I'm convinced that Anita Sarkeesian is a troll

[Kathandira]

There's just no way she can be that blind to not realize the "brainless males serving as a bullet sponge for our hero" has been a trope in countless films.

Combined with the fact she was involved in a pyramid scheme (for those who don't know, watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaPbgNVuaEI), I'm convinced that she's just milking this whole radical feminist thing for money, and she doesn't actually believe the insane shit she spews.

She has lost any and all momentum and credibility a while ago. She is basically a non-topic now-a-days.

[Toogoodman]

I love Anita and when she starts a project I’ve contributed. That said yeah she seems to stir the pot but I like what she articulates even when I disagree totally. She has also helped change my attitude towards certain issues.

She is a bit all over the place in terms of what projects she is doing.

Mall Security troll confirmed

[Gsara]

She jumped on the bandwagon to make money, nothing more, nothing less. Her talking like that in her tweets is her just basically keeping the rent going at this point because we all know by now she is a scam artist.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I think what it all boils down to, to me, is that the folks who overtly serve their agendas have difficulty ever changing their ideas, stance, argument, etc... when new information is presented and instead turn every argument made against their idea or piece of information that challenges their agenda on it's head and back against the people presenting the argument/ data. Rather than being used as a piece of data to analyze and apply to their stance to see if it needs revising, they treat it as an attack on their ideology which for some reason makes them feel even further validated because they are presenting a stance/ argument that apparently needs to be defended against. So, if people are obviously fighting my idea and stance, I must be doing something right!

I'm a scientist so actual factual data and using the scientific method means everything to me. I'm OK with coming up with hypotheses and speculating so long as it's presented as just that, not facts, but best guess based on the current information. What Anita does, and other folks like her, is state their opinion as a valid argument that disregards much of the information out there or ignores the normal state of things. It's like finding a species of lizard in a cave system that hasn't seen the light of day in centuries, and the species evolved naturally to no longer have eyes, or at least not normal ones. Now that you've seen that, you spin some narrative about the cruelty of humans against animals for taking the lizards eyes from them, COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that this is an absolutely normal process that humans had nothing to do with.

That's the level of bullshittery I find coming from Anita on her channel. As I already stated, I find some of the questions she raises to be valid. Again, as a scientist I highly value critical feedback and questioning everything to make sure you're doing the right thing for the right reasons and that the you're getting as much information as possible before moving forward. However, I find her overall stance and argument to be bullshit because it seems to completely ignore social norms and context and refuses to acknowledge valid arguments or data that contradict it.

Yeah everyone has an agenda in fact so much that you the very foundations of simple dialogue can never be trusted at least on most things, that’s just where we are that is where I am. I rather someone who sincerely believes in something for the right reasons and foundation they for sure than those that don’t. Because if you change their minds it’s worth it because they digest information carefully.

I don’t like idiots who follow trends or go against them because of personal defects.

Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity can’t because it requires the person to know the truth but reject it. Everyone has this blind spot in one from or another.

Very few are the honest and intelligent enough to admit it.

Anita seems intelligent enough. I don’t know her well enough to qualify any other claim. Such as knowing what she knows or doesn’t.

She could be a liar she could be confused or wrong and telling the truth.

It doesn’t matter to me because I’m going to think for myself verify for myself if I’ll agree or disagree. So far for me she is batting 1000.

That says nothing about the future though. However as much as I like her work. There is no ceremony. She is not untouchable or beyond reproach.

But the shit people hav said generally the vile shit reveals them not her.

[Katchii]

Yeah everyone has an agenda in fact so much that you the very foundations of simple dialogue can never be trusted at least on most things, that’s just where we are that is where I am. I rather someone who sincerely believes in something for the right reasons and foundation they for sure than those that don’t. Because if you change their minds it’s worth it because they digest information carefully.

I don’t like idiots who follow trends or go against them because of personal defects.

Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity can’t because it requires the person to know the truth but reject it. Everyone has this blind spot in one from or another.

Very few are the honest and intelligent enough to admit it.

Anita seems intelligent enough. I don’t know her well enough to qualify any other claim. Such as knowing what she knows or doesn’t.

