Dude, the girl getting the money funded is WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE, and even if you (or even me) assume that she got it because she's hot (subjective assumption, or questionably objective if you want to use statistics), you can't prove it in absolute terms with 100% certainty unless you interview each of the donators (Database might be private, so nope.gif) to get their response as to whether they did it for that specific reason, to which EVEN IF THEY DID will probably deny it out of shame for being shallow. And so BAM you lose the argument forever and ever, Elvis has left the building, don't even go there anymore, these guys won't let it go, and nobody wins, everybody loses. Period.
Ok, back to it I guess.Man, it's a cross culture, cross gender affect that I'm talking about. I'm basically talking about human nature, not some pseud scientific abstract point that needs to be proven scientifically (which it has, many many many times over). The only thing missing is you people ignoring the evidence that hard science has produced, and ya'll "probably deny it out of shame for being shallow." It doesn't just apply to her, it applies to most people on the average. If your going to say she's exempt from physical attractive stereotyping, I'd say the burden of proof is on you, not me. Kinda funny, I was just rocking out to Elvis before you posted that.
Well im not going to read back on all that, so could you give me a short version of what your point was?
Yeah sure:Main point - "Anything that she is right about in calling a problem is pretty much working for her to get her where she is." Secondary point - "Her popularity is probably due in large part to her appearance." (not saying she doesn't have points, just that they're old points and they probably serve more to keep an audience a lot of whom likely only gave her a shot in the first place based on her appearance. Also I think her points are a far third still in supporting her popularity to the sympathy she got for the bashing she took for calling gamers misogynists.)I think that about sums it up.
Man this topic thread has peaked my own interest that i been posting more than i think i ever posted in any other thread here since i joined years ago ( other than my own and a few select ones lol ) that i can say i enjoy the debates and even moreso the topic. I actually had to take this conversation to work last night for a quick hour discussion since we have both sex of gamers. When i asked about the subject and we began our rounds of debates.. some were heated and really most made alot of on key points. One thing i think that stuck hard and that no one could answer with a serious thought was what i proposed in a question.If feminists both male and female has issues with the Damsel In Distress theory ( and others labels) and the beauty ( and breasts or sex appeal overall) of said women portrayed in games no matter the roles they play.....what would be the end game to settle the issue? Now for about 15 minutes or more everyone was quiet trying to wrap they heads around the concept. My shift supervisor one response after all that was.. Tetris! lol. But we all understood why he said that even if he was serious or joking. Its gender equality cause there is no male or female anything about it. Our payroll woman ( who is gorgeous ) is a die hard Fighting gamer. Her main thing on the issue was "she doesn't think there will ever be an ideal way to create a game with human features that will ever be acceptable to anyone that has issues revolving around gender equality". No matter what kind of game either a fighting game, platformer, rpg , a dating sim or pretty much anything that has a hint of gender realism even if its total customize fantasy based.... there will be an issue outside of game play mechanics that will dive into gender equality to those who will find something to run on with it. it has been done thousands of times for decades in gaming that feature male and female genders and their roles in said games.My thoughts on Anita are still the same, to me she has some scam issues about her. The donations part of it is to say " So the plot thickens!" lol. I don't see any logic in supporting her ( with donations to be exact) "cause' in something that has been discussed back when i was a kid in the early 80's and 90's of gaming that featured male and female characters and roles of them that was done for free with close to same exact themes and critiques, If i too can go ask for donations for something that is talked about for free and give reviews of them and i can get people to pay me thousands of dollars ....I need to quit my job or take a part time gig and start coming up with stuff too that will get under certain peoples skin that will support me...blindly of sorts.. without looking farther into the whole scheme. lmao just joking..... but i seriously from reading all that was linked to her... her end game is money..not concrete belief in her views as a feminist. Thats just my opinion based on all i have read and researched about her with this topic and others..
Lolmechy said, March 26, 2013, 08:11:42 pmSo are you saying that the large majority of the people who donated, did it for her looks?yes, he has been saying that since the start, going as far as saying its because she is sexually attractive to them.He is objectifying her and saying that its just how the real world works. She couldnt possibly have garnered attention to the topic via her own means without using sex appeal. ( he even used the example of a sexy poster of Megan Fox garnering attention ) It reminds me the sarcastic lyrics of Emilie Autumn "Thank god I'm pretty, for now every skill I ever have will be in question."
Her being pretty can certainly have a positive effect when people consider if they are going to donate for her, but saying that her prettiness alone got her over 200.000 dollars for a feminist youtube video series is pretty absurb.
update on the mean brothers thing:http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57576194-1/trolls-take-on-9-year-old-girls-kickstarter-project...and-lose/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=titleThey are claiming that the woman that started the campaign is a victim of trolling.
RobotMonkeyHead said, March 26, 2013, 06:16:21 pm-We are more likely to give personal information to physically attractive people than we less physically attractive people.[20]OH CMON RMH BRO! Lmao! even tho man i found alot of that stuff listed to be some utter nonsense in some regards if based on "statistics" of say 100 people are non logical and go by appearance as their main focus of motivations to do , say , give and judge an individual quite possibly have some serious embedded personal issues.I do not care how cute or gorgeous a woman is.. She is NOT getting my personal info cause i think she is attractive and asks for it. Attractiveness does not garner trust. Thats not even rational thinking to give away your personal info. People who would do that....Morons. If someone is easily swayed basing any of their judgement on Anita (or anyone's attractiveness factor ) to give her money with even a hint that because she is attractive to them so they trust her...A fool and his money are soon departed. lol
So apparently in the last few weeks there's this French gaming-blogging chick who chimed in on Tomb Raider and feminism - except it went better.The game itself doesn't actually show much even on the concept of rape : there's only one scene that lasts for like 5 seconds with a big guy getting a bit close to Lara who has her hands tied in her back, before Lara struggles on the ground to break free and blows the guy's brain off, the struggle not being any different from if it had been a male protagonist (mug slinging, kicking and leg pulling). But then there's this article in a French gaming magazine that went with machismo "humor", saying this stuff was almost exciting and such and talking about hardcore SM.And said gaming girl went down hard on that kind of reaction, rather than on the game itself, which is, all in all, a lot softer than you would expect in reality (especially from a whole village of dudes who have been trapped on an island for decades, seriously I don't remember seeing a single woman from the island).So while the game itself wasn't particularly sexist, the reactions it got went overboard ; and the feminist take on that went up against that, which is, I believe, a lot more logical, justified, and efficient.(no, I don't have a link to either the article or the blog, I'm just reading a few summaries)
C.R.O.M Lando said, March 26, 2013, 10:23:49 pmRobotMonkeyHead said, March 26, 2013, 06:16:21 pm-We are more likely to give personal information to physically attractive people than we less physically attractive people.[20]OH CMON RMH BRO! Lmao! even tho man i found alot of that stuff listed to be some utter nonsense in some regards if based on "statistics" of say 100 people are non logical and go by appearance as their main focus of motivations to do , say , give and judge an individual quite possibly have some serious embedded personal issues.I do not care how cute or gorgeous a woman is.. She is NOT getting my personal info cause i think she is attractive and asks for it. Attractiveness does not garner trust. Thats not even rational thinking to give away your personal info. People who would do that....Morons. If someone is easily swayed basing any of their judgement on Anita (or anyone's attractiveness factor ) to give her money with even a hint that because she is attractive to them so they trust her...A fool and his money are soon departed. lol Look man, those aren't my ideas, they're quoted from a very relevant wiki article. It's an old study, but here it is, if want to dispute it's validity you might want to check it out. Same with that wiki article. Personally I believe it to an extent. I figure you have 2000 people, 1000 are presented with an unattractive person who is nonchalantly trying to get some kind of personal info, who knows what, might be birthday, and 1000 are presented with dead sexy gorgeous trying sneakily to get the same info. I'd bet large amounts of money that sexy is going to come up with more success. How much more, maybe just a little, but more, certainly. What you're saying about pretty isn't getting your personal info I think is intelligent, and props to Bea for agreeing, I would also like to think the same for myself personally, but on the average... think wal-mart. Not everyone is making decisions from a purely rational standpoint and a lot of the time I think biology (be it emotions or reproductive drive or whatever) can easily skew a persons reasoning. I've seen it happen enough. Of course you can believe whatever you want, but my inclination is sexy's gettin more info. Posted: April 05, 2013, 04:13:56 amIced said, March 26, 2013, 09:31:33 pmLolmechy said, March 26, 2013, 08:11:42 pmSo are you saying that the large majority of the people who donated, did it for her looks?yes, he has been saying that since the start, going as far as saying its because she is sexually attractive to them.He is objectifying her and saying that its just how the real world works. She couldnt possibly have garnered attention to the topic via her own means without using sex appeal. ( he even used the example of a sexy poster of Megan Fox garnering attention ) It reminds me the sarcastic lyrics of Emilie Autumn "Thank god I'm pretty, for now every skill I ever have will be in question."Iced, man, nothing personal, but please stop straw-maning and oversimplifying my point. It's entirely obvious that your painting a deliberately stupefied picture of what I'm saying here, for whatever reason. Read my posts carefully hombre before you go trying to paint me as some kind of sexist pig. You can knock that shit off right about now, because given my level of candidness in this conversation I think it's easily fair to say that if I were sexist, I would own it. What I'm saying Lolmechy, is to honestly ask yourself this question: If she were a completely unattractive woman (by an average of standards) in her late 40's (but with the same effort delivery and style) do you think she would have been able to garner the same level of attention that she's gotten? If so, fine. I don't. I think her looks create a lot of her draw (however subconsciously on the part of her audience) and that her points are what then keep them around. (Get that this time Iced?) I think her ability to speak the same rehashed shit (not that I think it's completely invalid) that's been kickin around for the last 30 or 40 years is only a factor after her appeal, as evidenced by the throng of more experienced, more qualified, more persuasive, better spoken, and older feminists out there. Shit ain't new, and to be fair, I Might even go as far as to say women kick as much ass in media as men do now. If not, certainly more than in the past, and where she may still have some points they're well on their way to diminishing. To go even a little further, I think her playing the damsel at 4chan was helped by her appearance. I don't think people would have As Readily come to the financial aid of someone they perceived to be hideously ugly just on her points. They're last decades newspaper. Sad maybe, irrational maybe, human nature maybe but I've seen sexy get away with all sorts of shit that ugly doesn't in my own life. Call it what you want, I call it realistic. Now to be clear sexyism is Very different from sexism, which brings me to my main point: The shit she is bitching about is working out hugely to her advantage, and she's letting it. She plays the 'wronged hottie', she played the 'pretty damsel' and I don't really care what else, and I think she does it for cash, which there's nothing wrong with, it's just a bit hypocritical in my opinion. If she were volunteering, or if she had cut off the donations before they reached $158,000 I might think more of her sincerity, but I think she's working the playing field in ways I would be surprised if she could even admit to herself. That's the last time I want to explain it. If anyone else is still interested, read the last page or 2. I feel like I've explained myself as well as I care to, and I haven't seen anything dissuasive enough to change my mind up till now. Unless I do, I'll probably just quote my own posts from here on out, but I feel like I've said enough.
RobotMonkeyHead said, April 05, 2013, 03:26:08 amthey're quoted from a very relevant wiki article.You're seriously still quoting that article that you could never prove had anything to do with the discussion ?? Let it go, man, that article is irrelevant.
The guy behind Dresden Codak ( that previously had setup a kickstarter where one of the goals for 700k was to make a strip a week and was called out on it by Andrew Hussie) knowing zero about Zelda based himself on the video made by Anita and decided to fix Zelda.How do you fix Zelda?By gender swapping everyone.http://dresdencodak.tumblr.com/post/47724463171/inspired-by-anita-sarkeesians-video-game-tropesNow its not sexist anymore.You bloody cis scum should be lucky to have protags like this!
C.R.O.M Lando said, March 26, 2013, 10:23:49 pmRobotMonkeyHead said, March 26, 2013, 06:16:21 pm-We are more likely to give personal information to physically attractive people than we less physically attractive people.[20]OH CMON RMH BRO! Lmao! even tho man i found alot of that stuff listed to be some utter nonsense in some regards if based on "statistics" of say 100 people are non logical and go by appearance as their main focus of motivations to do , say , give and judge an individual quite possibly have some serious embedded personal issues.I do not care how cute or gorgeous a woman is.. She is NOT getting my personal info cause i think she is attractive and asks for it. Attractiveness does not garner trust. Thats not even rational thinking to give away your personal info. People who would do that....Morons. If someone is easily swayed basing any of their judgement on Anita (or anyone's attractiveness factor ) to give her money with even a hint that because she is attractive to them so they trust her...A fool and his money are soon departed. lol I know this is an old post but you should be more likely to give away personal information to an attractive person than unattractive. That's how most of us talk to girls.
