Censorship is BAD (except when it's actually advocating for censorship):
https://twitter.com/JR_O6/status/624317727419711488
Angry Jacks never cease to amaze.
Both of these videos highlight her dishonesty.
https://youtu.be/WuRSaLZidWI
https://youtu.be/x9_MVPq1SJY
Or you can just watch here videos and think about her logic for a few seconds, especially if you have played any of the games she examines.
Both of these videos highlight her dishonesty.
https://youtu.be/WuRSaLZidWI
https://youtu.be/x9_MVPq1SJY
Or you can just watch here videos and think about her logic for a few seconds, especially if you have played any of the games she examines.
Both of these videos highlight her dishonesty.
https://youtu.be/WuRSaLZidWI
https://youtu.be/x9_MVPq1SJY
Or you can just watch here videos and think about her logic for a few seconds, especially if you have played any of the games she examines.
I agree how GamerGate is a complete cluster fuck of hate speech and bad people aligning them selves with good intentions but to say the reason "Angry Jack" is against people like Anita Sarkeesian is because she just speaks so much truth that "Angry Jack" subconsciously hates her for this making him feel bad is a crock of shit, It is also a really good way negate criticism of Anita Sarkeesian and other Extremist Feminists by saying it's because you fear change and subconsciously know that their right. For instance I dislike Anita Sarkeesian because she misinforms, manipulates and straight-out lies in her videos in order to support a out of date Feminist view point.
the second one is just ridiculous. i get it's trying to swap male for female but it just doesn't work. like, what's it even trying to say?
Both of these videos highlight her dishonesty.
https://youtu.be/WuRSaLZidWI
https://youtu.be/x9_MVPq1SJY
Or you can just watch here videos and think about her logic for a few seconds, especially if you have played any of the games she examines.
Rather than acknowledge that these bad things can come up in a favorite hobby through various potencies, a hobby that costs a lot of time and money, Angry Jack feels like he or she is limited to binary choices:
1. I am not evil, so my hobby cannot be, and Anita is wrong.
2. I am evil, deserving of ridicule and being ostracized.
Since 2 is clearly out, they land on 1. Also I wouldn't really consider Anita an extremist feminist. She doesn't go into anything other than some basic fundamentals of feminist though. Nothing seems "out of date" but I'd argue it's not very expansive. However, with only the basics being brought out, I doubt Angry Jack and gamergate could handle some heavier material
The problem with thunderfoot videos is that they are so dense with bullshit points without any sort of organization or cohesion that build up to larger overall arguments. This makes them an absolute headache to unpack and dissect. He's obviously wrong to anyone without an agenda to see him as right, but actually address the bs he brings up is way more effort than you can reasonably ask of one person. It doesn't matter what the subject he is arguing is, the horrific presentation of them alone warrants disregard.
Not to mention the sheer laziness of it as an argumentive technique. Anyone who just substitutes a video for their own argument can't actually argue with you. They are putting the onus on you to put in the effort to actually engage while they copy and paste. No, if they want to merit a response, they'll take the argument they believe in and put it in their own words.
He's pointing out how this kind of Feminist theory holds a double standard.
What that video fails in is not addressing the larger context that feminism, and by extension feminist critique, was born not out of a victim complex but out of the very nature of women being a frequently marginalized group of people and men being a frequently privileged group of people both in many areas within our culture (Men being paid more, women having their bodies legislated against, representation in media, etc).
Creating a video about all the gay characters that play villains that antagonize poor straight characters would be an equally nonsensical video since within a larger context, there aren't a myriad of biases that could be enhanced to continue a legacy of marginalizing straight people because they are already of a privileged class within larger culture and have been for a very long time.
Yeah thunderfoot is pretty scatter brained and lacking in good technique, but I think his videos have enough good points throughout to use as examples, and no one is without an agenda of some sort, but the videos are designed to be seen by people on both sides of the fence.
What that video fails in is not addressing the larger cultural context that feminism, and by extension feminist critique, was born not out of a victim complex or to spite the other gender but out of the very nature of women being a frequently marginalized group of people and men being a frequently privileged group of people both in many areas within our culture (Men being paid more, women having their bodies legislated against, representation in media, etc).
Creating a video about all the gay characters that play villains that antagonize poor straight characters would be an equally nonsensical video since within a larger context, there aren't a myriad of biases that could be enhanced to continue a legacy of marginalizing straight people because they are already of a privileged class within larger culture and have been for a very long time.
Trust me, no, they don't. But you're not going to get an argument on it from me until you actually buckle up and put the arguments into your own words. I am generally willing to engage with any argument. I am not, however, going to engage a video you use as a substitute for your own arguments.
Ok, that's fair.
Example of Anita being dishonest: in her video Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games she claims that GTAV facilitates male violence against women and rewards the player for it, she fails to mention how the game facilitates male violence against males, or female violence against females or males.
Ok, that's fair.
Example of Anita being dishonest: in her video Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games she claims that GTAV facilitates male violence against women and rewards the player for it, she fails to mention how the game facilitates male violence against males, or female violence against females or males.
I think thunderfoot understands why feminism exists and it's larger cultural context, but he is pointing out the flaws in this certain brand of feminism and how Anita ignores the context of the media it's self
P.S. Please don't bring up the wage gap that's a whole other mess, that we don't need to get into right now.
Wrong.
That isn't her being dishonest. Facilitation of other variations of gender on gender violence doesn't mean male on female violence isn't incentivized and rewarded. She's saying X exists. Just because Y also exists isn't evidence that X doesn't exist.
Also, having never played GTAV, while male against male violence is a given, you're going to have to provide proof for player facilitation of female on male/female violence, since as far as I know, you don't play as a female. But even if you do, its still going to be besides the point because the game is not divorced from the context of reality. Male on female violence in real life is a different horse than male on male or other variations (which it probably shouldn't be, but that's a seperate argument altogether).
Next.
Did GTAV allow you to play as a woman?
I'm counting Online.
Yes but X and Y are intrinsically linked and ignoring one when the basis of your argument is connected to both is dishonest
No, there is no difference, violence is a crime regardless of who you do it to, men may be more commonly stronger than women but that just makes the crime easier.
Okay, well, clearly she's not counting GTA:Online. Nor should she be since she's usually more concerned with the narrative elements. Unless GTA:O is just GTAV with the ability to substitute your own character into the story then she's not being dishonest using it as an example. I don't actually know myself because I haven't played them.
Wrong. Strawman. The argument was never that violence is not a crime in any gender variation, but it has different connotations depending on the gender dynamics in play due to the context of societies we live in. In fact, it accenuates her point. That men on men violence is viewed as more acceptable is also the result of toxic masculinity, but harmful in a different way than man on woman violence is. Still, the focus of her videos is specifically depiction of women in games, not of men. Even if it were a relevant point, the men of her videoes are only used as reference points to show how women are treated. Not to mention that the greater point of this all is empowerment dynamics. Men on women violence empower men. Men on men violence empower men. There are works that depict a violent world where men and women are on equal grounds, but GTA is not one of them.
Next.
She is criticising the open world mechanics of GTAV which are exactly the same as Online and every other GTA so I think it stands, even if you don't agree she also uses Fallout: New Vegas, a game where you can play as any gender and commit violence against any gender, though when talking about NV she does mention male gigolos.
Yes but X and Y are intrinsically linked and ignoring one when the basis of your argument is connected to both is dishonest
No (1)she claims that any violence against women is bad, that it incites sexism and misogyny regardless of the context of the media. Even if the focus is of how women are treated, the (2) full scope and nature of the situation should be considered, including the treatment of men and how that effects the treatment of women. And (3) concerning empowerment, violence is not always about empowerment and when it is violence empowers the person committing the violence regardless of their gender or of the person they are assaulting.
I don't know if you have a daughter that age, but I do. She is a gamer (video and board). What games are the girls you know playing that have lingering butt shots? I have never seen her play anything like that. GTA V for a child? These point to poor and uninformed parental choices. If the parents don't care what media their child consumes, then it will be difficult for society in general to assist.
Seriously... How does a child end up even playing a stripper scene in a video game without parental supervision, and if they do, are we obligated to step in? This could be reduced to "is there a such thing as private morality", which is an unending subject of debate.
I don't know if you have a daughter that age, but I do. She is a gamer (video and board). What games are the girls you know playing that have lingering butt shots? I have never seen her play anything like that. GTA V for a child? These point to poor and uninformed parental choices. If the parents don't care what media their child consumes, then it will be difficult for society in general to assist.
Seriously... How does a child end up even playing a stripper scene in a video game without parental supervision, and if they do, are we obligated to step in? This could be reduced to "is there a such thing as private morality", which is an unending subject of debate.
