Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 67

Thread: My Hero

  1. #31
    Roxane's Roadkill Reputation: 245
    Pok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,519
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by postrook View Post
    what's wrong with Anita Sarkeesian. how is she doing anything wrong by making completely valid points about gaming.
    She does the video game equivalent of quote mining. Her most famous example is Hitman: She RAGED on Hitman for having the ability to kill strippers as if they were nothing, when they had a huge amount of dialogue that made them relatable people. She said the were nothing but objects who you were rewarded for killing since women meant nothing, but ignored the fact that the vast majority of characters were male and that you were punished for subduing innocents male or female. She also ignored that it was an incredibly small part of the game that required someone to do a significantly harder job to even encounter them. She stated that 'those who don't think they are affected by it, are the most affected by itso if you were to 100% believe her you'd be in the same camp that says that grand theft auto was the same, sole, reason that mass murders happen. This is also totally ignoring how much money she pulled in by kickstarter to produce her feminist propaganda compared to how little she has actually delivered.

    I consider her much like the televangelist, she knows what she is doing is fake, but she's found a way to make money off of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by xBlazex View Post
    sorry for you have the evil heart in the universe. your type are just destroy are world
    The battle of science vs. religion ended when churches started putting lightning rods on their steeples.

  2. #32
    Banned Reputation: 302

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Rainbow
    Posts
    1,073
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pok View Post
    No true Scotsman fallacy.

    In ages past I would have been a stalwart feminist, the ideals they strove for were just and their gender was faced with intolerable prejudice. Current feminists (at least the ones I see commonly represented) are shamefully ignorant of facts, impervious to reason, have a deep-set culture of victim-hood, cherry-pick their 'facts', and refuse to admit their mistakes even in the view of unbiased evidence.

    Anita Sarkeesian, Suey Park, Laci Green, Rebecca Watson and others I'm sure I forgot to name have poisoned actual issues and engaged in misandry in situations that have significantly hurt serious issues (Watson and cancer research). While you may discount them as crazies, they have seriously, and negatively, impacted the idea of feminism.

    It would be like supporting an animal rights activist that tortured kittens on their downtime.
    I don't really know much about the other girls, but how is Laci Green a misandrist and an ignorant feminist? Do you have examples?

  3. #33
    Roxane's Roadkill Reputation: 245
    Pok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,519
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TuxedoSam View Post
    I don't really know much about the other girls, but how is Laci Green a misandrist and an ignorant feminist? Do you have examples?
    Laci has stated that having sex with anyone who is above the legal driving limit (0.04 in Canada) is sexual assault and has implied that at every step of a physical relationship the man has to acquire explicit verbal permission (which may be retracted at anytime, even after the event has passed) setting a vicious double standard making the male responsible for every unwanted action [even if they themselves are above the limit]. The problem is making the woman a victim if she is legally intoxicated while holding the man 100% responsible, it's as ridiculous as saying that the man shouldn't be held responsible for rape if he's had a drink. She uses the false object / subject dichotomy. She also goes down the same tired road of mentioning that the media objectifies women, and then ignores that men are objectified in media as well ignoring the point of why attractive people are used to sell products.

    She definitely is not the worst, but she is still heavily flawed.
    Quote Originally Posted by xBlazex View Post
    sorry for you have the evil heart in the universe. your type are just destroy are world
    The battle of science vs. religion ended when churches started putting lightning rods on their steeples.

  4. #34
    Game Journalist Reputation: 474

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    6,513
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pok View Post
    -snip-
    It seems like she's using her own attractiveness to sell her videos. She also uses the word "sex" whenever she can to grab attention, it seems. This is just based on a quick glance at her recent videos and seeing a lot of tits in her thumbnails.
    "....However, as with all things, you will encounter the odd retard and or asshole."
    -Cingal
    -------(New Video!)------------------------(New Post!)[4/12]----------(Updated for ArcheAge!)[4/28]
    Youtube Channel | Twitch | Gaming Blog | Amitabha Gaming Guild

  5. #35
    Banned Reputation: 302

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Rainbow
    Posts
    1,073
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pok View Post
    Laci has stated that having sex with anyone who is above the legal driving limit (0.04 in Canada) is sexual assault and has implied that at every step of a physical relationship the man has to acquire explicit verbal permission (which may be retracted at anytime, even after the event has passed) setting a vicious double standard making the male responsible for every unwanted action [even if they themselves are above the limit]. The problem is making the woman a victim if she is legally intoxicated while holding the man 100% responsible, it's as ridiculous as saying that the man shouldn't be held responsible for rape if he's had a drink. She uses the false object / subject dichotomy. She also goes down the same tired road of mentioning that the media objectifies women, and then ignores that men are objectified in media as well ignoring the point of why attractive people are used to sell products.

