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

Oh, good. I forgot to add a couple of Xs to the end of "MAX" so my answer didn't make sense anyway.

Frenzied Wombat: "Edit: Also Quebec women >> Toronto women."

The man has some sense after all.

Anne Rice: "Signing off with thanks to all who have participated in our discussions of fiction writing today. I want to leave you with this thought: I think we are facing a new era of censorship, in the name of political correctness. There are forces at work in the book world that want to control fiction writing in terms of who "has a right" to write about what. Some even advocate the out and out censorship of older works using words we now deem wholly unacceptable. Some are critical of novels involving rape. Some argue that white novelists have no right to write about people of color; and Christians should not write novels involving Jews or topics involving Jews. I think all this is dangerous. I think we have to stand up for the freedom of fiction writers to write what they want to write, no matter how offensive it might be to some one else. We must stand up for fiction as a place where transgressive behavior and ideas can be explored. We must stand up for freedom in the arts. I think we have to be willing to stand up for the despised. It is always a matter of personal choice whether one buys or reads a book. No one can make you do it. But internet campaigns to destroy authors accused of inappropriate subject matter or attitudes are dangerous to us all. That's my take on it. Ignore what you find offensive. Or talk about it in a substantive way. But don't set out to censor it, or destroy the career of the offending author. Comments welcome. I will see you tomorrow."

Fucking A, Miss Rice.

To the anti-Sarkeesies still trying to push the "liar, fraud, and con artist" narrative I draw attention to the "But internet campaigns to destroy authors accused of inappropriate subject matter or attitudes are dangerous to us all. That's my take on it. Ignore what you find offensive. Or talk about it in a substantive way. But don't set out to censor it, or destroy the career of the offending author" part of that blurb. Extremely relevant.

Khalid: "Does he really not see that Anita is one of the major agents of censorship in the name of political correctness that Anne Rice is talking about?"

I'm absolutely positive I'm going to regret this, but I'm going to respond to your post logically and respectfully.

Sarkeesian is not an "agent of censorship" by any definition. She is, rather, doing exactly what Rice describes as "talking about it in a substantive way". She has never called for censorship in any form and has never tried to prevent developers from doing their job however they want to do it. She started a conversation, which is the RIGHT way to tackle what you perceive to be a problem. She certainly never tried to "destroy the career" of any developer, which is a LOT more than we can say about how lots of people have responded to her.

I am absolutely confident that Anne Rice would approve wholeheartedly of Sarkeesian's work, even if she's anti-PC and disagrees fundamentally with Anita's stance. There is also no doubt she would strongly disapprove of those who would try to use personal attacks to destroy Anita's image and reputation. You can't just equate believing something is a problem with being pro-censorship. If you think somebody shouldn't be ALLOWED to say something, if you think certain types of content need to be REMOVED from media, then you are pro-censorship (certainly as far as Ann Rice has made explicitly clear in her quoted text, which is the context we are discussing). If you think something causes some form of harm in society, but your goal is to get people thinking about it critically, that has nothing to do with censorship. That is true even is Sark hopes that the game industry will undergo change to reflect the changing demands of the public.

If you think Anne Rice would congratulate those pushing the "liar, fraud and con artist" narrative for taking a stand against censorship, you are sadly mistaken. She would basically tell them if they can't ignore her and they can't talk about her in a substantive way, that they are doing more harm than good. It's right there in her own words: "But internet campaigns to destroy authors accused of inappropriate subject matter or attitudes are dangerous to us all." That's the very definition of what the "liar, fraud and con artist" people are doing, and why you think that quote would somehow not apply to them is a mystery to me.

Soy: "You being "confident" of what Ann Rice thinks is almost proof positive than what she thinks is the opposite."

Everything I said came from her own words. If you'd like to explain to me how I misinterpreted her point, I'm all ears.




Doc: "Have you blah bla white knight hurble gurb"

In your opinion, what's the most delicious part of the puppy? The hind legs?

