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

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Tanoomba_sl said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, it is not.

Let me google that for you

Also can you write in salmon color, when you type something that is not supposed to be taken literally? It is very hard to know when you mean the word figuratively.
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,036
Tanoomba_sl said:
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).
Click to expand...
It's incredible that your cognitive dissonance is so bad. I'm going to go with what the others have said and just assume you're trolling at this point (Which is why I didn't respond to your other two posts; just responding to this to explain why Khalid is right). But yeah, you explained why your argument is retarded in your own post (And others have been mocking you for it.) I am not a media company, I can not "signal" boost anyone. I have a position in a debate; that's all.

Tanoomba_sl said:
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).
Click to expand...
Just because I'm even bothering. I didnotexplain these things to illustrate how she is being signal boosted because she is a woman. I explained these things to show how idiotic it is toaccept her "evidence", and her standards for evidence, as proof of sexism, understand? (IE if the media believes Anita's "work" is evidence of sexism, then my examples should ALSO be adequate to prove the media is sexist. I have essentially used Anita's OWN methodology to illustrate SHE is a damsel in distress and the media is using lazy narratives to exploit that.)

The evidence I gaveclearlyshows a difference in exposure, criticism and narrative surrounding her videos compared to the Sequelitis series you linked. In 2 single term Google searches, restricted to one page each, I was able to push out a 11 articles--and these articles specifically left out any coverage, except 1 (From the Statesmen) that was generated by the "drama" surrounding Sarkesian (Threats, Sexism against her work--had I included that it would have topped 20). Meanwhile, for the other web series you highlighted, created by a male, but still MORE popular in terms of subscribers/views, I was only able to get1 news article(And I even searched links from the second and third pages for him.)

Now, you may say "that's correlation, not causation and therefor doesn't prove it was "sexism" at work"--and yes, Tan. That's the exact fucking response I wanted you to have. Because I was illustrating how WEAK Anita's small handfuls of examples are in video games and yet this is the evidence that is taken as gospel for very important critical evaluations of sexism/misogyny in work....and I said this in the FIRST post in the recent branch of the debate (Here so you can't straw man again and say that wasn't my point)

Lithose_sl said:
Tan, we've been over this. I showed you all the anecdotes about Smed, Brad, Thompson, TFYC, Brietbart writers (There ARE more.) and how the media coverage is radically different. Now, you may say "I need more proof"--and that's totally fair. But do you understand the point is I CAN provide evidence of a bias through multiple examples. And this standard IS accepted by the media when they review Anita's work.IfAnita's work is accepted and praised at that threshold; then WHY isn't the counter example of THEIR behavioralsoaccepted within the same threshold. But let me allow Anita to explain why the Media are being idiots, okay? (And again, the context of this is that arguments similar to mine, where the media is criticized, have been hand waved as myopic and anecdotal.)
Click to expand...
Accepting this weak, shitty evidence, WITHOUT being critical of it, is especially bad because Anita regularly goes on to provide her ownassumptionsas to the effects of these "correlations" (IE players will be more sexist in real life, because of this). So just imagine if, because I provided this academically hollow evidence, I were able to use the media to signal boost any message I want. Imagine if I said that this clear sexual bias in the media, leads to adiminished of capacity think critically and analyze situations correctlyfor readers of gaming media--producing an entire generation of fuckingmorons.

Don't you see how it would be problematic for the media to simply carry my message without criticism? The ENTIRE exercise was being used to GET you to beskeptical like you are being RIGHT NOW. The problem is, when the trap was closed and I illustrated that very point; you went full on obtuse mode and started your slow troll roll. So you claiming the basis of it was just to prove "it's because she is a woman! Rar rar!" clearly you trolling through a straw man..Which, by the way, is why I didn't respond to your last two posts.

I bet Khalid didn't even read my posts, and just got it; probably because the nature of the discourse made it freaking obvious the issue I was attempting to explain was a lot more complex than "her vagina gives her an advantage!". No, Tan. I was showing you how your obsequious adherence to your ideology has allowed you to accept evidence you would be extremely critical of if not spewed from the mouth of some pseudo intellectual armed with the title of "Feminist".
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,036
Erronius_sl said:
Can someone Cliffnote Tanoomba's posts for me real fast? I want to catch up on this thread but I'm not sure I'm willing to read all of Tanoomba's alphabet vomit.

