Extremism never works in the long term because the constant upping of the ante inevitably ends up desensitizing and alienating normal people. In the case of feminism, it's not even necessary. Western feminists are the biggest sore winners on the planet. They won the cultural war decades ago.

In case it's not obvious from the fact that the audience is laughing and she's smiling and this is a quick clip cutting out all context:

She is not saying this seriously. She is joking about how she initially felt and what she's learned to move on from.

If people who criticize this woman, or SJW, triggered Tumbler users, or feminazis, or whatever term they want to use, want to be taken seriously, it'd be a good idea to stop reacting the same way Fox News does whenever race is mentioned. "A white cop murdered an unarmed black kid again? Let's attack Al Sharpton, find clips of individual civil rights protesters saying something stupid, talk about how white people are the real victims and how there's a conspiracy of victimization until people stop paying attention, so we never have to deal with the underlying issue. If people call us racist, say we're just being honest journalists trying to bring up the facts others won't cover (because they are irrelevant), and that anyone talking about race is the real racist. "

Oh, if it was meant as a joke, then nevermind re: my flimsy interpretation of it. I beg pardon for taking it the wrong way.

I still believe it can be taken as a perfectly reasonable thing to say that everything is, in a sense, sexist/racist/homophobic -- in that everything is reflective of the culture it's from -- but I can see how you could also say it as a joke.

Not quite Void, just about all of these 3rd wavers you see from tumblr had nothing to do with our progress with woman's rights. A lot of these olders 2nd wave feminist actually came out and suggested they are a bit embarrassed with the behavior and rhetoric you see from these people.

What Hodge said, although I'd characterize what we have n the Internet as 4th wave myself. I see 3rd wave as the 90s stuff where people started to completely misinterpret the concept that "the personal is political" and turn it into identity politics, whereas what we have now is less about identity politics and more about identity branding. I'm speaking of the mainstream of course, the stuff that you see on the big-name web sites like Jezebel, and increasingly on the university lecture circuit, TV and print media. The stuff that is basically a lifestyle brand and has completely ashed itself of any critique of capitalism. There's still plenty of good and necessary work being done, it's just not being heard becasue of stuff like Gamergate and MRA-baiting.

I honestly believe that things like 90% of Jezebel articles and that wehuntedthemammoth/manboobs guy have done more to raise the profile of the current antifeminist backlash than the actual "manosphere" itself has.

OZ� re:whtm, it is really weird to see large numbers of feminists engage in the atrocity tourism and hate-reading that to me defined poe red. We have, as a culture, become addicted to outrage in a strange way, both left and right. I indulge in it as much as anyone, but I'm not sure it produces anything other than self-satisfaction.

MRAs don't seem to need the publicity from Futrelle to swarm comment sections and youtube, though, and I imagine that's where most people (like myself) first encountered them.

>>In the case of feminism, it's not even necessary. Western feminists are the biggest sore winners on the planet. They won the cultural war decades ago.

If that's true, then why are we here, losing our shit because a woman made some youtube videos expressing an unpopular opinion? She's been demonized, degraded and threatened just for having an opinion. Jack Thompson actually tried to get a court decision declaring that the first amendment didn't apply to video games, but the reaction to that was nothing like the reaction to a woman making a few critical videos. I guess there were a couple of death threats against Thompson, but was there all that graphic, intimate, sex and violence imagery? Did they make catty comments about how he'd gained weight?

I can agree that there's an element of sexism running through feminism. I bristle at terms like "toxic masculinity" and "male privilege" being used as if there's no such thing as toxic femininity or female privilege. I believe these things exist,and ought to be addressed. I don't believe that, at this stage of the game, one gender has it measurably worse than another, or that one gender is oppressing another, at least in all things. In the 21st century, the problems between men and women ought to be addressed in terms of dysfunction, not oppression .

Men have really been placed in an impossible situation, but feminism isn't to blame. It's sexism. Sexism is fucking up our shit just like it is for women. We ought to be able to get together on this and solve our common problem, and that's the only way it's going to happen. We could do it in less than one generation, but it looks like western humanity is headed for a hundred years of solitude. If only the monkeys could stop flinging their poo.

Feminists indeed won the culture war IRL years ago, but now it looks like it's necessary to fight it all over again, this time for the internets. On the internet, attention is everything, yet women are punished everyday for drawing attention to themselves.

