1 week ago, Anita Sarkeesian was posted to /r/punchablefaces (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
164 ups - 0 downs = 164 votes
544 comments submitted at 19:17:54 on Sep 29, 2014 by poptart2nd
1 week ago, Anita Sarkeesian was posted to /r/punchablefaces (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
164 ups - 0 downs = 164 votes
544 comments submitted at 19:17:54 on Sep 29, 2014 by poptart2nd
At this point, if you put Sarkeesian and a popcorn machine side by side, I'd be really hard pressed to tell the difference.
It's easy, just talk to both of them. The one that responds the most intelligently is the popcorn machine.
i get it! it's cuz the girl is the stupid one, right?
Did I miss something? Did they edit their comment, because I don't get how what they said means what you're saying.
>The one that responds the most intelligently is the popcorn machine.
The dude is saying that women are stupid.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that he/she was referring specifically to Sarkeesian, not all women.
That limb would mean you have a shred of humour and aren't hypersensitive, which would not be a healthy behaviour for somebody on the internet, because not wasting your time being angry about the most petty shit on a forum for laughing at the most petty shit is just awful because it makes you sexism.
If you really want to find someone to hate there are plenty of sexists on the internet, no need to make things up.
I'm asking how you got that from that short statement? I read it like either side could be the idiot depending on who sounds less intelligent. How did you get that he was specifically referring to one person or the other?
No stop, please stop. Stop this reverse circle jerk it's worse than the circlcejerk that started it.
ha! you got more downvotes than me, therefore i win and am a better person.
That post got the quickest downvote I have ever received.
Probably because pointing and shouting "CIRCLEJERK! CIRCLEJERK!! THIS IS A CIRCLEJERK YOU ARE ALL CIRCLEJERKING YOU CIRCLEJERKERS!!!" contributes nothing.
Pointing and shouting that I'm shouting "CIRCLEJERK! CIRCLEJERK!! THIS IS A CIRCLEJERK YOU ARE ALL CIRCLEJERKING YOU CIRCLEJERKERS!!!" contributes nothing too you tart.
You were complaining about downvotes. I pointed out that you had no reason to expect anything but, since you didn't contribute. That's the best you could come up with? Weak.
I was not complaining. I was stating a fact. Stop projecting. What are you a drive in theatre?
You still obsessing about this? You wrote me a very angry, barely legible reply the first time and now seem to have deleted it in favour of something marginally more clever.
Wait, are people down voting you because they agree with Anita? If that's the case, I need to unsubscribe from this subreddit.
k bye
Are you pro-Sarkeesian? Honest question, hopefully you can limit the downvote brigade against someone with legitimate questions.
Excuse me sir but are you a communist? The Committee and I need to know.
I ask a legitimate question with absolutely no sinister pretense as you're suggesting and I'm compared to McCarthyism. That contributes nothing of value to this discussion.
It just seems like a strange question to ask. Why would it matter if anyone was pro or anti sarkeesian? What exactly does that contribute to the discussion other than ad hominem?
Because I don't know why anyone would support her. If the person said they liked her, I would've asked why. It's that simple.
"pro-Sarkeesian"
It's hilarious that you think it's even about that.
In America, we have the right to disagree. But apparently, if you disagree with a woman, the proper response is to entertain fantasies of violently assaulting and raping her.
This is the fundamental belief that created the shitstorm around Sarkeesian, not her feminist videos. This is the fundamental belief that made GamerGate and TheFappening and 8chan happen. It's not because there's some horrible feminazi movement out to get you. It's because you lack the cognitive capacity to actually discuss things rationally with women because you don't respect them.
So you get angry and make rape/murder jokes and when people give you what you were trying to provoke you run away crying to your own little echo chamber where you can safely be agreed with by your own little internet club until you realize that you've just withdrawn farther from reality, from healthy democracy, from sanity. It may take a few weeks, it may take years. But as you walk home to beans and rice after losing your job (again) because you weren't about to be silenced by some feminazi scum telling you that nobody asked about your sexist bullshit beliefs during a staff meeting, maybe you'll very briefly have a glimpse of the truth: you were the asshole all along.
Lol sure, the reason people disagree with her is because she's a woman. What planet do you live on? If that were the case, then people wouldn't be objecting to guys who express the same views as her - oh wait, they but they do! Wow, it's almost like it's her views and methods that people disagree with!
When guys agree with Sarkeesian, they're not on the receiving end of death/rape threats.
Case in point, I've never gotten a death/rape threat.
It's almost like when you people disagree with someone's "views and methods" and that don't have a penis, you think it gives you free license to ruin their fucking lives.
Yes, you are the only male to ever agree with Sark.
You can't say "case in point" when you are not the only case. Plenty of men who share Sark's views have been threatened with death in the past, just as people who hold views contrary to her's have been threatened with death. Death threats happen a lot on the internet. And 99.999999999999999999% of the time, they are completely empty and meaningless.
Sark hasn't had her life ruined, this is exactly what she's wanted all along: publicity.
P.s. I'm going to kill you
(that is sarcasm, in case you can't tell.)
> Sark hasn't had her life ruined, this is exactly what she's wanted all along: publicity.
Uh huh, sure. You sound as smart as my mother and grandmother agreeing that all the victims of the fappening really wanted those pictures to be seen by everyone.
>Death threats happen a lot on the internet. And 99.999999999999999999% of the time, they are completely empty and meaningless.
And what do you think you'd start thinking about when you're receiving them by the fuckton?
More Comments - Click Here
>they are completely empty and meaningless.
Empty? Probably. Meaningless? No. The meaning we get from this kind of responses is that the people who are making them want Sarkeesian to a)shut up b) die c)See the threats and be too scared/annoyed/disheartened to make any more videos or comments on the issue. Doing this shows that the gaming community opposed to Sarkeesian are pretty much incapable of participating in the discussion to any useful degree and makes Sarkeesian look like the bigger person regardless of the content of her arguments. Yeah, people make death threats all the time on the internet, and it's generally well regarded that the people doing that are either petulant teenagers who can't control their emotions and can only respond with ridiculous hyperbole or grown adults who are acting like petulant teenagers, which doesn't really help their side much at all.
> Lol sure, the reason people disagree with her is because she's a woman.
Almost. She's a woman who is criticizing something that gamers like. If she was saying "As a woman, games aren't sexist", she's be held up as "one of the good ones" and be given a pat on the head no matter how terrible her arguments.
> If that were the case, then people wouldn't be objecting to guys who express the same views as her - oh wait, they but they do!
Those guys are still defending women, so they're just white knight neckbeards with no spine who pander to feminists.
If I were to lob some criticism at Mario for some of it's gameplay issues, I'd get minimal reaction. If I criticize it's reliance on sexist tropes however, I'd be in for a shitstorm. Only one of these things actually upsets people, and it's the one involving women.
You are seeing what you want to see. You want to see it as "misogyny", so much so that you're willing to rationalize men disagreeing with other men into an example of misogyny. Disagreement with a woman for her beliefs and agenda does not amount to misogyny, just as disagreement with a man does not amount to "misandry". I doubt you would take anyone seriously who tried to claim that women disagreeing with other women could be called "misandry", but switch the genders, and for whatever reason, you're more than willing.
> You want to see it as "misogyny", so much so that you're willing to rationalize men disagreeing with other men into an example of misogyny.
Not at all. Men can disagree with other men just fine. I've seen many discussions between friends about issues of sexism that went just fine, because the people I know can respectfully disagree. That's not how discussions of gender politics on reddit goes though.
> Disagreement with a woman for her beliefs and agenda does not amount to misogyny, just as disagreement with a man does not amount to "misandry"
I agree.
> I doubt you would take anyone seriously who tried to claim that women disagreeing with other women could be called "misandry", but switch the genders, and for whatever reason, you're more than willing.
I'm willing because of how the discussions on reddit always end up going, not because there's anything intrinsically misogynistic about disagreeing with sarkeesian or women in general. Reddit can be extremely dismissive of issues of sexism and racism and other -isms at times, and because of the homogeneity of the demographics of certain subreddits the whole discussion just devolves into really nasty circlejerks with a complete lack of consideration for alternate perspectives.
What the fuck are you going on about? Where did I condone raping her? I just disagree with a lot of her points, I'm not a sexist proponent of rape. Where the fuck did you get that from, and why are you using the pronoun "you"?
Look, it's simple. If you disagree with a man that's fine, but if you disagree with a woman it's because you obviously hate women.
So far I buy that all the tropes she's done videos about (a) do exist, (b) are evident in many popular video games, and (c) contribute to a harmful attitude about women.
I also don't believe the specific objections I've seen raised against her videos, as usually either people are objecting to something she didn't actually say but they think she did, or they're objecting to some part of the metanarrative ("she doesn't even like video games!") that I don't give a crap about.
>contribute to a harmful attitude about women.
As much as i think there are tropes in video games i dislike that argument because it's the whole "games are corrupting people!" all over again.
It's not so much that "games are corrupting people" it's more that mass media has the capacity to perpetuate harmful ideas and games are no exception in this respect. Games aren't doing it any more than, say, Television or Film, but because Games are a relatively new medium they haven't been subject to as much scruitiny as older media forms.
I just worry about it going down the whole "we should ban/censor certain games to stop them corrupting people" road like it has in Australia with then banning and censoring games.
Don't worry, I mean generally the stuff that causes people to censor or ban games tend to be related to extreme depictions of violence or mild sex, stuff that's easy to for the public to understand and easy to fit in headlines, not so much nuanced gender related issues. I mean you can get a good headline with "Grand Theft Auto favourite game of Teen Slasher" but not "Hitman's objectivisation of women perpetuated negative attitudes towards gender in local teen".
But also you realise that i don't think even Anita wants to ban these games, rather she wants people to think about the messages and ideas that these games are putting forward and how they might be affecting how we think so that maybe in future we can have games which challenge these ideas.
It's like, the whole damzel in distress thing is problematic because it makes the idea of a beautiful woman being a "reward" and not an individual with her own motivations. I mean i don't want to get too far into those arguments because that opens a shitload of doors about power fantasies and classic story archetypes and blah blah blah.
So it's not so much about banning what's out there already, but changing what we make in the future. Like imagine a game where instead of a princess being rescued, she rescues herself. Like she's trapped in a dungeon and escapes with her own guile and strength.
More Comments - Click Here
Thanks for the non-dogmatic response. (No sarcasm.) I respectfully disagree. I think many of her points are contrived and grossly exaggerated, such as the Hitman video in question. Then again, I don't find any of her content to be particularly compelling, and seeing as how she misrepresented information to prove a point, I have little respect for her.
>such as the Hitman video in question.
Name another.
http://www.staresattheworld.com/2014/09/anita-sarkeesian-fabricate-story-contacting-authorities/ Another example of her fabricating information to promote her agenda. It's interesting to note that her agenda in this case is to present herself as a victim. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/132778-Anita-Sarkeesian-Stole-my-Artwork-Claims-Blogger She also stole somebody's artwork. Yeah, after doing more research I've decided that I like her even less now.
Wow, those are some weird video games.
More Comments - Click Here
Go for it regardless.
Down with the patriarchy.
Edit: I had no idea there were so many misogynists on reddit. Damn.