I understand that. I don't like that she blocks comments and ratings, either, even though you and I both know what that comment section is going to look like. You said it yourself earlier--only a small fraction of people are going to be like you and give her arguments a chance. So it wouldn't make a difference whether she enables comments or not.

I think the fact that we can have the discourse you want here (and anywhere else on the Internet) is good enough.

The only thing I don't like about Anita in this regard is that she rarely responds directly to criticism, leaving people like me to defend her arguments for her. And some of the things she says ARE indefensibly stupid--the HItman thing comes to mind. So that's a frustration I've had with her for awhile, but only time will tell if she actually decides to make a video responding to criticism in the future. I don't think she's incapable.

Regarding her covering the "other half", however, I really don't care if she does or not. If she does, great. But I don't think it's unreasonable to focus on the larger of the two evils. Or at least, the more prevalent of them. Besides, she IS female--she has every right to be offended by how her gender is portrayed in the media, more so than guys are.

Because guys aren't sexualized as much!

I understand not having comments enabled on youtube; but she has done many live appearances to speak on the subject, and roughly zero times has she allowed or participated in a public discourse. This really irritates me, because proper discourse is vital to forming and altering your perspective to prevent or limit your biases; to refuse so is detrimental to academic understandings of issues.

Like I implied earlier, I agree with the facts of her video. But I don't agree with her conclusions based on the evidence provided. Maybe I'm not understanding the way she's arguing this, but I don't think that's the case. If her conclusions are legitimate, then she needs to more sufficiently provide connecting-data.

See, I don't really know what you mean by "cherrypicking", either. If there's an instance of sexism in a game, is it cherrypicking to call it out? What constitutes a cherrypick in your eyes? It just seems like another buzzword to me.

Fair enough. By cherrypicking out-of-context examples, I mean examples just like her referencing backlash against gay characters from the gaming community; yes, there have been backlash against characters. But it wasn't because they were gay, it's because being gay was the sum of their persons. I try to limit my uses of words like this to where they are directly applicable. Likewise, you mentioned Hitman; it is true that you can kill women in violent ways. But you aren't supposed to, and there are actually more men that you can kill than women. You could posit that this unfairly represents a female population in police and security related fields, but that would negate the serious tone I'm trying to convey.

I know--hence "more". That's not quite enough for me. Not all videos are going to be 100% perfect. You could say that you cherrypicked that example from the video. This is why I don't like to fuck with these buzzwords, because they can be reapplied to you so easily.

I only chose the one against gays because it was the easiest to respond to concisely and quickly; I'm flattered that you believe I could write my doctoral thesis on the instances of context-removed examples, but I'm not trying to turn this discussion into one of those half-page spanning posts. It'd be fair to compromise and just use that instance to highlight other areas where she may or may not have mis-supported her argument.

Care to elaborate?

Unless she was honestly misinformed on why there were backlashes against characters like Cortez and Anders, she took an irrelevant situation and reworded it to provide more support for her argument. She could have entirely left it out, and her video would have been more accurate (not perfectly, mind you); but instead, it's there, and that's another x amount of seconds that the video runs. This gives the impression that her argument is more credible because she can link more instances of childish temper tantrums from the gaming community. Maybe it stood out to me since it was the same argument Taneem used for why people didn't like DmC: Devil May Cry, but that's a separate discussion.

Well, I don't know which of her videos you've seen, but if you haven't seen her new series out called "positive female characters in video games", I'd suggest checking those out. With each of her videos, I tend to agree with 80-90% of what she's saying, but with these new videos, I agree 95-100%.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXmj2yJNUmQ The Scythian (Sword & Sworcery)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCsu3YPOw50 Jade (Beyond Good & Evil)

And if these videos are being used to provide informational analysis on what can constitute instances of female characters done right, that's great. I hope more of her future videos are along the lines of this.

If you're asking for a video/essay where she covers every facet of her philosophy, I don't think you'll find one--it's something you're just meant to pick up on after watching all her videos, I guess. But just because she's made a few flubs here and there, to me, isn't a viable enough justification to completely discredit her as a feminist.