"Feminists indeed won the culture war IRL years ago..."

Erm. What?
If you're saying what I think you're saying, I must disagree. If that were true, half of congress would be women, we'd have maybe had a woman prez by now, contraception would be universal and not even a minor political issue, and don't even get me started on rape culture.

You raise a good point, though, Albuquerque.

Also, I hope we have a weekly liberals v liberals thread around here.

I figure she must be joking, otherwise she's admitting that Feminist Frequency is racist, sexist, and homophobic sludge.

right. the whole anita thing makes me tired at this point. i hate both sides and wish i could watch someone deconstruct video games through a dialectic class violence (or WHATEVER) in peace.

dialectic OF

I don't know what Feminist Frequency is, but yes, any feminist worth their salt will admit that their feminism is reflective of society, and in some ways, inevitably will always display elements of sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.

I don't know anything about Anita Sarkeesian and I honestly don't want to; but what she said here isn't amazing or shocking. It isn't even *notable*. It's just an acknowledgement that things like sexism/racism/homophobia exist on pretty much every level throughout society. You could even say they're 'pervasive'. And if you don't notice that, well, that might be because you aren't really paying attention.

'But Hippo how is TOAST racist?!'

I hate you shut up.

The "isn't even notable" part is what gets me. I enjoyed her when she was a hack vlogger but the fucking MRA response and Gamergate have raised her so far above her threshold of competence that she's become a new figurehead for the kind of reactionary, pseudoacademic, clickbait "feminism" that has pretty much turned Feminism from a still-needed social movement* into a marketing tool.




*more like a general term for a bunch of independent but related grass roots movements, because "feminism" as some kind of unified movement of all women is naively reductive at best. A lot of nominal Feminists have had a lot invested in the status quo for quite some time now. It seems to be the nature of non-revolutionary social movements to get maybe 75% of the way there and then hit a point where heir power elite realizes on some (typically unconscious) level that achieving their goals would end their careers, and that's when the ladders get pulled up and the power structure starts to go more and more vertical. At least revolutionaries get to raise some ruckus before they turn in to the thing they were revolting against in the first place.

I'm a bit cynical about social movements these days.

And I tend to be most upset about the ones that I'm most sympathetic toward, because their failure is really frustrating.

Also, I get what she's trying to say here and it's not any kind of great insight but I can't imagine any context would make the WAY it's said any less tone deaf and self congratulatory and it makes me almost ashamed that I used to enjoy her videos.

>>any feminist worth their salt will admit that their feminism is reflective of society, and in some ways, inevitably will always display elements of sexism, racism, homophobia,

So what you're saying is, yes, Anita IS racist, sexist, and homophobic...?

I don't see how this is self-congratulatory? If anything, it's a criticism of herself, too -- she's saying 'sexism is everywhere, even in what I'm doing'.

I don't think this is tone-deaf, even out of context -- but that might be because I accept these issues are pervasive. If you don't accept that, then yeah, it might come off as deranged.

Demanding that feminists police their tone constantly to make sure that nothing they say comes off as deranged to those who *don't* accept that these issues are pervasive is essentially demanding they never have a discussion about these issues beyond trying to convince people that these issues are all-pervasive.

What I'm saying is that at a certain point, feminists don't want to talk to non-feminists about feminism; they want to talk to feminists about feminism. And when non-feminists listen in, the shit they say sounds deranged, because the feminists don't need to coddle each other when they talk about this shit.

EvilHomer: Yes. And if you asked her, I bet you her answer would also be 'Yes, of COURSE I am'.

Would she? Is that the point she was making? Can you provide some proof of this? Because taken on it's own, given the lack of any additional context, that does *not* appear to be the point she's making, here in this video.

Now it's possible that may be a point she *would* make, at a different time and place, because as you said, many feminists are "aware" (at least in a very basic, academic sense) that "their feminism" is a product of their society. However, if there's anything to take away from Ms Sarkeesian, it's that it is unwise to put words in her mouth, and one must take care not to run afoul of the No True Scots(wo)man fallacy.

