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

It's super easy to say someone is wrong about something if you don't actually have to back that up in any way.

Watch this: You're wrong, Soy.

Case closed!

Kriptini: "So how come she can't name three games?"

I don't know. Here are some possibilities:
- She didn't want to single out games when her point was about games as a whole.
- She knew that if she did mention specific games, she would be attacked by people claiming she "misrepresented" or "didn't understand" those games.
- She was flustered and had a brain fart. She's obviously at her best when working with scripted material and not off-the-cuff comments.

That's just three entirely feasible, reasonable explanations why she didn't "name three games" that don't involve her being a liar, a fraud and a con artist. The fact that so many people jumped on this as proof of... something (I'm honestly not really sure what) pretty much illustrates the point she makes about people going over everything she's ever said with a fine-toothed comb in order to find something, ANYTHING, to discredit her.

Soy: ">Implying that the Hitman subjected hasn't been discussed to death on this forum already."

Yeah, and how many times did people bring up that it was wrong to say the game ENCOURAGES you to take out NPCs when it EXPLICITLY DISCOURAGES YOU!?!?!?!?

Meanwhile, the game both implicitly (through the basics of game design) AND explicitly (through placing NPCs in places they need to be dealt with to carry out certain tasks) encourages you to do just that.

"Discussed to death" basically means "Repeating accusatory bullshit about 'misrepresentation' that has been debunked a hundred times over as fact and counting on Anti-Sarkeesie groupthink to make sure it's accepted as self-evident." Any time we look a fraction of an inch below the surface of these arguments we see they hold no weight, but no one wants to actually acknowledge, much less discuss, that this moral grandstanding has nothing to do with her work at all.

Soygen_sl said:

You and Anita do not understand the definition of encourage. That's nobody's fault but your own. You should work on that.

Click to expand...

Sorry, Soy, you're objectively wrong here, as has been shown. We can put every phrase where Sarkeesian uses the words "encouraged" or "invited" and, AT BEST, all you can say is "I disagree". Has nothing to do with her misunderstanding anything and everything to do with you deciding a point doesn't merit your attention and rationalizing it after the fact with worthless semantics garbage.

Khalid: "No no no, YOU look at them and think they hold no weight, yet everyone on this forum outside of Itzena, you, Heckler and Delicateflower found the Hitman examble a clear misrepresentation."

They've been proven to hold no weight. I have shown that many times over. Not my fault people choose to ignore that. Now before you chime in with "Well WE think OUR argument has been proven and YOU'RE ignoring it!", allow me to clarify: I have listened to every argument made about how Sarkeesian "misrepresents" Hitman on its own merits. I have considered them and, when looking at context and other evidence, found them to be severely lacking, logic and reason-wise. I have taken the time to demonstrate both my understanding of these arguments and explain, in detail, everything they get wrong. The arguments I've made, on the other hand, got none of that from the Anti-Sarkeesies. I explained how you are wrong. Nobody has EVER explained how I am wrong except through extensive and exclusive use of argumentative fallacies ("Everybody says you're wrong!", "You're just stupid!", "White knight!", etc, etc).

I care about this topic because I care deeply about video games and because it bothers me when someone is treated unfairly, especially for the crime of talking about video games. Apparently I care enough to make the effort to back up my points, even though I'm in the lose-lose situation where even making cogent and fact-based arguments gets me ridiculed and rickshawed (cue 50 sarcastic comments that, AGAIN, don't contradict anything I say). I have demonstrated before, on more than one occasion, my ability to take in new information and change my stances accordingly. The reason I haven't done so in this situation is because no such information has been presented.



Khalid: "You repeatedly act like everyone else is groupthinking, yet on pretty much every other topic none of us are so "groupthinked" that we can't disagree."

This means nothing. For one thing, have you ever considered that maybe the reason no one else disagrees about this is because this is one of the few topics that will make you a social outcast if you're on the wrong side of it?



Khalid: "Yet on this one topic, the evidence for Sarkeesian misrepresenting is crystal clear."

What evidence? Every single piece of "evidence" that has been presented, EVERY SINGLE ONE, has a perfectly reasonable counter-argument. That is the complete opposite of "crystal clear" if you ask any sane person. It's "blatant" because you say it's blatant and because the rest of the crew backs you up, despite plenty of evidence showing otherwise. You know what it's called when like-minded people use the fact that they share a belief as a justification of said belief while ignoring any and all evidence that contradicts that belief? Groupthink.



Khalid: "You aren't convincing anyone not because of groupthink, but because your arguments are absurd."

If they were absurd, they'd be easily proven wrong. They've never been. The apparent "self-evidentness" of the absurdity of my posts is the only thing used to show how absurd they are, as you are demonstrating in this post (which doesn't contradict any point I've ever made, by the way).



Khalid: "Wake up and if you can't do that, move on from this topic. You continue to embarrass yourself."

I'm wide awake, friend. I'll move on from the topic when I'm good and ready. You, sir, are free to go on your merry way and discuss whatever you like. Oh, and don't you worry about me embarrassing myself. I'm a big boy capable of expressing myself just fine, thank you. Also, dude, you are taking this WAY too personally. So you disagree with me about Sarkeesian, who gives a fuck? Stop treating it like we're at war with each other. You can disagree with others about a multitude of things and not go off on crazy rants, why are you acting like THIS is the deal-breaker for you? Chill out, it's the internet. Sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong. This time, you're wrong. You'll get me the next time around, I'm sure.

In before "Didn't read".

Soygen_sl said:

You're wrong. You(and her) could use the proper word: allowed or able to.

You fail at English. Again, work on that.

Click to expand...

Games are an interactive medium where the entire experience is based on how you interact with them. The line between what you are "allowed" to do and what you are "encouraged" to do is not as clear-cut as it is in other situations. When you play Super Mario 1, are you "encouraged" to press right to start moving or are you "allowed" to press right to start moving? The game is designed for you to play it, it "wants" you to do more than just stand there until the Goomba kills you, but there's no sign saying "Hey! Press right to move right! Do it now!" According to you, the game is just "allowing" you to move, to jump on the Goomba, to hit the block with the "?" on it, but that's just silly. All that shit is there for a reason. It was placed there to guide your actions and teach you as you play. Damned straight you are "encouraged" to press right.

fanaskin_sl said:

her whole argument is video game violence causes you to be _____ in the real world, it's functionally indistinguishable from jack Thompson when you break it down.

Click to expand...

Citation needed.

Bisi: "-Anita, talking directly out of her asshole.
Maybe it's impossible to quantify because it's shit pouring out of your anus?
"Hey guys, I don't have any data on this, but let me talk as if I do""

So Sarkeesian says something and thousands of men chime in with "See? She's just McIntosh's puppet!" You honestly don't see a connection between that and the point she's making?

Khalid: "Sorry bro, your arguments are absurd because they have been torn apart countless times. I am not going to repeat them here, you are deaf to them. I'm done trying to convince you on this topic, I just want you to realize you need to move on. Christ, when people start busting out cheese pizza examples to explain shit to you like you are a 5 year old, it should clue you that something is wrong with at least the way you are presenting your views."

I'm not deaf to anything. I've heard all the arguments. I have demonstrated their flaws. It's all there in black and white. Give me an argument I've supposedly ignored and I'll give you a counter-argument I've already made. Try me. Your side is the one doing the ignoring, and I can prove it.



Khalid: "I'm trying to help you out, if you would wake up and see it. You seem at times to wonder why people react the way they do to you. Yet instead of being introspective about it, you blame it all on groupthink. Ignoring how your obstinate refusal to see reason, even when the facts are laid out in front of you, has led to so very few people being willing to engage you on anything. The latest casualty was Quaid actually asking to be banned if he responded to you.

So yeah, I'm taking it personal because I think you can be a force for reason on this board if you would take a step back. I don't know when it was, maybe the zimmerman trial, or maybe your moon landing confession, but somewhere along the lines you radicalized yourself."

I don't need your help, thanks. Like I said, I'm a big boy. And I don't think I've ever actually "wondered" why people act the way they do. It's often exceptionally clear why they do. No big mystery there. It's also super-clear to me that the Anti-Sarkeesies are the ones with "obstinate refusal to see reason, even when the facts are laid out in front of them". And unlike your claim about me, I can back that up. Like I said, it's all still there. You can't claim that I'm ignoring facts when every "fact" that has been brought up has been both addressed and countered by me. That is the exact opposite of "ignoring".

Put your money where your mouth is. What facts have I ignored? Pick one. And if I can provide a reasonable and feasible counter-argument (this has always been the case so far), then I'm not ignoring it, right? And if my counter-argument is invalid, you'll be able to use logic and reason to show how it's invalid, right? Right now you're just using circular logic ("You're wrong because you're wrong") to make a weak-ass point. Put up or shut up. And if your response is just "It's not worth it because you're just going to X", then I guess you've said all you can say and it's time for you to move on, right? Thanks for trying, I won't hold it against you, and all that jazz.

Oh, and I've never radicalized myself. I don't think you understand what that word means. If anything, the people chanting "Liar! Fraud! Con artist!" are the radicals. Those views are FAR more extreme than anything I've ever said regarding Sarkeesian. Objectively.

Doc: "An out and out lie and anybody that participated in these threads knows it. You are a liar Tanoomba."

Prove it, bitch. You love to talk the talk, but that's all you do.