RAB: Anita Sarkeesian’s Hitman Argument is Stupid

I’m bored on a Friday night and tired of doing nothing with me life.  So here I am, on my website, drinking pina colada and doing nothing with my life.  As I drank this wonderful concoction, a thought came to me – Anita Sarkeesian’s argument about Hitman is stupid.  Like, really stupid.  Her Damsels in Distress video has a scene from Hitman: Absolution where you can go into the room with the strippers and kill them and drag them around the floor.  Her argument was that the player sees the bodies as something to just use and throw away and how that’s a reflection on men in general.  Let’s not even get into the how the game penalizes you for attacking civilians.  Anita says that argument doesn’t work because the game should have a fail state if you do that.  Well, that is dumb.  After all, if the game failed you because you killed a target who isn’t the one you are after then it would never work.  There are plenty of times you’re going to have to whack the bad guys.  Besides, these arguments have been taken on by everyone.  I had a new thought.

Let’s ignore Hitman: Absolution.  That game was terrible.  It totally betrayed everything that made the series good.  Let’s instead look at the new game.  You know, the one that was such a financial disappointment to Square Enix that they are selling the company who made it.  Yeah, the second season is never happening.  In the new game, who is Agent 47?  He’s no one.  He’s a weapon, in every sense of the word.  He will not act unless he gets explicit permission.  From whom?  Well, that would be his handler – Diana.  At no point will he act unless she gives him permission to do so.  Everything he does is directly at her request.  In essence, in their dynamic she has all the power.  All of it.  47 has no agency is his own story.  When she tells him that there is a potential threat, he even says that it is her issue to deal with, he’s just waiting for a target.

For a game all about the “male power fantasy,” it sure is interesting that a woman has every single ounce of the power in the relationship, isn’t it?  I kind of like that.  It’s what made Absolution so frustrating.  47 isn’t meant to have any power over his own fate.  His entire life he was trained to be a weapon to be used by others.  It’s all he knows.  If feminists knew the first thing about nuance, they might think about things like that.

Honestly don’t have anywhere else I was going with that.  I just find it interesting that the character Anita believes is guilty of treating women like objects doesn’t acknowledge that aside from terrible games, he is just a tool to be used by an agency and a woman who has the deadliest assassin in the world at her tool for getting things done.

Until next time, a quote,

“Someone’s playing a game, 47.  The question is – against whom?” – Diana, Hitman

Peace out,

Maverick

Zoe Quinn Harasses ‘The Last Night’ Director For Supporting #GamerGate

Oh look, it’s everyone’s favorite professional victim who is back to wear her victimhood like a badge of honor even though the Internet forgot about her years ago.  And since she can’t just sit back and let herself fall into obscurity like the vulture that she is, when the director of a new game that looks pretty cool came out and she found out through her information network that he had said positive things about the now-defunct culture war #GamerGate, she had to get her little army of minions to go out and attack him.  I am, of course, talking about the director or The Last Night.

See, the director of that game actually believes that ethical standards in games journalism is something worth fighting for, and that the world of Indie games is a toxic circlejerk of multi-colored hair warriors who have to suck each other off so hard.  And since Zoe Quinn hasn’t been in the public eye in so long, just like Brianna Wu she had to get the old victim train going.  Also just like Brianna Wu, Zoe is a cunt-rag who tries to play off what at terrible person she is as everyone just being mean to her.

Let’s take a look at the narrative she paints for herself.  According to her, she was the tragic victim of a horrible man who chose to slut-shame her and paint the scarlet letter on her in the public square.  And ever since she has been the victim of virtually non-stop abuse by all the evil people of the Internet.  That’s the narrative that she paints.  The same one that her and her more-successful professional victim comrade Anita Sarkeesian painted in front of the UN while they argued that the Internet should have everyone who disagrees with them removed.  Not that Zoe would know what it’s like for people to disagree with her.  Her echo chamber is so massive that she lives in it.  Every time that she has even slightly ventured out of it the weight of her lies almost destroyed her.

What is the truth?  Simple – her ex-boyfriend Eron wrote a hugely-long post where he laid out how betrayed he felt by her.  Among the endless reasons why was the fact that she had been cheating on him, with five people.  Mundane’s Matt and Internet Aristocrat’s video of what happened led her to being the catalyst to the online culture war known as #GamerGate.  And very quickly Zoe became forgotten amongst the far more interesting topics at hand.  Topics like the fact that several of the people who she had cheated on Eron with were people who had covered in the games media before.  In fact Nathan Grayson became a far more interesting topic than she ever was.  All she did was create a boring video game about living with depression.  A choose-your-adventure game about depression.  Yeah, sounds like a recipe for great “gameplay.”

After the storm that was GamerGate died down, Zoe found herself in the media in other ways.  Like how she was busted red-handed leading a online blitzkrieg of attacks against Candace Owens.  There had been a blog post where she laid out what had happened, and how she was able to put together that Zoe was directly responsible for the attacks against her.  A really scum-fuck thing to do.  As I said, she went to the UN, where she desperately tried to sell that the Internet still sent daily hate to her, even though it is easily-provable that the Internet moved on from her not long after the hashtag #GamerGate was founded by Adam Baldwin.  Given how she was able to generate an attack against Candace Owens through mysterious anonymous sources, it’s not hard to think that probably most of the hate she has ever received was from the same sock-puppet accounts.

Oh, and let’s not forget the leaked chat logs from Crash Override Network, Zoe’s little circlejerk of victimhood that showed that she had actively sabotaged the Rebel Game Jam she had been a part of in order to cash in on the social justice points and make herself look good while the rest of them look bad.  I still believe the person who sponsored that event should sue her.  Or how she doxxed and ruined the Fine Young Capitalist’s fundraising event to help promote women in gaming, which she didn’t like because they weren’t promoting her.  And just like all feminists with a sense of entitlement up her non-existent ass, she had to make them pay for not making everything in that project about her.  But again, she’s a victim.  Not a scum-fuck.