It's also important to remember that the *first* part of your quoted sentence is the one that matters, not the second. The second part merely deals with incidentals; transient properties which may or may not be valid for any given society at any given point in time. For example, I do NOT think that there's any evidence to support the claim that Ms Sarkeesian is "homophobic". She wouldn't be, either, because she is a product of a post-1970s, liberal artsy, academic environment - the society to which she belongs, which directly informs her own biases, is fashionably homophilic, and has been since before she was born. Now sexist, that I don't doubt for a minute; she's demonstrated her sexism on numerous occasions. I also wouldn't be surprised if she had hangups based around social class, educational background, or religious affiliation. But homophobic? Really? Please provide some evidence for this, because I would love to see Anita disparaging the LGBT movement.

I don't know enough about Anita to say; I just know that a lot of reasonable third-wave feminists accept that sexism / racism / homophobia are all problems that are entangled and represented in feminism, and I'm willing to bet that Anita is at least tacitly familiar with this.

Also, EvilHomer, if you think that Anita probably wouldn't be homophobic because she was raised in an artsy liberal post-1970s academic environment, then it's very clear that when we say 'homophobic', we are talking about two entirely different things. You also kind of imply that you think 'homophilia' is the opposite of 'homophobia', which is... yeah. No.

>>There are fish that don't go for bait as eagerly as JHM.

Hey, it's Hooker! Is Nominal here yet?

Hooker, since you apparently haven't noticed, I should explain that the shitty treatment of women on the Internets is a favorite topic of mine that I love to discuss... but seriously, why single me out when there have been 50 posts in this thread in just a few hours? Anita is Catnip to PoeTV.

OK then, Great Hippo. Define "homophobic", as you are using the term.

"The Great Hippo
I don't see how this is self-congratulatory? If anything, it's a criticism of herself, too -- she's saying 'sexism is everywhere, even in what I'm doing'.

I don't think this is tone-deaf, even out of context -- but that might be because I accept these issues are pervasive. If you don't accept that, then yeah, it might come off as deranged."

Exactly my point. I get what she's going for here because this stuff has been completely self evident to me since I was like 15, but presented like this iu's not going to win over anyone who doesn't already get it and if you DO already get it it's so basic that I guess I just don't see the point. It seems like preaching to the choir to me, and setting up a binary between the chosen, enlightened ones who get it and the unwashed masses who need to be taught (which isn't even necessarily that wrong as Gamergate has shown more than adequately, but as A PUBLIC FIGURE SPEAKING AT A PUBLIC EVENT ON THE PUBLIC RECORD it seem ill advised at best, arrogant at worst and regardless of intent it will only serve to alienate the people she should be trying to reach.

It's arguing-on-the-internet with a veneer of academic respectability.

OZ: "I get what she's going for here because this stuff has been completely self evident to me since I was like 15, but presented like this iu's not going to win over anyone who doesn't already get it"

Right, and that's *my* point -- that these conversations aren't always directed at people who *don't* get it. Sometimes, feminists want to talk to people who *do* get it, so they can relax and say things without having to worry about how all the anti-feminists are going to take it. And yeah, sometimes feminists are having those conversations in public venues. And I don't think it's wrong of them to do so.

EH: "OK then, Great Hippo. Define "homophobic", as you are using the term."

I don't know if I can give you a precise definition that you will accept. I know that being 'homophilic' doesn't somehow make you non-homophobic; for example, tropes like 'fag hags' can contribute to fetishizing homosexuality. While there's room to call things like 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' empowering, there's also room to call them supporting a homophobic narrative -- where homosexuals are nothing more than palatable stereotypes here to help straight people keep their appearance sharp and 'fashionable'. I mean, I don't think that's a discussion I'm equipped to have -- but it's a discussion that can happen, and it's way bigger than your definition of homophobia would ever allow.

I'm not the best person to talk to about what homophobia means, but I can tell you that if you think it *just* means saying disparaging things about the LGBT community, then you're not listening to the LGBT community when they talk about homophobia.

"Demanding that feminists police their tone constantly to make sure that nothing they say comes off as deranged to those who *don't* accept that these issues are pervasive is essentially demanding they never have a discussion about these issues beyond trying to convince people that these issues are all-pervasive."

You do realize that demanding Feminists not criticize the words or acts of other even if they believe these words or acts are detrimental to Feminism is also policing tone, right?

Yes. But I'm okay with that sort of policing -- because demanding that all feminists everywhere always check their language to ensure that it creates maximum 'Feminist Points' and minimum 'Man-Tear Points' is stupid and counter-productive.

"Right, and that's *my* point -- that these conversations aren't always directed at people who *don't* get it. Sometimes, feminists want to talk to people who *do* get it, so they can relax and say things without having to worry about how all the anti-feminists are going to take it. And yeah, sometimes feminists are having those conversations in public venues. And I don't think it's wrong of them to do so."

The world is more than feminists and antifeminists. I guess I feel like the most useful role of discussion in a public forum is to educate, and that education is a dialectic process (which is my own ideological bias I guess).

I don't care about hearing a definition *I* would accept, what I am interested in is the definition *you* would accept. It doesn't really matter how I use the term�; for the purposes of this discussion, I'm fine taking the cue from you, just so long as you can tell me what you mean when you use the word.

And "homophilic" is a neologism, coined simply to provide an antonym for "homophobic". You needn't take "homophilic" at it's literal constituent value (loving gays"), no more "homophobic" has to literally mean "being afraid of gays".


� to be honest, I *don't* really use the term "homophobic", at least not unless the person I am talking to used it first, as I believe that term is inherently problematic, being a) false (the idea that one has to be "afraid of gays" in order to oppose homosexuality, or even to oppose the specific expression of LGBT-activism being espoused by the word's current user, is patently absurd) and b) far too negatively loaded to be of any use, intellectually speaking (it's a Hooray Term for ideologues and propagandists, not a neautral term for mature, rational thinkers).

'The world is more than feminists and antifeminists. I guess I feel like the most useful role of discussion in a public forum is to educate, and that education is a dialectic process (which is my own ideological bias I guess).'

While it's certainly true that feminists might be more effective if they always spoke in a way that didn't offend the sensibilities of every potential listener, to expect that of them -- to expect that of *anyone* -- is deranged.

There's something very objectifying about being told that you're not serving your cause as effectively as you could. As if everything that every feminist is can be quantified into how effectively they persuade their audience; as if feminists are nothing *BUT* feminists, all the time.

Look, you try it: I bet you could convince people of your points much more effective if you never insulted anyone for anything. So, from now on, don't insult people. Ever. For anything. Because any insult you use could potentially reduce your credibility. Because you aren't a 'good' activist unless you are ALWAYS an activist, working at 100% peak Activist Efficiency, 24-7.

EvilHomer: I actually don't think I'm well-versed enough to throw a definition of homophobia out there that *I* would readily accept, either. And I agree that 'homophobic' is potentially inflammatory, but I also believe mature minds can easily sidestep its inflammatory nature. However...

'You needn't take "homophilic" at it's literal constituent value (loving gays"), no more "homophobic" has to literally mean "being afraid of gays".'

'the idea that one has to be "afraid of gays" in order to oppose homosexuality, or even to oppose the specific expression of LGBT-activism being espoused by the word's current user, is patently absurd'

This is why I'm not really interested in having a discussion with you on this topic. You often contradict yourself ('homophobic does not have to literally mean 'afraid of gays'' - 'I oppose homophobic as a term because it means 'afraid of gays'), you don't tend to actually take the time to read people's posts, and I don't think you have a good grasp on this issue (homosexuality, homophobia, and LGBT rights in general). My own grasp on this issue isn't very good, either -- so it would be like the severely myopic leading the blind.

If you genuinely want to learn about this stuff, I recommend you read some LGBT blogs.

Hippo, how am I insulting you? I'm not insulting you, at least not intentionally - I certainly apologize if I am - and I *am* reading everything you write. All I'm asking is that you define your terms.

You evidently have a problem with the way I use the word, and that's fine. As you say, the word "homophobic" is poorly defined, and in my experience, no two people use the word in exactly the same way (again, see my comments in why I, personally, don't like to use it except in response to someone who does). So... how do you want me to use the word? When speaking to you, what is a definition that you will aceept, and will not be upset about? Don't tell me you're angry at me for using the word in a manner you apparently don't agree with, then when pressed to clarify, turn around and say that you have no clue what the word means...!

I mean, YOU brought up homophobia. When you said that word, surely it meant *something* to you...?!

Three quick additional points:

1. You claim that I contradicted myself, but that is not the case. Perhaps I could have been more clear, but when I say the term is "false", I am referring to the literal reading of its constituent parts (which was, I hasten to point out, the apparent original intended meaning of the term, as well as the shade-of-meaning most commonly recognized within vernacular usage). Now, as I said earlier in the post, it is certainly possible to read "homophobic" nonliterally! In fact, one HAS to read the word "homophobic" nonliterally in order to derive any intellectually useful meaning from it, and that makes it *a bad term*.

