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

hodj_sl said:

See?

Just a pathetic little coward.

I have linked you a video by Thunderfoot, demonstrating he gets as much virulent and vitriolic harassment thrown his way as Anita does, including a guy saying over and over again that Thunderfoot deserves to be raped forever and ever and ever in the ass for a solid two minutes, and you just ignore it all.

You're pathetic.

Click to expand...

Dude has literally said the Daily Show is not provocative. What more do you need to see that he judges the world completely differently based on bias? Stewart can literally say he hates people and "fuck them"; and that's just comedy, bros! TF calls someone a liar, hateful!

At this point, I think everyone sees he's trolling. It's pretty obvious. We're just writing so he can keep on writing because we don't want people to forget how ridiculous his positions can get...Honestly though, this latest tangent is nearly as good as moon landing and 9/11, and cheese vs Hitman. Every once in a while, he can't let something go and he can be driven to an extreme that shows he's not capable of reasonable thought, and its always gold. It is the only time I'll engage him.

Soygen_sl said:

The worst.

Click to expand...

https://indevisible.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/tumblr_m494yyhleh1qmevzq_thumb.gif

Cad, you are of course 100% right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA0aKjY8K50

If you see everything as sexist, everything as racist, then everything is harassment to you. You just straight up aren't rational if you think that definition of harassment is useful or possible as a society.

hodj_sl said:

suck a sweaty fart straight out of her asshole.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

********
First of all, I appreciate that you had the maturity to admit (through your silence) that there was nothing wrong with "my" definitions of harassment and that you were grasping at straws trying to argue it earlier. It takes a big man to admit to his errors by pretending they didn't happen. Thank you.

********

Every other poster clarified why you were an idiot. My silence was agreeing with them, not you. The fact is Tan, the context of harassment requires some forced interaction--some way you can't ignore the actual person. Since Thunderfoot has never, ever, contacted Anita directly; and since he's never, ever asked his audience to say anything to her, or even acknowledge her (In fact, he's asked them, even begged them, to ignore her)--under no reasonable interpretation should this be called harassment.

If you could call this harassment? Then literally Anita should be responsible for harassment against Game Developers. She is critical of their product, and they receive threats. She also continuously, over a period of YEARS has targeted the same product, and thus the same group of developers over and over again (Rock Star). She meets every criteria of your harassment gauge, and before you say "there is no evidence she causes a wave of harassment against those people"--once more, you offered no evidence Anita received any either. (Even below)

******

Secondly, let's take a step back here. Can you acknowledge that Sarkeesian gets a lot of hate mail (Twitter, etc) that DOES qualify as harassment? Take a look here for a sample:
http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/109319269825/one-week-of-harassment-on-twitter
Can you see how very little of that (if any) is simply people "disagreeing" with her? Can you see how "Fuck you", delivered repeatedly and over long periods of time, counts as harassment? If you can't see that, then you're already a lost case and there's no need to discuss this further.

******

Some of that sure is harassment. Of course, you realize Anita collected the harassment out of a much larger sub section of tweets, so you saying "how little of that is people simply disagreeing with her" is just selection bias. If you isolate ONLY harassment, and then say "holy shit, this is ALL harassment, no just disagreement here!" that is idiocy Tan; you don't have to be a researcher to know you shouldn't base an opinion on pre-selected data.

If those mean and abusive tweets, lets say there is 100 of them (It's less)...Were in a sea of 100,000 tweets (Not uncommon for her traffic). Than the "harassment" ratio would be 1/10th of 1 percent. Guess what Tan? This is a rate all famous people face--as I said, Palin has a security team, for a fucking reason. As does Rush Limbaugh, as does John Stewart, as does everyone else who does political or social satire or critique and has an fairly large audience. Because on a PER capita basis, for everyone 100k humans? You're going to have a few hundred who are not properly hinged. These people generate harassment, they do--but it is not due to her being critiqued anymore than Palin's was due to Stewart making fun of her...Understand? It is the nature of being a fucking PUBLIC FIGURE. It is what happens to PUBLIC FIGURES.

Over 1 week she got less than 100 tweets, out of traffic from over 100k+ people EASILY. That is not a high amount of harassment for a public figure with a viewing audience in the millions. The fact that you believe it is shows an aggressive naivety. However, the fact that you even attempt to correlate any of this to her being critiqued? Shows you're a sycophant, and an extreme one. Selection bias, arbitrary standards, unreasonable application of standards; take your pick Tan, you are being ridiculous here and there is only one reason.


*******

Having said that, I disagree with much of what you just posted. I disagree that TF's work is satirical. I disagree that his work (at least the "Anita Busted!" video) is comedic. I disagree that his work isn't hateful. I disagree that he caught Anita in a lie. I also think you're being powerfully naive by not acknowledging that TF knows his audience damned well and is giving them exactly what they want, and what they want is an excuse to shit on Sarkeesian. I think he knows very well that his viewers are the same demographic that harass Sarkeesian, and that by exploiting their irrational anger for hits and attention he is complicit in the harassment she receives. Don't try to take that statement and apply it to Jon Stewart. I'm not talking about Jon Stewart. I'm talking about Thunderf00t, under the exact circumstances surrounding his attack pieces and the real-world consequences of those attack pieces. He decided to push a narrative that was in high demand ("Sarkeesian is a liar") and he did so by producing dishonest hit pieces that directly had an effect on the life of the person he was attacking. If you want to pick nits about the definition of satire and what that includes, knock yourself out. Seems to me like you're just going off on whatever tangent will allow you to pretend TF isn't a provocateur opportunist milking a witch hunt for profit and attention.

*******

TLDR (Translating Tan's post): "I think my labels should apply, for no reason except what I think. In addition, if you are critical of someone who has said provocative enough things to be intesily disliked, you are an opportunist who is stoking the fires against them, essentially kicking them when they are down! And even though you linked an article showing John Stewart also did exactly, I've already given him a title that clears him! SO NYAH! Also now I'm not talking about Stewart, after realizing the hypocrisy of my position and how dumb it makes me look, from now on we ONLY talk about TF!!!!!!!!!!!"

See how much shorter your post could have been? lol, Tan, you are terrible. I mean that, this is probably your lowest moment on this board...this might be worse than the moon landing. At least the moon landing I can give you points for since you weren't born during that time. This? No...you don't deserve any leeway here.

What is harassment?

Anita Sarkeesian: "The set of all things. Larger than the cosmos. Reality itself is harassing unreality with its realness. If it is a thing contained in this cosmos, it is harassment. Give me money."