Speaking of catching up, Lithose: whatever happened in the Ukraine thread? I got buried at school and that thread felt like it was becoming inbred. I'm half tempted to go dig up my last post and start back at it, but I dunno.
Click to expand...
Didn't see this earlier. Cliffnotes for Tan? At this point, read Seb's one liners :p. As for the Ukraine thread; there was a typo in the post, it should have read *Space Budget, you took it as total budget. I just responded with how the rest of my post used figures from the space budget (Just showing I was talking about their space budget.) But that's it, kind of boring.
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,036
khalid_sl said:
Dammit, first Tanoomba said I had to watch all of Sarkesian's videos, now you are implying I need to read all your posts? Where does this end? At least post a fucking abstract or something.
Click to expand...
Not sure if serious orreallyclever troll :p . (If serious--I was pointing out that you got my message/point even though you probably passed over most of them, and Tan didn't.)
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
For one thing, Lith, chill the fuck out. We're having a discussion here, and we're doing it for fun. I've been nothing but respectful to you, I haven't lost my temper or attacked you personally, I've done nothing but listen patiently to everything you've had to say, considered it carefully, and posted sincere and rational rebuttals. Don't yell insults at me and pretend for one second that you thought I was trolling.

Lithose_sl said:
Just because I'm even bothering. I didnotexplain these things to illustrate how she is being signal boosted because she is a woman. I explained these things to show how idiotic it is toaccept her "evidence", and her standards for evidence, as proof of sexism, understand? (IE if the media believes Anita's "work" is evidence of sexism, then my examples should ALSO be adequate to prove the media is sexist. I have essentially used Anita's OWN methodology to illustrate SHE is a damsel in distress and the media is using lazy narratives to exploit that.)
Click to expand...
I'm not trolling here, but you're making a false equivalence. Anita provided an exponentially greater amount of evidence to support her theory than you ever did, and her "theory" is something that anybody who's ever even remotely considered the portrayal of women in video games would have considered obvious. I don't think a single gamer, including posters here, would argue against there being sexist and stereotypical portrayals of both men and women in video games. Heck, my favorite article criticizing her work points out that she ignores that several of the games she uses as examples were made in Japan where sexism was (and to a large extent, still is) the unchallenged norm. It's not really debatable whether or not sexist representations of women exist in video games, it's just arguable whether certain examples of hers suit that argument.
Your claim, on the other hand, is conspiracy-theory-level connect-the-dots stuff that, while interesting, is difficult for people not predisposed to that line of thinking to take seriously. That may not be fair, but it certainly explains many of the "Why?" questions you have.

Also, I wish you would stop repeating things I've already agreed with you about. Yes, Sarkeesian's work was heavily publicized while Egoraptor's wasn't. I never argued otherwise, but I did offer a feasible explanation that had nothing to do with sexism.

And why would you say that Sarkeesian's word is taken "as gospel"? THIS is hyperbole that hurts an argument, and you've done itrepeatedly. It's convenient that you decided to use "I thought you were trolling" to avoid acknowledging thelastincident of you doing this. No, Lith, the mainstream media have NOT heaped praise on Sarkeesian. They've publicized her work, they've supported her when she decided to draw attention to the actions of sexist assholes, but so far the number of articles openly fawning over her work has been a big fat zero, compared to the 2-3 dozen we should have been able to easily find. "But publicity is praise!" Yeah, that's weak. If you want to talk about publicity, talk about publicity. Don't blur the issue by intentionally trying to misrepresent what's going on here. People get pissed when theythinkSarkeesian is doing that so I don't see why you should get a free pass.

And again, because you're repeating a point I've already agreed with repeatedly, YES,of courseSarkeesian should be subject to criticism. To a large extent, she isheavilycriticized, both in a tremendous number of non-mainstream sources that anybody who gives a shit can find WAY more easily than examples of her being praised (as you have shown), and in the comments sections of her videos on mainstream sites. On top of that, I don't think you realize how significant an impact the attention-grabbing behavior of a bunch of sexist assholes has had on the media's ability to criticize her openly.

Lithose_sl said:
I was showing you how your obsequious adherence to your ideology has allowed you to accept evidence you would be extremely critical of if not spewed from the mouth of some pseudo intellectual armed with the title of "Feminist".
Click to expand...
Interesting... all this time I thoughtIwas showingyouhowyourobsequious adherence to your ideology has allowed you to accept evidence you would be extremely critical of if not spewed from the mouth of some pseudo intellectual armed with the motivation of "fixing gaming media".

rrr_img_76780.jpg
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,036
Tanoomba_sl said:
Anita provided an exponentially greater amount of evidence to support her theory than you ever did
Click to expand...
Wrong, her videos usually only have 10-12 direct examples of her hypothesis; and references (Hand waving) of more. I have 11 examples, and hand waved a lot more. Done. You're still bullshitting Tan; and that's why I'm done with this. (Also, I never insulted you, I called you obsequious, I guess; but given your fanatical devotion? I don't really consider it bad,especiallybecause you've intimated I was sexist, paranoid and conspiracy theorist multiple times.)

