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

Khalid: "It certainly would be if I took them out of context."

Sure, but that's subjective interpretation on your part.

Khalid: "It has not been clarified at all."

Let's clarify it again: She was talking about the "sexualized vulnerable female NPC" trope. She used Hitman as an appropriate example of that trope.

Khalid: "Hell, if anything is an example of trolling, it is your seeing a clear attack on political correctness and SJWs as a defense of Anita is a clear example of trolling."

It wasn't an attack on political correctness, it was an attack on CENSORSHIP in the name of political correctness. Since Sarkeesian is anti-censorship, she was not part of the group being criticized. Again, Sarkeesian chose to "talk about it in a substantive way", which Rice explicitly approves of. Rice has my back here.

Khalid: "Yet you obstinately refuse to see how the Anita videos (which you have said over and over again you have problems with) have managed to poison the well of a fuckton of people on gamers."

I guarantee you that the Anti-Sarkeesies have done exponentially more to soil the reputations of gamers than Sarkeesian has. They have gone out of their way to show people how gamers can be petty, vindictive, immature, irrational, combative and ignorant. She started a conversation about how women are represented in video games. Which of those do you think is more harmful to gamers' reputations? When Mr. Jobinterviewer has a negative reaction to hearing you're a gamer, it's because he's worried you're a hateful jackass, he doesn't care if you're someone who gives a shit how women are represented in video games.

Khalid: "However, the gaming media portrayal of her videos and the cherrypicking of a few examples of harassment targeted her way (and refusal to cover from some SJWs towards gamers and gaming organizations) has to surely be an example of poisoning the well of public views of gamers."

Media gonna media. They're in it for the clicks and always have been. You can't blame her for exploitative journalists. You also can't blame her for taking the disgusting way many people treated her and using that to her advantage. Anyway, we're kind of going off on tangents here since this is all just a result of Anne Rice agreeing with me, which was my main point.




Gerb: "Soy didn't exactly verify that you never said it. As a rule in life you can't prove a negative."

No, but you certainly didn't prove the positive (your responsibility in this case), and he DID show that I am consistent enough to have argued this same point before.

Gerb: "At worst I am mistaken."

Fair enough. If I snapped at you, it's because people misrepresenting my views is an unfortunately all-too-common occurrence and more often than not is the result of intentional ignorance and not just an honest mistake.

Gerb: "But she purposefully misrepresents the games she is talking about, such as Hitman, which also makes her a liar."

I know you disagree, but this is subjective interpretation on your part. To you it seems obvious that she "purposefully misrepresents" Hitman. To me, there wasn't actually any misrepresentation at all. The conclusions you draw ("misrepresenting, mildly retarded con artist") are based on you taking moral offense at how she talks about games and seeing what you want to see to justify your outrage. This is absolutely not the only way to interpret her work. This is why you have to be able to explain your stance. If you can explain it well by making your case and taking into account counter-arguments (something that hasn't happened on this board yet), then you have a position that can be taken seriously. Basically every argument I've seen about why Sarkeesian is a "liar, fraud and con artist" is based on a mix of feels and ignoring other valid points of view. I promise you, you are not going to "expose" anything that way.




I do admit that I find this "we just want to expose her" stance somewhat laughable. You're taking judgmental conclusions drawn from faulty logic and discussing them as though they are self-evident. This is not how you expose somebody. It IS, however, how you preach to the choir.

Oh good, Lithose showed up, and he's powered up his Troll form.

"Anita is NOT trying to censor Video Games when she says they cause sexism, racism and other harmful effects guys!"

Sarkeesian believes some games have "harmful" content, in that they play a role in shaping how people perceive and act towards other people. You don't have to agree, but that's not a crazy statement. She does NOT say the "cause sexism". She does NOT say the "cause racism". She does NOT call for censorship in any way, shape or form.

"HOLY SHIT. When you guys call Anita a con artist, you're trying to fucking censor her!"

That derail came up as a response to this comment from Cad:
"But you take Rice's words to mean we shouldn't attempt to censor Sarkeesian? LOL"
If you think I wasn't supposed to interpret that as an endorsement of censoring Sarkeesian, I don't know what to tell you.

Are you done trolling, or do you have more ignorant sarcastic comments to make?

Shit, I wrote "they" as "the" twice. Apologies.

Cad: "You are fucking dumb as shit.
I worded it that way because Rice's paragraph was anti-censorship, which is EXACTLY WHAT SARKEESIAN IS ADVOCATING."

Calls me dumb as shit. Makes dumb as shit statement. Can't explain that.




Khalid: "Tanoomba, are you trying to have a genuine conversation or are you just wanting to shit disturb? It seems the latter. If it is actually the former, you might want to reconsider this Anne Rice thing. It sounds like you quite clearly knew at best everyone was going to disagree with you on this."