She could be a liar she could be confused or wrong and telling the truth.

It doesn’t matter to me because I’m going to think for myself verify for myself if I’ll agree or disagree. So far for me she is batting 1000.

That says nothing about the future though. However as much as I like her work. There is no ceremony. She is not untouchable or beyond reproach.

But the shit people hav said generally the vile shit reveals them not her.

The bolded is where I am totally confused. You say she is batting 1000, but she's sticking to a narrative that just doesn't make sense based on current social norms, the context of what's happening in the industry, etc... her argument just flat out doesn't hold up to scrutiny and many of the folks who have called her on her BS have been abused or harassed by her...which fits what I said previously. That instead of refuting or discussing the differences and possibly revising her arguments or using the data to make her stance more robust she just takes it as an attack, turns it against the person who presented the argument and doubles down on her agenda.

You say ignorance can be cured, which is true, but only if the ignorant person WANTS to be cured. I'll agree that Anita seems intelligent, but that makes it even worse IMO because that means she's smart enough to recognize her ignorance yet she seems to chose to stay ignorant. However, I don't think she's ignorant, she KNOWS the whole story but sticks to hers to push her narrative and her agenda. I can't stand people like that, and the thought of someone fully supporting her when she acts like this just boggle my mind.

[Grimbold21]

Yeah everyone has an agenda in fact so much that you the very foundations of simple dialogue can never be trusted at least on most things, that’s just where we are that is where I am. I rather someone who sincerely believes in something for the right reasons and foundation they for sure than those that don’t. Because if you change their minds it’s worth it because they digest information carefully.

I don’t like idiots who follow trends or go against them because of personal defects.

Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity can’t because it requires the person to know the truth but reject it. Everyone has this blind spot in one from or another.

Very few are the honest and intelligent enough to admit it.

Anita seems intelligent enough. I don’t know her well enough to qualify any other claim. Such as knowing what she knows or doesn’t.

She could be a liar she could be confused or wrong and telling the truth.

It doesn’t matter to me because I’m going to think for myself verify for myself if I’ll agree or disagree. So far for me she is batting 1000.

That says nothing about the future though. However as much as I like her work. There is no ceremony. She is not untouchable or beyond reproach.

But the shit people hav said generally the vile shit reveals them not her.

You make no sense, or perhaps you do.

You're making statements that are contrary to your position about Anita.

[Doctor Amadeus]

The bolded is where I am totally confused. You say she is batting 1000, but she's sticking to a narrative that just doesn't make sense based on current social norms, the context of what's happening in the industry, etc... her argument just flat out doesn't hold up

You have to give me specifics, you don't need to link or site sources, I just mean what specifically, and I swear I am not doing one of those "What are you talking about" things.

to scrutiny and many of the folks who have called her on her BS have been abused or harassed by her...which fits what I said previously.

I am going to say without specifics, I don't know who or what you mean, because I have seen all of it from From Thunderfoot, to Repizon to Sargon, even references to other women.

None of that means Anita failed anything. Especially without specifics. Do you mean her opinion based on the facts and statistics as to how games are created, because this is one of those Areas I wasn't sure of, but eventually came to agreeing with.

That instead of refuting or discussing the differences and possibly revising her arguments or using the data to make her stance more robust she just takes it as an attack, turns it against the person who presented the argument and doubles down on her agenda.

Without knowing what you mean, the idea that others are convinced of their own arguments therefore Anita is wrong, doesn't mean a damn thing in terms of what Anita needs to do to appease those, who disagree with her.

I agree with Anita on what she has put forth in her, her opinion and claims are pretty damn sounds.

You say ignorance can be cured, which is true, but only if the ignorant person WANTS to be cured. I'll agree that Anita seems intelligent, but that makes it even worse IMO because that means she's smart enough to recognize her ignorance yet she seems to chose to stay ignorant.

If you say you are a man of science you should know why these two statements are in conflict, You can not KNOW what she knows. You can assume, you can suggest there is evidence for that, but you literally can not KNOW, what she knows, or maybe even what she maybe confused about. Hell Anita might not even know herself.

Case and point. Laci Green, she is a perfect example of someone who started one place being a devout Mormon and feeling repressed to shifting to being a atheist and hard feminist, to now reaching another crisis, and floating towards being a red piller. Because she is the same person she was when she started.

Armored Skeptic another individual, started out being a fundamentalist in a religious cult, turned Hard Atheist, and Now pivots more to the Alt-Right following another kind of cult. Again Started and ended in the same place.

I haven't seen this much shifting with Anita, doesn't mean there aren't things unknown, but like the people I mentioned above they are under no obligation one way or another, but for me someone who is easily swayed, or have fucked up morals or processing don't change.

A person can call themselves whatever they want, they are still the same person.


It is very hard for a human being to change, labels are easy, actual actions and behavior is NOT!


As I said some people are in tune with themselves, and when it comes to an issue, they are very careful and go all in, doesn't mean a person can't be wrong, but it just means that in order to practice a discipline, or really advocate for a cause or belief system you have to be dedicated to that cause, OR DON'T.


Either way as I said before, it shouldn't be based on what everybody is doing, or maybe what one person says or does.

It does matter where facts or information comes from, it also matters one's ability to process and that information consistently. Which really can never be done if your method and YOU are all over the place and unsure.

However, I don't think she's ignorant, she KNOWS the whole story but sticks to hers to push her narrative and her agenda. I can't stand people like that, and the thought of someone fully supporting her when she acts like this just boggle my mind.

I am not an devote Anitian or something, I just find her work solid, her reasoning sounds, that isn't the same to say she is always right.


I don't know her origins, I don't know her, I don't know her entire process, but she is consistant, so unless I am going to be more than a fan of her work and being a stronger supporter or advocate, I would need to know more.


You on the other hand as someone who dislikes her seems to know all this, or you don't really care and just disagree with her, well I disagree with people too, doesn't mean if I know they are liars or not, I might say in my opinion I think that they are, but that doesn't make that the truth.

Even if I could convince you or a 1000 other people to say it who all agree with one another.


I am sure as hell not going to be convinced by people projecting bullshit about her and calling her vile insults as if that props up any argument on their behalf.


That to me is already a symptom of fucked up logic and reasoning. Something I haven't seen Anita do.

- - - Updated - - -

You make no sense, or perhaps you do.

You're making statements that are contrary to your position about Anita.

That I don't know what Anita knows or doesn't, that isn't contrary to anything I have said about the woman, in fact that is my entire point when it comes most of the criticisms thus far.

I mean MAYBE Anita is wrong about things, but I am not going to know that by people remarking what a cunt they think she is, or whatever the fuck else.

I mean if someone came forward and said they believed BigFoot assaulted them, I can read their body language, detect they are stressed, assume what they should be able to assume or deduce cognitively and make all sorts of fucked up pronouncements and draw conclusions.

Maybe I might, but you know what, that isn't really evidence one way or another, it doesn't suddenly make that The Truth or A Truth. I say A Truth loosely. I mean I can tell from evidence and testimony something said or whatever, is WRONG or that I don't believe it.

But there is no objective way of me KNOWING what they know, at least not without some substantial proof.

Me saying I don't believe isn't me saying the opposite is true, it is just me saying I don't believe you, and it doesn't rightly matter if you are fucking lying or simply confused, because without knowing you there is no way for me to even have a chance of being able to tell.


Anita gives opinions, she delivers her view from a feminist perspective HER perspective, she can be wrong, about a lot of things her opinion isn't one of them.

[Jotaux]

Because she is brilliant well educated, knows what she's talking about and have a valuable viewpoint and perspective, I would say that is good enough. And taking advantage of a climate political or otherwise is marketing, that's what people in media do.

You do realize she is just a mouthpiece for Jonathan McIntosh right? This "valuable" viewpoint you are talking about isn't even her own.

[Doctor Amadeus]

You do realize she is just a mouthpiece for Jonathan McIntosh right? This "valuable" viewpoint you are talking about isn't even her own.

