The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

AngryGerbil: "Tan you admitted last year that you gave her money. Don't act like you don't care."

I did no such thing. In fact, I've already clarified that I only heard of her after her first Tropes Vs Women in Video Games video was released. I don't know where you think you read otherwise, but you are mistaken.

She hasn't given me shit. It's the anti-Sarkeesies that have given me something worth arguing about.

Chaos: "If what she says doesn't matter then why in the world do you devote hundreds of pages and man hours to debating the minutiae of what she says? You ar a confusing fucking dude."

What's confusing? I have never been anything less than completely up front about my arguments and my motivations. Sarkeesian doesn't matter. She's a pop critic who managed to start an interesting conversation about how women are portrayed in video games. That's it. What DOES matter is the reaction she provoked. To me, it matters a lot when people choose to villainize someone for their own selfish and irrational reasons, and it bothers me even more when they shut out logic and reason in order to indulge in mud-slinging and group-think circle-jerkery. It was never about Sarkeesian, as I've said many times. It's about how blind people can be once they've committed themselves to an ideology that requires them to ignore evidence (anti-Sarkeesies are very similar to religious people in that way). It's about how people are more interested in fighting a "bad guy" (through the incredibly ineffective methods of ridicule and mockery, despite what Sebudai thinks) than they are in trying to solve, or even identify, a problem. THAT matters to me, dude.



Chaos: "I was under the impression that people actually respected or gave a fuck about what she says or there was research backing her up. Now that I know it was all a farce I am left feeling empty and regretful of the time I have spent. Imma jerk off and forget about it."

Hey, I think what she says is interesting. But I'm not going to bat for her and say that her claims are self-evident or have been inconclusively proven. She may very well be off in some of her conclusions, or how she came to those conclusions. Again, that doesn't matter. What matters is when people take the idea that a harmless pop critic might be wrong about something and drive that to the extreme and irrational conclusion that she is a liar, a fraud and a con artist (a conclusion which they believe they are morally obligated to convince others of). Again, parallels to religious fundamentalists can be drawn. That matters to me because, if we consider that an acceptable way to deal with people saying stuff we don't like, then we are severely compromising some of the traits we take greatest pride in. It means that in the future, if someone says something that makes us uncomfortable, we don't have to rationally criticize their work to expose its flaws. We just have to convince enough people that this person is really, really bad (we can even lie to do it!), then a smear campaign based on personal attacks and the outright explicit dismissal of rationality and civil discourse ensures that we can all enjoy our witch hunts from the safety of our angry mobs. That matters to me. It doesn't matter to you because you're not the one being attacked, but I can't stand this thought police bullshit and I certainly don't give a fuck if some angry assholes think the target "deserves" it. We're supposed to be better than that.




Anyway, enjoy your jerkoff session. You've been a fun opponent. I'll be more than happy to offer you a rematch if you're ever interested in a little friendly sparring again.

It was not without its charm.

1987: "Tanoomba, if I self identify as someone who thinks you're wrong, what happens? Is that like dividing by zero?"

Not sure what you mean, friend. You're more than welcome to think I'm wrong. I even highly encourage you to try to explain what it is you think I'm wrong about. I promise to read whatever you have to say with an open mind and judge it on its own merits. Of course, if I find any flaws in your logic or I have a counter-point to make, I would hope you would respond in kind.

Khaliar: "Have you ever considered that the reason you didn't see the SJW thing as something that would fool you, but saw this as something that would, is that you feel obligated to play the SJW apologist in every thread possible?

Of course not, that would require some self-reflection."

I'm not an SJW apologist. Never have been. I criticize idiocy regardless of its ideological inclination. There just so happens to be a lot of anti-SJW idiocy here, so that's what gets my criticism.

LOL on you lecturing me about self-reflection when you're the one sticking your head in the sand every time I bring up how you ignore the conclusive proof you were lying. How about YOU try some self-reflection, you hypocrite?