Anita Sarkeesian to appear on the Colbert Report - Polidicks

[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;46374678]How can people take Anita seriously when she spouts garbage like this: [img]http://i.imgur.com/FdB2eF9.png[/img] I hope witcher 3 sells boatloads, only to piss off the sjw.[/QUOTE] I imagine somewhere a bunch of slavs all sitting around a desk plotting how they can fit as much misogny as they possibly can. You know, into a game set in a fantasy medieval time but w/e This actually raises a question for me but do countries* outside of NA have this kind of politically correct nonsense or is this a north american trend *Continents.

[QUOTE=Zet;46374065]It's hard to take it seriously when she says the patriarchy is behind it.[/QUOTE] Why? Patriarchy doesn't refer to some clandestine group of men controlling the world. It refers to the idea of the current gender roles and social power structure we have, like how men are generally expected to be dominant. I know someone explains this in every thread about feminism on FP.

[QUOTE=Boaraes;46372256]Honestly the only thing I'm sick of seeing is all of this stuff on Twitter: [URL]https://twitter.com/AbusiveMen/status/527693371457171456[/URL] Can you really spew shit any harder?[/QUOTE] [quote]Bah. The fact that she didn't doesn't mean she couldn't. Anita was smart enough not to let her argument be narrowed.[/quote] So, not naming the game she SHOULD have named is now strategy? "If GG names or doesn't names something, its fucked in the ass! If Anita names or doesn't names, she's being smart and a cunning and worthy adversary for GG" [editline]31st October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Dick Slamfist;46376444]I imagine somewhere a bunch of slavs all sitting around a desk plotting how they can fit as much misogny as they possibly can. You know, into a game set in a fantasy medieval time but w/e This actually raises a question for me but do countries* outside of NA have this kind of politically correct nonsense or is this a north american trend *Continents.[/QUOTE] That reminds me of that game Hatered and how its developers probably sat around a desk going "ok, how are we gonna make this game even more edgy than it already is?" Except this probably did happen :v:

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;46376929]So, not naming the game she SHOULD have named is now strategy? "If GG names or doesn't names something, its fucked in the ass! If Anita names or doesn't names, she's being smart and a cunning and worthy adversary for GG"[/QUOTE] She would have gotten the same reaction no matter of she named examples or not. If she didn't name examples she would get accused of being in unknowledgeable. If she did name examples she would get accused of cherry picking.

Anita is the /worst/ person possible for being a spokesperson for feminism in Video Games. The gaming industry IS extremely sexist but Anita confronts it so terribly and focuses on nonissues like how Bayonetta is scantily clad and taking things at face value rather then looking into meaning behind them. What she SHOULD be focusing on is the harassment and demeaning expectations women face in the industry, especially in online games. Oh, and she's also a scam artist.

Shame how she got into the news. Now to maintain journalistic integrity, they need to interview a person on the other side. Right guys? There's no way anyone can form an informed opinion with only one side of the argument presented on national television in America right?

[QUOTE=Valnar;46376987]She would have gotten the same reaction no matter of she named examples or not. If she didn't name examples she would get accused of being in unknowledgeable. If she did name examples she would get accused of cherry picking.[/QUOTE] Yeah she would get flak because she doesn't have a clue what a mysoginistic game might be. See her review and dissection of bayonetta. A uninformed view is what she has so attacking her for her being uninformed to me, seems reasonable and you're basically saying it doesn't matter. It does.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46377370]Yeah she would get flak because she doesn't have a clue what a mysoginistic game might be. See her review and dissection of bayonetta. A uninformed view is what she has so attacking her for her being uninformed to me, seems reasonable and you're basically saying it doesn't matter. It does.[/QUOTE] My point was that to a lot of the detractors saying that she didn't bring up examples it didn't matter if she had brought up examples, because they wouldn't have responded positivity to any examples she could have brought up. Now I really don't want to sound like I am trying to silence criticism of Anita because I am not trying to. I am saying that to a lot of people even in this thread it doesn't matter at all what she says, because they will always negatively interpret what she says even if it's a misinterpretation. As an example that tweet about toxic masculinity in culture where a lot of people thought she was saying men being inherently more likely to do mass shooting rather than culture playing a part.

