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

Khaliar: "The best part of all this is Tanoomba being forced to defend religious nutjobs like a_skeleton_03 and Rescorla, or MRA advocates like Dumar. All so he can try to get what he thinks are potshots on Hodj."

It's really all-or-nothing with you, isn't it?

I defend reasonable points, wherever they come from. And I call out a cunt acting cunty, even if he's popular and occasionally makes informed posts. Hodj is not infallible. He is an enormously arrogant blowhard who acts like a spoiled brat and throws temper tantrums when things don't go his way. Is he smart? Sure! But he's also incredibly dishonest and he often clearly demonstrates that the rules he tries to enforce on others don't apply to him. Just because you've decided before I say anything that anything I say is wrong, it doesn't make it so.

Are you ready to admit you lied repeatedly about me, apologize and make a bigger effort not to spread bullshit to feed your ego? It has to happen, brother.

Sorry Hodj, I can't read your shit here. My post was addressed to Khaliar.

Chaos: "So what you're trying to say is that there is some substantive difference between saying "blank causes blank" and "blank contributes to blank"? If I were to use the two interchangeably in subsequent phrases, would you be utterly confused and not understand what I meant?

Don't do that hashtag shit with me, bro. You are trying to argue that she can use words to mean whatever she wants. I really don't get it. You seem like a smart enough dude, what skin do you have in this game that you go to such lengths to excuse her hackjob bullshit?"

Yes, Chaos, there is a significant difference between "x causes y" and "x can contribute to an environment where y is more likely to occur".

Alcohol can contribute to an environment in which pregnancy is more likely to occur. Alcohol does NOT cause pregnancy. Claiming that Sarkeesian says video games "cause misogyny" is, at best, a misrepresentation of her position and, at worst, an outright lie intended to villainize her. I'm not arguing that "she can use words to mean whatever she wants". If anything, YOU are the one playing fast and loose with what words mean, which is powerfully ironic after you condemned her for using a word in a way you didn't approve of, despite her being explicit about exactly what she meant.

A lot of people are more likely to smoke when they drink. Does alcohol cause lung cancer too? Some gamers live a sedentary lifestyle and have poor diets. Do video games cause obesity? Some people learn to play an instrument to pick up girls. Does horniness cause musical inclination? Come on, now.

As for what "skin I have in this game", I think I've made that abundantly clear: I don't like to see people use bullshit arguments and ignore facts in order to attack someone.

Gerb: "The bullet didn't cause his death officer. Did you see his cholesterol levels? At best I'd say the bullet merely contributed to his death."

He was brandishing a plastic knife which the police believed posed a threat to those around him, so they shot him dead. Cause of death: Plastic knife, apparently.

Chaos: "Your alcohol analogy is silly. All of them."

Why are they silly? You claim that "X causes Y" and "X contributes to an environment where Y is more likely to occur" are virtually the same statement. I have given several examples that show they are nowhere near the same statement. We can not in good faith claim the former is an accurate portrayal of the stance of someone who stated the latter.




Chaos: "But they kind of serve my point. These differentiations you are trying to make are only to serve your view rather than to reflect the reality of what it is."

According to what? I clearly demonstrated how your interpretation of Sarkeesian's use of "encourage" existed solely to serve your own view (that she was being "dishonest") and didn't reflect the reality of the situation at all (that she explicitly made it clear what she meant, the exact opposite of being "dishonest"). What evidence to I have to back that up? Again, Sark's ACTUAL WORDS, which I guided you through line by line. Out of our conflicting stances, yours is the one that requires greater suspension of disbelief and more creative inference, since it strays from the point she was making and virtually requires ignoring context.

Then you created a straw man of a position she has taken and I corrected you by pointing out that it is not "splitting hairs" to replace someone's stance with something they didn't say that has a significantly different meaning. Again, this is most likely to serve your own view (that she's an alarmist warning people of the evils of video games breeding generations of misogynists) and doesn't reflect the reality of the situation at all (that she believe certain types of content in video games can contribute to an atmosphere where certain attitudes are more likely to develop). What evidence do I have to back that up? Again, Sark's ACTUAL WORDS. She never says video games cause misogyny, and the point she DOES make she backs up with scientific studies. Twisting a reasonable, grounded stance that is at least somewhat backed by evidence into alarmist ramblings is dishonest, dude.




