Like freedom, of course. What are you, new here?

One example: Lara Croft. Originally, she was oversexualized, a sign of an inherently female-hostile game industry. Then, later, when later games toned down her sexuality, that was female-hostile because it apparently meant that the game makers felt that, in order to be taken seriously, a female protagonist has to be more "mannish."

She set out from the startup to make videos bitching and moaning and trying to shame others into doing things her way, rather than doing anything herself. Her intentions were ignoble from t=0.

Check out Thunderf00t's response video, for starters. There are many others.

Have you actually managed to sit through any of her inane dribblings that pass as videos? Plenty of evidence there.

Hell, just the fact that she took a 150k kickstarter and used it to make a video series full of self-contradictory bitching and bullshit accusations rather than, say, making a game that she claims everyone wants (and 150k is plenty to make a good indie game these days, don't let the blockbuster budgets fool you).

It's safe to assert that "intending to shame others into doing things your way" falls safely inside the boundaries of "emotionally manipulative."

The "liar" part is trivially proven, but plenty of others have already gone after that, so finding them will be left as an exercise for the reader.

Having done my stint in various online games, I've probably received more death threats than senators have received blowjobs from congressional pages.

I'm pretty confident in my current system, which is something of an inversion of the USPTO policy: When you add "over the internet" to the description of the threat, its credibility drops 99%.

I think 40+ years of militarization and the "us vs them", "thin blue line" bullshit attitude have made plenty of headway in that regard already, so it's no great loss considering the trade-off.

That's also assuming that they're using one of the Netflix "Blessed" OSes and/or devices.

I'm in ur base, strip serchin' ur cheezburgers?

It amuses me greatly that both replies to this post responded as if Bill was talking about "X" the windowing system rather than a placeholder variable.

Should've used $X. ;)

If you're going to get pedantic about statistics, you should really get to know your friendly neighborhood Margin of Error. Often ignored in fluff pieces, being aware of his existence is still vital.

I wasn't speaking about the copyright issue. The question was "how were they reconstructed without the video?"

The methods I've seen have been mostly "slideshows" with audio tracks, and very rarely, someone recreating the video in an animated form.

I'll have to remember that little quip the next time someone's complaining about "women-hostile conditions in the $X industry."

It's like asking a random "Christian" to justify and explain Westboro Baptist's behavior because they both think of themselves as "Christian" despite that term meaning vastly different things.

Close, but not quite. The difference is that "the assholes" in your example (WBC) aren't the only one setting dogma. Using the same metaphor, it's closer to you objecting to having "believing in the divinity of Christ" held against you, even though you don't, and you feel that calling yourself "Christian" just means "Being a decent person"

Feminism is not (just) a "philosophy", it's a proselytizing ideology: the goal is to bring people into their way of thinking, and that means that the way it's presented trumps dictionary definitions, trumps NAFALT, and trumps personal gnosis on what "feminism means". And as far as presentation goes, sorry, but the "assholes" are ruling that particular roost. "Mainstream" and/or "media" feminism is spawned in pits like Jezebel now, and I don't think anyone needs to be told how that sort of lot deals with being called on their bullshit.

So no, I don't think it's unreasonable at all, when someone claims the moniker of "feminism", to hold their tacit complicity against them.

So basically, like every other online "community" (term used loosely. "Battleground" seems more fitting these days).

You might have a point, except for one large flaw in the "Not all feminists are that way" excuse that's so popular:

You don't get an "-ism", i.e. an ideology, and especially not a political ideology, from a single bullet point. And feminism is very much a political ideology. The "quieter members of said group" aren't contributing any tenets to the feminist ideology, they're just picking and choosing the parts they don't like and pretending it doesn't apply to them.

Meanwhile, the core of actual feminism still remains firmly rooted in the delusion of persecution that is the "patriarchy" model, and a perpetual sense of victimhood that says that society and law must be changed to give women the rights they are unable, as victims, to claim for themselves. (Didn't someone say something, once, about rights you're given vs. rights you take for yourself?).

If your "quieter members" don't want to be held to that fact, then it's really on them to be more picky about whose flag they choose to fly for the sake of having a convenient little brand-label to slap on themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for taking care of those who can't do it for themselves. Feed the hungry, help the helpless, etc. We could use more noble pursuits in this ignoble pit. So if you (the general "you") need to be taken care of at my expense, I'm actually all right with that, but once you cash that check, "equal" is out the window.

And if you (the same) want to claim that you're somehow owed that protection because I'm a terrible person and deserve to be punished and/or treated as a second-class citizen because of some imagined slight from your past, then fuck you very much.