    She definitely is not the worst, but she is still heavily flawed.
    Do you have the source? I haven't seen anything that proves what you are saying.

    This is what she actually thinks about sex during intoxication: http://youtu.be/TD2EooMhqRI?t=3m28s

    In this video she also explains that a person (not a specific gender) has the right to change their mind at any moment. Which is correct and acceptable. If you don't want to have sex, you shouldn't be forced to because you've had sex with that person before, or even if you're engaged in the sexual act. Everyone has the right to no longer consent to sex.

    I don't know where you concocted a double standard. Again, I would like the source.

    Laci is correct in the sense that if the woman is intoxicated and the man is not, that is rape, and vice versa. Intoxication disallows people to consent due to the effects of the drug.

    If they are both drunk, the person who is intentionally committing the act is at fault. So if the man is doing the work, he is committing rape. If the woman is doing the work, she is committing rape.

    The media does objectify women. The media does objectify men. However, the media objectifies women about 90% or so more than it objectifies men. Usually, when there is a problem, the group of people who are affected most by said problem is addressed first and foremost. As she's stated in previous videos, the majority of men and women view women as body parts, while the majority of men and women view men as a whole person.

    It's also extremely effective to pinpoint one specific problem, rather than to address multiple problems within one video or presentation, etc.

    Laci knows why attractive people are used to sell products. I think just about everyone does. However, you don't need to dissect a person and objectify them to sell products. Products can sell with tasteful imagery too.

  6. #36
    Roxane's Roadkill Reputation: 245
    Pok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,519
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TuxedoSam View Post
    Do you have the source? I haven't seen anything that proves what you are saying.

    This is what she actually thinks about sex during intoxication: http://youtu.be/TD2EooMhqRI?t=3m28s
    If they're too drunk to drive, they're too drunk to give consent. Period.
    3:37-3:40.

    For a woman that's about 150 pounds, that is barely over 1 drink in an hour. So if you've ever had sex with a woman at an average weight who has had a drink in the last hour makes you a rapist. Period.
    Quote Originally Posted by xBlazex View Post
    sorry for you have the evil heart in the universe. your type are just destroy are world
    The battle of science vs. religion ended when churches started putting lightning rods on their steeples.

  7. #37
    Banned Reputation: 302

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Rainbow
    Posts
    1,073
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ApocaRUFF View Post
    It seems like she's using her own attractiveness to sell her videos.
    One huge problem that currently exists is that if a woman has large breasts and wears the same shirt as a woman with small breasts, she is typically treated more harshly. She's called a slut, attention whore, etc.

    Women with large breasts should not be forced to wear turtle necks all the time because people can't handle a boob crack. That's a huge point of her videos and why she hasn't changed her clothing choice for viewers, because they mislabel her. She believes she should wear what she wants and not be dehumanized for it.

    It also frustrates me when people assume girls intentionally try to get their boobs within the shot of pictures. They complain with "notice how she cut off part of her head just to get her boobs in the shot." If a man were to cut off part of his head in the picture and show more of his chest, no one would care. But because women have flabs of fat on their chests that give men boners they sometimes can't control, it is suddenly an issue.

    Women have breasts. The girl may or may not be intentionally showing her breasts for attention, but honestly, why does that matter? Does it really hurt you that a girl is showing her boobs? No, it doesn't.

    Moreover, I'm not going to consciously adjust my camera just to make sure my boobs aren't in a photo. That is extremely absurd. My boobs aren't just masturbation material. They're a body part of my upper chest, meant to nourish babies (nothing sexual about that), and they will not go away. However, I wouldn't be at the brunt of backlash anyway because my boobs are barely a B cup.

    She also uses the word "sex" whenever she can to grab attention, it seems. This is just based on a quick glance at her recent videos and seeing a lot of tits in her thumbnails.
    This makes me chuckle.

    Her channel is called Sex+, which means sex positivity. Her channel discusses various issues of sex and other sub-sects because that's what her channel is about.

    Of course I'm sure she tries to market her videos for views, but I don't see anything wrong with that. That's what every top YouTuber does. It would be idiotic not to.

    Moreover, she wants to educate and create a better world with her abundance of amazing videos.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Pok View Post
    3:37-3:40.