Yes, Khal, I am trying to have a genuine conversation. And yes, Khal, I knew damn well everyone was going to disagree with me on this. Doesn't change the fact that Rice would be just fine with Sarkeesian doing her thing and would obviously chastise the "liar, fraud and con artist" crowd. She made that extremely clear IN HER OWN WORDS. I knew what I was getting into and I knew that I could back it up.

"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"
- Anne Rice

Khalid: "But internet campaigns to destroy authors (developers) accused of inappropriate subject matter or attitudes (hookers in video games, wrong body types, etc) are dangerous to us all. That's my take on it. Ignore what you find offensive (instead of wanting developers to quit making games that offend you). Or talk about it in a substantive way. But don't set out to censor it (Anita saying that player choice isn't enough), or destroy the career of the offending author"

See, what you've shown me here is extensive evidence of confirmation bias. Let's break it down:

- Sarkeesian has never tried to destroy a developer. (Objective fact)
- Anti-Sarkies are continuously trying to destroy her. (Objective fact)
That's important, Khal. That is the crux of what Rice is saying. Rice has zero problem with people believing something is inappropriate or problematic. She takes issue with how they ACT on it.

-Yes, wanting developers to quit making games that offend you is not "ignoring what you find offensive". However, it is disingenuous of you to not link that to the more appropriate part of Rice's quote, where she says "Or talk about it in a substantive way", because that's exactly what Sarkeesian is doing. Do you really not see that? You can believe vampire books give people aids, and if all you do is try to explain your case rationally, Anne Rice has no beef with you. But flood Amazon with fake one-star reviews and you've crossed the line. The "liar, fraud and con artist" crowd are crossing that same line.

- As for your implication that "Anita saying player choice isn't enough" is somehow evidence of being pro-censorship, is this the passage you are referring to?

"Now inevitably whenever these game mechanics are criticized, some gamers try to dismiss and distance themselves from the issue by insisting that they don?t personally partake in the provided options for exploiting virtual women. But whether or not an individual player chooses to use an object for its intended purpose is irrelevant, because that object was still designed and placed in the game environment to fulfill its function.

A toaster is still a toaster regardless of whether or not you choose to make toast with it. It?s still designed for the express purpose of toasting bread. And it still communicates that fact even while sitting unused on your kitchen counter.

Likewise a sex object is still a sex object regardless of whether or not you personally choose to use and abuse her. And that fact, in and of itself, still communicates extremely regressive ideas about women."

There is nothing pro-censorship in there. Nothing. Her point in that passage is that believing something is harmless just because not everyone will take "perverse pleasure" from it doesn't hold much weight when that content is inherently sexist. That's not a pro-censorship statement. I remind you, Soygen came up with a hypothetical situation (that you agreed with) about the harm that Sarkeesian's views could theoretically cause. Please note:
a) His hypothetical is less sourced and backed by reality than Sarkeesian's theories.
b) He was able to say something was harmful while still maintaining an anti-censorship stance.

Why the double standard? you could claim that Sarkeesian NEEDS to back up her views with more references if she wants to be considered as having educational value, whereas Soygen is just a dude posting on a message board, and you'd be right. But her goal is to get people thinking critically. Soygen's goal is to destroy Sarkeesian's career. So it's not OK for her to actually reference studies that support her stance in an attempt to get people thinking critically, but it is OK for people to use half-assed hypotheticals backed by nothing to justify destroying someone's career? I know damned well where Anne Rice would fall on that.

And why is it OK for you and Soygen to consider Sarkeesian's work harmful (as hamfisted as that hypothetical was) and still be anti-censorship but when Sarkeesian says something is harmful she's the face of censorship incarnate? Heck, she also explicitly stated she is anti-censorship. Why is there a different set of rules for you than there is for her?

You claim that it's "quite easy to point out how she was in fact specifically targeting the person you say she is supporting", but frankly, your attempt to do so was full of holes. I appreciate that you made the effort to make your case and I respectfully and patiently went point-by-point over everything you got wrong. You have not shown that Sarkeesian is pro-censorship (no one has), so she wouldn't fall on Rice's black list for that. You have not shown that Sarkeesian has tried to destroy a developer (no one has), so she wouldn't fall on Rice's black list for that. I have shown that Sarkeesian is simply talking about something she considers harmful, which Rice explicitly approves of. See? We are having a genuine discussion after all.

Doc: "Never ceases to amaze me the bullshit you'll spew to defend this woman."

Accuses me of spewing bullshit. Doesn't contradict a single thing I've said. Can't explain that.

No, you're too busy being a smarmy jerk who ignores any information that doesn't suit his narrative.

You never answered about the puppies, Doc. Also, what color is solitude? If fashion sense is to brie as a hammer is to air conditioning, then how much fur can you shave off a kidney stone?

Here's your answer:

A plum soaked in perfume served in a man's hat.

OK, your turn.