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.

a) Is there legimitate proof of her being harassed or it being a PR thing? This coming just after the Quinn-thing is just...strange.

Actually not that strange. The Quinnspiracy immediately involved back references to Anita, so it's not surprising that when the hate started to roll Quinn's way, it started to roll Anita's way too. She's likely seeing a serious uptick in her hate mail right now.

I've never seen anyone talk about Quinn without mentioning Sarkesian in the same conversation, so I agree that it's quite likely.

Yep. Plus she voiced her support for Quinn, which took her from being "some other chick related to gaming who got into the news awhile back" to "that chick we all hate is now siding with this other chick we all hate. Lets hate them both at the same time." EDIT: Just look at our own thread on the subject XD

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
blocks any legitimate criticism of her work

This “legitimate criticism”, I hear about it a lot, but I hardly ever hear it.

Creating videos to identify "misogynistic video game tropes" and then blocking comments when people call you out on your gak, then releasing a video about how everyone unfairly hates you because you're a woman. That legitimate enough?

>> Claiming to research her facts
>> Not researching her facts
>> Presenting strongly biased opinions as "facts"

That alone is ridiculous enough to strip her from any credibility.

Add in the fact that she seriously claimed she would spend MONEY on said "research".

How much of a loser was this ex-boyfriend that he felt he needed to "out" her about he infidelity to the public?

 jreilly89 wrote:
Creating videos to identify "misogynistic video game tropes" and then blocking comments when people call you out on your gak, then releasing a video about how everyone unfairly hates you because you're a woman. That legitimate enough?

Creating videos to identify misogynistic video game trope is what she did, but I fail to see this as a valid criticism because that does not strike me as something bad.
Blocking comment on YouTube video, especially on a polemic subject, hardly seems out of the ordinary. I do not see how that is supposed to be a bad thing again, so again not valid criticism.
I am trying to make sense of your argument. You are angry that Anita Sarkeesian does not let you post your criticism on the fact she closed comments on her YouTube video, and your criticism of her is that she closed comments on her YouTube video? If she did open her YouTube video, what the freaking hell would you post there?

 jreilly89 wrote:
"misogynistic video game tropes"

Why are you writing this as if implying it doesn't exist?

 Sigvatr wrote:
>> Claiming to research her facts
>> Not researching her facts
>> Presenting strongly biased opinions as "facts"

That alone is ridiculous enough to strip her from any credibility.

You know, it would be better if instead of saying “Not researching her facts”, you would say “Says that X when actually it is Y”. Because here, it looks like you are actually just presenting your own strongly biased opinions as facts. Oh, wait, what does that mean for your credibility, again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let us sum up Anita's sins. Apparently, she prevents people from giving their justified criticism. The main criticism that people are unjustly precluded from giving is that they are precluded from giving justified criticism, which seems pretty damn circular to me. Their second criticism is that what she say is not true/researched, no details provided ever. Their third criticism is that she uses footage from other YouTube video, and how that is in any way supposed to make her arguments less valid than if she had recorded it herself is left as an exercise to the reader or something. I honestly have no idea. Maybe video game automatically change when it is a woman playing and therefore the image would be totally different.

Did I miss something?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Creating videos to identify "misogynistic video game tropes" and then blocking comments when people call you out on your gak, then releasing a video about how everyone unfairly hates you because you're a woman. That legitimate enough?

Creating videos to identify misogynistic video game trope is what she did, but I fail to see this as a valid criticism because that does not strike me as something bad.
Blocking comment on YouTube video, especially on a polemic subject, hardly seems out of the ordinary. I do not see how that is supposed to be a bad thing again, so again not valid criticism.
I am trying to make sense of your argument. You are angry that Anita Sarkeesian does not let you post your criticism on the fact she closed comments on her YouTube video, and your criticism of her is that she closed comments on her YouTube video? If she did open her YouTube video, what the freaking hell would you post there?

By themselves, neither of first two are bad. Claiming to be an outspoken woman trying to unveil the misogyny of the video games industry, going so far as to be interviewed by game journalists, failing to back up your claims with legitimate evidence from said games, and then blocking comments so you can basically say "Nuh huh!" makes you a gigantic ass hat. Sorry, when something attacks something I love with complete unsupported gak, yeah, it gets me worked up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
"misogynistic video game tropes"

Why are you writing this as if implying it doesn't exist?

