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.

 LordofHats wrote:
[That's okay. I'm leaving. Everyone can go on worshiping the ground Anita Sarkeesian walks on, because she's had a hard life and therefor as someone who really doesn't like her, I must relegate myself to the corner where I may never even suggest anything negative about her ever again.

Hah. Well, I guess ragequitting is always an option, although I'm still hoping someone else will explain to me why all those people had no choice in the matter. Hopefully before her second video comes out; I'd hate to find myself, staring at the screen in shock as my hands move with a mind of their own, programming a game where I virtually beat up a woman I never met.... completely helpless to stop myself, because she incited me into it. How can I protect myself from this villain?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Because men are not intelligent enough to criticize without calling her a [c-bomb] and telling her to shut up or you'll rape her to death, I see.

Wow. Now I have to come back because I have to go through all my posts to find where I called her a c-bomb and threatened to rape her. I really am terrible.

You're defending the ones who do this. You're acting like it's okay for them to do this, that they SHOULD be doing this, because HOW fething DARE A WOMAN STAND UP FOR HERSELF.

I don't agree with everything she has to say, I even stated in my first post here that I thought the quality of the video was lacking, especially for something someone put together after a fund raiser. But NOTHING that she said excuses your attitude that she caused men to become irrational, hateful beasts with no free will of their own, or that she even deserved it.

 Melissia wrote:
You're defending the ones who do.

I am? Curse me. Here I thought I was being critical of of her behavior when really I was just encouraging everyone else's behavior. I'm a monster.

But NOTHING that she said excuses your attitude that she caused men to become irrational, hateful beasts with no free will of their own, or that she even deserved it.

Cause that's totally my position.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Hah. Well, I guess ragequitting is always an option,

So are strawman arguments.

Critical? No, you were far worse than that. I was being critical of her behavior and yet you acted as if I was worshiping her because how DARE I attack the gak-fething donkey caves who drop c-bombs and make death threats, how DARE I, someone who has been on the receiving end of the same kind of abuse heaped upon her, DARE to empathize with her and feel sorry for her, how DARE I say that she doesn't deserve these attacks just because she spoke an opinion that isn't popular! Doing ANY of those things means I "worship" this woman, to use your exact words.

The only one making strawman arguments here is you.

Meh, I'm more into the setting where a female character and a male character (both strong) fight side by side to save the day, and then later they bang each other like the big damn heroes they are.

I like how you edited your post solely to upgrade it into a Firefly reference. Have an exalt.

 Melissia wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Therefor we may never criticize anything she says or does ever.

Because men are not intelligent enough to criticize without calling her a [c-bomb] and telling her to shut up or you'll rape her to death, I see.


How the feth do you get "worshipping" from "I don't agree with her".

No, that wasn't a question. It's a statement of shock.

 Melissia wrote:
Critical? No, you were far worse than that. I was being critical of her behavior and yet you acted as if I was worshiping her because how DARE I attack the gak-fething donkey caves who drop c-bombs and make death threats, how DARE I, someone who has been on the receiving end of the same kind of abuse heaped upon her, DARE to empathize with her and feel sorry for her, how DARE I say that she doesn't deserve these attacks just because she spoke an opinion that isn't popular!

The only one making strawman arguments here is you.

Yes. Because I totally said spreading hate is a okay somewhere in this thread. Yep. That's totally my argument.

 Ouze wrote:
We've already established there were a storm of misogynistic insults.

Not arguing that

 Ouze wrote:
We've also somehow established that it's somehow her fault. I'd like one of people who made comments like the above to explain why the people posting the comments are totally blameless in this.

I never once said they were blameless, nor did I make any attempt to excuse them. To say otherwise is a gross distortion of my words when I have attempted to make my point abundantly clear.

 Ouze wrote:
She published "the most inflammatory for sympathy", but that's.... after the fact, right?

After the fact that they were received, or after the alleged fact that she and/or her supporters went onto 4chan to stir up a reaction thus ensuring she would receive abuse.

 Ouze wrote:
I mean, what she did with the comments came after they were made.

After they were made, and after she at the very least selected the worst. If she went and stirred up a reaction that puts a different spin on it. She selected and published only those comments that would garner sympathy and show those with an opposing view in the worst possible light to further her financial interests, gain publicity and distort any debate or discussion in her favour (the automatic assumption being that only those people disagreeing with her could be those espousing the same vile comments she received)

 Ouze wrote:
So please, expand on your post. Tell me how she "incited them". Educate me! Difficulty: Show your work. That means not making a claim ("she only approved negative ones while blocking positive ones") and then posting a link to a video that not only doesn't contain proof, doesn't actually seem to contain the allegation).

You don't think that by spamming links all over 4chan, one of the least intolerant communities to ever exist regardless of race, religion, age, sexual preference, gender etc., that there was going to be a backlash?
That is quite a feat given that the only person with access to that data is Anita Sarkeesian. So to prove to you that Anita Sarkeesian did in fact only publish the worst comments I have to somehow access her account on youtube, her emails etc. and then post them here and expose myself to possible legal sanction. You'll forgive me if I don't leap at your less than reasonable request.