You see?

For example, I might invent a term, "Hippo-intolerant", to describe people who enjoy the company of The Great Hippo. "Enjoying the company of The Great Hippo" is what the term *means*, yet the literal meaning, the meaning we are invited to read upon first encountering the term, is something totally different, in some ways, opposite of the "true" meaning. For this reason, I think that we'd both agree that "Hippo-intolerant" is a bullshit term and inadequate for the meaning we wish to convey.

2. Your own inability to define the word "homophobic", despite the fact that you evidently have no problem using it yourself, brings me to another problem that I have with the word: c) it is poorly defined and rarely understood. This ties in with b) (the pejorative nature of the term) and a) (the falseness of its literal meaning), but the definitional problems go beyond that. How can people use a word, so easily and so often, without actually knowing what it means? Without actually understanding, nor perhaps even caring to understand, what they are saying when they use it? Shades of Orwell.

3. If I don't read your posts, then how is it that I was the only one who seemed to recognize, and even care about, the point you were trying to make re: Anita and the problems of feminism?

You didn't insult me. I didn't claim you insulted me. I'm not angry with you; I'm not even slightly displeased with you. I never said I think homophobic is poorly defined; I said that I don't think I'm capable of defining it. My inability to define something doesn't make it poorly defined to anyone but me.

This is what I mean about reading posts. You don't really seem to read them; you just skim them and see whatever it is you want to see, and respond to *that* -- instead of what was actually said.

'3. If I don't read your posts, then how is it that I was the only one who seemed to recognize, and even care about, the point you were trying to make re: Anita and the problems of feminism?'

I never got the sense that you recognized the point I was trying to make. The whole 'Man I'd love to hear how Anita Sarkeesian disparaged LGBT communities!' comment was kind of the clincher, there; it makes it pretty obvious that you have no idea what I'm talking about.

I keep saying that I don't have an opinion on Sakeesian's videos, because having one would involve a lot of thought and a lot of research, including actually watching the damn things. They're long, dense, and tedious.

However, it's easy to have an opinion of this sort of lazy, reductive shenanigans. This stuff is short, simplistic, and fascinating.

They could have ignored her, and most of us would have never heard of her. But they just can't help themselves.

Saving it to my favorites so I can reply to all future Sarkeesian videos with this.
Your comments here have just been invalidated, BAM!
http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=143798

How meta.

Hey John, sorry about the Anita reveal.

Did you like your picture? If you didn't, that's OK, I will try and fix it in between LotsMoreOrcs; it's just that I don't even know if you saw it.

I've watched all of them. They'd be a solid if thin undergraduate thesis project in 1998. They bring absolutely nothing new to the table and don't deserve any of the attention they're getting.

The big irony is that Gamergate made her career, and as much as they flip out about her, the attention she is getting seems like it's drawing attention away from feminists who are actually trying to, you know, IMPROVE SOCIETY in general and women's role in it in particular, rather than than sit inside an ideological bubble and not move.

I mean, I'm no great social activist by any stretch but at least I'm not actively holding things back in the name of "progress."

I somehow doubt that the reason all the "good" feminists aren't getting attention is because some lady who talks about sexist video games on the internet is hogging it all for herself.

Like, do you genuinely believe that if Anita just shut up and went away, people would suddenly start caring about feminism?

"Yeah the pay wage gap sucks, but there's this lady talking shit about Portal 2 on the internet so I say fuck it, feminism is on its own"

"Socially conservative Republicans are waging a war on women's reproductive autonomy, so I think we should -- oh fuck wait Anita posted another video about how Diablo portrays women as sex objects, that's *way* more important"

If some lady posting videos on the internet is all it takes to stop you from paying attention to important shit, I don't think the important shit was ever very important to you.

There are fish that don't go for bait as eagerly as JHM.

>>I mean, I'm no great social activist by any stretch but at least I'm not actively holding things back in the name of "progress."

Fuck you. Because of the shitstorm she inspired, as one writer put it, 2014 became "the year people started to care about online harassment." That's WAY beyond huge.

I have no opinion about her videos, whether she's right or wrong, but that hardly matters. As a lightning rod, she's incredibly important, and incredibly positive, and I admire her for exactly the same reason I admire Boxxy, because she's taken all the web's crazy misogynist shit with dignity and grace, and is forcing the bullies into the light of day, and that is having a civilizing effect on the culture. If I was in her position, I'd be terrified and depressed. I'\d want to stop. I made a couple of anti gamergate videos, and I had to open a separate account with a separate name because I'm such a pussy.

I'm not a gamer. To me, this isn't about gaming, it's about the internet, but to Anita Sarkeesian, I'm really convinced that it's about gaming. She likes games. Her Ted talk features a slide of her playing a video game as girl of about ten. On Demiocracy Now, Amy Goodman started talking about one of the games she had criticized, like it was some kind of horrible evil thing, and Anita stopped her, and made the point, that, aside from the criticism of sexist tropes, she also thought it was a great game.

I see her in that video lectrure when she denies being a gamer to a classroom of young feminists, and I think it's pretty clear that she's lying here, and not when she says in an interview that she's loved games all her life, which is what ever Gamergater assumes because it confirms their assumptions. But it's not hard to imagine a feminist critic working in academia being in the closet as a gamer. I believe that Feminist Frequency represents Anita Sarkeesian's attempt to reconcile her passion and her beliefs, and make gaming acceptable for feminists.

She's said it more than once, and for all I know she says it in every video.

"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 its more problematic or pernicious aspects."

This kind of complex, nuanced thinking may not be new to academia, but isn't it kind of new to you tube?

Homer, you seem to be aware of my Twitter account, could you please send a link there where I can find it when I'm ready to look at it? I want to see it, I expect to like it, but if it's a picture of my dead cat, I need a little emotional distance. The past few weeks has just been insane. The city give my disabled friend with a hoarding problem about two weeks to move all of her stuff out of her home so that the landlord could start to get it up to code. My cat died, and me and both my parents had a birthday. I'm approaching old age, they're approaching... what comes after old age.

As you get older, death moves from the background to the forground. People you remember as younger start to drop off. When Jack Benny and Bing Crosby died, that was one thing. Now it's Lou Reed and Leonard Nimoy. So yeah, I'm in a weird place.

Yeah, it's weird how whenever someone gets famous for activism, people immediately start acting like activism is a zero-sum game and she's taking precious Feminism Points off the table which could be used to power-up one of the "good" feminists.

It's also interesting how people who use this argument never seem to be able to provide the name of one of these mythical "real" feminists who Sarkeesian is stealing Importance from. Probably because she doesn't exist; she's a mythical imaginary being who somehow ends sexism forever without requiring men to contribute in any way, without saying anything that makes guys on the internet uncomfortable, and probably while flashing her tits and doing a little dance.

I posted this in the wrong place, so I'm just going to paste it down here at the bottom.

John Holmes Motherfucker
>>There are fish that don't go for bait as eagerly as JHM.

Hey, it's Hooker! Is Nominal here yet?

Hooker, since you apparently haven't noticed, I should explain that the shitty treatment of women on the Internets is a favorite topic of mine that I love to discuss... but seriously, why single me out when there have been 50 posts in this thread in just a few hours? Anita is Catnip to PoeTV.

Oh, yes. This _whole_ thing makes me disappointed. But everyone else is coming at it from a perspective of taking sides on feminism. You invariably come at it from your particularly creepy this-woman-needs-to-be-rescued perspective. Yes, you like to talk about women that need rescuing on the Internet. EXACTLY.

I don't have a Twitter account, but it may not be finished for a week or two, so if you need some time then I will touch it up, sign up for Twitter, and send it to you then.

Oh, yes. This _whole_ thing makes me disappointed. But everyone else is coming at it from a perspective of taking sides on feminism. You invariably come at it from your particularly creepy this-woman-needs-to-be-rescued perspective. Yes, you like to talk about women that need rescuing on the Internet. EXACTLY.

OH REALLY? Let's have a look:

I have no opinion about her videos, whether she's right or wrong, but that hardly matters. As a lightning rod, she's incredibly important, and incredibly positive, and I admire her for exactly the same reason I admire Boxxy, because she's taken all the web's crazy misogynist shit with dignity and grace, and is forcing the bullies into the light of day, and that is having a civilizing effect on the culture. If I was in her position, I'd be terrified and depressed. I'\d want to stop. I made a couple of anti gamergate videos, and I had to open a separate account with a separate name because I'm such a pussy.

Fuck you, you obtuse uncomprehending waste of flesh. Learn to fucking read.