To address the video series directly, I enjoyed watching it, but I suppose I am not the target audience, as the final video gave instructions on what "we" can do.
Is it time to break out the old Sarkesian Bingo board again? In two posts, HC got 3 spots covered already.
Female FBI agent (also a character in GTA 4) smashes captive's hand (male) and threatens to shove the large object up the innocent guys butt. ..... Innocent guy then is tortured by Trevor later in story.Wrong.
That isn't her being dishonest. Facilitation of other variations of gender on gender violence doesn't mean male on female violence isn't incentivized and rewarded. She's saying X exists. Just because Y also exists isn't evidence that X doesn't exist.
Also, having never played GTAV, while male against male violence is a given, you're going to have to provide proof for player facilitation of female on male/female violence, since as far as I know, you don't play as a female. But even if you do, its still going to be besides the point because the game is not divorced from the context of reality. Male on female violence in real life is a different horse than male on male or other variations (which it probably shouldn't be, but that's a seperate argument altogether).
Next.
Both of these videos highlight her dishonesty.
https://youtu.be/WuRSaLZidWI
https://youtu.be/x9_MVPq1SJY
Or you can just watch here videos and think about her logic for a few seconds, especially if you have played any of the games she examines.
Oh gods Thunderf00t videos and now more blatantly dishonest "dissecting" of her videos in a thread that's not even really about Anita. It never ends
Both of these videos highlight her dishonesty.
https://youtu.be/WuRSaLZidWI
https://youtu.be/x9_MVPq1SJY
Or you can just watch here videos and think about her logic for a few seconds, especially if you have played any of the games she examines.
Oh gods Thunderf00t videos and now more blatantly dishonest "dissecting" of her videos in a thread that's not even really about Anita. It never ends
Can someone advise how to get rid of Sargon recommendations from Youtube? "Not interested" doesn't seem to fix it. Does that dude employ some spamming algorithm? I've never even watched one of his videos.
YT seems to think that his videos are related to Anita's and other feminist videos. You could watch them (Anita, not Sargon) on a second profile or in incognito.Can someone advise how to get rid of Sargon recommendations from Youtube? "Not interested" doesn't seem to fix it. Does that dude employ some spamming algorithm? I've never even watched one of his videos.
Can someone advise how to get rid of Sargon recommendations from Youtube? "Not interested" doesn't seem to fix it. Does that dude employ some spamming algorithm? I've never even watched one of his videos.
I know your pain, made the mistake of listening to one video of his (it was awful) and it plagued my recommendations since. I think if you clear your history then that helps. Otherwise see if you can go onto his profile and actually block the account.
I'll have to try that. Thanks!While logged into an account click their channel, then about, then the little flag near the upper right, then 'Block User'. I believe that stops their channel from showing up (as well as prevents them from commenting on your stuff I think). Alternatively you can use extensions. Chrome has: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/video-blocker/jknkjnpcbbgcbdbaampbjlhkcghmgfhk
While logged into an account click their channel, then about, then the little flag near the upper right, then 'Block User'. I believe that stops their channel from showing up (as well as prevents them from commenting on your stuff I think). Alternatively you can use extensions. Chrome has: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/video-blocker/jknkjnpcbbgcbdbaampbjlhkcghmgfhk
Both of these videos highlight her dishonesty.
https://youtu.be/WuRSaLZidWI
https://youtu.be/x9_MVPq1SJY
Or you can just watch here videos and think about her logic for a few seconds, especially if you have played any of the games she examines.
While logged into an account click their channel, then about, then the little flag near the upper right, then 'Block User'. I believe that stops their channel from showing up (as well as prevents them from commenting on your stuff I think). Alternatively you can use extensions. Chrome has: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/video-blocker/jknkjnpcbbgcbdbaampbjlhkcghmgfhk
We apparently need a new law, like Godwin's or Lewis', something along the lines of "Any conversation on the internet at least tangentially related to Anita Sarkeesian will eventually result in someone posting unlabelled Thunderf00t videos in place of an actual argument."
Seriously, if you have a point, try making it without linking to some shitweasel's unhinged rants and polluting my history and recommendations with that crap without any kind of warning.
Both of these videos highlight her dishonesty.
https://youtu.be/WuRSaLZidWI
https://youtu.be/x9_MVPq1SJY
Or you can just watch here videos and think about her logic for a few seconds, especially if you have played any of the games she examines.