That video is stupid and lame.


Yes, LordofHats, you did.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
In the eyes of many people, including several responses in this thread, those responses were okay because she's a feminist, and therefor she is a BadPerson™ and deserves the abuse heaped upon her..

Therefor we may never criticize anything she says or does ever. For any reason. Whatsoever. She is the victim and is beyond reproach.

Here, you stated that there is no middle ground between "worship her" and "drop c-bombs, rape threats, and death threats".

And you supported the latter through your sarcasm.

LordofHats wrote:Everyone can go on worshiping the ground Anita Sarkeesian walks on, because she's had a hard life and therefor as someone who really doesn't like her, I must relegate myself to the corner where I may never even suggest anything negative about her ever again.

Once again, no matter how much anyone else was criticizing her, if they were not defending the people dropping c-bombs and rape/death threats, you were attacking us as worshiping her.

These are your posts, just a couple of the arguments where anyone who DARES attack those who would throw the extreme negativity gets defended by you. Are you not capable of understanding that people can disagree with her while still hating the negativity?

 Melissia wrote:
Here, you stated that there is no middle ground between "worship her" and "drop c-bombs, rape threats, and death threats".

Sarcasm fail.

Supporting the atrociously negative insults and violent threats of death and rape through sarcastically attacking anyone who is offended by them-- even when they disagree with the person who is being attacked!-- is still supporting the atrociously negative insults and violent threats of death and rape.

And then people wonder why the "Men's Rights Movement" is labeled a hate group.

 Melissia wrote:
Supporting the atrociously negative insults and violent threats of death and rape through sarcastically attacking anyone who is offended by them

Yep. Because that's my goal. I mean, I was only trying to point out how painting any criticism of someone's behavior as supporting hateful reactions to that person's opinions is an absurd position to take but I guess you're never going to come to that realization.

You don't think that by spamming links all over 4chan, one of the least intolerant

I just wanted to point out that I think you have a slight boo boo here

 LordofHats wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Supporting the atrociously negative insults and violent threats of death and rape through sarcastically attacking anyone who is offended by them

Yep. Because that's my goal.

I don't claim to know your intent. I only know what you have actually done.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
[I never once said they were blameless, nor did I make any attempt to excuse them. To say otherwise is a gross distortion of my words when I have attempted to make my point abundantly clear.

You're doing a great deal of attempting to excuse them. Indeed, nearly every point in your post is focusing on the aftermath of those comments, and how you perceive she "used them", waving away the fact that she was provided with a great deal of horrific comments from which she was able to cherrypick, if indeed she did. You haven't yet shown anything to explain why she deserved to have them happen in the first place. Do you have even a shred of evidence that she spammed 4chan? Did Moot post server logs or something? Or is this, like the removing the positive comments idea, one of those things there is equal proof both for and against those things actually happened; i.e., none either way?

 Ouze wrote:
You're doing a great deal of attempting to excuse them

That is a disgusting lie, I have done no such thing. Trying to tar me with the same brush as those who posted disgusting comments, while ignoring genuine points I have made is not the tactic of someone who wants an honest discussion.

I stated in my first post in that thread that I don't think she did a good job of saying what she had to say, especially for someone that received actual money to say it. I stated in my second post in that thread that I don't agree with her actions.

And yet SOMEHOW I'm "worshiping" her when I say that the people who viciously attack her and give her death threats and are entirely out of line, and are very misogynistic. I am somehow "worshiping" her when I say that I empathize with her responses after I have received the very same abuse time and time again over the nearly fourteen years I've been on the internet.

And then, as I am held to this hypocritical double standard, people wonder why I sound so angry all the time.

Do you have even a shred of evidence that she spammed 4chan?

I posted a video that mentions it on page 4 (and he has screenshots) but it's probably just a coincidence(/sarcasm).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
And yet SOMEHOW I'm "worshiping" her when I say that the people who viciously attack her and give her death threats and are entirely out of line, and are very misogynistic. I am somehow "worshiping" her when I say that I empathize with her responses after I have received the very same abuse time and time again over the nearly fourteen years I've been on the internet.

No. You're 'worshipping' (because sarcasm now = truth... which seems opposite of what sarcasm is intended to do) because I am written off as a ignorant hater who supports all the trolls who posted on her videos because I dared to dislike her as a person and proposed she manipulated the entire situation to her advantage. Because your position, seems to be that she cannot be criticized at all. To do such is to support the trolls.

 LordofHats wrote:
Because your position, seems to be that she cannot be criticized at all.

I never said this, and you should be ashamed of yourself for claiming I did.

Especially since I WAS ALSO CRITICIZING HER. Try to THINK about what you're actually saying.

 Melissia wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Because your position, seems to be that she cannot be criticized at all.