They do exist, but saying they exist in every single video game ever made holds no water. Reference: Her Last of Us claim

 jreilly89 wrote:
failing to back up your claims with legitimate evidence from said games

I am a bit confused by this. For instance, her first videos were on the “damsel in distress” trope. Do you think she failed to provide evidence, even though she provided an ample list of games that do employ this trope? Or do you disagree with the fact that trope is misogynistic? Or what, exactly?
Please be specific, rather than random vague accusations like that.

 jreilly89 wrote:
and then blocking comments so you can basically say "Nuh huh!"

I do not see a problem with that. She never talked about establishing a debate about video game. She promised a short documentaries series on tropes concerning women in video games, and that is what she delivered. The fact she is not one bit interested in hearing your opinion is maybe infuriating to you, but it is perfectly within her right. And given the amount of abuse she likely received when the comments were open…
I mean, it would basically take two or three people working full-time to moderate that flux of hateful insults!

 jreilly89 wrote:
They do exist, but saying they exist in every single video game ever made holds no water.

And where did she said they exist in every single video game ever made?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, for the record, I am not saying her videos are exceptionally good or anything. I am saying all the criticism of them that I have seen is exceptionally poor or vague.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I do not see a problem with that. She never talked about establishing a debate about video game. She promised a short documentaries series on tropes concerning women in video games, and that is what she delivered. The fact she is not one bit interested in hearing your opinion is maybe infuriating to you, but it is perfectly within her right. And given the amount of abuse she likely received when the comments were open…

This.

'This chick prolly cant get laid I'll type that for the lulz'.

'wait, I cant repeat that as a comment'

'RAAAGGGEEEE! her existence offends me!'

Didn't Sark promise somewhere upwards of 12+ videos or something like that, and has only delivered three of them?

I'm not sure, I didn't pay too much attention to the campaign.

I am a bit confused by this. For instance, her first videos were on the “damsel in distress” trope. Do you think she failed to provide evidence, even though she provided an ample list of games that do employ this trope? Or do you disagree with the fact that trope is misogynistic? Or what, exactly?

Her evidence is entirely taken out of context in most cases. They are usually single clips or quotes. Link to her video. [/url]http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/03/damsel-in-distress-part-1/[url]

I do not see a problem with that. She never talked about establishing a debate about video game. She promised a short documentaries series on tropes concerning women in video games, and that is what she delivered. The fact she is not one bit interested in hearing your opinion is maybe infuriating to you, but it is perfectly within her right. And given the amount of abuse she likely received when the comments were open…
I mean, it would basically take two or three people working full-time to moderate that flux of hateful insults!

I'm sorry the world sucks, but if you put something out there claiming critical analysis of a widely appreciated medium, you should be willing to engage in a discussion. Yeah, the comments she would receive are plenty vulgar, but outright blocking them seems a bit much.

"The Tropes vs Women in Video Games project aims to examine the plot devices and patterns most often associated with female characters in gaming from a systemic, big picture perspective. This series will include critical analysis of many beloved games and characters, but remember that it is both possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of it’s more problematic or pernicious aspects."

And where did she said they exist in every single video game ever made?

"Ok, so we’ve established that the Damsel in Distress trope is one of the most widely used gendered cliché in the history of video games and has been core to the popularization and development of gaming as a medium." Direct quote from her transcript pretty much saying all video games ever made.


Honestly, my biggest problem with her is The Last of Us claim. I feel its unfounded, as the claims she makes are unsupported by three separate characters. I'm not saying misogyny doesn't exist in video games, but I think she is intentionally creating sexism where it doesn't exist. Developers already identify diversity as an issue in video games, but she is making it worse.


You can support either side, my problem is in the Houston Press he writes a review without having beaten the game.

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/artattack/2013/06/last_of_us_anita_sarkeesian.php

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/126648-Naughty-Dog-Responds-to-The-Last-of-Us-Sexism-Claims

Edit: Some day I will learn to quote. Some day...

She basically is a good example of how a lot of Kickstarters or similar concepts play out: you get your minutes of fame, over-promise and under-deliver when you realize that minutes of fame were...minutes indeed.

