I'm convinced that Anita Sarkeesian is a troll

[Deleted]

She is just 100% opportunistic. Faking outrage/victimhood to get money, and doing it very well.

Im pretty sure she knows most of what she is saying is bullshit.

[OrcsRLame]

I might not have been clear, making an argument in a video is great, however hopefully an audience that might take that from YouTube isn't going to do so then put it somewhere else, and preface it as badly as some of the examples, I mentioned.

People can make whatever argument they want, and whether it is me or someone else, I recognize a person can not do an argument justice, it's probably one of my weaknesses and why don't argue other's points of view either. Carrying someone else's argument is very tricky. I don't like to speak on anyone else's behalf, except myself from whatever perspective, and I simply support.

As for Sargon of Akkad because it is you here it goes, I think he does too much hyperbole, I think he might have some genuinely great points, but he disguises it, maybe there is a method to his madness, or maybe it's because he is a coward and always likes to leave himself an exit if he gets backed into a corner.

It's obvious I don't like him, and more importantly, I wouldn't trust anything about what he'd say, skin in the game is a pretty important criteria. I am not a WOMAN, so unlike say Anita, I don't actually have any skin in the game, I can always decide to abandon Feminism any time I want. I don't say that is some kind of position to play, I am stating it as a fact.

Now just because I am a guy, doesn't mean I am going to agree with everything a woman or other feminist says, but I have to observe and respect that our perspectives aren't the same, right or wrong.

Sargon of Akkad, has NO skin in the game, and not only do I not trust him, I have no respect for his tactics. Ridicule can be a powerful tool, but if someone punches below their weight they are a coward, sorry.

I rather take on a giant and get my ass kicked and learn something rather than take empty shots and weak targets.

I have seen Sargon of Akkad embarrass himself more than once, and Armored Skeptic can't save his ass either. Armored Skeptic who contrary to Sargon of Akkad I can say Armored is head and shoulders above Sargon and I don't trust or rely on anything Armored says either.

Another big thing I don't like too much, I realize people have teams or specific perspectives, and loyalty is a thing, taking one for the team and whatever nonsense, but at some point kind of like in WoW people have to NOT be carried.

I mean I get it, someone likes someone, they want to jump in help them out, but overall I think it goes against being considered serious on any issue. Sometimes people take credit for others, but they also take the hits.


As for you, I think you can do it, I think video can be complicated animal, because let's face it, there are a lot of dumbfucking people that say a lot of dumb shit and make bad arguments, but only get clicks because well it's video.

Don't get me wrong just because someone has appeal doesn't mean they have bad arguments either, but I think if you want to be popular you have to play the game and that's fine sort of.

But when I say appeal I don't mean LOOKS alone, you have to throw in a certain way to get attention and sustain an audience, I give all that do the credit that are successful and last a while a lot of respect.

Especially if they use their platform for something. Even if it's to challenge ideas, as I said sometimes there can be a method to the madness. I think the trick is to adjust so the madness doesn't take over.

So I don't know maybe you might need a schtick haha.

However if you want to do it the hard way, like you know actually forgo all the nonsense, and gain an audience slowly of people of a specific type, well then you are probably going to have like 12 subs HAAHAHA!

But if you build and get better, you for sure seem to have the ability to do it, I mean you know the kinds of models you can build with.

Just be careful not to burn yourself out, because most of the time MOST of the time that is exactly what I notice.

Not giving advice just what I notice.

Personally I prefer quality over quantity, I rather befriend and surround myself with smarter people, people that actually are interesting and bring something to the table. Even if I disagree with them, I know I am going to learn something even if I lose.

I mean maybe it doesn't seem as awesome as having a gaggle of idiots to be easily validated by if you tell them what they like to hear, but I know for a fact I can rely on and trust the select few I do.

I agree with most of what you said here. I guess that my biggest point of contention is that I don't think "skin in the game" matters when you get right down to it. An idea is right or wrong independent of where the idea comes from. This is a bit of a tangent, but philosophy and politics will become very interesting when Artificial Intelligence gets advanced enough to curate large amounts of data and reach conclusions based on that data. Imagine a world where an AI can scan everything that's ever been put on the internet, and using pure reason answer difficult questions in a complex format. "There probably is no God." "Climate Change is real, but xy and z commonly held ideas about Climate Change aren't true. Vaccines don't cause Autism." I'm not sure if the world where you can ask Robot God what is true is actually a world I want to live in, but I think regardless of my wants we will eventually get there.