    For a woman that's about 150 pounds, that is barely over 1 drink in an hour. So if you've ever had sex with a woman at an average weight who has had a drink in the last hour makes you a rapist. Period.
    I don't see a problem. If a person can't drive, the person can't consent.

    People can completely avoid being a rapist by not having sex with intoxicated people. Why is that concept so hard for you?

  8. #38
    HopeDagger's Henchman Reputation: 170

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,227
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Tux, I am a supporter of feminism. I totally believe in equality. That dictates my actions when I tell you to go f*** yourself.
    You want women to be equal except that you seem to think they are weaker/dumber as men are automatically held responsible for the vast majority of issues. We were both drunk and had sex which I later regret. Rape.

    Women who use sex appeal to get ahead should not expect to be treated like they don't.

    Oooh and Men should be able to handle boob crack. Well women should be able to handle half my package hanging out if I want to wear short shorts on a warm day.

    Seriously your double standards and idiocy give all women a bad name and I hope you are mauled by bears.
    Last edited by FarmerM; 07-20-2014 at 07:40 AM.

  9. #39
    Roxane's Roadkill Reputation: 245
    Pok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,519
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TuxedoSam View Post
    I don't see a problem. If a person can't drive, the person can't consent.

    People can completely avoid being a rapist by not having sex with intoxicated people. Why is that concept so hard for you?
    It's a problem because the blame is placed onto the man regardless of situation. It's a problem because alcohol is often used in social situations and the result of this thinking is that if a single drink is consumed by a woman it becomes nonconsensual sex (which the man is to blame even if the male party has also been drinking [since the male has to have the arousal response in order to engage in penetrative sex]). It's a problem since it is a legal definition that the average woman is unable to responsibly drive after a single drink, meaning that if your date decided that they wanted a glass of wine with dinner she is able to consider it rape if you engage in sexual relations afterwards. It's a problem because it can be called rape after-the-fact even if, at the time, it was consensual by both parties who are equally inebriated.

    It's looking for favouritism, not equality.



    Don't get me wrong, if someone is unable to make proper decisions, it's is absolutely unethical to coerce them to do something they'd otherwise not do. If someone is still in the frame of mind that they know what they are doing and then do it they cannot blame the other party. It's not that odd of a situation, if you want to be a victim, you have to be an actual victim from outside sources. If you get drunk and have sex and regret it, it sucks. If you get drunk, drive a car, kill someone, it sucks. Either way, you own some of that responsibility.
    Last edited by Pok; 07-20-2014 at 08:02 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by xBlazex View Post
    sorry for you have the evil heart in the universe. your type are just destroy are world
    The battle of science vs. religion ended when churches started putting lightning rods on their steeples.

  10. #40
    Banned Reputation: 302

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Rainbow
    Posts
    1,073
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Ladies and gentlemans, here is a prime example of male privilege, ignorance, anti-feminism, and hatred:

    Quote Originally Posted by FarmerM View Post
    Tux, I am a supporter of feminism. I totally believe in equality. That dictates my actions when I tell you to go f*** yourself.

    You want women to be equal except that you seem to think they are weaker/dumber as men are automatically held responsible for the vast majority of issues.
    I don't think you really are or do...

    Nope. Never implied that. I do think the majority of women are physically weaker than the majority of men, but I don't feel women are necessarily weaker in other aspects. Or dumber.

    Please, make up more stuff out of your butt.

    Oh, look, you did...

    We were both drunk and had sex which I later regret. Rape.

    Women who use sex appeal to get ahead should not expect to be treated like they don't.

    Oooh and Men should be able to handle boob crack. Well women should be able to handle half my package hanging out if I want to wear short shorts on a warm day.

    Seriously your double standards and idiocy give all women a bad name and I hope you are mauled by bears.
    Don't be mad at me because you can't accept the fact that you legally raped a woman.

    Laci doesn't use her sex appeal to "get ahead." She wears normal shirts just like any other girl. Are you intoxicated right now?

    I don't know why you are comparing your dick and balls to breasts. They're really quite different. One is used for sexual intercourse and the other is used to feed babies. Men are already allowed to be topless, but women aren't.

    I'm not asking for women to be allowed to show vagina. I'm not even asking for women to be able to show full breast nudity on YouTube. I simply want people to stop mislabeling women because their boob cracks are bigger than other boob cracks.

    But I mean, if you really wanted to have your dick and balls out, there are states/areas that allow public nudity.