As usual, Hooker, by the time you read this, I will have already forgotten that you exist, until our next ridiculous encounter.

"Name three games" ring any bells?

How about a Master's Thesis for merely watching T.V.?

I have as much use for her as I did for Jack Thompson.

>>"Name three games" ring any bells?

No.

>>How about a Master's Thesis for merely watching T.V.?

Still coming up empty. Anyone?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2G3lM2opf0

&

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szfhRRxJNmQ

OH MY GOD HE CITES THUNDERF00T, apparently without irony!

https://youtu.be/EC-dqyaDXGc

>> You invariably come at it from your particularly creepy this-woman-needs-to-be-rescued perspective. Yes, you like to talk about women that need rescuing on the Internet. EXACTLY.

(masturbates into fedora)

I don't know what compels you to come up with these lurid fantasies, Hooker, but I wish you'd find someone else to obsess over. Women like Anita Sarkeesian, Catie Wayne and Laci Green are stronger than and more courageous than I can ever dream of being.

I do try to advocate for editing. Editing is not censorship. Censorship is when you control your own website. I think it's fine that there are unmoderated spaces on the web, but does everyplace have to be like that? We've all got a million places to publish our ridiculous opinions. No one will be silenced, if someone chooses to exercise a little quality control, so that the people who aren't shouting can be heard occasionally. You have a right to hold a Klan Rally, but not in my living room.

Jesus Motherfucking Christ, Pillager, are you for real? I just watched that first video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2G3lM2opf0

It's hard to tell by the abysmal editing, but apparently the implication seems to be that because she refuses to single anyone out for an attack, she... what? Can't name three games off the top of her head? Are fucking kidding me?

Clearly, there is no such things as attack on Anita Sarkeesian that is too retarded for her detractors to take seriously.

I thought you were going to forget I exist until my next post?

Wishful thinking, I guess.

https://youtu.be/jwlYo8EYTWI

Thunderf00t in a nutshell.

"Sarkeesian got rich off of Kickstarter donations" kids have replaced 9/11 Truthers as my favorite group of deluded internet conspiracy cultists.

I mean, if the Truthers somehow turned out to be right, that would be a pretty big deal with wide-reaching implications. If the Sarkessian theorists turned out to be right, it...wouldn't matter at all, because one woman having money doesn't magically make gaming culture not sexist. So I mean, at least the Truthers are screaming about something that would actually matter if it were true.

If she did it to make a lot of money, wouldn't she have asked for a lot more money?

i see you that article and raise you http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/03/dont_hate_her_because_shes_ suc.html

How long must we rescue Princess Peach before we say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH."

That's true, however, its unfortunate the way this clip will fuel her opposition. It makes it seem as though no matter what we're flawed so why even try to improve? Gamergaters are morons, but I'm not really a fan of hers. I just feel there are better feminist voices out there, but she chose a gaming angle and was able to gain fame off of it. Its just like all the youtubers who can gain fame off of Lets Play videos, or gaming commentary. Contemporary feminism must have something better than this to throw into the front lines!

People are into video games.

It's why people make videos about them, and it's why the videos are popular, and it's why they matter, to people who are into video games. There's no reason, other than trumped up evidence, to suppose that Anita Sarkeesian is making videos about games for any other reason. Personally, I'm a Solitaire man. I play it on my my phone whenever I'm bored.

This wouldn't be of such universal importance if assholes weren't losing their shit. This wouldn't be "the front lines" if assholes weren't losing their shit. But they are, so there it is.

*looks around nervously*

*puts fedora back on*

This is the straw man you're setting up on this site?
Really?
What a fucking asshole you are.

This is probably one of the best comments I've seen on the site, Xenocide.


I guess the question I have for critics of Sarkeesian, especially on poetv is, if Anita Sarkeesian is a penis devouring demon, does that mean sexism does not exist?

It is possible to recognize Sarkeesian as a mediocre culture vulture while still admitting that sexism is a serious problem in the tech industry especially.

It's certainly a valid opinion. Her videos are certainly boring as hell. The value of Sarkeesian is that she refuses to be silenced. For that, I would kiss her ass on National TV.

Every day, I love Xeno more.

LONG LIVE THE NEW MATURITY

I hope she doesn't wear a fedora or play a video game when she does it, because that would REALLY scare me!

I knew you had no self-respect EH, but you're afraid of yourself too? That's just tragic.