I guess my point with that long tangent about AI is that objective truths do exist, and I think it's worth it to pursue them. That's why the idea of identity based perspective doesn't resonate with me. If you were to ask Robot God, "Are the assertions made by feminism true?" the answer it returns will not be different based on if it's a man or a woman asking the question. That's not to say that identity does not produce different experiences, because it does, but rather, different identities do not produce different truths. This is why anything related to postmodernism is tainted in my eyes. I use the word postmodernism a lot, so I should probably define it in case you or others don't know about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism From the Wikipedia article, "Postmodernism describes a broad movement that developed in the mid- to late 20th century across philosophy, the arts, architecture and criticism which marked a departure from modernism. While encompassing a broad range of ideas, postmodernism is typically defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony or rejection toward grand narratives, ideologies and various tenets of universalism, including objective notions of reason, human nature, social progress, moral universalism, absolute truth, and objective reality. Instead, it asserts to varying degrees that claims to knowledge and truth are products of social, historical or political discourses or interpretations, and are therefore contextual or socially constructed. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, irreverence and self-referentiality."

The bolded parts are total deal breakers for me. To me, it's madness to be skeptical of the concept of reason and objective reality. That's a freaking paradox. It's an assertion that identity and society literally changes what is true and what is real. Not what is commonly thought of to be real, but what is actually real. It's the idea that my color red may not be the same as your color red. That when I say computer you hear glib glorp and when you say glib glorp I hear computer. So to me, any philosophy that has its origins in postmodernism is something I reject out of hand. That's kind of my big hang up with specifically intersectional feminism, which is the type of feminist that Anita is. It's a postmodern philosophy.

As for Sargon, I think he has two main failings. The first is that he is too quick to anger. My analysis of him, is that he ridicules people because he's genuinely angry, and that is how he deals with his anger. He turns what makes him angry into something he can laugh at. His other big failing is that he spends time arguing about people, (and about himself) instead of just rising above that crap and discussing the principles. To his credit he has recognized that the latter is a problem.

Concerning Armored Skeptic. I've never really watched much of his stuff. I know he lost a lot of subscribers when he went really sellout for this app called Candid that was a "free speech social media app" that was actually just collecting people's data for whatever reason. The few times I have listened to him, he didn't seem like a bad guy, he just seemed kind of stupid. I don't mean to disparage the guy and be like, "Skeptic is a poopy head!" I just didn't find his arguments to be very salient or coherent compared to other people that I had heard talk about similar subjects. That was a few years ago though, maybe he's gotten better.

[Deleted]

Who is she?

[Mehrunes]

<Snip>

Now, that's a well-thought and enjoyable post. However, it's utterly wasted on the addressee. I mean, just it being Mall should be enough to determine that. But there's more. In the very post you replied to he squirmed his way out of stating any specifics because he knows what he said was indefensible (OK, "know" is not the perfect word here since it's Mall, who's worse than Jon Snow in knowledge department). Hell, what he said was preemptive blind zealotry type of defense towards Sarkeesian. To top it off, he even felt the need to assure you out of nowhere (I wonder why) that he's not being obtuse on this when he's the all-time (future candidates included) champion of obtuseness association.

He even incorrectly phrased it as a refusal to give sources rather than examples. Which is weird. Not weird because it's a mistake, since everyone can make one like that, but it's weird his mind picked the word "source" out of any other mistake options given how he doesn't even believe in the concept of sources (to Mall, the moment a person uses a source to back their argument they actually lose the argument because they "have to rely on someone's else argument and whom they parrot), which is yet another reason why writing long winded posts to him is an exercise in futility. Case in point, the post below:

As to the Hitman thing, again her perspective her opinion and I agreed, killing the stripper was in there regardless to the consequences you sustain for doing so, now the counter is what about the men in the game, well if they aren't actually targets in the game it is just as fucked up.

If you murdered some BUM in a Ally of Hitman, just because the game gets harder doesn't mean there isn't some psychological reward for doing it, shit GTA did and does this now, and if you kill a Hooker the police will come after you too.

