developers either 1) ONLY allow this to happen to female characters and reward the player for doing so, AND/OR 2) should only allow such circumstances to happen to men. In other words, to remove all women from the sandbox game, or put them in such a position where they cannot be harmed. Wow, so empowering! [editline]14th January 2017[/editline] Hell, in the hitman quote, she even implies the player CANNOT HELP BUT BRUTALIZE THE WOMEN, GIVEN THE CHANCE. As if every video game player just becomes an instinctual rutting animal. And it just so happens that, in an earlier video, she portrayed games as a boys only club. Really makes u think huh 樂[/QUOTE] Perhaps you should read the rest of my posts when I say that I both haven't played Hitman Absolution and gave my thoughts on the stripclub boss. I'm also getting a lot of "she implies" from what you've written. If proof of her so-called disingenuous propaganda comes from what you think she means, then why should I have any reason to believe it? For the record, I'm not really a follower of Sarkeesian's videos (in fact I really don't care that much about her) but this whole Sarkeesian argument came about when Sarkeesian was accused of being as bad as Milo. She most certainly isn't. I also don't believe the label of "disingenuous propagandist grrr" is levied at her because she isn't completely infallible. She was literally an amateur internet vlogger who blew up in popularity one day, and decided to cover a very difficult and somewhat new subject, and while I do admit that she can be a bit underhanded and biased, this doesn't excuse the absolute torrent of hatred that has flown her way.

-snip-

[QUOTE=Omali;51669909]You knew exactly what he was talking about, cut the crap and stop pulling strawmen to attack.[/QUOTE] I actually didnt. "These people" is an incredibly vague denomination and a good amount of Facepunch has had somewhat of an anti-protester leaning in the past. The objective of my post was to get clarification and I got it. [editline]14th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=bunguer;51670330]How can people here support the actions of these idiotic protesters? Jesus, it's like people can't see hypocrisy, even when they are starting at it. So let me get this straight, you think Milo and Shkreli are bad people that are looking only to stir shit up but the way you deal with it is by being obnoxious pricks that do actually crimes (ruining property) and stop any sensible amount of discussion from happening. You don't see anything wrong with it? Is that the way you want dissenting opinions to be dealt with?[/QUOTE] Anybody who actually commits a crime should be dealt with and appropriately prosecuted and apprehended. Anyone else is entirely within their legal rights to voice their opinions through peaceful protest. It's just as valid of a response as anything else.

Milo's entire popularity comes from his clashes and drama with other groups. If we just ignore him, we would effectively take away his megaphone and he would return to being a nobody troll on Twitter or whatever. Unfortunately, controversy sells so much, so his name gets plastered everywhere.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;51670311]Perhaps you should read the rest of my posts when I say that I both haven't played Hitman Absolution and gave my thoughts on the stripclub boss. I'm also getting a lot of "she implies" from what you've written. If proof of her so-called disingenuous propaganda comes from what you think she means, then why should I have any reason to believe it? For the record, I'm not really a follower of Sarkeesian's videos (in fact I really don't care that much about her) but this whole Sarkeesian argument came about when Sarkeesian was accused of being as bad as Milo. She most certainly isn't. I also don't believe the label of "disingenuous propagandist grrr" is levied at her because she isn't completely infallible. She was literally an amateur internet vlogger who blew up in popularity one day, and decided to cover a very difficult and somewhat new subject, and while I do admit that she can be a bit underhanded and biased, this doesn't excuse the absolute torrent of hatred that has flown her way.[/QUOTE] She's worse. (Yes, I've seen her videos.) The main difference is that she's more factually dishonest and slanders completely innocent (groups of) people. At least the people Yiannopoulos trashes [I]usually[/I] get themselves into this mess because they commit actual crimes or are intolerant to the point where it approaches parody.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51669405][B]That seems like a non-sequitur.[/B].[/QUOTE] Everything you've said here has been a non-sequitur.

[QUOTE=Maegord;51669568]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] Yeah I don't think Anita and Milo are really comparable, sorry.

[QUOTE=gukki;51669137]While Shkreli is a cunt these idiots made themselves look like cunt maestros.[/QUOTE] What has he done to be a cunt?

[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;51670634]Everything you've said here has been a non-sequitur.[/QUOTE] Notice how I specified how it was a non-sequitur when I called him out for it. Your assertion is Meaningless unless you would like to do the same.

[QUOTE=da space core;51670383]Milo's entire popularity comes from his clashes and drama with other groups. If we just ignore him, we would effectively take away his megaphone and he would return to being a nobody troll on Twitter or whatever. Unfortunately, controversy sells so much, so his name gets plastered everywhere.[/QUOTE] That's the funniest thing. These people cannot stand having widely different opinions heard and will throw massive tantrums as described in this article rather than just ignoring him. He may be a troll, but he does a good job of highlighting the stupidity and entitled attitude of (a lot of) American university students.

They will be marching together today in 2 hours. If you guys get time to check it out when not debating virtual strippers I think it will probably be interesting. [t]http://i.imgur.com/t3DXiU6.png[/t] Livestream of it here. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzRQB41P5dg[/media]