Its a scary world man. I just watched the MLP:FIM season 5 premier. The Mane 6 was kidnapped by the Equestrian Equalists and for almost a whole episode Applejack was made equal to other ponies and sank to a point where even Rainbow Dash was as cool as her.

Sudan - we all have our folk demons. Evidently, yours are nerds.


Cena - I still haven't seen the new episode, but apparently it made ChrisChan cry...!

Don't be getting all preachy SDN1. Sarkeesian isn't meant to be taken too seriously. That's the whole trouble with her, is that people on both sides take her seriously. She's a dork in pastel colored flannel, period.

Seriously, one can't even critique her without being accused of wearing fedoras. I have never worn a fedora ever. I never thought they were cool.

The difference is I don't have to make dumb youtube videos to make nerds look bad. :/

If you think "I don't even wear a fedora!" will make people bring it up less, you don't understand the social dynamics of poeTV.

I'm a flat cap kind of guy myself, and when I was younger, berets and a re-creation 1917 Aviator's Helmet which I bought at Rhinebeck Aerodrome. Fedoras are terrible.

I really miss my Biggles Hat. Biggles Hat, Doc Martens, and rugby shirts used to be my jam for pretty much all of middle school.

Total change of subject, but hey Cena! Have you ever been on the Eagle? That lady Coastie I've been seeing, I guess she did a number of tours (or whatever you call them) as permanent party onboard the Eagle. From what I gather, i's like a combination OCS cutter and official Coastie party-boat, right? Is it really famous? Do you guys get to see it? The pictures I've seen look pretty cool; I hope the Coast Guard lets you guys hang out on it once in awhile.

I'm hoping that the current wave of Fedora hate means I can go back to wearing a beret.

Everyone who gets mad about fedoras is like half your age, John. Why would you care what they think? Just wear your beret, you big baby.

Nope, never been on Eagle. Its a steel hulled sailing ship. Originally a prize capture from Nazi Germany. Its used for show and as a training ground for CG Academy cadets so they can handle lines and do other things they'll never actually have to do once they graduate. I've never seen it in person, nor do I care to. Who wants to hang out with freakin' cadets?

>>I've never seen it in person, nor do I care to. Who wants to hang out with freakin' cadets?

Wikipedia says it travels all over the world and serves as the main goodwill ambassador for the USCG, so: just about everyone, apparently.

And what's going to happen when all the oil runs out and the Coast Guard's forced to go back to either sails or rower-slaves? You'll be wishing you knew how to sail a tall ship when they've got you shackled to a galley oar.

Actually, EH, being in some kind of U.S. Naval organization might be where access to the next big power source is to be had:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

A fedora always looked great on Sinatra, but he was a skinny guy in a suit. It looks ridiculous on a fat kid in a Star Wars T Shirt.

My stars are for you.

Anita is the product of decades of first-world feminist navel gazing. Those of her ilk wouldn't exist if feminism had anything left to fight for in the western world. The hard battles (women's suffrage and reproductive rights) took place in a truly hostile environment (turn-of-the-century America) when something tangible was at stake (the American promise of individual liberty). The revolution was over by the time it was codified, branded, and turned into a college course for bra-burning Baby Boomers of upper-middle-class extraction.

I don't think that's anything new, Mr Hooker. I tend to avoid Anita discussions and/or skrimp them with tulpa fiction, but from my observations, poeTV has never really been "anti-Sarkeesian", at least not in the stereotypical "boogiemen from 4chan" sense. The "battle lines" have always been between poesters who are reflexively pro-Sarkeesian/anti-nerd/gameophobic, and poesters who are pro-feminist, yet simply feel that Anita's work is shoddy and her views are unrepresentative of both feminism and gaming culture as a whole.

I know I'll regret this, but: What's tulpa?

carrot

She's looking an awful lot like Monica Lewinsky these days.

And now she's wearing black to hide it.

Funny you should mention that, Mr Wildcat, because I also find Monica Lewinsky attractive.

Another link please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z4m4lnjxkY

Jzcs4ti_bdI

As in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzcs4ti_bdI#t=1951

Hopefully there's no extra damned space in that one.

Why is PoeTV a ghetto, again?

You want to use tinyurl or some other url shortener for posting them in the comments.

http://goo.gl/o5xTsU

^comments like this justify the "masturbatory navel gazing" critique