Tanoomba_sl said:
Interesting... all this time I thought I was showing you how your obsequious adherence to your ideology has allowed you to accept evidence you would be extremely critical of if not spewed from the mouth of some pseudo intellectual armed with the motivation of "fixing gaming media".
Click to expand...
Also, I don't have an ideology (Please learn what words mean). I don't agree with a lot of the bullshit in Gamer gate; I'm essentially just criticizing the media for being terrible and using examples of gamegate to illustrate their retarded narratives (Mainly because my first post in this thread was illustrating how the attacks on Gamergate were similar to the attacks on you, through feminism, in this thread.). But that's probably the fundamental disconnect, Tan. I'm arguing from a position that everyone should be skeptical of all narratives (Which is actually a fundamental attack on ideological thinking); and you just can't fathom how someone could be even remotely independent in their thoughts, so you have to ascribe that to some ideology and I just don't understand people who go through life so indoctrinated toward a philosophy (But hey, that's why I don't talk to overly religious people, either.)
 
Mario Speedwagon

Mario Speedwagon

Gold Recognition
<Prior Amod>
19,525
72,214
Tanoomba_sl said:
For one thing, Lith, chill the fuck out. We're having a discussion here, and we're doing it for fun. I've been nothing but respectful to you, I haven't lost my temper or attacked you personally, I've done nothing but listen patiently to everything you've had to say, considered it carefully, and posted sincere and rational rebuttals. Don't yell insults at me and pretend for one second that you thought I was trolling.


I'm not trolling here, but you're making a false equivalence. Anita provided an exponentially greater amount of evidence to support her theory than you ever did, and her "theory" is something that anybody who's ever even remotely considered the portrayal of women in video games would have considered obvious. I don't think a single gamer, including posters here, would argue against there being sexist and stereotypical portrayals of both men and women in video games. Heck, my favorite article criticizing her work points out that she ignores that several of the games she uses as examples were made in Japan where sexism was (and to a large extent, still is) the unchallenged norm. It's not really debatable whether or not sexist representations of women exist in video games, it's just arguable whether certain examples of hers suit that argument.
Your claim, on the other hand, is conspiracy-theory-level connect-the-dots stuff that, while interesting, is difficult for people not predisposed to that line of thinking to take seriously. That may not be fair, but it certainly explains many of the "Why?" questions you have.

Also, I wish you would stop repeating things I've already agreed with you about. Yes, Sarkeesian's work was heavily publicized while Egoraptor's wasn't. I never argued otherwise, but I did offer a feasible explanation that had nothing to do with sexism.

And why would you say that Sarkeesian's word is taken "as gospel"? THIS is hyperbole that hurts an argument, and you've done itrepeatedly. It's convenient that you decided to use "I thought you were trolling" to avoid acknowledging thelastincident of you doing this. No, Lith, the mainstream media have NOT heaped praise on Sarkeesian. They've publicized her work, they've supported her when she decided to draw attention to the actions of sexist assholes, but so far the number of articles openly fawning over her work has been a big fat zero, compared to the 2-3 dozen we should have been able to easily find. "But publicity is praise!" Yeah, that's weak. If you want to talk about publicity, talk about publicity. Don't blur the issue by intentionally trying to misrepresent what's going on here. People get pissed when theythinkSarkeesian is doing that so I don't see why you should get a free pass.

And again, because you're repeating a point I've already agreed with repeatedly, YES,of courseSarkeesian should be subject to criticism. To a large extent, she isheavilycriticized, both in a tremendous number of non-mainstream sources that anybody who gives a shit can find WAY more easily than examples of her being praised (as you have shown), and in the comments sections of her videos on mainstream sites. On top of that, I don't think you realize how significant an impact the attention-grabbing behavior of a bunch of sexist assholes has had on the media's ability to criticize her openly.