[QUOTE=Valnar;46378309]My point was that to a lot of the detractors saying that she didn't bring up examples it didn't matter if she had brought up examples, because they wouldn't have responded positivity to any examples she could have brought up. Now I really don't want to sound like I am trying to silence criticism of Anita because I am not trying to. I am saying that to a lot of people even in this thread it doesn't matter at all what she says, because they will always negatively interpret what she says even if it's a misinterpretation. As an example that tweet about toxic masculinity in culture where a lot of people thought she was saying men being inherently more likely to do mass shooting rather than culture playing a part.[/QUOTE] I agree with you except for that last part. She commented on a school shooting, implying that the reason kids shoot up schools is because of the patriarchy enforcing gender roles instead of a fucked-up person getting their hands on a gun and (for whatever reason, be it bullying, abuse, or just plain sadism) deciding to shoot a ton of innocent people. It's like if ISIS blew up a plane or something, then somebody hopped on Twitter and said "THANKS, ORGANIZED RELIGION. STOP TEACHING CREATIONISM IN SCHOOLS". Like, yeah, you might have a point worth discussing somewhere in there, but you worded it in an ignorant, clunky way while attempting to loosely tie it to a current event in order to draw attention to yourself and your own, personal goals. It's a highly unprofessional thing to do, aside from being absolutely lousy with fallacies. [i]"School shooters are crazed and violent. Most school shooters are men. Therefore, men are crazed and violent. FEMINISM!"[/i] Not to mention, such ignorance under the guise of feminism and equality really diminishes the good of both causes. SJWs and people like Anita and Anthony Burch are to Feminism what the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity; a poor misrepresentation of a system of beliefs, twisted to suit someone's own personal gains.

[QUOTE=BanthaFodder;46378547]I agree with you except for that last part. She commented on a school shooting, implying that the reason kids shoot up schools is because of the patriarchy enforcing gender roles instead of a fucked-up person getting their hands on a gun and (for whatever reason, be it bullying, abuse, or just plain sadism) deciding to shoot a ton of innocent people. It's like if ISIS blew up a plane or something, then somebody hopped on Twitter and said "THANKS, ORGANIZED RELIGION. STOP TEACHING CREATIONISM IN SCHOOLS". Like, yeah, you might have a point worth discussing somewhere in there, but you worded it in an ignorant, clunky way while attempting to loosely tie it to a current event in order to draw attention to yourself and your own, personal goals. It's a highly unprofessional thing to do, aside from being absolutely lousy with fallacies. [i]"School shooters are crazed and violent. Most school shooters are men. Therefore, men are crazed and violent. FEMINISM!"[/i] Not to mention, such ignorance under the guise of feminism and equality really diminishes the good of both causes. SJWs and people like Anita and Anthony Burch are to Feminism what the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity; a poor misrepresentation of a system of beliefs, twisted to suit someone's own personal gains.[/QUOTE] The thing is there have been studies on how social pressures affect people with mental illness. I posted a study a few pages ago on how men view depression, where views of masculinity can negatively affect men with depression. The idea of toxic masculinity that she was bringing up was that these social expectations and pressures act as a catalyst for the people who do the mass shooting. And she was bringing this up after bringing up that the vast majority of mass shooters have been male. The issue she is bringing up isn't that these social expectations turn 'normal' ( I really dislike using terms like normal or fucked up in discussing mental illness) men into mass shooters, rather they act as catalysts for a lot of the men that did commit the shootings. Here is a link to the study I was talking about. [url]http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/3559/1/Emslie,_Ridge,_Ziebland_%26_Hunt_2006_final.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=Valnar;46376987]She would have gotten the same reaction no matter of she named examples or not. If she didn't name examples she would get accused of being in unknowledgeable. If she did name examples she would get accused of cherry picking.[/QUOTE] Probably because she is cherry picking pretty much every time. Generaly, everyone should stop listening to her when she mentions Bayonetta's pros as of being a single mother, which not only is it wrong, its also the least important thing to give a damn about in a [b]videogame[/b]. If you were running for a senator or governor or some spokesperson for something motherly or where a mother/maternal person should fit, but here? lol

