Stop projecting.

He also didn't attempt to profit from it. He was acting out of noble purposes to share academic information, much of which is produced or supported by government tax money.

As has been made clear multiple times, their primary and advertised purpose was to facilitate the sharing of copyrighted material like TV shows and movies. Google indexes the Web and an ISP provides access to the Internet. Those are quite generic in purpose. Learn to think critically instead of just spouting stupid shit that fits your agenda.

We're not talking about "any place". We're making comparisons to The Pirate Bay, which specializes in copyrighted material like TV shows and movies. Now imagine there was a similar site called "The Pedophile Bay" that served the same function for child porn. Are you going to tell me the site isn't profiting off the sexual abuse of children, but merely the consumers of child porn?

It's all bullshit. They're parasites making profit off the copyrighted work of others. They are not Aaron Swartz.

Maybe you can explain why the comparison is wrong? The argument being made is that the middleman isn't profiting off of the base product.

They helped themselves to profits off of somebody else's work. If they were doing it for free, you'd have a case. These guys aren't Aaron Swartz.

They can both be parasites. It's not an either/or. You'll note that The Pirate Bay isn't about sharing old content that would have been out of copyright in saner times.

Somewhat true, but that's also a convenient excuse for people who just want to pirate stuff.

Perhaps. That's not an argument I was engaging in.

Sometimes I do. In this case I'm pushing back against the false narratives surrounding The Pirate Bay.

I would love to see copyright reform, preferably via a much shorter copyright length, increasing registration fees to maintain copyright, etc. However, I'm not going to defend parasites that do their best to thwart copyright and take advantage of the work of others.

Interesting. I'm surprised that one, that they do that, and two, that they get away with it. I wonder if they've ever been sued over it? Maybe it's just a loophole in the law.

You don't know what you're talking about. The Pirate Bay catered to sharing copyrighted material like TV shows and movies, and they gave a middle finger to anybody that told them to remove links. Google is a generic search engine and removes links to copyrighted material when notified.

It's bullshit. You wouldn't say a dealer in child porn isn't profiting off of sexual abuse of children, and you wouldn't say a dealer in ivory isn't profiting off of elephant poachers. The Pirate Bay was not agnostic. They catered to sharing copyrighted material and were adamant about not removing links to copyrighted material. I'll give them credit for having balls, but they were parasites, nothing more.

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.