Tanoomba's Toxic Tank of Traducement

fanaskin said:

without having even basic familiarization of biology or any science, statistics ect, it's by definition an ignorant argument, and that's being generous.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. You saying it is doesn't make it so.

fanaskin said:

science is not an ideology lol, there's you trying to turn an argument against itself again, science is a set of tools that dispels ignorance, which is why anita's arguments are ignorant (and stupid).

not "requiring" biological knowledge of hormones while talking exclusively about differences in men and women is just ignorance trying to pass itself of as morality.

Click to expand...

You're not making a scientific claim. You're making a feels-based claim and trying to use the word "science" as a shield. The fact that you're using the word "science" (not even any scientific principles or anything, just the word "science") to try to discredit someone you (presumably) disagree with is what makes your stance ideological.

Again (again, again, again), can you find something Sarkeesian said that science has shown to be demonstrably false? If not, your claims are worthless.

fanaskin said:

She claimed toxic masculinity is why boys will commit crimes at a higher rate than girls don't even though everyone who was even mildly trained in biology understands the biological differences between young men and women and the role testosterone plays in the differences between men and women. There's just a void there that won't acknowledge that even if you trained all humans exactly the same men would still act on their hormones differently than women. there's just a giant void there where hormones don't exist to her. The only time i saw testosterone mentioned with her name is when she uses it as a slander word. a game isn't "infused with testosterone" like anita said dismissively, that's literally misappropriation of a scientific word and turning it into something else.

Show me one instance where anita even references testosterone realistically and not used as a smear word. You won't because she doesn't care about science she cares about her agenda that she was trained in school for. She was trained as an scientifically illiterate revolutionary JUST LIKE I SAID and that's exactly how she acts.

Click to expand...

OK, you're finally getting close to addressing things she's actually said. I will assume you're referring to these three tweets:

“We need to seriously address connections between violence, sexism and toxic ideas of manhood before boys and men commit more mass shootings.”

Click to expand...

“Not a coincidence it’s always men and boys committing mass shootings. The pattern is connected to ideas of toxic masculinity in our culture.”

Click to expand...

“Mass shootings are one tragic consequence of a culture that perpetuates toxic ideas of masculinity. This is how patriarchy can harm men too.”

Click to expand...

First of all, you understand that "toxic masculinity" does NOT mean that masculinity in and of itself is toxic, right? I feel this needs to be clarified because people often misinterpret the term as a condemnation of being male. Instead, "toxic masculinity" refers to the negative aspects associated with being a male (aggressiveness, violence, lack of emotion, etc) being reinforced and encouraged by society.

Why is this important? Because she isn't claiming testosterone or hormones don't play a role in shaping males' behavior. She is, however, claiming that society and what we are exposed to DOES play a role and that's the part we have some kind of control over. It's the "nurture" part of "nature vs nurture". Now, as has ALWAYS been the case with "nature vs nurture", it is virtually impossible to measure the significance of each influence in any given scenario. But it is beyond foolish to assume men commit violent crimes because their testosterone forces them to do so and there's nothing we can do about it.

So what we have here isn't that Sark said something provably wrong, EVEN WHEN we acknowledge that hormones play a role in dictating behavior. She's saying "If we stop showing males that we expect them to be violent and destructive, we can decrease instances of violence." I imagine you and others may disagree, but you certainly can't claim that science disproves her claim. More importantly, there's nothing inherently harmful in her stance there. I'm going to say that again because it bears repeating: There is NOTHING HARMFUL about Sark expressing concerns about what sorts of influences we are exposed to.

Also worth noting, YOU put her up on that pedestal. YOU got her invited as a guest of honor to speak in front of important people. YOU gave her all the power and influence she currently enjoys. The fact that you're saying she has a responsibility NOT to share her point of view because she's too powerful and you think her views are dangerous is, frankly, disturbing.

fanaskin said:

LOL no I didn't, they chose to do this

Click to expand...

They didn't choose to do that until a large group of entitled man-children decided to launch an all-out attack campaign against someone for having the audacity to talk about boobies in video games.

Pop-culture critic criticizes video games from a feminist perspective: Not much of a story.
Pop-culture critic viciously harassed and targeted for smear campaigns by the shittiest segment of gamers: Now there's a story!

So yes, your over-the-top hyperbole absolutely played a role in making Sarkeesian a martyr and a hero in the eyes of the media, where they would otherwise have not given her more than a passing mention. It's an exact role-reversal of what happened with Trump, where the media tried to smear him and a large segment of the public saw through their bullshit and dramatically increased their support for him. The more you rely on bad-faith arguments to villainize your enemy, the more support they will get from people who are disgusted by your actions.

fanaskin said:

I made the SJW cabals that infected google? Or are you just retarded projecting like usual?

Click to expand...

Oh, we've reached this part of the discussion?

fanaskin said:

Nobody forced gillibrand to host fake rape mattress girl either, she chose to do that.

Click to expand...

Oh, you mean the other case where everyone thinks they have it all figured out when they don't know shit? One Dark Queen at a time, please.

fanaskin said:

wait you claimed that they didn't give them power now you do, whose moving goal posts here?

Click to expand...

I figured you meant "they" as in the media, right? The media elevated Sark and gave her greater visibility and influence as a direct result of the punishment they saw her go through. There is no goal post pushing here.

fanaskin said:

This is funny, this is where you have to pretend that it's a super serious things she's talking about while also ridiculing it as a nothing. You're being inconsistent and split minded in your white knighting, is what she talks about serious or open to mockery?

Click to expand...

It was never a super-serious thing she was talking about. It's a feminist perspective on how women are portrayed in video games, for crissakes. The "serious thing" was the obscene and completely disproportional reaction that provoked from people who absolutely should have kept themselves in check.

Of course what she says is open to mockery. Everything is. Criticism works WAY better than mockery, but people like to act like dicks, what else is new? Sark wasn't just "mocked", though, she was personally attacked and harassed to an extent that, frankly, shocked the public and highlighted how shitty gamer culture can be. I've said this before, but if people had actually criticized her work instead of using bad-faith arguments to try to frame her as a liar, cheat and con artist, then she would have faded away as someone who had an interesting but somewhat flawed perspective that sparked a brief discussion before everyone moved on. That would have required people to tone down their outrage-fueled witch hunt, though, and there was no way they weren't getting their money's worth on all those torches and pitchforks. Just like Trump, though, the more people insisted how terrible she was, the more people saw her as the victim and took her side.

fanaskin said:

TL;DR summation of what tanoomba said

Click to expand...

No.

Well, that was anticlimactic.

fanaskin said:

wait you claimed that they didn't give them power now you do, whose moving goal posts here?

Click to expand...

So Tanoomba for a long time has been peddling this concept that a person making a statement isn’t responsible for it but instead it’s the person offended by it. It is almost right wing if you took it at face value.

So in his mind anyone opposed to Anita, or any SJW, could have just ignored them and let them be. They didn’t though and so are directly responsible for her, and others, having the following that they have.

Yes, this is completely ridiculous but this is the mind of the most intellectually dishonest person I have had the displeasure of reading.

It totally ignores that they have to get a group behind them before anyone hears about them. It is also pretty much “victim” blaming.

Tanoomba: It isn’t rape if you just went along with it, then it’s consensual sex.
Everyone: Umm that’s after the fact of the rape.
Tanoomba: No it’s not, you are giving the rapist power by not just ignoring the dick in your ass.
Everyone: .....