The point is that it is in the game, she is Feminist Frequency, that is her deal, and she is pointing out how a woman in a game and gamers who are male dominating are can kill a stripper, which unless you like EASY mode, it very well come be a reward.

In regards to the part in bold, good job genius, you just defeated her argument. Because the argument was about it being sexist. You know, discriminating against women. Because Sarkeesian in all her integrity hand-waved away the very fact you can do this to male NPCs. Even if she didn't, the idea that killing the female NPCs is "carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality" while she'd at best pay lip service to the male NPCs would be special pleading. I.e. devoid of any value.

And before you bore me with the hurr durring that's expected from you about how this is totally valid because "muh feminist theory is a legit lens to look at things all on its own", brushing the things about male characters under the carpet is not feminist theory. Because feminist at large is about situation of women as compared to men. Because the very measure by which we determine something is inferior is comparison, in feminism the point of comparison is men. So when Sarkeesian deliberately ignores how male characters are represented or treated, even within the same game, she does not engage in just interpreting things through feminist theory, she engages in cherry-picking the data to interpret through feminist theory.

Back to Hitman specifically, as already somewhat covered above, the claim you made in the last paragraph how she merely points out how male players can kill strippers is an abject lie (well, par for the course for you). She points it out, paints it as muh sexism by deliberately selecting the data to support that and then said the game encourages it.

And what psychological reward? Nice of you to bring up GTA by the way. Because just like early GTA games, Hitman has a score system. And GTA games awarding score for killing civilians was one of the reasons it was widely criticized on moral grounds. Including on the grounds of psychological rewards. Because in-game behavior awarding score points is the basic psychological mechanisms of games in general, not just video games. Hell, it's the reason those GTA games were altered in places like Germany, to remove the score system. And how does Hitman factor into it? It lowers your fucking score if you do so. Look at all dat reward. Look at all that encouragement from the game.

Also, what easy mode? It's a game about a silent, very professional contract killer, the very fantasy behind the game is to kill just your target, at worst those directly in your way, like guards. You're not supposed to kill the civilian NPCs. They are killable for immersion reasons because immortal characters in a game about an assassin kinda shit all over that. The game penalizing you for behavior that's undesirable because of the whole point of the game does not make the intended play style "easy mode".

By your moronic "logic", killing civilians is still easy mode compared to just rushing in guns blazing through all the guards (who, weirdly enough, are mostly male and in this scenario would be cannon fodder, so yay for misandry in Hitman /s). And not sitting in AoE in WoW would also be "easy mode". Because reasons. This is just the cherry on top of the proof that your post is the equivalent of an utter train wreck, where the train was 100 wagons long, with all of them being filled to the brim with manure. Then again, it's also as per usual.

[Deleted]

Now, that's a well-thought and enjoyable post. However, it's utterly wasted on the addressee. I mean, just it being Mall should be enough to determine that. But there's more. In the very post you replied to he squirmed his way out of stating any specifics because he knows what he said was indefensible (OK, "know" is not the perfect word here since it's Mall, who's worse than Jon Snow in knowledge department). Hell, what he said was preemptive blind zealotry type of defense towards Sarkeesian. To top it off, he even felt the need to assure you out of nowhere (I wonder why) that he's not being obtuse on this when he's the all-time (future candidates included) champion of obtuseness association.

He even incorrectly phrased it as a refusal to give sources rather than examples. Which is weird. Not weird because it's a mistake, since everyone can make one like that, but it's weird his mind picked the word "source" out of any other mistake options given how he doesn't even believe in the concept of sources (to Mall, the moment a person uses a source to back their argument they actually lose the argument because they "have to rely on someone's else argument and whom they parrot), which is yet another reason why writing long winded posts to him is an exercise in futility. Case in point, the post below:




In regards to the part in bold, good job genius, you just defeated her argument. Because the argument was about it being sexist. You know, discriminating against women. Because Sarkeesian in all her integrity hand-waved away the very fact you can do this to male NPCs. Even if she didn't, the idea that killing the female NPCs is "carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality" while she'd at best pay lip service to the male NPCs would be special pleading. I.e. devoid of any value.

And before you bore me with the hurr durring that's expected from you about how this is totally valid because "muh feminist theory is a legit lens to look at things all on its own", brushing the things about male characters under the carpet is not feminist theory. Because feminist at large is about situation of women as compared to men. Because the very measure by which we determine something is inferior is comparison, in feminism the point of comparison is men. So when Sarkeesian deliberately ignores how male characters are represented or treated, even within the same game, she does not engage in just interpreting things through feminist theory, she engages in cherry-picking the data to interpret through feminist theory.