[QUOTE=joshuadim;46363969]Anita Sarkeesian is the worst fucking choice to have a live interview/any interview with. All she spits out is bullshit, not only in real life but on twitter as well. Take a look at some gems. [IMG]http://puu.sh/cvGhQ/ebca8f67dd.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://puu.sh/cvGjr/c5646c7bb4.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://puu.sh/cvGkF/0ae3a55ccf.png[/IMG] Holy shit, she actually relates school shooting to the "muh patriarchy". She is the biggest, most deluded idiot I have ever seen in my entire life. She doesn't deserve her "fame", but certainly deserves the shit she gets.[/QUOTE] So why are 98% of school shooters male? What she is saying here has nothing to do with the patriarchy. It has nothing to do with male political and social dominance. She's saying that the difference in the number has to be something to do with how society views men and, perhaps, partly because of how "real men" have to be strong and tough and aggressive. She's empathising with men and implying that social pressures based on genders aren't only on women. She's saying that just as there is societal pressure on women to be skinny which leads to insecurity and sometimes mental health issues, the same pressure on men to be strong and aggressive with the same effect. You people are ridiculous. It's like you deliberately misunderstand what she's trying to say and I have no idea why. Is it because she attacks video games? Because you know they're not perfect right? If you really look at how both men and women are almost always caracaturially portrayed in mainstream video games, you really think that doesn't want improving? I swear the consensus on this forum is smarter than this. [editline]31st October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;46363906]Except she doesn't talk about the shitty people who play games. She says games are inherently misogynistic and uses fabricated 'evidence' to support her claims. Every time I see someone supporting her they ignore everything she says and supplant their own issues, claiming she's some amazing figurehead. In reality she's just a mouthpiece for her shit head producer.[/QUOTE] What everyone here is going is supplanting their own ideas of what feminism is (man hating) onto Sarkeesian and assuming that's where she stands.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;46379090]So why are 98% of school shooters male? What she is saying here has nothing to do with the patriarchy. It has nothing to do with male political and social dominance. She's saying that the difference in the number has to be something to do with how society views men and, perhaps, partly because of how "real men" have to be strong and tough and aggressive. She's empathising with men and implying that social pressures based on genders aren't only on women. She's saying that just as there is societal pressure on women to be skinny which leads to insecurity and sometimes mental health issues, the same pressure on men to be strong and aggressive with the same effect. You people are ridiculous. It's like you deliberately misunderstand what she's trying to say and I have no idea why. Is it because she attacks video games? Because you know they're not perfect right? If you really look at how both men and women are almost always caracaturially portrayed in mainstream video games, you really think that doesn't want improving? I swear the consensus on this forum is smarter than this.[/QUOTE] School shootings have nothing to do with videogames, it has to do with media glorifying shooters. Yes, I agree that there are more men in school shooting because of the emotions they keep inside due to being required to be "masculine," but that could be blamed on anything, it's been a social norm for thousands of years, if anything, blame cavemen. She doesn't present any solution to these problems and would rather complain about them so she can earn a living. [quote]What she is saying here has nothing to do with the patriarchy. [/quote] She directly states "The patriarchy" and mentions it constantly, I highly doubt this has nothing to do with her visions of patriarchy. [quote]What everyone here is going is supplanting their own ideas of what feminism is (man hating) onto Sarkeesian and assuming that's where she stands.[/quote] Feminism has real ideals but Sarkeesians are morally and factually wrong.

The whole feminism thing is stupid. It's all so vague. Men and women are not equal, but that doesn't mean one is better than the other either. It's not that simple. In order to meet the expectations Anita wants, men basically have to completely suppress their natural tendencies and impulses. It's such an unrealistic requirement and it does not promote equality.

