Gendered nouns, nonstandard and otherwise

And Anita doesn't why? Because she's a woman? She does spout the same shit as Thompson. All she's doing is swapping out violence for sexism and it's the same argument, which has been disproven.

Also, what failure to analyze? I don't see anything from you in the last few pages.

 

But she didn't attack it for that(she was talking about fucking mario). No, she just said it was sexist.

 

Except Thompson was flat out lying and telling everyone it made kids into carjacking mass shooters, Anita just points out shit and the problematic interpretations/implications and wants games to improve

In my post you quoted above that section, yes you TECHNICALLY get penalized (don't get the highest rank or something) but you can easily go guns blazing if you just want to have fun killing people. I mean GTA technically penalizes you for going on killing sprees but Rampage challenges with bonuses and shit still exist and if you tell me that just getting sent to the hospital without you're huns and a small amount of cash missing is really dissuade people from doing that then you're a liar

Thompson flat out tried to ban games while Anita has REPEATEDLY stated that just because you like a game that has problems with DOESN'T mean you like sexism and stuff.

It is, because Peach almost NEVER does anything except get captured she's fucking USELESS.

 

It's fascinating discussion and all, but I believe it's rather off-topic?

 

She was attacking the original. That's also wrong, see: the rpgs.

 

Well then its true, she does nothing in the original except wait to be rescued Are we REALLY debating this? Look at the freaking trope name and how many times its appeared in games and myths plus its a freaking 80s game.

And what does Peach ACTUALLY accomplish in the RPGs without needing Mario to save her? Hell how many RPG games where she does shit are there versus all the OTHER ones where she's the equivalent of Mario's stolen lawn gnome?

 

Well, there's the Hitman thing of course.

Oh, and Assassin's Creed. Apparently she really hated those courtesans. Never mind the fact that it's a historically accurate (well, for video game standards) and these women probably do more to save the main character's ass than the main character does. Strong female characters who are confident in their sexuality and more useful at times than the main character? That's sexism, now? Did I miss a memo?

Princess Peach is an icon of sexism. Riiiight.

Sending death threats *to herself*... then tweeting about them... yeup, there's that...

Oh, and I'll just link this article to her showing on Colbert's show

http://realgamernewz.com/41779/anita-sarkeesian-gets-exposed-as-a-fraud-by-stephen-colbert

More because I truly love Colbert than anything else. The man is funny, and his researchers *actually do research*, instead of the typical lazy news journalism. Granted, I wish he'd be more serious, but there's few if any that are more dedicated to getting to the truth.


And it's not so much that she does these things. That makes her a pathetic brat who got lucky at best, and a despicable con artist at worst. What bothers me is that it's this obvious, and still people jump to her defense.

That's where the problem lies in modern feminism. They're not willing to stand up and say "this is wrong" when their own pull this kind of bullshit. And until they are, they are deserving of the contempt they receive.


EDIT: Anyway, going to sleep now. This discussion doesn't trump my brief respite from consciousness.

 

The Merriam-Webster definition which equates it to Sex as defined "The male/female gender" and simply put "The state of being [either] male or female." You're definition is listed on there as the last entry but it seems likely that it's to define the the use of the word as an adjective rather than a noun.

Edit: Ugh, as much as I love etymology and learning more about the English language it really is a no win situation to argue it. Again, as has been said before. When you argue English you are always wrong.

 

Well, you're half right.

 

Here's the only part of this post that's maybe even slightly relevant, IMO, and only in the context of your also unsubstantiated claims that the social justice movement defends her doing this.

Because we're not talking about whether Anita Sarkeesian is worth listening to, we're talking about your claim that she damns the entire social justice movement.

 

Megaolix, could you split this discussion into its own thread for us, please?

 

Ah, but I didn't say that, and if you listened instead of deciding I'm the enemy and looking for ways to attack me, you'd know that.

 

Here's what I saw:

 

Only if you cherry pick my, and others', words to ignore the actual points.

Oh, and of course the shit that I was *personally on the receiving end of* for writing a story which portrayed a female-on-male rape in both a serious and sympathetic light for the male victim. Where I was told repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that it was impossible for women to rape men, and by saying otherwise it was an attack on women.

It's an endemic problem, with symptoms everywhere. Acknowledge it as such. And don't play the whitewash game on me.

 

According to Anita Sarkeesian's wikipedia page, she merely talked about sexism in videogames, while Jack Thompson engaged in lawsuits and political campaigns to have videogames banned.

One of these things is not like the other.

 

Jesus. Tapdancing. Christ. It's literally the last thing I said on the post right above yours.

 

"If they believed in that, they'd be defending Thompson as well," implies that Anita Sarkeesian and Jack Thompson did similar things, and therefore defending Sarkeesian but not Thompson is bias.

 

First- you're wrong.

Second- I note you deliberately ignoring all the other points made. So still whitewashing.

 

I'm focusing on one point at a time, and you've called this the biggest problem.

What are you saying I'm wrong about?

• Are you saying Sarkeesian did lobby and sue for certain games to be banned?
• Are you saying that defending someone who did X but not someone who did Y is hypocritical?
• >_______ ?

 

I did not call it the "biggest" problem. I called it a symptom of the disease, and that said disease is the biggest problem. But since you can't actually address that, I'm going to operate on the assumption that you know I'm right and want to avoid others figuring it out.

You're wrong that the lobbying or lack thereof makes a difference. It does not. The lying, misrepresentations and attention seeking- then playing the victim card when being called out on those actions- are the flaws in both Sarkeesian and Thompson. The flaw in the SJWs and neo-feminists is that they're defending these actions and playing the victim card themselves.

 

Would you say that the "disease" is "defending all members of the in-group under all circumstances no matter what"?

 

And done

Are you able to move it over, Mega? I don't know how much Mods are able to do.

 

If you need to move them one at a time, don't bother. I'll just link to where it begins. As I said, I don't know how much you guys can do. I was hoping you could multi-select and move them easily.

 

Far too specific and absolutist for my tastes. Any step toward rejecting the concept of "us vs them" is always a step in the right direction, and "defending the in group" runs contrary to that goal. But so does absolutist statements. So I have mixed feelings... but I'll consider this a reasonable guideline at first glance

Let's add in promoting hate speech. Dehumanizing victims of crime, and indeed claiming certain horrific crimes cannot be crimes if men are the victims. It's not like Sarkeesian is anywhere near the only example. Just one of the most currently visible.

We'll see how it survives the battlefield.

 

Shakespeare & Jane Austen disagree:

There's not a man I meet but doth salute me
As if I were their well-acquainted friend

"Who is in love with her? Who makes you their confidant?"

 

In the first I'd argue that it's probable that 'man' refers to mankind, but let's ignore that for now. In both these examples the individual the pronoun refers to is abstracted. It's not, 'Is John in love with her? What makes you their confidant?' which clearly is lesser for the use of 'their' instead of 'his'.

I suppose that the use of 'them' and 'their' is acceptable when referring to an abstracted individual, but when dealing with a specific individual gendered nouns are superior.