Back to Hitman specifically, as already somewhat covered above, the claim you made in the last paragraph how she merely points out how male players can kill strippers is an abject lie (well, par for the course for you). She points it out, paints it as muh sexism by deliberately selecting the data to support that and then said the game encourages it.

And what psychological reward? Nice of you to bring up GTA by the way. Because just like early GTA games, Hitman has a score system. And GTA games awarding score for killing civilians was one of the reasons it was widely criticized on moral grounds. Including on the grounds of psychological rewards. Because in-game behavior awarding score points is the basic psychological mechanisms of games in general, not just video games. Hell, it's the reason those GTA games were altered in places like Germany, to remove the score system. And how does Hitman factor into it? It lowers your fucking score if you do so. Look at all dat reward.

Also, what easy mode? It's a game about a silent, very professional contract killer, the very fantasy behind the game is to kill just your target, at worst those directly in your way, like guards. You're not supposed to kill the civilian NPCs. They are killable for immersion reasons because immortal characters in a game about an assassin kinda shit all over that. The game penalizing you for behavior that's undesirable because of the whole point of the game does not make the intended play style "easy mode".

By your moronic "logic", killing civilians is still easy mode compared to just rushing in guns blazing through all the guards (who, weirdly enough, are mostly male and in this scenario would be cannon fodder, so yay for misandry in Hitman /s). And not sitting in AoE in WoW would also be "easy mode". Because reasons. This is just the cherry on top of the proof that your post is the equivalent of an utter train wreck, where the train was 100 wagons long, with all of them being filled to the brim with manure. Then again, it's also as per usual.

Succinct, aren't you?

[mickybrighteyes]

Which would never have happened had brainless misognyists put her in that position. The only reason any one knows who she is, is because of her critics.

More accurate to say it'd never have happened if people actually checked their facts.

She got to where she is cause no one bothered looking past "feminism" and her victim story.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I agree with most of what you said here. I guess that my biggest point of contention is that I don't think "skin in the game" matters when you get right down to it. An idea is right or wrong independent of where the idea comes from. This is a bit of a tangent, but philosophy and politics will become very interesting when Artificial Intelligence gets advanced enough to curate large amounts of data and reach conclusions based on that data. Imagine a world where an AI can scan everything that's ever been put on the internet, and using pure reason answer difficult questions in a complex format. "There probably is no God." "Climate Change is real, but xy and z commonly held ideas about Climate Change aren't true. Vaccines don't cause Autism." I'm not sure if the world where you can ask Robot God what is true is actually a world I want to live in, but I think regardless of my wants we will eventually get there.

I guess my point with that long tangent about AI is that objective truths do exist, and I think it's worth it to pursue them. That's why the idea of identity based perspective doesn't resonate with me. If you were to ask Robot God, "Are the assertions made by feminism true?" the answer it returns will not be different based on if it's a man or a woman asking the question. That's not to say that identity does not produce different experiences, because it does, but rather, different identities do not produce different truths. This is why anything related to postmodernism is tainted in my eyes. I use the word postmodernism a lot, so I should probably define it in case you or others don't know about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism From the Wikipedia article, "Postmodernism describes a broad movement that developed in the mid- to late 20th century across philosophy, the arts, architecture and criticism which marked a departure from modernism. While encompassing a broad range of ideas, postmodernism is typically defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony or rejection toward grand narratives, ideologies and various tenets of universalism, including objective notions of reason, human nature, social progress, moral universalism, absolute truth, and objective reality. Instead, it asserts to varying degrees that claims to knowledge and truth are products of social, historical or political discourses or interpretations, and are therefore contextual or socially constructed. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, irreverence and self-referentiality."

Unlike most you seem to have the ability to not only stop and go, but slow down and critically think could be what makes you a better evil, JUST KIDDING.

The skin in the game SHOULDN'T matter, but consider this, let say for instance, now I don't live on your block right, you live in a neighborhood, pay taxes, right, and you know suddenly you get one of those referendums because your neighbor gregs, wants to open a strip club in his HOUSE.

Now, let's assume for a moment I think that shit is fucking hilarious, except I don't live in your house, on your street, in your neighborhood or even the same state. However when the vote is given do you think I should get a say?

You don't know me, so maybe I used to live in the neighborhood, I might be really well informed right, but does that change the fact you really don't want this bullshit in your neighborhood?

More importantly are you likely to care?

Because maybe in truth issues don't matter as long as you understand the details and you are intelligent enough to see the big picture. My guess is you probably wouldn't appreciate someone getting that kind of say, neither would I. And maybe that isn't the point because governments make decisions all the time, groups move on behalf of people many times that never even elected them.

So when it comes to feminism, me not being a woman, me not suffering the worst from it, doesn't make it sexist that there are lines for ME.

The bolded parts are total deal breakers for me. To me, it's madness to be skeptical of the concept of reason and objective reality. That's a freaking paradox. It's an assertion that identity and society literally changes what is true and what is real. Not what is commonly thought of to be real, but what is actually real. It's the idea that my color red may not be the same as your color red. That when I say computer you hear glib glorp and when you say glib glorp I hear computer. So to me, any philosophy that has its origins in postmodernism is something I reject out of hand. That's kind of my big hang up with specifically intersectional feminism, which is the type of feminist that Anita is. It's a postmodern philosophy.

Well I get what you are saying and I think I get it, trust me I really do, some women in countries like the middle east are fucking stoned to death for shit, that women in the west don't have to think twice about from fear.

While some woman in the west is bitching about not being cast in some role for a film, again yes I get it, So what you kill a stripper in Hitman, it's a game for entertainment. I am a man, I am a guy, I do get it.

But again I also understand others live a life I am not living, so I am not ever going to tell someone who truly feels suffering that their pain isn't real. Maybe it isn't but you can either try to solve problems and come up with real solutions, or you can ignore real problems for fake ones, and then nothing belittle small problems until they blow up. Priorities.

Don't get me wrong as I said I do NOT agree with Anita on everything nor do I think she should or anybody else get the final cut on someone's artwork or anything else.

Consider her input and those that feel like her, SURE, WHY NOT. That isn't the same as saying well she should get to decide for people. As for people calling her out and challenging her great, if she is wrong let her go down in flames.

But what she does in her personal life, or her being a bitch, or a whore or cunt, is besides the point.

As for Sargon, I think he has two main failings. The first is that he is too quick to anger. My analysis of him, is that he ridicules people because he's genuinely angry, and that is how he deals with his anger. He turns what makes him angry into something he can laugh at. His other big failing is that he spends time arguing about people, (and about himself) instead of just rising above that crap and discussing the principles. To his credit he has recognized that the latter is a problem.

At the end of the day he is just some guy living, I don't agree with his method or what is behind it one way or another, it takes all kinds to make the world go around. Honestly aside from this conversation I really don't think or talk about any of these people. When it comes to reviewing people I don't go by group think. I examine and research for myself, even if at times I have to say I don't KNOW, I am ok with that.

i can say if i just don't like something, but really my personal preferences are simply that, they aren't some objective or important truth at all.

Concerning Armored Skeptic. I've never really watched much of his stuff. I know he lost a lot of subscribers when he went really sellout for his app called Candid that was a "free speech social media app" that was actually just collecting people's data for whatever reason. The few times I have listened to him, he didn't seem like a bad guy, he just seemed kind of stupid. I don't mean to disparage the guy and be like, "Skeptic is a poopy head!" I just didn't find his arguments to be very salient or coherent compared to other people that I had heard talk about similar subjects. That was a few years ago though, maybe he's gotten better.

Same with Armored Skeptic and keep in mind this is a guy who fucking flat out admitted he was so devout in religion he gave up his possessions to join a god damn cult.

Stop and think of that kind of shit, this man is a hard atheist now, and nothing against him and no judgements of his past, but since he did put it up, and to be totally objective, SORRY, I put as much stock in his logic or reason as I would anybody who flat out admitted they were in a cult.

I am not like other people that I believe someone wakes up has a fucking epiphany and then CHANGES or what not, maybe that can happen but not without some real fucking soul searching and still some people never find their blind spot.

I don't watch Armored Skeptic either, but I have seen enough about him to know cult or no cult he is the same fucking guy, and as you said about Sargon Akkad maybe he is angry and that is why they are friends.

Armored has better debating skills I will give him that, and his logic is pretty sound, it's his reasoning though he is way the fuck off with. Keep in mind I don't hate the guy, but he isn't a mystery to me, and I am not singularly impressed by all the people clamouring towards him because he says a lot of shit they like to think too.

See that isn't how the real world works, and ALL of these people Anita, Rubin, Sargon, Armored Skeptic, shit even Laci as she has found out, the same shit you do by which to get famous can be the very means that destroys you in the end.

To be fair I always took Laci by anything she said carefully to, because she is someone who also had a fucking mental break down according to her way way back and being a Mormon so, Meh!

One thing that is ALWAYS true about fame or fake friends in general is NOT being WHO they want you to be or think you should.


As I said before doesn't matter if I like them or not, they will stick around if they are legit or they will simply be devoured eventually, when the crowd has tired of their dancing monkey.

[Pann]

Who is she?

She is a woman who has an opinion on the internet. As you can see for some this simply cannot be ignored or tolerated.

[Mehrunes]

Succinct, aren't you?

I'm not interested in arguing with Mall, which @Laurcus actually did. As I said, that's futile. I merely exposed the total bankruptcy of his post, which is a separate thing.

[Orby]

To be honest it's so easy to be a troll and sound serious now days and make money from it. Especially if you can get attention from that. Contrivesory always gets attention.

It's so easy to be a troll when you are very pro something thats good.

For example we all know there's nothing wrong with diversity as long as it isn't forced, but what if I was to create a twitter account that would hammer diversity in everything. Gain a platform through controversy and popular opinion and make it unpopular among others that would find no issue with it. It's like extremism but extremism for good. Like being an extremist for healthy eating. We all know healthy eating is good, but what if I take it to an extreme and hammer it in, gain a platform from diet specilists and become a twitter and media celebrity, though what may start as a noible idea, then shame everything that doesn't promote healthy eating, shame unhealthy people and shame even healthy people the moment they eat a chocolate bar. :P

This ladies and gentleman is the new breed of troll.

EDIT: Or As @GennGreymane just said below me, maybe trolls are dead, and we are just seeing the rise of 'baiters'

[GennGreymane]

I assumed so (although I would use the term Baiter because trolling is a lost art. Trolling started to die with 4chan.)

Was always confused that certain people would always say "you should not take, XYZ too seriously" but Sarkeesian was the devil despite basically being the same as XYZ.

[downnola]

This is just the cherry on top of the proof that your post is the equivalent of an utter train wreck, where the train was 100 wagons long, with all of them being filled to the brim with manure. Then again, it's also as per usual.

What a wordsmith, I rate this 10/10.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Succinct, aren't you?

Hahaha, and I wouldn't have even seen this text or bullshit had you not replied to it, because I have MehRUNE on fucking ignore. For exactly the kind of nonsense he fucking typed.

[prwraith]

She is a woman who has an opinion on the internet. As you can see for some this simply cannot be ignored or tolerated.

If it was an actual opinion and not a troll nobody would mind.

[Coombs]

She, like so many on twitter and other social media, are unremarkable and use the platform to try and convince themselves otherwise.

[Doctor Amadeus]

If it was an actual opinion and not a troll nobody would mind.

Haha bullshit, it isn't troll, it's just an opinion the usual band of over sensitive types can't help tripping over themselves to hear. I mean fuck I am actually a fan, but I'll be damned if I stalk anybody whether I agreed or disagreed.

[Nyoken]

Yes... she is a moron.....yuck

[prwraith]

Haha bullshit, it isn't troll, it's just an opinion the usual band of over sensitive types can't help tripping over themselves to hear. I mean fuck I am actually a fan, but I'll be damned if I stalk anybody whether I agreed or disagreed.

You're a fan of Anita Sarkesian? Can you say that with a straight face? The video game reviewer who's on record as stating she isn't a fan of games. The woman who were all pretty sure made death threats against herself to be relavent again, the woman who got demolished on the colbert report and was too stupid to realize it?

She is literally a cancer on the internet.

[Deleted]

Imagine if Anita Sarkeesian and Jack Thompson got together.

[Pann]

If it was an actual opinion and not a troll nobody would mind.

"Actual opinion"?!? What you have written does not make even the slightest bit of sense.