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

Cad: "Basically what Tanoomba is doing now is if enough people don't come in here and talk to him then he spreads out on other threads and says enough dumb shit until people do engage him, then he'll retreat back in here until his traffic slows down then he'll come out again. It's too bad message boards have to be infected with this type of shit, but I don't think banning him would really do any good."

You're close, but you missed the mark. I will regularly make posts in other threads as I please. However, the moment the bitches start yelping and I know I'm about to be blamed for their petty immaturity, I will come back here where I can properly address their idiocy without being punished for it. The normies don't have to sit through a long-winded debate they have no interest in, and I can still have my say. Seems to be working pretty well so far.

Cad: "Really we as a userbase just need to wise up and ignore this type of shitposting."

I could not agree with you more, Cad. If any of you consider my posting even one quarter as bad as I consider Hodj's, you'd be a fucking idiot NOT to put me on your "ignore" list. Seriously. I've said this many times before, but for the love of God: If you hate my posting, IGNORE ME.

Erronius: "I guess I'm dubious, since it seems like you're trying to disassociate her words from the video of Hitman as if they didn't have anything to do with each other. Why only text? Did Thunderfoot misrepresent Anita and doctor the footage, such that the Hitman footage wasn't originally playing as she spoke those words? And if that WAS the original clip that was playing in the background, how can you argue that she wasn't talking about Hitman when she's talking about games in general and then shows Hitman footage? Seems to me like Hitman would fall under the umbrella of her argument, and not by accident either."

Not trying to disassociate her words from the video at all. I am, however, making the strong point that there is nothing inherently "about Hitman" in anything she says. She was discussing a trope, explicitly. Everything she said was about that trope. Hitman was one example out of many games that featured this trope. To say "this is what she had to say about Hitman" (as Thunderf00t did) is a lie, plain and simple. If you're talking about ionic columns, you are not talking "about the White House" (even if you do so over an image of the White House). If you talk about mozzarella cheese, you are not talking "about pizza" (even if you do so over an image of pizza).

Yes, Thunderf00t DID misrepresent Anita. He selectively edited the part of her schpiel where she made it clear that "invite" and "encourage" were being used within the context of how games are designed and played, NOT about whether or not a game explicitly rewards or punishes you for certain actions. He also cut out the part where she acknowledges that these games often DO penalize you for the actions she describes.

Yes, Hitman DOES "fall under the umbrella" of what she's talking about. It is an entirely valid example of a game featuring the trope she was discussing. But that doesn't mean she was "talking about Hitman". Words have meanings.

Doc: "If you read that thread Big Ern, you'll get to see Tanoomba actually attempt to argue that the only way to view Anita's argument in context is to look at the plain text. He argues that by taking into consideration the video she herself chose to play while saying those words is taking her out of context. He literally argues that you have to remove the context that she placed her own argument in to be able to view it in context."

This literally never happened and I fucking DARE you to prove otherwise.

Ignorance is strength, indeed.

Erronius: "Seems to me like if you're talking about a broader trope, and you use various examples of that trope, those examples would fall under the umbrella of the trope you are talking about and you would literally be 'talking about those games', Hitman included."

No. She's talking about a trope. That is the subject she is discussing. She uses examples of games featuring the trope, but that does NOT mean she is "talking about those examples". It is especially egregious to say "This is what she had to say about Hitman" and immediately follow that with an edited blurb that was about the trope and not about Hitman at all. Let me put it another way: If somebody asks "What was it she said about Hitman?" there would be no answer. She doesn't say anything about Hitman in particular. If somebody asks "What was it she said about sexualized vulnerable females/implicit invitation/the real-world effects these tropes might have/etc?" you could find several quotes to answer accurately and succinctly. The argument that "Well, since it's an example, she's still TECHNICALLY talking 'about' it" is weak-sauce rationalization and just plain wrong.




Erronius: "Or to put it another way, if she wasn't talking about Hitman, then why did she choose to add that video of the Hitman game in the first place and use it as part of the backdrop for her discussion?"

Because it was an entirely appropriate example of a game featuring that trope. This is the same reason you might use an image of the White House when talking about ionic columns, or an image of pizza when talking about mozzarella.




Erronius: "Stop misdirecting, please. I asked you if he edited the footage of the Hitman game to make it seem as if she was talking about Hitman, if she had not used that footage to begin with. That's the question I wanted you to answer."

Did he put the footage of Hitman in himself? No. However, he did edit the footage to make it look like she was talking "about Hitman". He said "This is what she has to say about Hitman", and started the clip AFTER she made it clear exactly what she was talking about. He misrepresented her point to push his narrative. If the peanut gallery looked at Thunderf00t with HALF the critical eye they give Sarkeesian, this would be super-obvious to everybody. However, since it doesn't support their pre-held beliefs to admit that one of theirs is lying about the "bad guy", they huddle up in their bubble with their fingers in their ears, convincing each other that I am somehow being unreasonable by looking at the facts and basing my conclusions on evidence. What else is new?

Fana: "every single time I can't believe how dumb this conversation is, she picked a video to play over her talking about something, either it represents what she was talking about or she's the worst and most overpaid video maker/editor of all time."

Whoosh.