Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grundz wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:


No, I am saying the person in question is not required by any moral or legal obligation to provide himself or herself a platform for such criticism. More precisely, I am saying anyone is free to post a YouTube video and deactivate comments on it.

Then by that same notion I am allowed to call her all manner of insults and disprove her theories without any actual evidence.

Not really, it's one thing to say "This is my theory, take it or leave it" and put your fingers in your ears, but entirely different to just automatically nay-say whatever someone says.

That's not how you have an Argument.

Please expand upon this. I don't understand how they are not the same both foster no discussion, both are basically saying "I'm right, you're wrong", both refuse to take criticism.

careful guys, you aren't allowed to discuss other members of dakka and she may or may not be one

 Manchu wrote:
Please refrain from discussing other members of this site. If you want to know about someone's opinion on a certain subject, just PM them. Thanks.

You'd have to shut down all of OT for that, then, because for all we know any of the politicians or Obama himself could be on Dakka.

Obama is probably a dirty Eldar player. Wouldn't put it past him.....

 Slarg232 wrote:


You'd have to shut down all of OT for that, then, because for all we know any of the politicians or Obama himself could be on Dakka.

Obama is probably a dirty Eldar player. Wouldn't put it past him.....

The moderation team obviously doesn't selectively enforce rules so I suppose that the OT forum is merely an illusion

So much hate. This makes me sad. No matter gender or race we are all gamers and we all enjoy the same things.

I just wish people could see beyond skin and sex. But until then there is a massive amounts of discrimination and it needs to be put in the light.

 Grundz wrote:


careful guys, you aren't allowed to discuss other members of dakka and she may or may not be one

 Manchu wrote:
Please refrain from discussing other members of this site. If you want to know about someone's opinion on a certain subject, just PM them. Thanks.

I dont think it works that way mate.

Think about it, if someone is actually on the site because they say so and they talk to people on it, then obviously you cant talk about them.

But you cant just say "Oh I suspect someone might be using it on an alias!" because if that was the case we couldn't speak about anyone at all, I mean, Barrack Obama and Tom Cruise might collect minis and occasionally come on to post under a pseudonym!

I know the moderators are famously strict and ban all kinds of topics, but you cant start banning anything and everything on the off-chance that maybe it might offend someone somewhere even though they didn't say they posted here in the first place surely?

Not a fan to sarkeesians work even though I think the IDea to look at how gender is treated in games is a important one I don't think she is doing a good job of it or really understands how to research something. No idea if the claims levied again Quinn are true or not but either way the abuse and threats sent their way are utterly disgusting.

 mattyrm wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

careful guys, you aren't allowed to discuss other members of dakka and she may or may not be one

 Manchu wrote:
Please refrain from discussing other members of this site. If you want to know about someone's opinion on a certain subject, just PM them. Thanks.

But you cant just say "Oh I suspect someone might be using it on an alias!" because if that was the case we couldn't speak about anyone at all, I mean, Barrack Obama and Tom Cruise might collect minis and occasionally come on to post under a pseudonym!

Why not? I dont care about rule enforcement as long as its consistent, I expect every post which mentions another human being anywhere to be deleted with no notice or feedback!

 Grundz wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

careful guys, you aren't allowed to discuss other members of dakka and she may or may not be one

 Manchu wrote:
Please refrain from discussing other members of this site. If you want to know about someone's opinion on a certain subject, just PM them. Thanks.

But you cant just say "Oh I suspect someone might be using it on an alias!" because if that was the case we couldn't speak about anyone at all, I mean, Barrack Obama and Tom Cruise might collect minis and occasionally come on to post under a pseudonym!

Why not? I dont care about rule enforcement as long as its consistent, I expect every post which mentions another human being anywhere to be deleted with no notice or feedback!

Mate why not go and grind your axe in PM rather than derailing a thread?

Though i don't agree with Sarkeesian on her view points on things and proberaly never will. I still find it ridiculous and stupid to go about doing things like that to some one who's opinions and values you don't like not matter how good they might be,or in this case terrible.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire

That statement kinda sums things up for me really.

TOM CRUIZE IS A DIRTY DIRTY TAU PLAYER!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

careful guys, you aren't allowed to discuss other members of dakka and she may or may not be one

 Manchu wrote:
Please refrain from discussing other members of this site. If you want to know about someone's opinion on a certain subject, just PM them. Thanks.

