The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.
- Thread starter hodj
- Start date
- Status
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
What are you talking about? I gave you props for your post when I was talking to Quaid! You absolutely DID make some good points there, brother.
Unrelated:
"Human isn?t perfect,
and perfect is not he,
but I can tell you one thing, it?s just not what it seems."
Who knew Brooke Hogan was so talented?
Unrelated:
"Human isn?t perfect,
and perfect is not he,
but I can tell you one thing, it?s just not what it seems."
Who knew Brooke Hogan was so talented?
- 19,525
- 72,216
There are a wide variety of body types in porn. Your stereotyping is denying those women's agency and lived experiences you fucking shitlord.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Skanda: "Good (and long) post from an anonymous AAA Dev on the feminist issue in the game industry."
That's a pretty terrible post.
"I know me being anonymous reduces my credibility or the use of anything I write"
Yup. But I'm sure he has a good reason...
"...but my identity being public is too great a cost."
How so? Oh, that's where the explanation ends.
"No one cares, notices or remembers all the instances when males get attacked on the internet."
Media gonna media. They focus on hot-button topics for clicks and attention and are not above stoking the fire to keep the gravy train moving.
"Any serious and respectful refutation of any of the arguments put forward by people like Anita Sarkeesian, about GamerGate, or other relevent issues are by default lumped in with the trolls and never addressed"
See above. If the story is "harassment and abuse", the media doesn't care about "legitimate criticism of some pop-critic's video game analysis". Such criticism does exist, though, and is not hard to find.
"There have been countless detailed refutations that dismantle pretty much every argument Anita Sarkeesian has put forth, using video evidence of flat out lies and misrepresentations a plenty."
Annnnnnnnd here's where we start to fall apart. Now we see his ulterior motive, now we see why he's remaining anonymous, now we see why he's likely some manufactured character put together by a group of 4channers (wherever they are now) designed to appeal to those seeking a "developer" who shares their outrage over the SJW feminist scourge. Alright, let's keep reading...
"The reputation of gamers as misogynist thugs is then transmitted uncritically on mainstream TV talkshows, and ruin our reputation based on the actions of a tiny percentage of us."
You mean like how an angry redhead ruins the reputation of all feminists? Or how any time any random "SJW" uses the term "misogyny", it's a sign of how nobody is allowed to say anything critical about a feminist perspective because their life would be ruined with the "M" label?
"Jack Thompson raised the exact same concerns about the games industry, with violence being the specific nature of his worries instead of sexism"
So... not the same at all then. This is a pretty oversimplified, ridiculous statement and it's kind of embarrassing that anyone is expected to take it seriously.
"Where the industry at large is pretty united in calling Phil Fish a controversial figure, sometimes even an asshole, and all understanding fully the reasons he draws such negative attention from trolls, the same logic is never used on these other less male, less cis figures guilty of the exact same hostile and unpleasant behavior."
What? I found a thoughtful, thorough analysis of why Fish became as controversial a figure as he did, and the creator used the exact same logic to analyze how Quinn and Sarkeesian got their reputations. Another oversimplified, lousy argument.
"In addition to this, several of the notable key figures have added little of notable worth to the games industry"
Again, media gonna media. "Hey should we run a follow-up to our harassment story that got millions of hits or do we do an interview with female X who works at Y developer?"
"Worse, the number of resumes for female developers available for AAA studios to hire is going down because of this fabricated perceived hostility they will face"
So it took him 7 points before actually giving an actual example of the SJW narrative doing harm. Well done.
"The big figures in social justice are seen as a threatening authority to many within the games industry with the power to destroy our reputations irreparably."
What the fuck are you talking about? Did KiteTales have her reputation destroyed irreparably? How about J. J. McCullough? For fuck's sake, even ThunderF00t, who (unlike the previous 2 examples) went out of his way to be as manipulative and dishonest as possible in order to rile up his cronies, has only profited immensely from it. He is far from being the only one. Whose reputation was irreparably destroyed?
"The fact that she?s flat out lying, and not for the first or last time, is demonstrable with video evidence, but this counts for naught."
