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

HerbalGerbil: "Never forget the words 'harmful content'. They are what Sarky-Poo and her little red general Tanoomba hang their hats on. "

Sneaky little liar, aren't you? I have never claimed that any video game content was "harmful".
Ironically, it's your lot that think Sarkeesian is "harmful" and use that to justify your shenanigans. I think video games are just fine, and I also have no problem with Sarkeesian claiming otherwise. I really don't understand why that's so difficult to grasp.

Cad: "Whoever said we want Sarkeesian censored? We just want everyone to know she's a liar, con artist, and a fraud. She can continue making her dumbass videos of course."

OK, so you want her professionally destroyed so her words have no merit. According to Anne Rice, you're the bad guy, not Sarkeesian.
If you want her bullshit exposed, talk about it in a substantive way. If that's somehow not enough, then you're probably not as right as you think you are.

Khalid: "Wait, are you denying that Anita's whole schtick is that she is against "sexism in gaming" because it is problematic and harmful content?"

I am not denying that. Sarkeesian absolutely believes video game content can be harmful. However, that's not what I believe. I was responding to AngryGerbil's false assertion that I share Sarkeesian's views.




Soy: "No, I want her professionally destroyed because her words don't have merit."

Again, even if that were true, you're going about it the wrong way. Anne Rice agrees.

Soy: "That parent is going to think their kid is turning into a misogy-rapist lunatic while deriving perverse pleasure from these games."

1) Not all parents are as dumb as the anti-Sarkeesies. Many are quite capable of understanding her message without jumping to ridiculous conclusions.
2) More and more parents actually ARE gamers and are not about to let Sarkeesian affect what they think of their kids.
3) Most parents who aren't gamers have never even heard about Sarkeesian, except maybe for when she was on TV talking about how shitty people on the internet can be.
4) What do you think the parent is going to do, ban their kid from playing video games? Worst case scenario, they actually start to pay attention to what games their kids are playing... the horror!

This is classic hand-wringing busybodyism on your part. You're talking about theoretical problems that have very little connection to reality.




Khalid: "She is using cherry-picked examples to slander a whole entertainment niche as based on or about misogyny."

She absolutely is not. You're just flat-out wrong here.

Khalid: "Tanoomba, you got mad at the job interview guy who said he was going to be less open about his video gaming now that people think it is based on sexism. You seemed upset if I recall that he would just cave to that."

No, I got mad because he was essentially complaining about a non-problem.




AngryGerbil: "Yes you have. One hundred percent yes you have. It is one thing I have made sure to commit to memory. You *absolutely* have used the exact words 'harmful content' when referring to the content of certain video games. I remember it quite vividly. It's what she says too."

Nope. It's extremely likely that what you think was my position was actually me describing Sarkeesian's position. I have never claimed I believe how women are portrayed in video games to be "harmful".
(Edit: Thanks for verifying, Soy.)




Khalid: "On the other hand, if I was cherry-picking examples from the Koran that weren't true, saying stuff in front of a background of the Koran and saying I wasn't actually talking about the Koran when I made mistakes, then I should be criticized."

1) If your stated goal was to show examples of misogyny in the Koran, you wouldn't be "cherry-picking" by showing examples of misogyny in the Koran.
2) "Saying I wasn't actually talking about the Koran..." This has been clarified a thousand times over. You're coming dangerously close to trolling here.
3) Nobody EVER said that Sarkeesian shouldn't be criticized. I have no idea why you keep bringing that up.




Cad: "Thats the thing Soy, he doesn't substantively defend m'lady or take a position on her opinions. He just lashes out at anyone who criticizes her."

If by "lashes out at anyone who criticizes her", you mean "points out the stupidity and counter-productiveness of basing your stance on personal attacks", then yes, that's what I do. Your word choice is terrible, however, and actually contains an outright lie, since you already know I have no problem with people criticizing Sarkeesian.

Doc: "Only Tanoomba could turn implicit criticism of Anita into an explicit defense of her like this."

There is no implicit criticism of her there. Sarkeesian does NOT do any of the things Rice was criticizing. The fact that you think Sarkeesian falls into the group of people Rice was talking about is a classic example of confirmation bias.