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46379146]School shootings have nothing to do with videogames, it has to do with media glorifying shooters. Yes, I agree that there are more men in school shooting because of the emotions they keep inside due to being required to be "masculine," but that could be blamed on anything, it's been a social norm for thousands of years, if anything, blame cavemen. She doesn't present any solution to these problems and would rather complain about them so she can earn a living. She directly states "The patriarchy" and mentions it constantly, I highly doubt this has nothing to do with her visions of patriarchy.[/QUOTE] She's not blaming video games at all. Again you people don't seem to want to understand what she's saying and are too caught up in what you think feminism is. She's blaming the male image in all media. Okay, but again why are ninety eight percent of school shooters male? Women are watching the media glorification too. That's absolutely a factor, but doesn't account for how seriously skewed the numbers are per gender. You're right, I missed her mention the patriarchy in those tweets. The patriarchy doesn't have anything to do with this, but the overall sentiment of those tweets is a valid one. [editline]31st October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ThePanther;46379187]The whole feminism thing is stupid. It's all so vague. Men and women are not equal, but that doesn't mean one is better than the other either. It's not that simple. In order to meet the expectations Anita wants, men basically have to completely suppress their natural tendencies and impulses. It's such an unrealistic requirement and it does not promote equality.[/QUOTE] Feminism is about wanting men and women to have equal opportunities and an equal stance in society. It's about getting rid of pay gaps and male political dominance. It's not vague.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;46379090]*snoop*[/QUOTE] People are going to react badly when an extremist says shit that could be perceived as extremist. If someone holding and openly displaying a lot of borderline racist opinions started spurting shit like "Why are X percent of terrorists Muslim? We need to stop the toxic ideas of Islam before they go out and commit more beheadings!", people would to pass them off as being a nutcase who thinks all Muslims want to kill them even if they just meant that we should address religious extremism. You shouldn't be surprised at people taking such a vague statement from someone like Anita negatively.

Whether its sexist or not is up for debate, but what is shameful here is that she is using a national tragedy for political points.

[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;46379276]Whether its sexist or not is up for debate, but what is shameful here is that she is using a national tragedy for political points.[/QUOTE] How long after a shooting has occurred should we be allowed to discuss it's causes? This is the same argument the right makes when anyone even mentions accessibility of guns. It's an emotional argument designed to make your opponent look callous.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46379336]How long after a shooting has occurred should we be allowed to discuss it's causes? This is the same argument the right makes when anyone even mentions accessibility of guns. It's an emotional argument designed to make your opponent look callous.[/QUOTE] She's the same as someone blaming videogames for school shootings, she's only looking for something to further her agenda, completely ignoring the mental health of the shooter.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;46379214]Feminism is about wanting men and women to have equal opportunities and an equal stance in society. It's about getting rid of pay gaps and male political dominance. It's not vague.[/QUOTE] Then why does she have such a problem with "damsels in distress" in video games? It's such a trivial thing to be upset about and it's one of the only things I ever hear Anita talk about (in regards to women representation in video games industry). It's a shame when there are much larger more important and issues that could be addressed. Anita may say she wants equal rights for all individuals and equal amounts of respect, but feminism as a whole seems to want payback more that equality. If these people truly wanted to spread a message about equality for all, then maybe they should change their titles to "humanists".

I for one think people interpret malice on Anita's part when it's not really the case. Her problem isn't malice, it's incompetence. Her introspection isn't intelligent and she doesn't do enough research.

[QUOTE=Crimor;46379406]She's the same as someone blaming videogames for school shootings, she's only looking for something to further her agenda, completely ignoring the mental health of the shooter.[/QUOTE] When she says "toxic masculinity" she is literally commenting on the mental health of the shooter.