Soy: "The misinterpretation is not in Ann Rice's words, but in your opinion of Sarkeesian. It's the same argument we've all been having for over a year now."

So you agree with me that Rice would disapprove of the "liar, fraud and con artist" campaign, then?




Cad: "But you take Rice's words to mean we shouldn't attempt to censor Sarkeesian? LOL"

That's exactly what she said. What, you think she's anti-censorship, except when it suits her needs?

Allow me to paraphrase:
"Rice is literally saying we have to stand up for the freedom of speakers/creators to say/make whatever the fuck they want, regardless of subject matter, or depiction."

That would obviously include Sarkeesian. You can't say Sarkeesian is exempt because she's expressing concerns and therefore what she's saying is invalid and deserves to be censored.

Again, key phrase here (Rice's words, not mine): "But internet campaigns to destroy authors accused of inappropriate subject matter or attitudes are dangerous to us all."
Objective fact: Sarkeesian is not part of such a campaign.
Objective fact: The "liar, fraud and con artist" people ARE part of such a campaign.

Rice has got my back, yo.




Noodle: "Tanoomba can you confirm that Excelsior is your alt? You don't post with it, but you have shared IP's in the past and also he registered here using the same IP as you did."

Is it the same IP I'm using now?

Soygen: "No, because Sarkeesian is a fraud. The contention of that point precludes any point you have about Ann Rice."

Oh, so your feels allow you to decide who should be censored and who shouldn't.




Khalid: "You may not be aware of the backstory to this coming out. It has to do with rampant attacks on her in the recent past by people saying she shouldn't write about rape and several other topics and that her books were horribly sexist because of their depictions of women. It came out a bit before the collapse and revealing of the sockpuppets of RequiresOnlyHate and her supporters (SJWs pretty much all) and was pushed by these people.
Now I don't expect you to change your mind, but it really is a direct screed against people like Anita declaring work they don't like as offensive and therefore should be shamed/censored/removed in order to not trigger people or because it is offensive or sexist.
I could see if you weren't aware of the history of Anne Rice and these people, maybe you could make that mistake if you really see the problem here as being the people "shouting down Anita". However, your hypersensitivity to any criticism of her is not what Anne Rice is talking about. I say shouting down in quotes, because of course she has been more than able to get her point across. In fact, the people you claim to be witch-hunting, only started examining her so closely because the gaming media was echoing her comments without any fact-checking."

Oh, I get it. I included that blurb in my first post referencing the Anne Rice quote. I totally understand that she is speaking in response to people who would censor authors' works in order to prevent them from containing "problematic" content, and that she herself has been targeted by such people. Your mistake is including Sarkeesian in that group of people. Sarkeesian has never called for censorship in any form, unlike the people Anne Rice is talking about. Sarkeesian is taking the Rice-approved path of talking about what she finds offensive "in a substantive way", as opposed to trying to censor it or destroy the careers of developers. That's an extremely important distinction. Similarly, there are people who consider Sarkeesian's work to be "problematic" (for lack of a better word). Some of them talk about it in a substantive way, intelligently criticizing and analyzing it, which is great (despite what you seem to think, I have zero problem with criticism of her work and there is plenty of evidence of that on this board). Some of them attempt to destroy her career by pushing the "liar, fraud and con artist" narrative, which is exactly the kind of behavior Rice says is "dangerous to us all".

The reason it's dangerous is because when you legitimize witch hunts, you're effectively allowing people's feels to decide who the bad guys are and how they should be dealt with. That's all good and fine when your buddies are carrying the pitchforks with you, but it's not so fine when the crowd decides you're the villain of the moment and they turn their pitchforks on you. Obviously, many people are 100% convinced that Sarkeesian is a fraud and that's all the justification they need to want to see her destroyed (professionally). But even if she is a fraud, you CAN'T convince people of that by saying "she's a fraud". Instead, you talk about her work and you SHOW how she's a fraud. If you do that and people still don't buy it, then it's time to consider the possibility that the evidence is not as clear-cut as you might have thought.