All of your precious video games? They have to go.
The sexist, misogynistic, video game culture being created by the racist 3D worlds is going to come to a end. Get over it. Only racists and bigots will disagree.
Take content out of context to call games sexist when there was no sexist intent. Called Hitman misogynistic because you can kill girls, as if you don't spend 99% of the game killing men. Like many "feminists" there will be no promoting a feminist agenda, be clearly sexist yourself but pass it off as "feminism".
But now because of this huge fear of looking "politically correct" you're not allowed to criticize anyone and other important people take her seriously when anybody with an ounce of common sense could see through her poorly formed arguments and utter lack of basis.Shes a hack writer who twists information to create false claims.
She steals other peoples footage and art for her own commercial use.
Any criticism of her is labelled as misogynistic harassment (even if the criticism comes from other women).
Claims to be against tropes that paint women as frail and weak that need to be protected at all times...then plays up that same s*** in reference to real life people including using it to her own advantage in reference to herself.
And quite frankly, shes a bit f***ed in the mind.
Too bad people don't realize that ignoring her would have solved the problem to begin with. Now its far too late.her videos are pure confirmation bias, sometimes going so far as to record herself doing misogynistic things to show the game can be misogynistic (see the Hitman video)
She's a branch of PC outrage culture that exists only to whine about things, and do so in an entirely backwards way. She doesn't study video games and learn they're sexist. She decided they're sexist and finds every little thing that can somehow be skewed into evidence
She'd be fine, but she's getting more attention than anyone with her lack of intellectuality should get, and it makes people rightfully upset.
1. Because she's a woman who doesn't play games often, and she's criticizing them.
2. Because sometimes she isn't entirely truthful with her analysis.
3. Because sometimes she has a point.
Those are the main three reasons, honestly, and the strongest catalyst is unfortunately her gender. There are men who have said the same s*** as Sarkeesian and they aren't treated with nearly as much rage. The whole "she stole footage from other people" line is garbage--no one gives a f*** about that. It's an afterthought. And the complaints about how much money her kickstarter raised are similarly disingenuous: if your trolling was good enough to make a profit some of y'all would be in trolling tournaments on ESPN3.
People care way too much about her. As someone said, she's basically Jack Thompson 2.0. She herself has very little if any real influence in video games, but we eat up everything she says despite wishing terrible things upon her.
I have an odd kind of respect for her.
She creates her KS, gets massive amounts of negative response, and is basically making a living capitalizing on that. Where others might balk at that, she decided to use it. It's a self-perpetuating cycle, too, because she likely won't stop while she can still get attention, and the negative response won't stop while people on the Internet remain a******s.
The worst part is that these a******s are "our people". They're gamers like us. I wonder if a lot of the hate directed at her is born of self-hate of the gamer community.
For my part, I'm doing my best to ignore her and avoid signal boosting her where I can, because I don't think she's a fit representative for the improvement of video games.
Jack Thompson a right wing christian seeking to ban video games, Anita a left wing woman desiring to allow women a stronger role in the industry and speaking out against sexism. People assume Anita wants to ban them because, she talks about issues relating to women. Why is it wrong for her to talk about sexism in the industry? Why is she a "professional victim" for She's not even calling for censoring, she saying that women would play more games if games stopped treating them as sex objects. Gamers complain all the time about video games being brain dead but, when she talks about it it's get the pitchforks time.
For the record: she's not always right and says a lot of stupid s*** but, at least she's speaking out. Why should vidoe games be considered a boys only thing? When a majority of females are wearing skimpy outfits, and exist to be saved by their "heroic" male friends. What makes you think women are going to be intersted in that? People somehow believe that she wants to ban sex, and ban your video games when that's not what she's aiming to do.
When Anita allowed comments all her sections were filled with insults towards her and "SJWs". But, apparently that's ok as it's "criticisms". This is an industry that complains about SJW pandering for including gay/black/trans characters in a game. So, I'll take what you people say at face value. This is an industry that's fine harassing people under the guise of ethics, and then accusing them of being "third party" trolls but, when we do it then well that represents us all as we all support harassing and doxing people.
The problem here is that she isn't outright saying anything. She's making a bunch of claims and letting the media make assumptions on the implications of her claims. And the implications of phrases like "it's disgusting that this is normal" and "it's shocking how people are cheering for bodies ripped apart" are clearly implying that she wants at least less violence in games.
By the way, what makes you say most people aren't already like that? I'm sure most adults do realize violent games often have bad messages and aren't something to be taken seriously into their work/social lives. She's not making a revelation here.
Also "video games cause aggression" "video games cause violence". There's not much difference in there other than wanting to sugarcoat it so that it sounds better. It's still the same sentiment.
ISPs can barely stop pirates. I seriously doubt they're going to be efficient at stopping trolls.
Although I admit this isn't something I have to worry about. I don't needlessly attack or bully people on the internet. I don't seek out people's information and try to cause them harm. So admittedly maybe I'm lax about this because it's not something that will affect me.
Aggression is hostility and anger residing in someone but hasn't been expressed physically yet. Violence is a physical act. I do understand the nuance between the two words but it's reaching and is indeed sugar coating what is the same sentiment. Being aggressive is the same as being violent. The articles are implying that aggression can lead to violence. It is also an terrible arguer's tactic to accuse someone of not understanding something but then not bother to explain how they're wrong. It only makes you look like you don't actually have an argument. You're better than that, man.
You will have your internet access taken away for calling a woman a liar. To think that such a thing would be allowed is beyond stupid.
She's defining harassment as the day to day grind of receiving these insults on a regular basis. If it's a bunch of individuals doing it they're not likely to face any punishment (the internet and cable companies would never allow such profit loss) but if it's one person constantly harassing her, impersonating her friends on Twitter just to insult her, doxxing her or sending her death threats, then maybe that individual deserves to be disconnected.
You know what the fuck you're looking at?