I never said this, and you should be ashamed of yourself for claiming I did.

Really:

In the eyes of many people, including several responses in this thread, those responses were okay because she's a feminist, and therefor she is a BadPerson™ and deserves the abuse heaped upon her.

No one anywhere in the thread ever said the responses were okay. The worst comments in this entire thread (ignoring this entire discussion) are the ones where posters say they didn't even finish the video because it was feminist. But apparently, because none of us took the time to comment that threatening to rape women or posting death threats or calling them mean words were wrong, we must be in support of them. You then proceed to establish a straw man argument where I support these individuals because I claim she baited these responses, even though they're both two different things to be critical of.

That's okay though. In the future I'll just amend this to the end of all my posts:

I, LordofHats, do not support any hate speech in any form, on any subject. So just because I don't explicitly mention in my posts that I don't support hate speech, please don't assume that I do.

 LordofHats wrote:
But apparently, because none of us took the time to comment that threatening to rape women or posting death threats or calling them mean words were wrong, we must be in support of them.

I took the time to criticize Sarkeesian, and repeatedly stated that I don't agree with her, and yet you still repeatedly jumped on me as saying she was untouchable. Because how DARE I suggest that the people who were making the violent threats and misogynistic comments about her were motivated by misogyny.

No. You do not get a free pass with your double standards.

 Melissia wrote:
you still repeatedly jumped on me as saying she was untouchable.

Well, first off I only 'jumped' on you once. And I did it in sarcasm so it wasn't really a jump so much as a quip.

Second, you've repeatedly proposed over and over that all the hate is solely based on her being a women even though I found other videos by women on the subject of women in games that garnered nothing comparable to the response she has received (even managed to find one where the video poster was active in discussion with commentators, like the golden egg in a fridge frozen in rotten ones). You then went on to accuse me and others of supporting the people who threaten her, which none of us ever did.

I don't need a free pass, because you're walking away from my posts without reading them at all (that's honestly the only conclusion I can draw) because it appears that we both disagree with her positions, don't support the hate she has received, and really only differ over the conspiracy theory that she baited those responses for her own benefit (I say yes, you say no) and why she's received the hate (you say because she's a woman, I say because she's an unlikeable person). Which you seem to miss entirely.

So now we've spent, what? A page and a half banging our heads together over some position I never claimed (aka a strawman) while you get super offended over a single sarcastic comment directed at your misrepresentation of my position.

 illuknisaa wrote:

That guy isn't half as intelligent as he claims to be.



And this thread has escalated extremely quickly. Y'all need to simmer down in here before this gets locked and suspensions go out.

Hmm, I also like Gaige from Borderlands 2, she's having way too much fun in that game.

All I an say in response to this thread is...

 Melissia wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
But apparently, because none of us took the time to comment that threatening to rape women or posting death threats or calling them mean words were wrong, we must be in support of them.

I took the time to criticize Sarkeesian, and repeatedly stated that I don't agree with her, and yet you still repeatedly jumped on me as saying she was untouchable. Because how DARE I suggest that the people who were making the violent threats and misogynistic comments about her were motivated by misogyny.

No. You do not get a free pass with your double standards.

You've repeatedly attacked any suggestion that legitimate opposition to her actions stems from anything but misogyny, and even purported that the gibbering vitriol she's received is also just straight up because she's a woman, and not par for the course for any public figure on the internet talking about a political matter (at least any public figure who doesn't happen to be a sufficiently endearing lunatic, who's comical and too outlandish to even bother criticising).

Sure, your first post was criticising her, but every other has been focused at attacking anyone else's criticism of her.


You don't seem to realize that most of us just dismiss gibbering vitriol out of hand because, to put it simply, "trolls gonna troll". It's worth neither engaging nor acknowledging them, because they're either just being deliberately outrageous because they find it funny or they're actual lunatics. Criticising them is like trying to fight the ocean with a shovel.

This is why we can't have nice things.

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
This is why we can't have nice things.

Us men cannot have nice things because apparently women are some majorly oppressed minority in western societies and men and their dirty video-games with half-naked women in fantasy worlds of goblins, dragons, robots, army men and Italian stereotypes is the root of the 'issue'. Feminist logic = create female demographic and unisex demographic whilst simultaneously bashing on and destroying the male demographic.

Also I'm pretty sure that some of her male supporters are like this...

 MetalOxide wrote:
Also any guys find this offensive, or is it 'funny' because sexism towards men is a joke/does not exist? I for one find it sexist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKA2HrQL1n4

I do not find it offensive. Talking about "the superior sex" in the context of consensual kink isn't something I'd take as an indication of bigotry.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
Also any guys find this offensive, or is it 'funny' because sexism towards men is a joke/does not exist? I for one find it sexist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKA2HrQL1n4

I do not find it offensive. Talking about "the superior sex" in the context of consensual kink isn't something I'd take as an indication of bigotry.

It's pretty clear in the vid that it's a joke and not an attack on men.