@jrelly: You might want to fix those quotes

Death threats? Christ.

I can't believe people still get this worked up about this gak.

This is first world problems beyond anything that has ever happened before.

It makes the My Super Sweet 16 girls look level headed.

 Slarg232 wrote:
Didn't Sark promise somewhere upwards of 12+ videos or something like that, and has only delivered three of them?

Nope. She promised I do not care how many videos, and had been slowly but steadily releasing them.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Her evidence is entirely taken out of context in most cases. They are usually single clips or quotes. Link to her video. [/url]http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/03/damsel-in-distress-part-1/[url]

So what? The aim of the video is not “presentation of various video games and why they are awesome and you should like them”. It is not even “Look at those bad misogynistic games that are awful and that you should definitely boycott”. It is about tropes. The rest of the game is largely irrelevant. That is why her video will do a better job by including very short clips from a lot of different games rather than very long clips from very few games.

 jreilly89 wrote:
I'm sorry the world sucks, but if you put something out there claiming critical analysis of a widely appreciated medium, you should be willing to engage in a discussion.

No. There is no single reason why you should be. Especially not with those kind of faceless, mindless interlocutor that is an internet mob.

 jreilly89 wrote:
"Ok, so we’ve established that the Damsel in Distress trope is one of the most widely used gendered cliché in the history of video games and has been core to the popularization and development of gaming as a medium." Direct quote from her transcript pretty much saying all video games ever made.

Except it is not. It just says this trope is used a lot, and is a big part of the history of video game. And that is completely true, hence why we have many games referring to it as self-reference. See Braid for instance, or Super Meat Boy.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Honestly, my biggest problem with her is The Last of Us claim. I feel its unfounded, as the claims she makes are unsupported by three separate characters.

I do not remember what she said about The Last of Us. What did she say?
But honestly, saying all her videos are completely wrong because of one clip on one game? Seems a bit excessive, no? Especially given the “trope” aspect I have been mentioning earlier.
I mean, it is like in that tumblr where she lists examples of the use of the Damsel tropes: yeah, I feel putting Kerrigan in is really stretching the definition quite a bit. For about every other game I know, it fits perfectly, and for those I do not, the screenshots seems pretty explicit anyway, so I am not going to let that detail derail me from the big picture.

 jreilly89 wrote:
You can support either side, my problem is in the Houston Press he writes a review without having beaten the game.

Okay, why did you switch to speaking about an article that was not written by Anita and that I have never heard about before?

 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?

As I said, I didn't know any of this a week back, and I would definitely describe myself as a feminist, misogyny lacks any logic at all, not only becayse my wife is better than me at almost everything, but also because it ties in with my scorn for illogical emotional based decisions. And obviously many organized religions as well, (which is often inherently misogynist even though I am not allowed to talk about it anymore!)

That being said, acting with cold, methodical logic, surely you would certainly agree that at least the balance of probability suggests that many of the accusations were true? I watched a few videos and read that blog, it seems pretty on the level. And obviously jilted lovers make gak up all the time, so perhaps she didn't sleep with 5 guys and she didn't do it for reviews. I mean no doubt she didn't do plenty of what her ill-tempered ex says that she did, he is clearly motivated by spite and thus not a great witness, but if even half of it is true, that is enough for me to come to the conclusion that my missus and her probably wouldn't get along, because she has integrity and Quinn does not.

I mean, honestly I don't really care because I'm certainly not in-bed with the ridiculous men that constantly whinge about this stuff, I always say the same thing to my missus when we see it on TV regarding feminism, racism, and anti-gay gak, when you see truly pathetic men going "Oh if you swapped that around and made it a straight white man being abused then nobody would care!" because the power of the state was never against people like that! Its such a bad argument for that exact reason. It IS much worse for a white guy to abuse a black guy/LGBT individual/woman than vice versa, because I am one, and I can easily laugh off abuse from people because it feels entirely harmless, I am sure it does not feel that way if I start throwing crass comments at them, so I have never had any time for the reverse racism and reverse sexism gak that very many people seem to love so much, mainly because it just strikes me as a bit cringing and pathetic, and I'm a very proud man. One of my few flaws!

Anyway yeah, so don't think I massively give a gak about her, or the topic, or the men that moan about "reverse" anything, but this is a forum and we are here to talk so I was giving my two cents.