But you cant just say "Oh I suspect someone might be using it on an alias!" because if that was the case we couldn't speak about anyone at all, I mean, Barrack Obama and Tom Cruise might collect minis and occasionally come on to post under a pseudonym!

Why not? I dont care about rule enforcement as long as its consistent, I expect every post which mentions another human being anywhere to be deleted with no notice or feedback!

Mate why not go and grind your axe in PM rather than derailing a thread?

Too late! Once derailed cannot be rerailed!

 jreilly89 wrote:


Too late! Once derailed cannot be rerailed!

phew, that was close, someone may or may not have almost mentioned someone else, dodged a bullet

also this is another person using imaginary misogymy as an excuse to get attention and/or sell garbage to idiots

 Slarg232 wrote:
Even if Zoe slept with five guys for leverage, it's the guys at fault, not hers

3rd wave feminism summed up in one line, congrats

 Slarg232 wrote:
Even if Zoe slept with five guys for leverage, it's the guys at fault, not hers;

Isn't that reverse rape victim-blaming?

If a dude slept with five women, he'd be getting high-fives and "atta boys!". If a woman sleeps with five guys, she's labeled a slut, a tramp, and things I can't print here.

You don't see a double-standard here?

 Psienesis wrote:
If a dude slept with five women, he'd be getting high-fives and "atta boys!". If a woman sleeps with five guys, she's labeled a slut, a tramp, and things I can't print here.

You don't see a double-standard here?

You're hanging around with the wrong people.

 Psienesis wrote:
If a dude slept with five women, he'd be getting high-fives and "atta boys!". If a woman sleeps with five guys, she's labeled a slut, a tramp, and things I can't print here.

You don't see a double-standard here?

Nobody is berating her because she banged five guys, they're berating her because she used sex to gain undeserved benefits. if you want to prove a double standard, you're gonna need to find a widely publicized story about a dude who banged 5 chicks so they would give him public support and compare the levels of outrage over the two stories.

or you could just, you know, continue to spew propaganda.

Well the differences here is that Zoe already had a husband from the start,when she started to sleep with the other five guys. and to further her own career and own goals by doing so.

cheating is never okay in my book,it doesn't matter if you are a female or male,it's still wrong.

Also if a guy sleeps with 5 girls,that also means that the women are okay with it,and vice versa so blaming one gender for something is just an excuse cover up something equally as bad that the other gender is doing.

She did not have a boyfriend.

She had a HUSBAND.

Well, you actually ninja'd in a response to the person it was intended for, but the fact remains that, socially-speaking, male sexual promiscuity is not something that is ever really looked down upon (in the US, at least, can't speak for the rest of the world), and is, in fact, how we are socially programmed to think from puberty onwards... but female promiscuity is worse than four Hitlers.

I dont fully understand the argument that Sarkeesian is trying to make... art imitates life, those 'tropes' exist for a reason. Beyond that, she turns a blind eye to the fact that many of the crimes perpetrated against female NPC's in those games are also done to men (likewise by other male characters), further still she ignores the fact that ultimately it is always men committing the crime, one could make the argument that that too is misogynistic, implying that females cannot be criminals. I think the best point she makes is the Hitman marketing campaign, but beyond that she seems to fall a bit short, a lot of the 'sexualization' of female victims is in actuality just standard evening wear, or situational as a result of the fact that the action is taking place inside of a strip club/brothel.

 Psienesis wrote:
Well, you actually ninja'd in a response to the person it was intended for, but the fact remains that, socially-speaking, male sexual promiscuity is not something that is ever really looked down upon (in the US, at least, can't speak for the rest of the world), and is, in fact, how we are socially programmed to think from puberty onwards... but female promiscuity is worse than four Hitlers.

You're hanging around with the wrong people.

 jreilly89 wrote:
blocking comments

-- Asserting something good came out of youtube comments.

Oookay then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mattyrm wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
I mean seriously that Zoe chick seems like a genuinely disgusting human being.

Because she had nasty break-up and her ex accused her of cheating on him, with no one involved EXCEPT the ex agreeing that this was what happened?

Yeah see this is what I am saying, leaping to her defence seems popular, and I'm asking you (and everyone else obviously, but I know you better than all the other random strangers on the internet!) to be as honest with yourself as possible and ask yourself why you are defending her, because the evidence suggests it (my sole reason for saying I dont like the sound of her) or because you have a dog in the hunt being very active in feminist circles?