I cant wait for the cripplization of Mirrors Edge 2

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46379551]When she says "toxic masculinity" she is literally commenting on the mental health of the shooter.[/QUOTE] Masculinity isn't the issue. Mental illness is.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;46379892]Masculinity isn't the issue. Mental illness is.[/QUOTE] Perceptions of what it means to be a man and what men should do can affect mental illness, and really a lot of aspects of life too.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;46379090]So why are 98% of school shooters male? What she is saying here has nothing to do with the patriarchy. It has nothing to do with male political and social dominance. She's saying that the difference in the number has to be something to do with how society views men and, perhaps, partly because of how "real men" have to be strong and tough and aggressive. She's empathising with men and implying that social pressures based on genders aren't only on women. She's saying that just as there is societal pressure on women to be skinny which leads to insecurity and sometimes mental health issues, the same pressure on men to be strong and aggressive with the same effect. You people are ridiculous. It's like you deliberately misunderstand what she's trying to say and I have no idea why. Is it because she attacks video games? Because you know they're not perfect right? If you really look at how both men and women are almost always caracaturially portrayed in mainstream video games, you really think that doesn't want improving? I swear the consensus on this forum is smarter than this. [editline]31st October 2014[/editline] What everyone here is going is supplanting their own ideas of what feminism is (man hating) onto Sarkeesian and assuming that's where she stands.[/QUOTE] What? You're literally the only one using preconceived notions of an ideology(feminism) and implanting it into her statements. Literally assuming her points when that's not argued in those twitter statements. If you look at those three mentioned twitter statements, they all stand as individual arguments for one cause. I'll even break it down for you. [img]http://puu.sh/cvGhQ/ebca8f67dd.png[/img] "Mass shootings are one tragic consequence of a culture that perpetuates toxic ideas of masculinity." - This statement argues that mass shootings are a result of toxic ideas of masculinity. What are toxic ideas of masculinity? It is intentionally left vague for readers to assume it's gender roles, when that's not what is written. "This is how patriarchy can harm men too" - Loaded statement that implies America is a patriarchy, and uses mass shootings to appeal to the reader. Mass shootings have no connection to patriarchy, nor is the connection ever explained in the later tweets. [img]http://puu.sh/cvGjr/c5646c7bb4.png[/img] -Assumes there is a correlation between the male gender and school shootings. Never explained. [img]http://puu.sh/cvGkF/0ae3a55ccf.png[/img] -This tweet immediately jumps to assuming sexism and "toxic ideas of manhood" are connected to mass shootings. Once again, what are toxic ideas of manhood? A buzzword left vague for reader interpretation while not arguing anything, leaving it for readers to argue for her.

We're all gonna have fuckin' PhD's in social engineering and psychology after this.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;46380101]What? You're literally the only one using preconceived notions of an ideology(feminism) and implanting it into her statements. Literally assuming her points when that's not argued in those twitter statements. If you look at those three mentioned twitter statements, they all stand as individual arguments for one cause. I'll even break it down for you. "Mass shootings are one tragic consequence of a culture that perpetuates toxic ideas of masculinity." - This statement argues that mass shootings are a result of toxic ideas of masculinity. What are toxic ideas of masculinity? It is intentionally left vague for readers to assume it's gender roles, when that's not what is written. "This is how patriarchy can harm men too" - Loaded statement that implies America is a patriarchy, and uses mass shootings to appeal to the reader. Mass shootings have no connection to patriarchy, nor is the connection ever explained in the later tweets. -Assumes there is a correlation between the male gender and school shootings. Never explained. -This tweet immediately jumps to assuming sexism and "toxic ideas of manhood" are connected to mass shootings. Once again, what are toxic ideas of manhood? A buzzword left vague for reader interpretation while not arguing anything, leaving it for readers to argue for her.[/QUOTE] I'm sure in her circles those aren't vague statements. She looks at them as scientific, undebatable facts and the bubble she submerges herself in probably agrees. It goes right along with never actually addressing criticism. If you think that you are correct and that you hold the only moral view, then anyone that disagrees with you is not only wrong, but a bad person. Why would you discuss with a bad person who has bad intentions (wants to hurt women, for example)? She sees her position as correct and the only reason you would disagree is if you had bad intentions. It's the same line I hear from other hardcore liberals literally all the time: "Conservatives MUST be racist to be against policy X because I'm right and that's the only reason they could possibly disagree with me." Many people don't want to get their head out of butt and actually consider that another person might not agree with the facts being presented.

[QUOTE=Crimor;46380168]We're all gonna have fuckin' PhD's in social engineering and psychology after this.[/QUOTE] After being exposed to Anita-Park ramblings? Not a chance mate. Our IQ shrunk because of the exposure.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46379336]How long after a shooting has occurred should we be allowed to discuss it's causes? This is the same argument the right makes when anyone even mentions accessibility of guns. It's an emotional argument designed to make your opponent look callous.[/QUOTE] Both parties use the emotional argument, remember Benghazi? Unlike lawmakers she's not coming up with solutions on how to stop it, she's doing it for her own benefit and that is to spread hatred. Sarkeesian is a misandrist like all raging tumblr feminists.