I’ve heard that said before. If so he’s right. I would hope for anyone sake that isn’t true. Ghost writers should be for fiction. Not conveying what are ones thoughts. What a terrible way to live.

[Jotaux]

I’ve heard that said before. If so he’s right. I would hope for anyone sake that isn’t true. Ghost writers should be for fiction. Not conveying what are ones thoughts. What a terrible way to live.

Well, no one would listen to a white male that grew up in the lap of luxury so he needed a sock puppet to speak for him.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Well, no one would listen to a white male that grew up in the lap of luxury so he needed a sock puppet to speak for him.

I would. I wouldn’t if this bullshit was true. Male or Female have the guts to take the credit or hits for your own work.

[Jotaux]

I would. I wouldn’t if this bullshit was true. Male or Female have the guts to take the credit or hits for your own work.

While I disagree completely with his view of the world it makes sense to get as much exposure and credibility as possible. Why should he let pride stand in the way of getting his message across?

[Doctor Amadeus]

While I disagree completely with his view of the world it makes sense to get as much exposure and credibility as possible. Why should he let pride stand in the way of getting his message across?

Because the message could get out genuinely and while tougher it would be his own. Now if that’s true he’ll have to sweat. Because he would then be if proven fraud.

Words can be true but if that foundation is a lie they both better keep it up for as long as they can. Because once the illusion becomes too much to maintain it all gets taken away piece by piece.

As far as Anita she would have hurt herself more than anybody.

[Bonkbonk100]

No idea who she was until you made a thread about her, so in a way, you're helping her with the attention part.

Good job.

[Katchii]

You have to give me specifics, you don't need to link or site sources, I just mean what specifically, and I swear I am not doing one of those "What are you talking about" things.

Her angle, in all of the videos I've seen, is a feminist victim type position where she posits that the video game industry is dominated by men who objectify women in their games for the sake of objectification, that women aren't allowed to or have difficulty becoming video game designers/ part of the industry and that the industry is full of sexist, misogynist pigs who may or may not be acting that way purposely and that this needs to change.

Movies, books, TV shows and video games all try to tell a story. I'd argue that many times they're not purposely trying to objectify the female characters just for the sake of creating a sex object. The real world has women who dress in provocative clothing on purpose, who act promiscuous, who look and act like a sex object...of their own choosing. No one is making them do that. But when a piece of media puts one of these characters into their story it's automatically because the men wanted to objectify women and are sexist, misogynist, oppressive pigs. I'm not saying that doesn't happen sometimes, I'd be stupid to even insinuate that, but it's not ALL THE TIME like Anita kind of argues.

Based on a video from 2015, which unfortunately seems to be the most recent piece of information I can find, Anita goes over what seems to be her ideal female character: The Scythian from Sword and Sorcery. Here are some links to articles, one of which has an obvious bias but makes good points, along with a link to the video and some comments on it.

http://www.reaxxion.com/7422/why-ani...cter-is-stupid

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...racters-series

In this video, she basically says her ideal female lead character is a character you can't even tell is a female without someone outright telling you. What's the point of having a character you can't tell is female? Isn't saying that the "ideal" woman character doesn't look like a woman, kind of take a lot of the "woman empowerment" out of the argument? Creating an androgynous character doesn't empower women. Also, it's not even remotely realistic or based in reality. Women have more "feminine" features (facial features and bone structure type things) they have defining characteristics that identify them as women. Some women even fully embrace that fact and advocate for empowerment by flaunting those things, because they ARE a defining characteristic of the female body. How does taking away those absolutely female defining characteristics empower women? How does making a character be indistinguishable from a male character empower women?

In another article, she states that the only purpose of female armor that emphases the female form (hips, waist, breasts) is "to titillate young straight male player base." What about other types of people who find that attractive? Homosexual males? Straight females? Her angle seems to only account for/ come from the perspective of straight, conservative (in terms of sexual proclivity, not the political stance) who could otherwise be described as prudish or frigid. I may be putting words in her mouth, but I'm just trying to articulate where I feel her argument comes from and what it sounds like to me because I know plenty of women who enjoy and appreciate "sexy" clothing and utilizing feminine wiles to titillate males, females or whoever they can. I have to assume she knows these types of people exist, because it's been all over social media for years, a medium she makes heavy usage of. So there's really only two options for that: She's either ignorant...which you'd have to be completely disconnected and a complete idiot to not have any clue about that stuff. Or she's willfully disregarding this information. Neither one is a good thing.

You're points about Laci Green and Armored Skeptic in relation to Anita really just say to me that they are willing to take in new information and change their stance, change their viewpoint, be fluid in their argument because they accept they don't have all the information and are willing to update their viewpoint when more information is available to them whereas Anita is not. That was my point. Anita refuses to alter her stance when there are mounds of conflicting information, or context altering criteria. Changing your stance too often speaks to an incredibly weak sense of self, lack of determination and willpower which aren't good things either though.

I wasn't trying to claim to know what she knows, I can only speak to what I know/ am aware of...and if I can know it or can be aware of it, so can she, because almost all of my information comes from online articles or otherwise publicly available information/ sources. If she's as intelligent as she says she is, and you and I both believe her to be, there's absolutely no excuse for her to be completely, legitimately ignorant. That's why I state that she's being, at best, willfully ignorant meaning she refuses to acknowledge arguments and data that contradict her viewpoint.

[Deleted]

No idea who she was until you made a thread about her, so in a way, you're helping her with the attention part.

Good job.

Not knowing who Anita Sarkeesian is in 2017... ok. Did you just wake up out of being cryogenically frozen?

OT: Why is this thread still going? We've all known for years that Anita Sarkeesian is a liar who doesn't actually play videogames. She's just doing all of this for the money.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Her angle, in all of the videos I've seen, is a feminist victim type position where she posits that the video game industry is dominated by men who objectify women in their games for the sake of objectification, that women aren't allowed to or have difficulty becoming video game designers/ part of the industry and that the industry is full of sexist, misogynist pigs who may or may not be acting that way purposely and that this needs to change.

I am a guy and I agree with her. SO plenty of women do not.

Movies, books, TV shows and video games all try to tell a story. I'd argue that many times they're not purposely trying to objectify the female characters just for the sake of creating a sex object. The real world has women who dress in provocative clothing on purpose, who act promiscuous, who look and act like a sex object...of their own choosing. No one is making them do that. But when a piece of media puts one of these characters into their story it's automatically because the men wanted to objectify women and are sexist, misogynist, oppressive pigs. I'm not saying that doesn't happen sometimes, I'd be stupid to even insinuate that, but it's not ALL THE TIME like Anita kind of argues.

Make, well I would certainly say there is pressure for women to look act and feel a certain way and when they don't like Anita as a case and point they stop listening to their ideas and views, and then go on the rabid attack.

Based on a video from 2015, which unfortunately seems to be the most recent piece of information I can find, Anita goes over what seems to be her ideal female character: The Scythian from Sword and Sorcery. Here are some links to articles, one of which has an obvious bias but makes good points, along with a link to the video and some comments on it.

http://www.reaxxion.com/7422/why-ani...cter-is-stupid

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...racters-series

It's a review, by the very definition reviews are biased, and even if one believe faithfully they shouldn't this isn't the first, last, or only case of this.

In this video, she basically says her ideal female lead character is a character you can't even tell is a female without someone outright telling you. What's the point of having a character you can't tell is female? Isn't saying that the "ideal" woman character doesn't look like a woman, kind of take a lot of the "woman empowerment" out of the argument? Creating an androgynous character doesn't empower women. Also, it's not even remotely realistic or based in reality. Women have more "feminine" features (facial features and bone structure type things) they have defining characteristics that identify them as women. Some women even fully embrace that fact and advocate for empowerment by flaunting those things, because they ARE a defining characteristic of the female body. How does taking away those absolutely female defining characteristics empower women? How does making a character be indistinguishable from a male character empower women?

Or.. Or maybe that there just isn't any female characters that could be added as an additional character much to your dismay as to what women should act or be like based on your own BELIEFS, and that what you fear is not less or none of what you like to see but the inclusion of what others would like to see thus making her statement and point valid for everything in this post here.

In another article, she states that the only purpose of female armor that emphases the female form (hips, waist, breasts) is "to titillate young straight male player base." What about other types of people who find that attractive? Homosexual males? Straight females? Her angle seems to only account for/ come from the perspective of straight, conservative (in terms of sexual proclivity, not the political stance) who could otherwise be described as prudish or frigid. I may be putting words in her mouth, but I'm just trying to articulate where I feel her argument comes from and what it sounds like to me because I know plenty of women who enjoy and appreciate "sexy" clothing and utilizing feminine wiles to titillate males, females or whoever they can. I have to assume she knows these types of people exist, because it's been all over social media for years, a medium she makes heavy usage of. So there's really only two options for that: She's either ignorant...which you'd have to be completely disconnected and a complete idiot to not have any clue about that stuff. Or she's willfully disregarding this information. Neither one is a good thing.

Again she is correct and I sure as shit do play World of Warcraft and a few games so same as above, I am ok with a little more inclusion of other options even if it means less of the big breasted barely clothed women I like to personally see.

You're points about Laci Green and Armored Skeptic in relation to Anita really just say to me that they are willing to take in new information and change their stance, change their viewpoint, be fluid in their argument because they accept they don't have all the information and are willing to update their viewpoint when more information is available to them whereas Anita is not. That was my point. Anita refuses to alter her stance when there are mounds of conflicting information, or context altering criteria. Changing your stance too often speaks to an incredibly weak sense of self, lack of determination and willpower which aren't good things either though.

Or, Or it just is as I said a Symptom of flawed thinking easily lead and swayed from one place to another, there is nothing fluid about it, that simply not mattering at all unless it's whatever way the wind of seems to be changing.

Anita seems to be legitimate and the real deal as compared to the others Mentioned, the fact she isn't swayed or going to crumble under the ideas you think should not withstanding.

I wasn't trying to claim to know what she knows, I can only speak to what I know/ am aware of...and if I can know it or can be aware of it, so can she, because almost all of my information comes from online articles or otherwise publicly available information/ sources. If she's as intelligent as she says she is, and you and I both believe her to be, there's absolutely no excuse for her to be completely, legitimately ignorant. That's why I state that she's being, at best, willfully ignorant meaning she refuses to acknowledge arguments and data that contradict her viewpoint.

Ok well I am sure she is ignorant, hell I am sure she has blind spots and is stupid about things, WE ALL ARE, and we need to be aware of our predispositions whether we like them or not as you obviously pointed out.

But as I have pointed out, A person needs to be completely clear themselves as to why the fuck they believe what they believe and I don't mean over a couple hours or days soul searching. Some it takes a lifetime.

Honestly nobody has the monopoly on truth although I suspect some as I have suggested will be more likely to lean towards it, but regardless people and a person can have blinding fucking errors, not only in judgements, but everything else.

Scientist see this all the time even when it comes to themselves which is why when it comes to a Scientist you almost never hear them speak in definite terms without being very careful.

Being open to new ideas, isn't the same as entertaining stupid ones that aren't serious at all and also aren't fucking new.

Such as the arguments against Anita. You don't agree prove me wrong, or don't either way. I am fine that we just don't agree at all.

[Jotaux]

Not knowing who Anita Sarkeesian is in 2017... ok. Did you just wake up out of being cryogenically frozen?

OT: Why is this thread still going? We've all known for years that Anita Sarkeesian is a liar who doesn't actually play videogames. She's just doing all of this for the money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afgtd8ZsXzI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIpw3wHn9Sk

I definitely think shes a fraud but you could easily say the first video is just to save face in front of the other students.

[Deleted]

I definitely think shes a fraud but you could easily say the first video is just to save face in front of the other students.

If you want to lie to yourself.

[Ysho]

Militant women's lib has overtaken what feels like every new movie, TV show, and TV commercial that I see. You can't watch or hear anything that isn't pure feminist propaganda anymore.

Make no mistake - there is a concerted effort to expunge anything that shows a male in a heroic, prevalent, or traditionally masculine light when it comes to entertainment.