Oh God, this again? REALLY? On the one hand he complains that nobody takes legit criticism of Sarkeesian seriously, on the other hand he parades an irrelevant, already debunked video that has NOTHING TO DO with legit criticism as "proof" she was lying. How can we make these people happy when they conflate legitimate criticism and pointless personal attacks based on subjective interpretation of irrelevant material? How can I take any of his rant seriously when he doesn't even understand what constitutes legitimate criticism? How am I supposed to see him as anything other than an anti-Sarkeesian foot soldier who cares nothing about debate and exclusively about fighting a war?
"So why do none of her supporters seem to know about it? They just shut their ears and close their eyes and stamp a big misogyny troll stamp on anything critical of her, regardless of the respectfulness of the criticism."
Slow down their genius. When you think your interpretation of something is the only valid perspective you set yourself up for legitimate accusations of bias. Of course, "her supporters" (apparently including anybody not caring a torch and pitchfork) know about the video. They also understand that, within the context of that video, she didn't consider herself a "fan of video games" because she bought into the notion that being one meant you played COD, GTA and GOW. Can we move on now?
"Has anyone ever tried twitter searching @ the victims of abuse and counting how much abuse they get?"
One week of harassment on Twitter:
http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/109319269825/one-week-of-harassment-on-twitter
But that's probably all a lie too, right? She must have gotten friends and family to write all that.
"So to sum up, I was completely messed up, for months, because of trolls.
I was a mess. Being a victim is horrible.
These other so called ?victims? though? Hasn?t anyone apart from me and those ?horrible sexist gamers? noticed that their behavior doesn?t REMOTELY tally with those who are victimized."
Ha ha ha Jesus Christ. I don't know what's funnier: the fact that this guy considers himself some kind of expert on harassment because he was targeted for a month (But the reason is a secret! Shhhh!), or that he thinks he's in a position to decide what the "proper" way to respond to harassment is (and that therefore anybody who doesn't respond in the way he approves of is inviting more harassment, intentionally I suppose). Yeah, it's becoming more and more clear why this is an anonymous post.
"'It?s the last thing in the world I?d ever have done. Funnily enough the hostile abuse slowed down and stopped, but obviously that?s because I am a man, not the fact that I purposefully went out of my way to avoid continuing to agitate those who were attacking me. I wanted it to stop, so I hid and waited for it to stop. And lo-and-behold it STOPPED!"
Mansplain much? Here's my question: If you can stop harassment by ignoring it, depriving it of the attention it needs to sustain itself and remain relevant, why is he writing about the feminist scourge posing a threat to the games industry? Is he not extending their relevance by giving them yet another reason why they can convince themselves they're doing the right thing? Considering how casually he drops debunked or irrelevant arguments, does he honestly not realize he is "poking the bear" (the same thing he accuses Quinn and Sarkeesian of)? How come when HE does it he's noble and standing up for a cause he believes in, but when THEY do it it's because they're dishonest and, I dunno, trying to ruin the world for the white man?
(He goes on for several paragraphs about how people who shouldn't have attention are getting attention, blissfully unaware that he is participating in the process responsible for giving them this attention.)
"But god forbid any white cis male even claim a slight slight feeling of oppression from women, as they will be laughed out of the room."
If they use this guy's arguments, I'm not surprised that's the reaction.
"It may be that I dare not go on twitter. It may be that I dare not speak my mind around my peers, discuss matters of import to myself of the industry I am part of, it may be because I?m scared of being destroyed, thrown out, black listed, and attacked and being publicly torn down as a horrible misogynist because I disagree with these people?s views. But I can never claim to feel oppressed, because what sort of asshole guy with white skin, who is attracted to the opposite sex, who was born with a penis and still has one would ever dare to claim that? I guess I?m one of those nutty MRAs, huh?"
Oh, Jesus. "I have an opinion stupid enough to get me laughed at if I publish it with my own name, so clearly women are oppressing me!"
"The unbelievably privileged white females in America will be first to claim that just because people in the middle east may be MORE oppressed than they are, that doesn?t make their own oppression a non issue."
I didn't think he was an MRA before. Now I'm not so sure.
"...and yet I?m encouraged to feel like an asshole for suggesting I feel oppressed by these people because I?m a white male who apparently has all the privilege in the universe."
No. He's encouraged to feel like an asshole because he acts like an asshole. His "maleness" has nothing to do with it. Isn't this the same sexist bullshit he accuses Sarkeesian of?