The point I'm getting at is simply this, surely the evidence certainly leans towards the fact that Ms Quinn actually did, at the very least, tell lots of lies, and feth at least two other people behind her boyfriends back while constantly saying how bad cheating was? I mean, all of those texts and gak have to have come from somewhere right? And it is illogical to suggest he would go to such extreme lengths, spend all of that time making that blog, and gathering the proof, if the entire thing was fictional. Plus, wouldn't she sue him for defamation rather than just try and keep mum about it all? This is America!

TLDR - I think even if some of the claims are false, and several DO seem dubious, the evidence definitely suggests that she doesn't sound like the type of person I would like to take to the prom.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So what? The aim of the video is not “presentation of various video games and why they are awesome and you should like them”. It is not even “Look at those bad misogynistic games that are awful and that you should definitely boycott”. It is about tropes. The rest of the game is largely irrelevant. That is why her video will do a better job by including very short clips from a lot of different games rather than very long clips from very few games.

Because I can take anything out of context and make it fit my theory. If you take something out of context it no longer has any validity.

No. There is no single reason why you should be. Especially not with those kind of faceless, mindless interlocutor that is an internet mob.

While I agree about the internet mob, you're saying everyone on the internet is free to write things that get posted in the press without consequence or criticism?

Except it is not. It just says this trope is used a lot, and is a big part of the history of video game. And that is completely true, hence why we have many games referring to it as self-reference. See Braid for instance, or Super Meat Boy.

It is calling it a majority of the games, and I could come up with 50% I bet of games that don't have this trope. How is it completely true, other than games referencing it as a bias? Saying it exists versus completely true and in every video game is a big distinction.

I do not remember what she said about The Last of Us. What did she say?

But honestly, saying all her videos are completely wrong because of one clip on one game? Seems a bit excessive, no? Especially given the “trope” aspect I have been mentioning earlier.
I mean, it is like in that tumblr where she lists examples of the use of the Damsel tropes: yeah, I feel putting Kerrigan in is really stretching the definition quite a bit. For about every other game I know, it fits perfectly, and for those I do not, the screenshots seems pretty explicit anyway, so I am not going to let that detail derail me from the big picture.

Okay, why did you switch to speaking about an article that was not written by Anita and that I have never heard about before?

I provided the link because it shows what she said about the Last of Us, shows that it is pretty much just a way to whip up a media storm, and I would argue I'm not sure Anita has beaten half of the games she is claiming bias exists in. Again, context is everything.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Because I can take anything out of context and make it fit my theory. If you take something out of context it no longer has any validity.

If your theory is that there are a lot of people wearing red clothes in movies, posting tons of movie scene with wearing red clothes is a good argument, and giving context about why the people are wearing red clothes in those movies is unnecessary.

 jreilly89 wrote:
While I agree about the internet mob, you're saying everyone on the internet is free to write things that get posted in the press without consequence or criticism?

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.

 jreilly89 wrote:
It is calling it a majority of the games

No, it is not.
The first part says it is one of the most used gendered trope. So, unless you can point out some gendered trope that is more used than the Damsel, you do not contradict that. The second part says it has been has been very present when video games have started to become popular. Want to know a game that is using this trope? Super Mario Bros. Basically the historical video game. And at that time, this trope was I think much more used than now.

 jreilly89 wrote:
How is it completely true, other than games referencing it as a bias? Saying it exists versus completely true and in every video game is a big distinction.

Chill out, dude. Noone ever said it was part of every video game. Noone. And certainly not me.

 jreilly89 wrote:
I provided the link because it shows what she said about the Last of Us

Could you point to the actual video? First hand account is always better than a recollection.

 jreilly89 wrote:
and I would argue I'm not sure Anita has beaten half of the games she is claiming bias exists in.

She is not listing game in which bias exists. She is listing game which use some trope. See, it is pretty much exactly like the Bechdel test. Failing the Bechdel test does not mean a movie is misogynistic, and passing the test does not mean a movie is feminist, but if 50% of movies fails such a simple test, it is telling something. Here it is the same: having one damsel in distress in one game does not make the game misogynistic, but the sheer number of time that trope is used is the problem.

