• The site has now migrated to Xenforo 2. If you see any issues with the forum operation, please post them in the feedback thread.
  • An addendum to Rule 3 regarding fan-translated works of things such as Web Novels has been made. Please see here for details.
  • RIP @Silver Swallow
  • The issue with logging in with email addresses has been resolved.
  • Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
  • For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
  • Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
  • Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
  • The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.

Gendered nouns, nonstandard and otherwise

Status
Not open for further replies.
1986ctcel said:
Jack Thompson actually deserved the criticism and the bolded is some of that failure to analyze I talked about.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And Anita doesn't why? Because she's a woman? She does spout the same shit as Thompson. All she's doing is swapping out violence for sexism and it's the same argument, which has been disproven.

Also, what failure to analyze? I don't see anything from you in the last few pages.
 
Garahs said:
And Anita doesn't why? Because she's a woman? She does spout the same shit as Thompson. All she's doing is swapping out violence for sexism and it's the same argument, which has been disproven.

Also, what failure to analyze? I don't see anything from you in the last few pages.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Except Thompson was flat out lying and telling everyone it made kids into carjacking mass shooters, Anita just points out shit and the problematic interpretations/implications and wants games to improve

In my post you quoted above that section, yes you TECHNICALLY get penalized (don't get the highest rank or something) but you can easily go guns blazing if you just want to have fun killing people. I mean GTA technically penalizes you for going on killing sprees but Rampage challenges with bonuses and shit still exist and if you tell me that just getting sent to the hospital without you're huns and a small amount of cash missing is really dissuade people from doing that then you're a liar

Thompson flat out tried to ban games while Anita has REPEATEDLY stated that just because you like a game that has problems with DOESN'T mean you like sexism and stuff.
vyor said:
But she didn't attack it for that(she was talking about fucking mario). No, she just said it was sexist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It is, because Peach almost NEVER does anything except get captured she's fucking USELESS.
 
vyor said:
She was attacking the original. That's also wrong, see: the rpgs.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well then its true, she does nothing in the original except wait to be rescued Are we REALLY debating this? Look at the freaking trope name and how many times its appeared in games and myths plus its a freaking 80s game.

And what does Peach ACTUALLY accomplish in the RPGs without needing Mario to save her? Hell how many RPG games where she does shit are there versus all the OTHER ones where she's the equivalent of Mario's stolen lawn gnome?
 
powerofvoid said:
Could you give some examples?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, there's the Hitman thing of course.

Oh, and Assassin's Creed. Apparently she really hated those courtesans. Never mind the fact that it's a historically accurate (well, for video game standards) and these women probably do more to save the main character's ass than the main character does. Strong female characters who are confident in their sexuality and more useful at times than the main character? That's sexism, now? Did I miss a memo?

Princess Peach is an icon of sexism. Riiiight.

Sending death threats *to herself*... then tweeting about them... yeup, there's that...

Oh, and I'll just link this article to her showing on Colbert's show

http://realgamernewz.com/41779/anita-sarkeesian-gets-exposed-as-a-fraud-by-stephen-colbert

More because I truly love Colbert than anything else. The man is funny, and his researchers *actually do research*, instead of the typical lazy news journalism. Granted, I wish he'd be more serious, but there's few if any that are more dedicated to getting to the truth.


And it's not so much that she does these things. That makes her a pathetic brat who got lucky at best, and a despicable con artist at worst. What bothers me is that it's this obvious, and still people jump to her defense.

That's where the problem lies in modern feminism. They're not willing to stand up and say "this is wrong" when their own pull this kind of bullshit. And until they are, they are deserving of the contempt they receive.


EDIT: Anyway, going to sleep now. This discussion doesn't trump my brief respite from consciousness.
 
Last edited:
TanaNari said:
It's been the primary definition for over a century now... so... what did the feminist movement look like circa WW1?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Merriam-Webster definition which equates it to Sex as defined "The male/female gender" and simply put "The state of being [either] male or female." You're definition is listed on there as the last entry but it seems likely that it's to define the the use of the word as an adjective rather than a noun.

Edit: Ugh, as much as I love etymology and learning more about the English language it really is a no win situation to argue it. Again, as has been said before. When you argue English you are always wrong.
 
TanaNari said:
Sending death threats *to herself*... then tweeting about them... yeup, there's that...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Here's the only part of this post that's maybe even slightly relevant, IMO, and only in the context of your also unsubstantiated claims that the social justice movement defends her doing this.

Because we're not talking about whether Anita Sarkeesian is worth listening to, we're talking about your claim that she damns the entire social justice movement.
 
TanaNari said:
Ah, but I didn't say that, and if you listened instead of deciding I'm the enemy and looking for ways to attack me, you'd know that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Here's what I saw:
TanaNari said:
Also... thanks for reminding me that once upon a time, feminism was actually a force for good in this world. Before the SJWs and other nutjobs came along and turned it into what it is now.

... It's like seeing the Mona Lisa used as toilet paper by Rosie O'Donnell after Taco Bell week. Using telescopic zoom.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
powerofvoid said:
TanaNari said:
SJWs and other nutjobs
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Seriously? Is this where we're going to go with this thread?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
TanaNari said:
The new wave of feminism embraces, encourages and praises their loons. Just look at Sarkeesian.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
powerofvoid said:
Here's what I saw:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Only if you cherry pick my, and others', words to ignore the actual points.

TanaNari said:
Yeah. But usually MOST of the normal members of those labels actively try to reject and distance themselves from the psychos, attacking them even harder than "outsiders" do in an effort to send the whole "that psycho's not one of us" message as loud as possible to the rest of the human race.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

TanaNari said:
But all of that is secondary. A symptom of the disease. The disease itself, the cancer at the heart of feminism, is the people who defended her. Not because she was right, or because she was being wronged- after all, if they believed in that, they'd be defending Thompson as well- they defend her because she's "one of them".

I don't believe one bad apple spoils the bunch.

I do believe that if you lay down with dogs, you wake up with flees.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...



Oh, and of course the shit that I was *personally on the receiving end of* for writing a story which portrayed a female-on-male rape in both a serious and sympathetic light for the male victim. Where I was told repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that it was impossible for women to rape men, and by saying otherwise it was an attack on women.

It's an endemic problem, with symptoms everywhere. Acknowledge it as such. And don't play the whitewash game on me.
 
Last edited:
According to Anita Sarkeesian's wikipedia page, she merely talked about sexism in videogames, while Jack Thompson engaged in lawsuits and political campaigns to have videogames banned.

One of these things is not like the other.
 
TanaNari said:
Jesus. Tapdancing. Christ. It's literally the last thing I said on the post right above yours.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

TanaNari said:
the cancer at the heart of feminism, is the people who defended her. Not because she was right, or because she was being wronged- after all, if they believed in that, they'd be defending Thompson as well- they defend her because she's "one of them".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
"If they believed in that, they'd be defending Thompson as well," implies that Anita Sarkeesian and Jack Thompson did similar things, and therefore defending Sarkeesian but not Thompson is bias.
 
TanaNari said:
First- you're wrong.

Second- I note you deliberately ignoring all the other points made. So still whitewashing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm focusing on one point at a time, and you've called this the biggest problem.

What are you saying I'm wrong about?
  • Are you saying Sarkeesian did lobby and sue for certain games to be banned?
  • Are you saying that defending someone who did X but not someone who did Y is hypocritical?
  • >_______ ?
 
I did not call it the "biggest" problem. I called it a symptom of the disease, and that said disease is the biggest problem. But since you can't actually address that, I'm going to operate on the assumption that you know I'm right and want to avoid others figuring it out.

You're wrong that the lobbying or lack thereof makes a difference. It does not. The lying, misrepresentations and attention seeking- then playing the victim card when being called out on those actions- are the flaws in both Sarkeesian and Thompson. The flaw in the SJWs and neo-feminists is that they're defending these actions and playing the victim card themselves.
 
TanaNari said:
I did not call it the "biggest" problem. I called it a symptom of the disease, and that said disease is the biggest problem. But since you can't actually address that, I'm going to operate on the assumption that you know I'm right and want to avoid others figuring it out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Would you say that the "disease" is "defending all members of the in-group under all circumstances no matter what"?
 
Gentlemen, Ladies, and Assorted Creatures, I get that some discussions can get heated, be it online or in real life. I really do, it is human nature.

That said, this discussion is not in the rants subforum and as such I am going to ask that you keep this discussion polite and be excellent to each other, also please don't startle the tanuki or the mods....
 
If you need to move them one at a time, don't bother. I'll just link to where it begins. As I said, I don't know how much you guys can do. I was hoping you could multi-select and move them easily.
 
powerofvoid said:
Would you say that the "disease" is "defending all members of the in-group under all circumstances no matter what"?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Far too specific and absolutist for my tastes. Any step toward rejecting the concept of "us vs them" is always a step in the right direction, and "defending the in group" runs contrary to that goal. But so does absolutist statements. So I have mixed feelings... but I'll consider this a reasonable guideline at first glance

Let's add in promoting hate speech. Dehumanizing victims of crime, and indeed claiming certain horrific crimes cannot be crimes if men are the victims. It's not like Sarkeesian is anywhere near the only example. Just one of the most currently visible.

We'll see how it survives the battlefield.
 
Last edited:
snthsnth said:
It's properly used to refer to individuals of both sexes as a singular person, as in: 'If someone calls, tell them I'll be back at 3:00.' or 'Someone left their books behind.'

This is in opposition to, 'The cloaked figure raised their arm, summoning a barmaid to their table.' Which is a situation where you would have a definite impression of the person's build and would use a male/female gendered pronoun.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Shakespeare & Jane Austen disagree:

There's not a man I meet but doth salute me
As if I were their well-acquainted friend

"Who is in love with her? Who makes you their confidant?"
 
Dakkaface said:
Shakespeare & Jane Austen disagree:

There's not a man I meet but doth salute me
As if I were their well-acquainted friend

"Who is in love with her? Who makes you their confidant?"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In the first I'd argue that it's probable that 'man' refers to mankind, but let's ignore that for now. In both these examples the individual the pronoun refers to is abstracted. It's not, 'Is John in love with her? What makes you their confidant?' which clearly is lesser for the use of 'their' instead of 'his'.

I suppose that the use of 'them' and 'their' is acceptable when referring to an abstracted individual, but when dealing with a specific individual gendered nouns are superior.
 
dBoYIz2.png
 
10 more messages…
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top