I may have been putting off an incorrect image in that post; I don't intend to discredit her as a feminist, or expect her to put out a documentary explaining every facet of her philosophy in depth. All I want is for her provide her Big-foot (missing link joke) in these videos. I'm not going to tune her out, especially since that's my problem with refusing discourse; I intend to continue listening to her in the hopes that one day she does so.

The armor variants definitely look improved from the Halp 4 abominations.

There is a reason all of her videos have the like bar and comments disabled too.

Let's not pretend that there isn't a group of people that will immediately respond with a strong backlash to anything she says, even if it was just a five second video of her staring at a camera. There are a minority of people that will expand upon their responses in an intelligent way, but most will just make fart noises and spam dislikes.

I dislike Anita too, but this isn't exactly a paramount point in disregarding her.

TRIGGER WARNING:


Verb please. I can't stand that word and people who use it left and right don't even understand what trigger means.

Edit: And no, I'm not watching that because that girl is a literal cancer on feminism. Even at one event she said something along the lines of "I know what I'm talking about, you don't" or something stupid.

Then someone quoted Tywin Lannister saying "Any man who must say, "I am the king" is no true king."

Forget who said it on here, but they're right.

Luckily for you, Verb posted the transcript from the video. So you don't have to watch the video.

An Anemone or Clematis plant's juice can cause a rash. When pruning them, it's a good idea to wear gloves.

 I was a North American Fall Webworm in my past life. Those were the good old days... What were you in your former life?

You guys were arguing for it on the first few pages

Yeah, and iirc, it was also restated in the first few pages what "4-6 months" referred to.

My main issue with these works are that it presumes upon "male entitlement" as the issue at hand; in general, I'd expand that to just "entitlement". Towards the end, especially, she makes a comment that male entitlement affects how women interact with each other. Quite frankly, it seems she's using men as a scapegoat for issues. If women weren't interested in rewarding skimpiness, films like Magic Mike wouldn't have been a box office hit (and even though its sequel, Magic Mike XXL, did poorly at the box office in comparison, it still made a large profit).

Another is a comment she makes slightly earlier/later (depending on which section of discussion on male entitlement you predict that I'm speaking of) about "angry public temper tantrums from straight male players have occurred when role-playing games have forced them to interact with gay male characters". The issue with Cortez from Mass Effect 3, and similarly other minorities in Bioware games, is that they are themselves based solely around their "issue"; Cortez is just a gay guy, that's the limit of his development. Anders (Dragon Age II) will react negatively if you refuse him sex after building a significant amount of approval points (a contrast to her issue with reward points in video games, where the player is negatively affected by refusing sex). On the other side, characters who were actually developed past their sexuality are approved of or loved by the gaming community. Dorian (Dragon Age: Inquisition), despite the mixed views towards the game, is generally seen as a good character on his own grounds. Likewise, Arcade Gannon (Fallout: New Vegas) is also a gay character who is beloved and approved of by the gaming community.

I dislike her views, not because they contrast with my own, but because I find it increasingly apparent that they are used to push an agenda and not to inform for the greater benefit of society. No person can be expected, or for that matter possibly be, unbiased on a subject; but her series reeks of bias, with minimal attempts to try and "straighten the curve" toward radical leftist principles.

FOUR
DAYS
EARLY

AUGMENT YOUR PRE-ORDER TODAY

I hear the titanic incident  is comparable to the Armenian genocide

You mean imaginary?

I'd end every sentence with a question mark?

A question mark?

Memes would be the easiest to work with.

Everybody's going to heaven!

To the disappointment of people everywhere, yeah.

Question: Would any of you mind if I separated your "one" response to my post into another thread and moved it into HQ so I have have all of them together neatly once everyone has finished giving their response?

You're going to have to say that again.

Like, consolidating our responses into a singular post in the HQ? Knock yourself out, whatever can be done to improve the forums.