I'm not defending her at all. I am stating the facts. She could be a horrible person . She could be the only reason that the relationship broke up. But the facts of the matter are that there has been no proof of a conflict of interest, no matter how hard the people hating her have searched.

 Psienesis wrote:
Well, you actually ninja'd in a response to the person it was intended for, but the fact remains that, socially-speaking, male sexual promiscuity is not something that is ever really looked down upon (in the US, at least, can't speak for the rest of the world), and is, in fact, how we are socially programmed to think from puberty onwards... but female promiscuity is worse than four Hitlers.

 Psienesis wrote:
Well, you actually ninja'd in a response to the person it was intended for, but the fact remains that, socially-speaking, male sexual promiscuity is not something that is ever really looked down upon (in the US, at least, can't speak for the rest of the world), and is, in fact, how we are socially programmed to think from puberty onwards... but female promiscuity is worse than four Hitlers.

93% of workplace deaths are male.

My statement has about the same relevance to the case at hand as yours.

The thing about this is that we see the same kind of behaviour towards for example someone who dares to suggest that Jane Austen, a woman, should be put on a new banknote.

The blunt fact is that there is appalling, disgusting mysogyny online and it is not acceptable in 21st century society.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
If a dude slept with five women, he'd be getting high-fives and "atta boys!". If a woman sleeps with five guys, she's labeled a slut, a tramp, and things I can't print here.

You don't see a double-standard here?

Nobody is berating her because she banged five guys, they're berating her because she used sex to gain undeserved benefits

or you could just, you know, continue to spew propaganda.

She supposedly did. In gaming journalism.
Gaming journalism. The industry where a developer gives a magazine the non-exclusive rights to some early copy of a video game for review purposes in exchange for higher review scores.
The whore, in this scenario, is the magazine/media outlet. Gaming Journalism, from any published magazine or website featuring any sort of advertisements, has *zero* credibility. Kotaku, RPS, Game Informer, the lot of them... they exist to sell ad-space and to act as mouthpieces for the publishers of video games. This is where their bread is buttered. They don't care if they give a game an triple-A-nine-plus review and you drop $60 on it and it sets your console on fire. They got paid already.

if you want to prove a double standard, you're gonna need to find a widely publicized story about a dude who banged 5 chicks so they would give him public support and compare the levels of outrage over the two stories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Sheen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Brand

... and that's just a quick pick off the top of a Google search for "dudes get famous banging chicks".

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
Even if Zoe slept with five guys for leverage, it's the guys at fault, not hers

3rd wave feminism summed up in one line, congrats

Just because your ignorance of the topic is willful doesn't make the decision you make using said ignorance correct.

Third wave feminism is not "first, blame the men".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact, a better summary is that third-wave feminism incorporates the needs of women of color and the anti-racism movement, along with the needs of lesbians and trans*women in the LGBTQ rights movement, and other minority groups such as women of non-Christian faiths and the like; similarly, there has been more and more a focus on local and/or specific issues as opposed to the second wave's focus on bigger things such as federal laws. Generally speaking, third-wave feminism is broader and less unified than second or first wave feminism was, instead, individuals and groups within the movement tend to define for themselves what is most important to focus on.

As Amy Richards put it: "being liberated doesn't mean copying what came before but finding one's own way-- a way that is genuine to one's own generation."

 Melissia wrote:
Even if Zoe slept with five guys for leverage, it's the guys at fault, not hers
Third wave feminism is not "first, blame the men"

You sure?
Lemme get this straight, you go on twitter, and find posts threatening you within 12 seconds of them being posted and a minute or so after the account was created, without being logged in (which means you were specifically searching for those terms), then blame men for free publicity to your cause, yet no one questions the original source as genuine.

You dont jump straight to blame the men, blame the men is the only possible outcome to anything.

Is it acceptable for men or women to issue threats of rape to people on line?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is it acceptable for men or women to issue threats of rape to people on line?

is it acceptable for men or women to issue threats of rape to themselves online in order to drum up sales?

The entire term "third wave feminism" is just stupid as it sounds like an "evolution" of "second wave feminism" which still is the most important one and which still has tons of women fighting for it. They just aren't slacktivists as TONS and TONS of "third wave feminists" who dabble in small fields just to get attention.

It's heavily offensive to those people. Sounds like "second wave feminism" is "over" and "outdated". Which is as far from the truth as it can be.