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

Doc: "You wouldn't know since you'd just be permanently, patiently waiting for them to deliver."

What makes you think her backers don't already think they got their money's worth? If they're happy, there was no con. Sorry.

Oh, Jesus Fuck. Reread my post, and replace that sentence with
"How the heck is the fact that she used Let's Play footage evidence she is a con artist?"

...You point-dodging nitwit.

Fana: "If she played the games using the elaborate video capture system she has she wouldn't have to or need to? it's evidence she's not the gamer she claims to be as an authority of the subject she's promoting, a subject she makes lots of money on? remember she's a self claimed teleseminar success story, the same telemarketing system that con artists use to promote fake health cures and shit."

I gave you several perfectly feasible explanations as to why she might have reason to use Let's Play footage, EVEN THOUGH she has video capture equipment. I guess it's easier to hold your fingers in your ears and sing LALALALA than it is to acknowledge an explanation that runs counter to the narrative you're pushing. And besides, that still has NOTHING to do with whether or not she is a gamer. Nothing at all. There is no logic to your argument.

Bravo on bringing up the Teleseminar, though. Not that that has anything to do with anything. Keep flinging that shit. Something is bound to stick at some point, right? Absolutely pathetic.

Fana: "I read what you said, I don't buy it at all, lalala go fuck yourself, just because something is within the realm of possibility doesn't make it probable or that I have to believe it, but if all you do is LISTEN AND BELIEVE then maybe you can ask yourself why you got conned into thinking "hey maybe the moon landing didn't happen"."

I guess you still don't see that your argument makes zero sense.

Sarkeesian used Let's Play footage => ????? => Sarkeesian is not a gamer

You've got your work cut out for you filling in that gap in the middle. The fact is, even if she didn't record a single second of her playing the games, that is in no way evidence that she didn't play the games (one false argument you've made). And even if she didn't play those games, that wouldn't necessarily mean she wasn't a gamer (another false argument you've made). Your taking a shitty premise and drawing shitty conclusions while intentionally ignoring any information that contradicts you, simply to feed into the narrative you've obviously completely committed yourself to.

And before you waste another breath trying to use how much money she makes against her, remember that it's the gung-ho, over-eager, take her down at all costs attitude you're displaying that lined her pockets. She had been almost invisible doing her schtick for a few years, then you fucking nutsos decided she was your villain of the week and she became a superstar. Teleseminar bullshit had nothing to do with it, unless they taught her how to turn gullible, angry busybodies into free publicity. And if that is what she learned? GOOD. There is NO better way to stick it to the assholes trying to take you down than by benefiting from their actions. I really don't think that was her plan, but there's a poetic brilliance there, especially since the anti-Sarks have CLEARLY learned nothing from the experience and will easily allow themselves to be exploited again and again.

Fana: "I had the video of herself saying she hates video games for me to dare to think she might not be a gamer tanoomba, just because you play a more passive aggressive game doesn't mean your not an insufferable cunt yourself fyi."

Ah! There we go. The second-most popular piece of "evidence" after the "she lied about Hitman!" shenanigans.

She said she wasn't a "fan of video games" because at the time she believed that being a "fan of video games" meant you played COD, GTA, GOW and other violent, killing-based games. From a presentation she did:

"She described her relationship with gaming as 'complicated,' credited the Wii for getting her back into gaming and showed a slide of Mario Kart Wii, World of Goo, Guitar Hero and Angry Birds. She said that she knew that some people didn't consider those 'real' games but that she counted them as some of her favorites.

Sarkeesian mentioned her time in grad school, which I believe was the same time she was saying in that clip that she wasn't a fan of games. 'If you asked me at the time, I would probably have said I wasn't a gamer,' she said. Under her breath she added: 'I don't even know if I want to say that now, but whatever.'

She said she'd 'bought into the bogus myth that, in order to be a real gamer, you had to be playing GTA or Call of Duty or God of War or other testosterone-infused macho posturing games which often had a sexist, toxic culture that surrounded them. So even though I was playing a lot of games?these kinds of games?I still refused to call myself a gamer, which I don't think is uncommon.'"

By the way, have you noticed a pattern here? You bring up a piece of "evidence", I show you how the "evidence" is nowhere near as solid as you think, and you ignore that. Then you bring up another piece of "evidence", I again show you how weak it is and you again ignore it. You think you've got a pretty good case because you've got ALL THIS "evidence", but each piece is weaker than the last and there are perfectly valid, entirely feasible explanations why none of that "evidence" means what you think it means. But when all you've got is a hammer...

More good insight in part 5:

Why Are You So Angry? Part 5: "The Good Guy"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCqQ9LxzTwM

My stance:
If she's wrong, explain how she's wrong. People who care will listen. People who don't don't matter. If it turns out there are a lot of good arguments to make about how she's wrong, she slips away into oblivion, ignored like every other flash in the pan YouTuber trying to get their voice out there.

Turning it into a witch hunt destroys the conversation. It's no longer about whether she's right or wrong, it's about her being a liar, a fraud and a con artist. People who care don't actually get an explanation as to why she's wrong (if she even is wrong), and people who don't care begin to care because they see someone being attacked for expressing a point of view. She gains more fame, fortune, and influence as a result of this new, completely irrelevant narrative, and nobody can even talk about whether she's right or wrong because any discussion devolves into shit that has nothing to do with her actual work.

Let me put it this way: Let's say Sarkeesian actually IS a liar, a fraud, and a con artist. If she's right about everything she says, what difference does any of that make? Her point would stand regardless of how evil a person she is. If she's NOT right about everything she says, then isn't that more relevant than any supposed underlying reason why she isn't? You can't prove someone's lying, but you CAN prove when they're wrong, so wouldn't focusing on the latter make the former irrelevant? You don't convince people someone is a liar by calling them a liar, you convince them by explaining the lie. So far, everything that has been considered a "lie" has been subjectively interpreted as such and does not stand up under further scrutiny, just like the justifications for the "fraud" and "con artist" labels.

If you actually gave a fraction of a shit about the "damage" Sarkeesian could do (to games, to society, whatever), you'd calmly and rationally explain what she gets wrong and how, and you would completely ignore any and all talk about her personally. But you don't care about that. You only care about having a bad guy to shit on. You wanted a war so you created one. I know I'm not getting through here, but I take immense satisfaction from knowing that you are being made aware of how counterproductive and ignorant your witch hunt is. Go ahead, have your fun! You're a joke. You can pretend I'm the crazy one all you like (I know you will), but I've been the only one speaking rationally here (actually, to be fair, Quaid has too). You've created a self-perpetuating circle of non-logic that shields itself from any outside influence. Your bubble is mighty, I'll give you that, but it's still just a bubble.

Fana: "I watched all of these, they aren't nearly as clever as they think they are."

No one likes to hear a rational explanation for their own shitty behavior, right?