Interesting... all this time I thoughtIwas showingyouhowyourobsequious adherence to your ideology has allowed you to accept evidence you would be extremely critical of if not spewed from the mouth of some pseudo intellectual armed with the motivation of "fixing gaming media".
Click to expand...
rrr_img_76782.jpg
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Lithose_sl said:
Wrong, her videos usually only have 10-12 direct examples of her hypothesis; and references (Hand waving) of more. I have 11 examples, and hand waved a lot more. Done. You're still bullshitting Tan; and that's why I'm done with this. (Also, I never insulted you, I called you obsequious, I guess; but given your fanatical devotion? I don't really consider it bad,especiallybecause you've intimated I was sexist and a conspiracy theories multiple times.)
Click to expand...
10-12 examples X how many videos? Her point is that "video games often contain sexist portrayals of women". She made several videos, each with many examples. I'm pretty sure she still trumps your examples, dude. By the way, I'd actually like to know your take: Do you NOT think video games are filled with sexist portrayals of women?

Lithose_sl said:
Also, I don't have an ideology (Please learn what words mean). I don't agree with a lot of the bullshit in Gamer gate; I'm essentially just criticizing the media for being terrible and using examples of gamegate to illustrate their retarded narratives (Mainly because my first post in this thread was illustrating how the attacks on Gamergate were similar to the attacks on you, through feminism, in this thread.). But that's probably the fundamental disconnect, Tan. I'm arguing from a position that everyone should be skeptical of all narratives (This time, the media); and you just can't fathom how someone could be even remotely independent in their thoughts and I just don't understand people who go through life so indoctrinated toward a philosophy (But hey, that's why I don't talk to overly religious people, either.)
Click to expand...
Wait a second... so what's my ideology then? Be careful how you word that because if it isn't backed up by what I've actually said you already know I'll call you on it. I personally think it's pretty lazy to claim my supposed "ideology" is the reason I don't see your point, but since you did it first I showed you how easily the same point could be used against you. Isn't it more productive to actually argue the content of our posts? Isn't that what separates legitimate criticism from mud-slinging?
Heck, I completely and totallyagreethat people should be sceptical of all narratives, and that absolutely includes Sarkeesian's work (try to find one example of me saying otherwise). I'm not indoctrinated toanyphilosophy, my friend. I'm very likely among the most open-minded and reasonable people on this entire message board, and unlike the grand majority of posters here, I can back that up with several examples of me admitting I was wrong. I actuallylikebeing proven wrong. The new perspective and realization that I have new knowledge I didn't have before make it feel like I just "gained a level" in real life. I don't let my pride get in the way of admitting I was looking at things the wrong way, and that's coming from someone who the majority of posters hereloveto ridicule. How many other posters here can you say that about?

Anyway, if you want to quit the discussion, that's totally fine and I won't hold it against you. You are a more than worthy opponent and I always enjoy sparring with you. Thanks for humoring me this long (God knows there are other threads you could be enriching with your presence). Whatever your views are, I still believe you are fundamentally a good person with noble motivations, so I can't really hold anything against you. Don't think I haven't noticed that you avoided addressing your use of hyperbole, though
wink.png


You have a good night, Lith.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
80,172
160,395
Tanoomba, please create an idea for a game for us where women arent treated in a sexist way
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
80,172
160,395
what does that mean? you concede that such a thing isnt really possible or feasible cause no one would care about a game like that including the women?
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Araysar_sl said:
what does that mean? you concede that such a thing isnt really possible or feasible cause no one would care about a game like that including the women?
Click to expand...
Nah, I'm just playing with you. There have already been tons of games where women haven't been treated in sexist ways. I would even go as far as to say that a lot of recent games (especially in the indie scene) take stuff like that into consideration and avoid used tired clich?s. Nobody needsmeto come up with "an idea for a game for us where women aren't treated in a sexist way".
 
Mario Speedwagon

Mario Speedwagon

Gold Recognition
<Prior Amod>
19,525
72,214
Tanoomba_sl said:
Nah, I'm just playing with you. There have already been tons of games where women haven't been treated in sexist ways. I would even go as far as to say that a lot of recent games (especially in the indie scene) take stuff like that into consideration and avoid used tired clich?s. Nobody needsmeto come up with "an idea for a game for us where women aren't treated in a sexist way".
Click to expand...
rrr_img_76784.jpg
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
tan.. Wasn't your point that using hyperbole in an argument was not always a bad thing... Then 3 post after accused lith of using hyperbole in his argument.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
lendarios_sl said:
tan.. Wasn't your point that using hyperbole in an argument was not always a bad thing... Then 3 post after accused lith of using hyperbole in his argument.
Click to expand...
That's exactly right. I'll give you a moment to think about why there's no contradiction there.
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
So it is bad when he does it, but not when you do it, and that is not a contradiction? Is it hipocresy then? I'm trying to find a positive quality for it, but I cant. Help me out, how it is called when you do it is right, but when others do it is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.