    Fortunately, you don't represent all of men, so I will not resort to ignorant comments such as "you make men look bad." You make yourself look bad.

    I also don't hope you are mauled by bears, but I do hope you can let your closed-minded ignorance go one day and see the bigger picture.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Pok View Post
    It's a problem because the blame is placed onto the man regardless of situation. It's a problem because alcohol is often used in social situations and the result of this thinking is that if a single drink is consumed by a woman it becomes nonconsensual sex (which the man is to blame even if the male party has also been drinking [since the male has to have the arousal response in order to engage in penetrative sex]). It's a problem since it is a legal definition that the average woman is unable to responsibly drive after a single drink, meaning that if your date decided that they wanted a glass of wine with dinner she is able to consider it rape if you engage in sexual relations afterwards. It's a problem because it can be called rape after-the-fact even if, at the time, it was consensual by both parties who are equally inebriated.

    It's looking for favouritism, not equality.



    Don't get me wrong, if someone is unable to make proper decisions, it's is absolutely unethical to coerce them to do something they'd otherwise not do. If someone is still in the frame of mind that they know what they are doing and then do it they cannot blame the other party. It's not that odd of a situation, if you want to be a victim, you have to be an actual victim from outside sources. If you get drunk and have sex and regret it, it sucks. If you get drunk, drive a car, kill someone, it sucks. Either way, you own some of that responsibility.
    Are you making generalizations that such a situation is frequently unjust and misconducted or is there substantial, legitimate evidence that states this occurs in a large number of cases?

    The thing about the law is that it is never there, in the moment, when the criminal act is taking place. Therefore, in order to provide a service of safety and justice for people, it has to make some generalizations and conduct a trial.

    I'll be honest, I'm not 100% knowledgeable about this particular law and if there are exceptions. All I know is that you're likely in shit if you engage in sexual relations by your own will with an intoxicated person, regardless if you are intoxicated as well. That is the law. I abide by it and I agree with it because there are understandable reasons why it exists.

    Moreover, let's remember, you are only punished if the person files charges against you. This means, you and your girlfriend can get drunk and have sex, and there will be no consequences, as long as she doesn't press charges the next day. Let's also not pretend like that's the norm and happens all the time and unjustly. Most girlfriends/wives/frienefits will not do that unless they actually didn't want to have sex with you.

    Let me ask you this, say you just had a huge dinner with family and you ate too much. You removed your seatbelt while driving because you felt it was making you sick. Unbeknownst to you, a cop sees you do this and pulls you over. He issues you a ticket.

    Now, you know the law, yet you took your seatbelt off anyway and let the cop know that it was because you felt sick, but he didn't have any sympathy for you and ticketed you anyway.

    Different variables, but same concept. You think it's acceptable for the law to make an exception for you because you wanted the benefit of your decision without consequences, because you feel you are justified to loophole out of the law that was created on just reasons.

    Let me give you another example based on a true story.

    There are two young kids who attended a party. They both got shit-faced. The girl passed out on a bed. Her friend she came to the party with removed her pants and started eating her out.

    Now, they're both shit-faced, and he doesn't remember what happened the next day. Do you feel it's okay for this man to not be charged on the basis of "I was drunk, and I don't remember what happened," even though he committed an extremely sexual act that is considered rape?

    "I mean, he was drunk. He shouldn't be held responsible for being drunk to the point of incoherence."

    It doesn't work like that. Even if she's awake. Even if she said "yes" and claims it was rape the next day because her decision wasn't accurate. Intoxication strips people of the right to consent due to its effects. That's it.

    alkdjf

    The first time I was intoxicated, I literally got drunk off of 1.5 shots of vodka. Was I coherent? Enough to remember what happened and control most of what I was doing, but that doesn't mean I was all there and fully functional. The floor was ripply, and I couldn't walk well without swaying, but I remember what happened. I also felt an intense tiredness and limpness, and an inability to keep my eyes open at all times. At the time, I was about 150 lbs. and I am 5'1".

    I didn't know how I would react to alcohol. I didn't know I would get so drunk just from a shot and a half. I also can't tell you if I would have been able to say "no" to someone if they tried to fvck me. I can say for sure, however, that if someone wanted to rape me, they could have and I wouldn't have been able to stop them.

    You don't get to choose who is drunk or not drunk enough to consent. It's not subjective. It's complicated, and the law handles the complications to its best and most basic ability as it can.
    Last edited by TuxedoSam; 07-20-2014 at 08:05 AM.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •