The Zoe Quinn "Scandal"

Lol.

Honestly, immodest video game characters is one of the few "feminist" issues I take with some seriousness. Not because it's necessarily sexist (making all attraction to women "sexist"), but because lust and objectification are real problems. Besides, how seriously can you take a woman wearing a skin-tight slut suit or having half her assets falling out? It's like watching original series Star Trek and trying not to laugh when someone calls a doll in a mini-skirt "lieutenant" or "doctor".

This isn't to say men are any worse than women. Dressing the opposite gender in trashy outfits happens to be more of a male issue, due to men being more visually stimulated than women -- women are the ones with the trashy novels.


...Huh, have you ever noticed that when we go from woman to women, we change the last part of the word in spelling, but pronounce the first part of the word differently?

Yeah, all that googling at women. It's almost like the majority of these things were designed for horny-but-not-getting-any nerds, y'know, free exchange in the market place. Newer, larger budget video games I can understand, the Japanese in particular take it to ridiculous extremes, but for things like smaller games and comic books, women just will never understand that these games, usually made years and years ago, were meant to cater to a certain demographic and, indeed, were an escape for them. Horny nerds needed a wish-fulfilling escape, and that REQUIRES sexy, receptive women. If women want something ro them, they need to pay for it and create a market for it. You can't complain about things that are meant to cater to another demographic that pays, especially, when it was meant something specific for men. Going back to comic books decades ago or complaining about continuing story archs or character designs is incredibly stupid. Especially since, in comic books, male superheroes are even more naked than females, it's just that no one cares. I love it when women complain about a superheroines being sexy while ignoring the fact that Superman, Spider-man, Batman, and pretty much every other superhero is basically nude with spray-painted clothes on. The women clearly have skirts, bras, and whatever else on. Yeah, I know Superman's got his big boy briefs on but that bulge is meant to just show how much of a many-many-man-man he is. In video games, however, the greatest offenders of this are games especially meant for testosterone, fueled teenage boys. Women don't buy it. Even Anita Sarkessian admits this, so then, why should the game have something to appeal to overly sensitive women and feminists, if its meant to supply demand in a particular market that women have no participated in enough. It isn't sexism. it shouldn't be offesnive, it's simply serving a market. This will naturally change, though, as women play more and more games and games are created to cater to them, AFTER they create the market through purchases, not bitching. if you REALLY want to see disgusting shit, read the blurbs of dirty girl books. Never again will I think that men are dirtest gender with their hardcore porn. Women have us beat infinitely, it's not even close. I wonder why MRA's don't complain about that shit? Probably because it doesn't effect them, just like games that girls usually don't play shouldn't effect women.

Oh God damnit, how did I get stuck into this again. I really don't give a fuck, continue the conversation without me. I hate debating or hearing about social justice whiners. And, no I was never referring to Nissa, just giving a general commentary.... I don't know why, this shit doesn't matter. So much more important things going on.

Econ, you're just talking to your 'net friends. You're not a horrible person for talking about something. Lol.

^ It is stupid shit that shouldn't matter, but its game journalists now doing the whining, and itll undermine game development in the long term.

- - - Updated - - -

^ It is stupid shit that shouldn't matter, but its game journalists now doing the whining, and itll undermine game development in the long term.

I thought I might cap off this thread with an informative video.

I'm disturbed to discover that intel cuts their advertising from gawker to start a pr campaign that includes promoting feminist frequency. /facepalm

[even though anita isnt directly tied to gawker, she has been preaching the same rhetoric.]

- - - Updated - - -

*facepalms*

Feminism is the death of the intellect and free speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nissa

*facepalms*

Feminism is the death of the intellect and free speech.

---

http://iamattila.com/wp-content/uplo...Tuy1qf10nj.gif
http://www.myfacewhen.net/uploads/2058-thinking.jpg
https://yanabanx.files.wordpress.com...-what-meme.jpg
http://www.memes.at/faces/double_facepalm.jpg
http://media2.theranking.com/card/12...size_image.jpg
http://rs1img.memecdn.com/rmx-extrem...fb_1092847.jpg
http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thin...l&tid=41746984
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/...iggle_face.JPG

I can deal with the link between feminism and intellect you're both implying, but would you care to explain to me then, how exactly feminism will lead to the death of free speech?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nissa

*facepalms*

Feminism is the death of the intellect and free speech.

---

Ironic you say that right after the Charlie Hedbo shootings.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nissa

*facepalms*

Feminism is the death of the intellect and free speech.

---

Ironic you say that right after the Charlie Hedbo shootings.

Don't mind Squibb. With regards to feminism, he's as confused by the difference between stated aims through ideology and real-life applications of beliefs as he is by the same in socialism. He still believes that anyone that is against socialism is against the poor, common citizen despite life being objectively worse in socialist countries. Likewise, he thinks that, despite you being female and having a legitimate desire to better the life of women, is party to the oppression of your kind because you acknowledge the difference between said stated aims and real-life applications.

In other words, welcome to my world circa 2009. If you stick with it long enogh, you can rub his failure in his face a few years from now and enjoy endless entertainment. Although I'm not sure it's worth the headache to wait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheEconomist

Don't mind Squibb. With regards to feminism, he's as confused by the difference between stated aims through ideology and real-life applications of beliefs as he is by the same in socialism. He still believes that anyone that is against socialism is against the poor, common citizen despite life being objectively worse in socialist countries. Likewise, he thinks that, despite you being female and having a legitimate desire to better the life of women, is party to the oppression of your kind because you acknowledge the difference between said stated aims and real-life applications.

In other words, welcome to my world circa 2009. If you stick with it long enogh, you can rub his failure in his face a few years from now and enjoy endless entertainment. Although I'm not sure it's worth the headache to wait.

---

Oh, I've seen Demo's posts. I'm not sure I have the patience to deal with the headache, tbh. Though I have an objection to "having a legitimate desire to better the life of women." I don't at all. I want life to be better for everyone. I'm a dang adult, and outgrew the whole "boys vs. girls" thing when I was fourteen. It's utterly nonsensical for people to pretend that men and women need to be at each other's throats all the time like there's not better things to do with our time. Feminism is just an extension of the cruelty I know women to be capable of. The plight of women can only improve when we allow men to improve, and accept that some traditions exist because they are better for society. Otherwise any feminist victory is pyrrhic in nature.

Not that any of that applies to you, Econ, just sayin'.

To address Demo's concerns, feminism is against free speech because it insists that people talk the way it wants. For example, there was once a quote on the Air Force Academy campus, and it said something that involved the phrase "bring me men." Feminists attacked it as sexist, because they like to whine about things that don't matter. They also object to using the pronoun "he" when the gender of a subject is unknown -- they like "he or she." Personally, I avoid "he or she" like the plague, because besides it being pretentious, it's grammatically correct to simply say "he". English is a European derived language, and many European languages have different forms for male, female, and neuter. One of the ways english simplified European tradition was by combining male and neuter. In other words, it's not a way to oppress women.

To be blunt, feminists put a lot of value into words that don't really matter, accusing people of sexism for saying simple things. They accuse me of hating women because I hate abortion. They think it's a sign of the evil patriarchy that more men than women play sports. They think men and women feel the exact way about love and relationships, slandering anyone who says otherwise. So if you're not exactly who the feminists want you to be, they hate your guts.

Free speech is, as defined by the dictionary, "the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc." Free speech is not the ability to say whatever you want without consequences, nor is suppressing free speech the simple redefinition or banning of words and ideas.

I quote you, "Feminism is the death of the intellect and free speech." By your logic, any group that has attempted to redefine or suppress words would therefore be against free speech. However, if that were truly the case, there'd already be no free speech, as far older and more powerful organizations, like the Catholic Church, would have already crushed their resistance. Yet we look at the data and its clear opposing views have more say now than at any other time. Different opinions cause discussion and thus the feminist view you dislike is in fact creating more free speech, not less. That these issues are being tossed into the limelight across media is all the proof I need of that.

Demo, you're not saying "this other group did it, so that makes it okay" are you?

Besides, the only group I've heard of that's so anal retentive about something as trivial as "he or she" is communist Russia. That is, a group inspiring a nation to judge, hate, and betray everyone that doesn't talk in Newspeak. Excuse me for being a socially unfriendly kulak.

Fun fact: Sweden recently added "Hen" as a gender-neutral pronoun to their dictionary.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that feminism is having the same effect on free speech as any other equality-based movement has had in the past, from the African-American Civil Rights Movement to LGBT Pride to simple Religious tolerance. An effect of increasing free speech through discussion and debate.

You're quoting sweden, who has been doing some things that are just as bat crazy as russia....like "hen"

- - - Updated - - -

You're quoting sweden, who has been doing some things that are just as bat crazy as russia....like "hen"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

Fun fact: Sweden recently added "Hen" as a gender-neutral pronoun to their dictionary.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that feminism is having the same effect on free speech as any other equality-based movement has had in the past, from the African-American Civil Rights Movement to LGBT Pride to simple Religious tolerance. An effect of increasing free speech through discussion and debate.

---

You're nuts. This has nothing to do with civil rights or LGBT or religious people. It's a matter of vocabulary. I've never seen a black or gay person have a hissy fit about someone's vocabulary, provided that person wasn't making some kind of insulting slur. Feminists think that using "he" as a gender uncertain pronoun is offensive, when it never was. They also argue -- against proven science -- that women are just as enthused as men about sports, and just as lusty and ambitious as men when it comes to relationships and career. They clearly care more about making people think the way they do than actually paying attention to reality.

And the only good thing about Sweden is its techno.

Fun fact: Sweden thinks its icky for a man to pee standing up and should be made illegal and also regulates the proper ratio of male-female toys for children of both genders as early as five weeks old for care takers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1590572.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/arc...ith-it/265977/

Lovely YouTube video of an interview with a Swedish feminist politician who states plainly that male-female gender roles are the result of parents coercing their children into these roles through subtle [insert pseudoacademic term that I don't care to remember] by giving them male or female toys before they are able chose for themselves. When asked why five week old children tended to chose toys geared towards their own gender, the feminist sets off alarms that the future of mankind can only be saved through government regulation to save these defenseless children from parental oppression through gender conforming toy choices.

It's already against the rules for a boy in school to pee standing up in many public school bathrooms. Apparently "my body, my choice" only applies to abortions for women, not urinating for men.New definition of nanny state, run by feminists, who think everyone is their children and that anyone who disagrees (especially women) is too stupid and brainwashed by the patriarchy to care for themselves so the feminists must do it for them. Again, I say feminists are more sexist towards women than any of the male chauvinists I'm seen in real life. Most men want equality (yes, even equality in punishment and responsibility) while feminists don't want any punishment or responsibility for women because their just too fragile and stupid to handle it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/postev...-for-anything/

Luckily for the Swedes, they're one of the most free countries in the world when it comes to business or it would be just another government-regulated clusterfuck of depression and incompetence. Benefitting enormously from Europe's demise also helps greatly.

Also, the difference between civil rights and feminism is that civil rights was an academic debate with thinkers trying to make things better. Feminism is an echo chamber of bitching and everyone is afraid to hurt feminists feelings. Women (especially feminists) are the masters of social manipulation and are able to gain enormous power through government, minorities not nearly as much. A whiny woman holds far more power than a successful, competent black activist (even for the ones respected among the black community). Want to make a point about colonialism, racism, slavery, or whatever else? You better have enormous amounts of research and large lists of sources or you'll get no where. Feminists, however, can write a thesis/disertation with no other sources than the author's movie marathon night. You can also make a statement such as 'black characters die off first' and 'female characters are always [insert statement incredibly sexist towards women by a feminist]' even though the author's own tally in the thesis (the only source) disagrees with the statement. Based on this scholarly work, said person will go on to be the face of cultural feminism critique and one of the major "fighters" of the "patriarchy". If you don't know, I'm talking about Anita Sarkeesian's thesis.

Then again my teacher last semester publically stated in-class and on his website that black students should be exempt from failing grades and the final because the ferguson incidents were just so damn hard to study during. When asked by a student if he would say the samething about children of parents who went to war in the past decades should be given the same he said, "No, because you just wouldn't understand." So then maybe the only difference between the two is that feminists are more effective. But is that really anything to desire?

No, unless you're retardedly dense and completely unaware like a Squibb (Human husk robot created from human body parts and connected to a Hivemind hellbent on destroying said husks, from Quake) then you know better. But that's why I call you the Squibb. It just never ceases to describe you perfectly.

I really want to say more, but I really, really, really hate wasting my time on social justice idiots. So much more to do in this world.

It's okay, Econ, we all have to let it out sometimes. And yes, women are pretty dang manipulative. Our form of evil is much more subtle, which is while there'll never be a female Mao/Hitler/Stalin. Actually, now that I mention it, that sounds fascinating. The differences between men and women of evil sounds like a great thesis topic.

All I can testify to is the observable differences between male and female coffee drinkers, which I've discovered through working at a coffee shop. Male drinkers tend to be routine driven: they find something they like and stick with it. They also prefer to drink either regular coffee or our custom ice slushies, rather than hot, fancy espresso drinks. Women, on the other hand, tend to try new things more often. Black women are more concerned with flavors, and are more likely to complain when they can't taste a flavor in a drink. White women care more about the caffeine content. It was pretty funny. When our cafe was being shut down (remodeling the building) and we ran out of caffeinated espresso, no one really cared besides the white women. They would, upon hearing the news, turn to whoever was with them in horror.

I don't know if that means anything. Trivial information makes me happy.

In any case, feminists need to realize that chivalry exists for the sake of men directly, and for women only indirectly. When men learn to treat women well, they become kinder, more responsible people. If a feminist rejects chivalry, then she's rejecting her right to be treated well, and refusing men the ability to become the kind of man she'd want to date. Like I've been reading in my sex differences book, studies have proven that women prefer men with traditionally masculine characteristics. This even holds true in feminist circles.

Haha, that's funny. I've noticed the exact same thing from the coffee drinkers in my classes. I've also noticed something similiar to your "blacks tip less" comment from a while ago in that blacks with the same income are less likely to pay rent than others. Not being racist. Whites aren't the best since Asians and Mexicans (probably afraid of ICE) pay better than whites. But, I can't help but notice these things and I shouldn't be guilt-tripped or threatened with force just because I notice what's in front of me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheEconomist

Haha, that's funny. I've noticed the exact same thing from the coffee drinkers in my classes. I've also noticed something similiar to your "blacks tip less" comment from a while ago in that blacks with the same income are less likely to pay rent than others. Not being racist. Whites aren't the best since Asians and Mexicans (probably afraid of ICE) pay better than whites. But, I can't help but notice these things and I shouldn't be guilt-tripped or threatened with force just because I notice what's in front of me.

---

I've never noticed a racial difference between tipping. Older white men, who tend to be set in their ways, generally tip little or one exact amount every time. Other than that, I haven't noticed any other differences. My mom worked in a restaurant, and she says people with tip-related jobs and gay men tipped the most.

Hmmm, I guess I inferred wrong from Squibb's response to you. Either way, my point was that it's good to think for yourself and make your own conclusions in everything.

Here's something else that's funny and game related.

http://www.craveonline.com/gaming/ar...emerges-online

There was this controversy that GTAV had hidden "attempted rape" easter eggs hidden in the game. A video was put up, a "gaming" site saw and it proceeded to lash out in righteous outrage that rape culture had invaded the innocent world of GTAV. Except it turned out that this wasn't an 'attempted rape' scene. It was an attempted kidnapping to take back to a cult village to cannibalise.

And all was right in the social justice warrior community.

Rape = Start a shirt storm on the internet
Cannibalism = Haha, that's funny, GTAV is awesome.


Still waiting for the controversy of the male on male torture scene. But, nope nothing. Just controversy about things like you can punch hookers or slap women.

The novel industry is having its #GamerGate moment, right now. Don't feel like wasting time saying anything more though. Lulz or "fuck the world" as you wish.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015...-battleground/

Econ, buddy, there's no point in posting links to this drivel. We're not like those losers. This is a place where we tolerate others, even if we're annoying, bicker a lot, say socially unfriendly things, or arguing for pages about one single quote from Starcraft. Let us put aside the gaming/sci fi trolls and walk hand in hand in our Starcraft paradise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nissa

Lol.

Honestly, immodest video game characters is one of the few "feminist" issues I take with some seriousness. Not because it's necessarily sexist (making all attraction to women "sexist"), but because lust and objectification are real problems. Besides, how seriously can you take a woman wearing a skin-tight slut suit or having half her assets falling out? It's like watching original series Star Trek and trying not to laugh when someone calls a doll in a mini-skirt "lieutenant" or "doctor".

This isn't to say men are any worse than women. Dressing the opposite gender in trashy outfits happens to be more of a male issue, due to men being more visually stimulated than women -- women are the ones with the trashy novels.


...Huh, have you ever noticed that when we go from woman to women, we change the last part of the word in spelling, but pronounce the first part of the word differently?

---

"lust and objectification are real problems."

sorry fictional characters wearing skimpy outfits aren't something I find problematic since... they aren't.

If someone wants their character to dress in a generic nurse outfit, then that's up to them.

anyway..

Is that Squid guy like the equivalent of JohnnyZeWolf from B.net? am I the only one seeing this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nissa

Econ, buddy, there's no point in posting links to this drivel. We're not like those losers. This is a place where we tolerate others, even if we're annoying, bicker a lot, say socially unfriendly things, or arguing for pages about one single quote from Starcraft. Let us put aside the gaming/sci fi trolls and walk hand in hand in our Starcraft paradise.

---

StarCraft is not safe from these people. D:

Nowhere is safe, you must be a prisoner of your own mind, to escape their WRATH!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaiseStratosTygo

Is that Squid guy like the equivalent of JohnnyZeWolf from B.net? am I the only one seeing this?

---

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...81/311/944.jpg

I had to ask.

Without going into more detail, that's a pretty apt comparison. Except whereas Johnny is fucking retarded, Squibb is actually pretty smart. He's just absorbs all of the wrong facts and observations. He can sort through the information as good as anyone, he just has an aversion to correct information. He's usually the exact opposite of correct though so there must be some kind of intelligence there or it would be random and all over the place like a retard's predictions.

For example, in 2009, Squibb predicted that America would collapse under debt into a third-world nation and Europe and other socialist Western nations would take the lead, the exact opposite happened. Squibb predicted that the surge in Republicanism in 2012 and 2014 would lead to a worsening of women's lives in America, whereas America has been climbing and the others falling, including his beloved Canada which has fallen to 0.0001 points above America, quite neglibable.

He's like a trolling 8ball. Always wrong but in predictable, correct ways.

Econ, you should be a writer. A political science fiction writer. Your descriptions, while lacking poetry, have a certain spark of genius to them.

Well, I do have somewhat vague future plans of writing economic literature (i.e. not just textbooks or academic tomes) given that there's been such a boom in demand for these. I hope it continues into the future. Lot of money to be made.

Although I have always wondered just who these people are that all of a sudden developed an intense interest in economics. Looking at the best sellers, conspiracy theorists and libertarians, so I'm not sure that'll last into the next decade.

This should've been done years ago.