Even if Zoe slept with five guys for leverage, it's the guys at fault, not hers; especially the Kotaku writer, as a journalist should NEVER be in bed with what he's writing about. Figuratively or literally.


Though since people seem to be saying 5 Guys and posting the chain, I just want to say that I love 5 Guys. I want 5 Guys in my mouth every day.

 Slarg232 wrote:
I want 5 Guys in my mouth every day.

Uhm...DakkaDakka award for best out-of-context-post of the month!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
If your theory is that there are a lot of people wearing red clothes in movies, posting tons of movie scene with wearing red clothes is a good argument, and giving context about why the people are wearing red clothes in those movies is unnecessary.

Pretty sure those two arguments are wildly different.

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.

No, it is not.
The first part says it is one of the most used gendered trope. So, unless you can point out some gendered trope that is more used than the Damsel, you do not contradict that. The second part says it has been has been very present when video games have started to become popular. Want to know a game that is using this trope? Super Mario Bros. Basically the historical video game. And at that time, this trope was I think much more used than now.

If you're going to talk about tropes, how about main characters who are white? That trumps the damsel one every time. The second part? Guess what? Pong, Moonlanding, Pitfall, all the historical video games without the damsel trope!

Chill out, dude. Noone ever said it was part of every video game. Noone. And certainly not me.

You just said it was completely true...

Could you point to the actual video? First hand account is always better than a recollection

Well I apologize. I can;t find the actual source and it's been over a year, so that is my bad
.

She is not listing game in which bias exists. She is listing game which use some trope. See, it is pretty much exactly like the Bechdel test. Failing the Bechdel test does not mean a movie is misogynistic, and passing the test does not mean a movie is feminist, but if 50% of movies fails such a simple test, it is telling something. Here it is the same: having one damsel in distress in one game does not make the game misogynistic, but the sheer number of time that trope is used is the problem.

Not quite sure how that applies. It's an interesting idea, but again, i feel without context, saying something has trope doesn't really count as critical analysis in my book. I feel by that right I could claim a million games as mysogynistic because I am killing women. It's the same vein as the old "RE 5 is racist" gak that happened a couple years ago, ts out of context.

Honestly, my biggest problem with her is in the same vein as Bill O'Reilly. She makes gak up, claims things without evidence, refuses to take criticism, and is genuinely sexist. A lot of her comments do come off as misandric and offensive.

 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.

 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.

John Smedley (the Sony Online head) has been receiving gakloads of death threats from Lizard Squad, and even had one of his flights diverted because of a bomb threat made against it - by Lizard Squad. Dudes knew which plane he was on. He hasn't fled his home, by the way.

But some guy in Ohio tweets gak at Sarkeesian, and it's the end of the world.

 Seaward wrote:
John Smedley (the Sony Online head) has been receiving gakloads of death threats from Lizard Squad, and even had one of his flights diverted because of a bomb threat made against it - by Lizard Squad. Dudes knew which plane he was on. He hasn't fled his home, by the way.

But some guy in Ohio tweets gak at Sarkeesian, and it's the end of the world.

Because he's a privileged white male, duh.

 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.

YAY! FOOD!

If I were to say "I love my steak marinated in lovely marinade", there is no way you can possibly say "Nuh-uh"; I love what I love, and you can't keep us apart, damnit.

But if you were to respond with "Marinade makes steak unhealthy, here's why", there's really no way I could deny it. Sure, I can keep on keeping on with my Marinade and my steak, but you've actually put forth a legit discussion on the subject.

The reason I can get away with it as the person stating something, and you can't because you're the one refuting it, is because I'm the one engaging the conversation.

 Slarg232 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.

YAY! FOOD!

If I were to say "I love my steak marinated in lovely marinade", there is no way you can possibly say "Nuh-uh"; I love what I love, and you can't keep us apart, damnit.

But if you were to respond with "Marinade makes steak unhealthy, here's why", there's really no way I could deny it. Sure, I can keep on keeping on with my Marinade and my steak, but you've actually put forth a legit discussion on the subject.

The reason I can get away with it as the person stating something, and you can't because you're the one refuting it, is because I'm the one engaging the conversation.

Eh, I disagree and agree. I see your point, but I think these statements are two sides of the same coin. One is the statement of the engager, and the other is the statement of the responder.

 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.