Chaos: "They're saying the same thing, and without evidence you would never accept this from someone else, but you accept it from this person, why I do not know. If hodj was using this exact same "encourage" argument in some political or religion thread you would never give him the leeway you give Sarkeesian. You're inconsistent."

I call bullshit. Ironic that you mention Hodj, since he took a stance very similar to mine in the religion thread. He claims Christianity contributed to an environment that allowed and even encouraged the Holocaust to occur, however he was very careful to clarify that he didn't believe "Christianity caused the Holocaust". Why make that distinction? Maybe it's you who are picking and choosing when logic applies and when it doesn't. You went from "words have meaning" to "words pretty much all mean the same thing" within the span of 2 posts. God knows I've been backing up my stances significantly more than you have (let's face it, your arguments in this conversation have generally boiled down to "Because I feel it to be this way"). So what are you basing this analysis of my posting behavior on?

Khaliar: "Somewhere along the line, Tanoomba was convinced that if he makes up the definition for a word to protect someone, that he has "proved" that his meaning is the way it is. Even when his definition time and time again conflicts with both the dictionary definition and how everyone coming at this with an open mind interpret it as.
To Tanoomba, it doesn't matter
1) What the dictionary definition of a word or saying is
2) What the vast majority of people, upon seeing something, would think the person meant
No, instead, what is really true (and that he claims to have PROVED) is his own definition of the word.
Can you imagine this clown in a math class? "Sorry professor, I did in fact integrate that correctly, it is just that your definition of integrate doesn't fit my own.""

Wow, what a load of hot, steaming garbage. Oh well, let's expose the hypocrite again:

I didn't "make up" any new definition for any word. I'd love to see you cite otherwise. What I DID do was show, objectively and using nothing but logic and reason, that Sarkeesian made it EXPLICITLY clear what she meant and that there was nothing misleading or dishonest about how she used the word. I made a reasonable claim and I backed it up with evidence. If you could do that even once, you might be able to make a valid point some time (you know, one that doesn't involve a straw man that has been debunked MANY times already). I'm not holding my breath.

You haven't even proven that a decent number of reasonable people would interpret Sark's explanation as dishonest, but here we're supposed to take it as a given that "the vast majority of people" would agree with your interpretation that RELIES on ignoring context and explanation? Fuck you.

To Khalid, it doesn't matter:
1) That evidence exists which proves him a liar.
2) That his personal attacks are never backed up by any evidence whatsoever.
3) That snark is not a substitute for logic or reason.

Nope, all that matters is that he wants to be part of the dogpile, even if it means being a colossal hypocrite who has no problem lying through his teeth.

Khaliar: "You keep asking me for citations, then I provide them and you try to pedantically walk your way out of it. Kinda sick of presenting you with proof and you ignoring it time and time again.
Even Chaos, who you respect so much, you are getting all snippy with because he refuses to accept your silly definitions as proof. Maybe its time to just declare Chaos an enemy and keep attacking his posts over and over again also, that is your pattern after all."

More garbage based on nothing.

Claims I ignore proof (in general, with no evidence), has been ignoring objective proof of his own lying ways for days and days. #justkhalidthings

Are you Chaos's keeper? Do you think he is incapable of handling my word choice? Does he need you to come in and replace the discussion that is actually happening with a fictitious creation of your imagination? The answer to all these questions is "No".

Here are a couple of your fallacies:
1) "My silly definitions" have nothing to do with anything. What word did I redefine? Can you quote me redefining it?
2) It's not my "silly definitions" (which, again, don't exist) that Chaos doesn't accept. It's the evidence that Sark was not being dishonest (that evidence being, again, her own words). Try to keep up.
3) I don't consider someone an enemy when they disagree with me, that's YOUR thing. YOU'RE the all-or-nothing "I even agreed with you in the past but now you said something I don't like so FUCK YOU FOREVER" nutjob. Don't push your neuroses onto me, Khal.

Ready to admit you've been the one ignoring evidence, hypocrite?