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

Siddar: "Jack Thompson is stirring. Must be mad about Anita stealing his act."

I read the interview, and while Thompson is still way off-base with much of his "reasoning" (For example, when presented with statistics indicating a decline in youth violence: "And by the way, ask the parents of those killed at Columbine if they particularly care what the macro-statistics are on youth crime. All they know is that Klebold and Harris trained on Doom. Their kids are dead because of that, and the crime stats are not particularly interesting to them."), in the end he claims his only goal is to have the age restrictions on video games enforced. I can't even argue against that. We have ratings for a reason, they should be enforced. He could be referencing bad science, he could be drawing incorrect conclusions, but in the end if all he wants is for us to enforce the rules we've already established, then how could anybody argue with that? Let the guy talk, by all means point out the stuff he gets wrong, but otherwise who gives a shit?

Similarly, Sarkeesian may get some things wrong, but her goal is to get gamers and developers to think critically about how women are portrayed in games, which is an objectively harmless goal. Yes, she'll bitch about some games you love, but so what? She's not trying to censor anything, she's not blaming anybody for anything, she's not saying gamers and developers are bad people, so what's the problem?

I guess you're right, if you're talking about you & me. I'm not sure "discussion" is an accurate description of the self-indulgent mud-slinging that occurs whenever Sarkeesian is mentioned.

Quaid: "I don't think getting angry over a self proclaimed media critic making unsubstantiated claims about one's hobby is an unexpected or unreasonable response."

"Getting angry" is a natural human response and isn't necessarily "unreasonable". How people act on that anger is where it can become unreasonable. What you consider people "getting silly" I consider people forcing what should be an exchange of ideas into a binary "us vs them" battle that does absolutely nothing to address the unsubstantiated claims. Also, "These claims are unsubstantiated. Here's why..." is a far, FAR more reasonable response than "She's a liar, a fraud and a con artist." If the problem, as you state, was actually that Sarkeesian made "unsubstantiated claims", then why is so much attention given to literally meaningless garbage such as her mentioning she wasn't a "fan of games" years ago, or she "stole" some fan art, or she once attended a teleseminar?

What you see as an expected and reasonable response, I see as a witch hunt. Pure and simple. That doesn't mean EVERYBODY who has a problem with Sarkeesian is in on it. You, for instance, generally try to abstain from pointless personal attacks. So do many other people who have successfully criticized her work without turning her into a supervillain. THAT is an expected and reasonable response. People shouting "liar, fraud and con artist" are FAR from reasonable, which if anything is demonstrated by their ferocious refusal to even CONSIDER any information that might contradict their narrative. PLENTY of evidence of that right here on Rerolled.





Doc: "Disagree. At the very least, a few publications have docked points off a game's review score for being 'problematic'. A lower review score can directly effect peoples' jobs/income. Not saying it has yet, but depending on a devs contract, it very conceivably could. For example, Obsidian missing out on a sizable bonus because their metacritic score for New Vegas was 1 point below their contract stipulation. Imagine if that happened because some cunt at kotaku thought a game didn't have enough black trans otherkin in it."

What you described is a problem with the game review system. We've known for years that video game reviews are plagued with problems, not the least of which is the fact that they are tied to developer bonuses. What you did NOT describe was how any of this is Sarkeesian's fault or problem.

Also, there's absolutely nothing at all wrong with a reviewer docking points for "problematic" content. We're past the days of "graphics", "sound", "play control", "fun factor". A reviewer is free to rate a video game based on any game-related factors he/she believes to be relevant. If the game contains content that inhibit's the reviewer's ability to enjoy the game, he/she is entirely justified in mentioning that. It's up to the consumers who read the reviews to get the information they need in order to decide if the game merits further interest. For instance, if you read a review that says "This game was fantastic except for some sexist content that bothered me", and you expect that the sexist content won't bother you and decide to play the game, then the review was effective. Reviewer's don't have to censor themselves out of fear that people will accuse them of reviewing the game "wrong" or, worse, being responsible for developers losing their bonuses. If you've got a problem with that, take it up with the management that decided to do things that way, not the person being paid to offer their opinion about a game, and not the feminist pop-critic whose only goal is to encourage critical thought.

"lol"

lol

Yup. The "liar, fraud and con artist" people have done a fantastic job ensuring that no rational discourse will be allowed to take place without it being hijacked by them to serve their immature needs. Nice job!