I'd say, "Now you've lost all credibility," but you already lost all credibility with your bullshit advertising argument. Are you seriously defending movies with regards to this kind of criticism? There's plenty of the same tropes in movies.

Besides that fact, your "responsible" example is on the morally wrong side. One of the biggest criticisms of war movies is that they don't show the true horrors of war. That's why a movie like Saving Private Ryan was a breakthrough and acclaimed for not giving a sanitized, Hollywood version of war.

And there's no way I'm going to get bent out of shape about Hitman when a mountain is being made about a molehill, when the entire game is about a hitman. The whole game is a fucking murder simulator, and I'm supposed to get upset that one tiny part gives you the opportunity to kill some strippers?

When I initially gave you a chance to make this argument, you didn't. You just jumped straight to a supposed strawman from Thunderf00t. It seems doubtful you really had a problem with violence in video games until the comparison was made.

Please. Those were advertisements for Hitman: Blood Money, which came out in 2006. The mission discussed in the previous video was from Hitman: Absolution, 2012. Claiming, "The game then allows you to do what the advertising promotes," after a period of 6 years, is incredibly disingenuous.

And let's be clear about the details here. In the first video, half-naked women are dragged around on screen while Anita says, "Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting female virtual characters." In the advertsing from 6 years earlier, we are shown static shots of executed women in provocative poses.

Different version of the game. Different year. Different context (non-target civilians you are encouraged to bypass versus static shots of targeted hits not being interacted with). Different roles (designers versus advertisers). And you're giving Thunderf00t shit for strawman arguments? At least Anita didn't directly claim the clip from the first video was a fulfillment from the advertising shown in the second.

Oh, and one more thing on the advertising: "The game is advertised as allowing you to kill hot women and pose their bodies", that's another stretch on your part. The women in the advertisements are sprawled out in death poses. Yes, they try to make them look sexy, but there's no indication of the Hitman having posed them.

If you have to misrepresent like this, you've got a problem.

*snort* What YouTube do you watch?

Entirely accurate, except, *cough*, that there's a discouragement that fits in with the rest of the game for doing so, that the easier route chosen by 3/4 of playthroughs missed them completely, and not a single case has been shown of a player killing them, while many other cases of them not being killed are shown. Their bodies are also treated the same as any other objectified body in the game. But yes, otherwise entirely accurate.

I'm not even disputing this. I agreed with it. But my point was, in discussing this example, if you're going to call somebody out on a strawman, get your shit right.

No, you didn't address my point. You ignored the violence angle all-together, and gave me one example that doesn't even check out once I investigated it (per my other comment).

Mission failed!

o Restart mission
o Quit

Ok, if you're going to call somebody out for a strawman, make sure to get your shit right. I just watched, in sequence, the SOOOOOO BUSTED video and the Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 video he shows clips from. Nowhere is it mentioned that, "advertising for the game uses dead female corpses in sexy poses, basically necrophilia." So if that was her point she made a very poor job of making it, or you just made it up yourself. Can you even find a link for such advertising? Because I can't.

Thunderf00t makes the point that you're actually penalized for killing non-targets, and penalized even more for civilians (which the strippers shown in the clip would be). Even better, he says he actually watched about 40 playthroughs of the mission being discussed. There are 2 paths to take, and only about 1/4 went past the dancers (the other route being easier). Nobody attacked the dancers.

And here is what Anita says, "The player cannot help but treat these bodies as things to be acted upon, because they were designed, constructed, and placed in the environment for that purpose. Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting female virtual characters."

Invoking some mythical advertising that she never mentions, at least in her video, is a bullshit argument. Thunderf00t made good points here. If you can't see that it's your own bias showing.

Now if I were to criticize Thunderf00t I can do so without any bullshit, because he harps on her mistakes/deceptions, but doesn't give her any credit for what she gets right in a 30 minute video with many examples. I basically agree with Anita that there's plenty of examples of females being used as sexual objects in video games. Wow, I'm totally shocked. Just like I'm shocked at all the bullet sponges men are used for, or the nearly invincible, one-man-army hero you often play as. I go back to my original point: She's the feminist version of Jack Thompson.

I just gave you the biggest one that I found salient. Yet rather than address it, you say he has none and give me an example I didn't even bring up. Do you want a real debate or just an emotional, one-sided rant?

If only the SJW crowd would stop crying misogyny every time their position was attacked. It's almost like they want to deflect criticism by playing the victim card. No, that couldn't be it.

They're repetitive and I'm generally turned off by his presentation, but he makes some good points.

What it basically comes down to is that Anita is the feminist version of Jack Thompson. If you're ok with violence in video games, then you shouldn't be getting all bent out of shape over female stereotypes that appeals to male gamers.

You mean like the WWF being used for the quote in the summary?

OK, so you attacked the source, but I looked at the article and it points to scientific literature and shows highlighted quotes that put the current news in perspective. The OH NOES, GLOBAL WARMING knee-jerk reflex is getting old when it doesn't hold up under scrutiny, especially when temperatures have plateaued far long than any model predicted.

Try coming up with a rational counter-argument that addressed the points made instead of relying on ad hominen.

If this is true (so far undocumented), then he's an idiot. What's far more likely to be true is he reserved a small fortune so that he could live comfortably for the rest of his life.

Well this is pretty dumb. Housing is a big expense, but so is food, transportation, and all the other miscellaneous things that people routinely spend money on. People aren't going to start a small business just because there house is paid off.

Looks like just another government handout that's supposed to magically cure the economy.

It's both. You have the option to use it as a credit card:

"When you sign for your purchases, you get security protections that help prevent, detect and resolve fraud. Many rewards programs also require you to sign to collect rewards points. However, if you PIN for your Visa Debit card transactions, you may not receive the same security protections for Visa Debit card transactions not processed by Visa."

Lars started the band. His drums are fine. I think you're giving him shit because he was the face of the Napster suit.

What makes you think they're stupid?

All I'm demonstrating is your tribalism and ignorance on display. You can be emotional and unintelligent on any side of the issue.

On display.