"We just gotta be quiet, nod along and toe the party line, otherwise a Kotaku article outing us as horrible sexists may just be around the corner if we ever express any exacerbation at these people. And that shit sticks to you for life. It?s scary."
Sarkeesian already gave her "stuff I can't talk about" speech. I honestly don't know if this guy even realizes the irony of him taking a nearly identical stance as her. He also never gives an example of someone who's life was ruined with an undeserved "misogynist" label. Am I just supposed to take his word for it that this is a real danger faced by many people?
"I don?t know all the details, but I hear Total Biscuit is a misogynist now."
Ah! Finally! After another several paragraphs of "I'm not allowed to say ANYTHING!", he finally gives us an example of someone whose life was ruined with the "M" label... What's that? Totalbiscuit's life isn't ruined? What? He's able to take on the "M" label and speak about it? What? So a bunch of uninformed people making stupid Tweets about you doesn't have to stop you from saying what you mean?
"But to be honest, I?ve seen behind the curtain, and on games journalism ethics you do have a point. But it?s honestly not quite as bad as it appears"
...He says after the majority of his complaints are about the media and NOT about the SJWs.
Tell you what, "anonymous game developer": Rewrite your piece to acknowledge that the click-hungry media are primarily responsible for most of what you even consider to be a problem (this shouldn't be hard to do, it's GamerGate's official mission to draw attention to that, after all). Stop bitching about people YOU don't think deserve attention getting attention (it's petty and childish, and if you make the first point clear enough it's completely unnecessary). Stop pretending Sarkeesian and Quinn have any power beyond whatever attention the mainstream is giving them on any given day, which would incidentally disappear overnight if the people who didn't like them would stop hunting down information about them (That's right: Even their supporters wouldn't be able to keep them relevant without an "opposing side" giving them reason to continue the battle). Stop whining about how you're not allowed to speak your mind, you sound like a spoiled brat. You're allowed to say whatever you want, but your views are not the unchallengeable gold you seem to think they are, and if you say stupid things ("Sarkeesian lied about being a gamer!!!"), people will call you out on that even if you are a cis white male.
You've got a few good points buried in a pile of propoganda and stale talking points. Learn how to express yourself like a rational and logical person and not someone who's letting his "feels" dictate how the world should be, and you'd have a piece you could proudly share with your real name.
That's a pretty terrible post.
"I know me being anonymous reduces my credibility or the use of anything I write"
Yup. But I'm sure he has a good reason...
"...but my identity being public is too great a cost."
How so? Oh, that's where the explanation ends.
"No one cares, notices or remembers all the instances when males get attacked on the internet."
Media gonna media. They focus on hot-button topics for clicks and attention and are not above stoking the fire to keep the gravy train moving.
"Any serious and respectful refutation of any of the arguments put forward by people like Anita Sarkeesian, about GamerGate, or other relevent issues are by default lumped in with the trolls and never addressed"
See above. If the story is "harassment and abuse", the media doesn't care about "legitimate criticism of some pop-critic's video game analysis". Such criticism does exist, though, and is not hard to find.
"There have been countless detailed refutations that dismantle pretty much every argument Anita Sarkeesian has put forth, using video evidence of flat out lies and misrepresentations a plenty."
Annnnnnnnd here's where we start to fall apart. Now we see his ulterior motive, now we see why he's remaining anonymous, now we see why he's likely some manufactured character put together by a group of 4channers (wherever they are now) designed to appeal to those seeking a "developer" who shares their outrage over the SJW feminist scourge. Alright, let's keep reading...
"The reputation of gamers as misogynist thugs is then transmitted uncritically on mainstream TV talkshows, and ruin our reputation based on the actions of a tiny percentage of us."
You mean like how an angry redhead ruins the reputation of all feminists? Or how any time any random "SJW" uses the term "misogyny", it's a sign of how nobody is allowed to say anything critical about a feminist perspective because their life would be ruined with the "M" label?
"Jack Thompson raised the exact same concerns about the games industry, with violence being the specific nature of his worries instead of sexism"
So... not the same at all then. This is a pretty oversimplified, ridiculous statement and it's kind of embarrassing that anyone is expected to take it seriously.
"Where the industry at large is pretty united in calling Phil Fish a controversial figure, sometimes even an asshole, and all understanding fully the reasons he draws such negative attention from trolls, the same logic is never used on these other less male, less cis figures guilty of the exact same hostile and unpleasant behavior."
What? I found a thoughtful, thorough analysis of why Fish became as controversial a figure as he did, and the creator used the exact same logic to analyze how Quinn and Sarkeesian got their reputations. Another oversimplified, lousy argument.
"In addition to this, several of the notable key figures have added little of notable worth to the games industry"
Again, media gonna media. "Hey should we run a follow-up to our harassment story that got millions of hits or do we do an interview with female X who works at Y developer?"
"Worse, the number of resumes for female developers available for AAA studios to hire is going down because of this fabricated perceived hostility they will face"
So it took him 7 points before actually giving an actual example of the SJW narrative doing harm. Well done.
"The big figures in social justice are seen as a threatening authority to many within the games industry with the power to destroy our reputations irreparably."
What the fuck are you talking about? Did KiteTales have her reputation destroyed irreparably? How about J. J. McCullough? For fuck's sake, even ThunderF00t, who (unlike the previous 2 examples) went out of his way to be as manipulative and dishonest as possible in order to rile up his cronies, has only profited immensely from it. He is far from being the only one. Whose reputation was irreparably destroyed?
"The fact that she?s flat out lying, and not for the first or last time, is demonstrable with video evidence, but this counts for naught."
Oh God, this again? REALLY? On the one hand he complains that nobody takes legit criticism of Sarkeesian seriously, on the other hand he parades an irrelevant, already debunked video that has NOTHING TO DO with legit criticism as "proof" she was lying. How can we make these people happy when they conflate legitimate criticism and pointless personal attacks based on subjective interpretation of irrelevant material? How can I take any of his rant seriously when he doesn't even understand what constitutes legitimate criticism? How am I supposed to see him as anything other than an anti-Sarkeesian foot soldier who cares nothing about debate and exclusively about fighting a war?
"So why do none of her supporters seem to know about it? They just shut their ears and close their eyes and stamp a big misogyny troll stamp on anything critical of her, regardless of the respectfulness of the criticism."
Slow down their genius. When you think your interpretation of something is the only valid perspective you set yourself up for legitimate accusations of bias. Of course, "her supporters" (apparently including anybody not caring a torch and pitchfork) know about the video. They also understand that, within the context of that video, she didn't consider herself a "fan of video games" because she bought into the notion that being one meant you played COD, GTA and GOW. Can we move on now?
"Has anyone ever tried twitter searching @ the victims of abuse and counting how much abuse they get?"
One week of harassment on Twitter:
http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/109319269825/one-week-of-harassment-on-twitter
But that's probably all a lie too, right? She must have gotten friends and family to write all that.
"So to sum up, I was completely messed up, for months, because of trolls.
I was a mess. Being a victim is horrible.
These other so called ?victims? though? Hasn?t anyone apart from me and those ?horrible sexist gamers? noticed that their behavior doesn?t REMOTELY tally with those who are victimized."
Ha ha ha Jesus Christ. I don't know what's funnier: the fact that this guy considers himself some kind of expert on harassment because he was targeted for a month (But the reason is a secret! Shhhh!), or that he thinks he's in a position to decide what the "proper" way to respond to harassment is (and that therefore anybody who doesn't respond in the way he approves of is inviting more harassment, intentionally I suppose). Yeah, it's becoming more and more clear why this is an anonymous post.
"'It?s the last thing in the world I?d ever have done. Funnily enough the hostile abuse slowed down and stopped, but obviously that?s because I am a man, not the fact that I purposefully went out of my way to avoid continuing to agitate those who were attacking me. I wanted it to stop, so I hid and waited for it to stop. And lo-and-behold it STOPPED!"
Mansplain much? Here's my question: If you can stop harassment by ignoring it, depriving it of the attention it needs to sustain itself and remain relevant, why is he writing about the feminist scourge posing a threat to the games industry? Is he not extending their relevance by giving them yet another reason why they can convince themselves they're doing the right thing? Considering how casually he drops debunked or irrelevant arguments, does he honestly not realize he is "poking the bear" (the same thing he accuses Quinn and Sarkeesian of)? How come when HE does it he's noble and standing up for a cause he believes in, but when THEY do it it's because they're dishonest and, I dunno, trying to ruin the world for the white man?
