Comment Re: Her work (Score 1) 1262
It is if the person you're pointing out is not a hate-monger, isn't it?
You're like that guy who denounced Tinky-Winky for being gay. Delusional and convinced of your righteous ways.
It is if the person you're pointing out is not a hate-monger, isn't it?
You're like that guy who denounced Tinky-Winky for being gay. Delusional and convinced of your righteous ways.
I suspect that it isn't a reading comprehension problem, but that you are so on board with "men are evil" that you ignore anything said that doesn't fit your women are victims, men are evil narrative.
Sure I am. Go ahead and tell yourself whatever it takes to justify your actions and to dismiss any and all criticism.
I saw the images of the tweets she received. "Credible" is not even in the room while they're being read: no picture, no name, not an aged account, and obvious troll is obvious.
The no picture, no name, not an aged account is as indicative of harassment as it is of fraud. The things that were written were sufficent to land the writer in jail. Presuming the writer is actually harassing her, and smart enough to realize that he or she is breaking the law, and doesn't want to go to jail, then a new "burner" account would probably be their best choice.
He can't, the stuff he claims is false, and he's referring to the Lego video part 2 on the site linked from the article description. I watched the video and can recognize enough of the real video through his darkly twisted lense.
I watched that video because you mentioned it and you appear to have failed to understand the central point. It's not "commercials depicting fathers playing with their sons are bad", it's only having "commercials depicting fathers playing with their sons" alienates girls from playing with Lego by emphasizing that it is a "boy" toy. Additionally, it not "that products should not depict testosterone inspired activity", it's that Lego shifted their commericals from creative activity which has larger cross-gender appeal to boy-centered play themes like blowing stuff up, which again, alienates girls from playing with Lego because that type of play is generally les appealing to girls. In both cases, it is not the advertising that is the problem, it's the fact that there is no counterbalancing advertising. There are no mother and son, father and daughter or mother and daughter commericals, and there is no marketing focus on play that appeals to be both boys and girls or focus on play that specifically apeals to girls. She is not critcising the toy or even the company really, except that she is pointing out that for two decades, they made marketing campaigns aimed at boys and only boys.
And for that, you appear to believe that she and her family deserve to be threatened with rape, torture and execution...
It's possible to be a lucrative demographic without having PR money. Case in point: Alcoholics.
I think the wholesale failure of web 2.0 sites to facilitate any discussion of these issues over the last few weeks proves just how shallow their promise of a brave new web is. The scope and scale of the censorship seen around this issue is to my knowledge unprecedented.
Slashdot had the right ethics and mores all along, Anonymous Cowards and all. The community can mod them down, but even they should be free to speak.
I think a poster on the escapist forums but it most succinctly: "The gaming community is being bullied for profit".
The gaming community is being singled out for being misogynist, over the film/tv industry, over the music business, over religious groups, because they are a relatively easy target who won't put up as much of a fight. While it's almost certain that Sarkeesian has received threats, let's be honest, they do not carry anywhere near the same weight as those which would come from, say, a religious group who was called out for being conservative. Gamers also lack the PR money to respond, which would be readily available to entertainment companies. Overall, it's a fairly safe group to criticize.
I'm sure that misogyny exists in video games, but no more (and I would argue to a lesser extent) than that seen in general society and other forms of entertainment. Yet Sarkeesian and her backers have launched what amounts to an internet crusade against the most counter-cultural -- and I would argue visibly progressive -- media industries.
Her videos present selectively chosen examples from several video games, purporting to show that games are actually hateful towards women. Many of us have played several of these titles, and can judge how exaggerated such claims are. Indeed, using Sarkeesian's techniques, it would be perfectly possible to go through these games and more, and selectively picks clips and examples "proving" that games and the gaming industry promote animal cruelty.
Yet no-one makes the animal cruelty argument about video games. And the reason is I think obvious -- The misogynist argument makes more money. Sarkeesian has been backed to the tune of $150,000 to makes these videos. Sites like Kotaku generate huge ad-revenue from the inevitable click-bait headlines which follow from these exaggerated claims. The more games who take the bait, who defend their hobby from these accusations, the more revenue goes to the people making and promoting them.
This does not represent a genuine feminist movement. This represents a business model. Gamers are being singled out and bullied -- over religious conservatives, over music video directors, over corporate policies towards women -- because gamers are an easier and more lucrative target. Gamers are "hate-baited" with very, very ugly accusations painting them as haters of women, so that their predictable responses can be farmed out to ad-servers and marketing firms. Bullied; for profit.
I've played video games since 1990; I do not hate women; My hobby does not hate women; The vast majority of people who play video games do not hate women. Please, Sarkeesian's of the world, turn your attentions to the people who do.
"you, troll, die! all assets to the defendant. if this is not effected within 5 business days, this court will personally come after your sorry ass with an Elfin sword."
something like that.
I see you want to make a left turn. I think you better start spinning donuts on that flying bridge instead, with the engine at full-tilt boogie.
you can't cite this book in a courtroom, because it's not a recognized reference. those are achingly reviewed and certified by state (or federal, as the case applies) courts.
you are chasing a wooly mammoth buck-naked with a fork. we determine you need titanium toe rings with 6-carat blue diamonds. why? hell, just because. your credit card on file has been decremented ten million dollars. now your avatar jingles as you run.
perhaps you want an elephant gun now? please enter a new valid credit card number...
And Marxism fails because it view labor as something nobody really wants to do
That is the exact opposite of how Marx viewed labour. For Marx, labour was the very essence of self-expression.
Indeed, it was Ayn Rand who viewed labor as something only a very small number of heroic, good-looking, and rich people wanted to do. Her theory was that the rest of humanity needs to be threatened with starvation or they would only steal from their betters.
they had cold-storage CD jukeboxes at (well-known HVAC) back that far for old catalog crep. heck, they had rooms full of videotape carts in TV stations back that far... take your pick, VHS pro or Beta Pro. robotic storage is way old, just the medium changes, depending on what you are used to in your industry.
don't plug toasters, TVs, fridges, etc into the Internet. the geniuses behind them don't even finish the software they're loaded with at the factory.
One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis