Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Phazael_sl said:

Tanoomba is no Hodj. Your efforts are better spent elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Quoted for posterity. Let it ALWAYS be known that I am no Hodj.

Fuck it, I'm just going to respond to this:

Lithose_sl said:

Fact:You linked Sequielitis as an example of another form of critique that somehow "didn't get hate" (intimating that people should treat Anita like that). People told you it wasn't her views, it was that her views are signal boosted and remain unchallenged even though it's very easy to critique them.

Click to expand...

Peopletold me? No, my friend,youtold me that.Peopletold me she was a lying con-artist.
Your statement is an indictment of the media (which you've said many times is your point) and has almost nothing to do with Sarkeesian herself. After all, she just made videos. She didn't force any outlets to signal-boost her and very likely had nothing to do with the decision. My problem is with people seeing that she's been signal-boosted (for which there exist feasible non-sexist explanations), seeing that she's profited from it and holding herpersonally responsibleas a liar and a swindler. Don't act like all you guys are on the same side here. Many posters have said things that directly contradict things you have said, but as an unspoken rule you guys don't pay attention whenever that happens.

...Hey wait a second, why the fuck not? If you're going to take the time and effort to try to show me how I might be wrong about something, why not take the time to explain to one of the other participants in the ring? You DID say that the criticism Sarkeesian brought to the table was a good thing, right? Why don't you explain that to Khalid? Or Fanaskin? Why are you "signal-boosting" your disagreements with me while completely ignoring your disagreements with the other guys? I know this discussion is not part of mainstream media, but shouldn't you be leading by example? Practising what you preach, and all that jazz?

fanaskin_sl said:

arguing with you isn't signal boosting tanotard

Click to expand...

He's drawing attention to points I make that he disagrees with. This highlights me as someone whose views are deserving of criticism, hurting my reputation. At the same time, other people make points he disagrees with. Those points get a free pass. Why the disparity?

lendarios_sl said:

So what we do in this forum is signal boost? i thought signal boost was promoting other event/opinions, not talking about our own. Can someone explain it to me like if i was a four year old?

Click to expand...

Well, Lendarios, sometimes people use something calledhyperboleas a discussion tool. When someone makes an obvious and intentional exaggeration not meant to be taken literally, this is hyperbole. Often, this is used to draw a parallel between a point being made and another real-world scenario. In this case, I was using hyperbole to point out how the behavior Lithose strongly criticises the media for is reflected in his own arguing technique. I am not implying that his criticism is invalid, nor am I implying that he should be held to the same standard as the mainstream media. But I do think it's interesting that he condemns the media for ignoring certain stories (ie: Legitimate criticism of Sarkeesian) while he himself ignores certain stories (ie: The claims that Sarkeesian is a liar and a con artist and that her videos are somehow harmful).

I don't actually blame him for doing that, by the way. His purpose in this conversation is not to defend Sarkeesian or to promote the merits of her work. His purpose is to criticize how the media chose to portray her. He's already stated that he appreciates what she brings to the table and that he does think it's good that she's promoting criticism, so he justifiably feels that he has no further reponsibility to argue with people who would state otherwise.

The gaming media has taken a surprisingly similar stance when it comes to Sarkeesian's work. They feel that their purpose is not to attack Sarkeesian personally or to tear apart her work. Their purpose is to encourage people to check out what they believe to be an interesting video series that deals with a fresh perspective on video games. They've already stated that not everybody will agree with what she has to say, they've used generally neutral language to describe her work and they've allowed for legitimate criticism to be featured on their sites through user-provided comments, so they (arguably) justifiably feel that they have no further responsibility to argue with people who claim she's receiving nothing but praise.

Again, Lithose wants to hold the gaming media to a higher standard. He believes that, by their own admission, they are obligated to give more critical coverage of Sarkeesian's work simply because they gave her publicity. I don't necessarily disagree with that, although I do believe he has exaggerated the praise she has received. I also fail to see any actual evidence (besides circumstantial) that shows the media's actions to be sexism-motivated (ie: That they are intentionally shielding Sarkeesian from criticism because she is a woman).

Admittedly, this is not an explanation a 4 year old would understand, but it's not an issue a 4 year old would understand. Is it enough for you to understand, though? (That's not a sarcastic question, you have demonstrated a tendency to misunderstand forum posts several times.)

lendarios_sl said:

Is not that I tend to misunderstand your posts(which i do i guess), is that if I ask about signal boost, and in return I'm given an explanation for hyperbole, I feel that I didn't got the answer I was looking for.

Now if your post was, and it seems to read as a capitulation on the use of the "signal boost", i can leave it at that. But if you know what you did was hyperbole, and you know it is a bad argumentative strategy then why use it?


PS: i would have taken AIDS for an answer as well.

Click to expand...

Well, Lendarios, the fact that I was using hyperbole means my use of the term "signal-boosting" wasn't meant to be taken literally. I just wanted to draw a parallel between Lithose's behavior and the media's.

And who said hyperbole is necessarily "a bad argumentative strategy"? It can be used effectively to help illustrate points.