(He goes on for several paragraphs about how people who shouldn't have attention are getting attention, blissfully unaware that he is participating in the process responsible for giving them this attention.)
"But god forbid any white cis male even claim a slight slight feeling of oppression from women, as they will be laughed out of the room."
If they use this guy's arguments, I'm not surprised that's the reaction.
"It may be that I dare not go on twitter. It may be that I dare not speak my mind around my peers, discuss matters of import to myself of the industry I am part of, it may be because I?m scared of being destroyed, thrown out, black listed, and attacked and being publicly torn down as a horrible misogynist because I disagree with these people?s views. But I can never claim to feel oppressed, because what sort of asshole guy with white skin, who is attracted to the opposite sex, who was born with a penis and still has one would ever dare to claim that? I guess I?m one of those nutty MRAs, huh?"
Oh, Jesus. "I have an opinion stupid enough to get me laughed at if I publish it with my own name, so clearly women are oppressing me!"
"The unbelievably privileged white females in America will be first to claim that just because people in the middle east may be MORE oppressed than they are, that doesn?t make their own oppression a non issue."
I didn't think he was an MRA before. Now I'm not so sure.
"...and yet I?m encouraged to feel like an asshole for suggesting I feel oppressed by these people because I?m a white male who apparently has all the privilege in the universe."
No. He's encouraged to feel like an asshole because he acts like an asshole. His "maleness" has nothing to do with it. Isn't this the same sexist bullshit he accuses Sarkeesian of?
"We just gotta be quiet, nod along and toe the party line, otherwise a Kotaku article outing us as horrible sexists may just be around the corner if we ever express any exacerbation at these people. And that shit sticks to you for life. It?s scary."
Sarkeesian already gave her "stuff I can't talk about" speech. I honestly don't know if this guy even realizes the irony of him taking a nearly identical stance as her. He also never gives an example of someone who's life was ruined with an undeserved "misogynist" label. Am I just supposed to take his word for it that this is a real danger faced by many people?
"I don?t know all the details, but I hear Total Biscuit is a misogynist now."
Ah! Finally! After another several paragraphs of "I'm not allowed to say ANYTHING!", he finally gives us an example of someone whose life was ruined with the "M" label... What's that? Totalbiscuit's life isn't ruined? What? He's able to take on the "M" label and speak about it? What? So a bunch of uninformed people making stupid Tweets about you doesn't have to stop you from saying what you mean?
"But to be honest, I?ve seen behind the curtain, and on games journalism ethics you do have a point. But it?s honestly not quite as bad as it appears"
...He says after the majority of his complaints are about the media and NOT about the SJWs.
Tell you what, "anonymous game developer": Rewrite your piece to acknowledge that the click-hungry media are primarily responsible for most of what you even consider to be a problem (this shouldn't be hard to do, it's GamerGate's official mission to draw attention to that, after all). Stop bitching about people YOU don't think deserve attention getting attention (it's petty and childish, and if you make the first point clear enough it's completely unnecessary). Stop pretending Sarkeesian and Quinn have any power beyond whatever attention the mainstream is giving them on any given day, which would incidentally disappear overnight if the people who didn't like them would stop hunting down information about them (That's right: Even their supporters wouldn't be able to keep them relevant without an "opposing side" giving them reason to continue the battle). Stop whining about how you're not allowed to speak your mind, you sound like a spoiled brat. You're allowed to say whatever you want, but your views are not the unchallengeable gold you seem to think they are, and if you say stupid things ("Sarkeesian lied about being a gamer!!!"), people will call you out on that even if you are a cis white male.
You've got a few good points buried in a pile of propoganda and stale talking points. Learn how to express yourself like a rational and logical person and not someone who's letting his "feels" dictate how the world should be, and you'd have a piece you could proudly share with your real name.
- 51,333
- 250,305
Skanda
I'm Amod too!
- 6,662
- 4,506
Please... predicting Tanoomba white knighting is like predicting bad MMOs. Everyone knows exactly what to expect.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
We'd have to give a shit about your opinion, which no one does, to bother reading your "analysis", emphasis on the "anal"
Fucking retard.
- 51,333
- 250,305
- 19,525
- 72,216
- Status