Now she has turned her refusal to let her 15 minutes of shame die into an attack against someone who hasn’t done thing one against her other than support an online movement.  That’s it.  That’s all he did.  Then Notch had to go and take the Internet’s ire by calling her a cunt.  Which, you know, she is.  Indefensibly so.  Zoe Quinn is a cunt with a capital C.  She is a horrible person who wanted to make a game that was neatly stealing the show at E3 about her.  Because why shouldn’t a big game reveal be about her?  And of course the parasites at Feminist Frequency have come out in support of her.  Why not.

Zoe, you are a cunt.  You are a terrible person.  I don’t lightly use that term, but it describes you perfectly.  What’s more, you actually believed you are owed something for the fact that people see you for what you are after all of the debacle that you were barely a part of.  You believe that you are owed.  That just blows my fucking mind.  Zoe Quinn feels that the Internet owes HER for the shit she has pulled.  No, Zoe!  You owe people an apology.  People like Eron, who had those of us who supported GamerGate donate to his defense fund, which when you realized that the trial didn’t make you look good you dropped.  People like Candace Owens, who busted you dead to rights for a campaign of doxing and harassment through sock puppet accounts.  There are so many people who you owe.  But you won’t.  After all, admitting wrongdoing just fucks with the narrative.  Can’t have that.  Then you might start self-reflection and that might just lead you to realize what a fucking piece of shit you are.

Until next time, a quote,

“Mr Worf, villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot.  Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well-camouflaged.” – Capt. Picard

Peace out,

Maverick

#GamerGate Blamed for Trump’s Election (A response to L.A. Times)

Man, here’s something I never thought I would be talking about again.  It’s been YEARS since GamerGate was a thing.  During the heyday battles, it was a conflict that ran the gamut of ideological participants.  It brought groups who absolutely despise one-another together for the common goal of striking back against the games media and how corrupt it had become.  How it was pretty blatantly shilling a progressive message and leaving any form of objectivity at the door.  A fact that was apparently championed by “consumer advocate” landwhales like Jim Sterling, who listened to a game dev talk about doxing people and nodded while saying “absolutely.”  Given his stances on Quiet and sexy women in games, that should surprise no one.

I’ve heard every group imaginable be blamed for Donald Trump getting elected.  Russia is the biggest one, for their alleged leaks of documents that not one person has been able to prove are untrue.  Assuming it is true, I say that we should be thanking them.  Russia didn’t leak some lie to the American people.  It was the truth.  The truth about Hillary Clinton having her entire party behind her and manipulating the electoral process as much as possible to destroy Bernie Sanders.  Huh, makes you wonder if the reason that people didn’t like her is because she is a vindictive bitch.  That’s not to say that I like Trump.  Although, when you think about the alternatives, he really is the best option.  Hillary was doomed, regardless.  Had it been Ted Cruz who won the primary, he would have taken the WikiLeaks documents and beaten her to death with them.

However, in addition to blaming Russia, Millennials, Bernie Sanders, and neo-nazis for Trump winning, now the L.A. Times wants to add GamerGate to the pile.  Oh boy, this should be fun.  Here’s a link to the article, now let’s talk about it.

SEE IF THIS CAMPAIGN TACTIC sounds familiar: Rally white men who feel the world is changing too fast, leverage racial bias for the cause, and demean women along the way.

The strategy belonged to a radical corner of the gaming world that may have provided the winning playbook for the campaign that won the presidential election.

I’m gonna destroy the white men argument right out of the gate so I don’t have to bring that up again when destroying the rest of this bullshit argument.  Because this author clearly gets his news from BuzzFeed, I guess he didn’t know about the tag that came with GamerGate – #NotYourShield.  Here’s a video that may put it into perspective.  Alright, moving on.  I can already see the insane strawman corollary that is being drawn here, but let’s let him get into it a bit more.

“Gamergate” is the term now used to describe the movement in which Internet trolls attacked high-profile people in the game industry if they attempted to change — or even speak out about — the misogynistic themes of video games. They are the gaming world’s radical right, and they’re fighting back against what they see as the onslaught of politically correct culture.

Actually, numb-nuts, GamerGate supporters ran the spectrum of political ideologies.  There are left-leaning social libertarians like me.  You had classical liberals like Sargon of Akkad.  You had conservatives who tried to avoid the politics of it all like Internet Aristocrat.  You had left-leaning gaming commentators like Mundane Matt.  There were all kinds in this movement.  If anything, it was impressive in how it brought together not just people of different ideologies, but people from various gaming spheres.  GameFAQs and Reddit forums came together in a show of solidarity never seen before.  Boards that hated each other like it was no one’s business on 4chan came together.  And all of it was sparked off when Eron Gjoni wrote his post, which Mundane Matt covered in a video that got a DMCA flag, which caught Internet Aristocrat’s attention.  You can’t even make your caricature of GamerGate right.  But again, he probably got all of his news from BuzzFeed and the rest of the left-leaning media.  It didn’t matter how many people debunked what they were saying, the narrative stuck.

The trajectories of Trump and Gamergate could be practically charted by the same graph — guys (for the most part) that a significant portion of the country didn’t take  seriously pandered to humanity’s most base instincts and won.

Actually, they are very far apart.  GamerGate was tired of the social justice culture injecting itself into video games.  You say that we rebelled against news outlets talking about “misogynistic themes in video games” (citation, please), but that’s not true.  What we rebelled against was the injection of social justice where it clearly wasn’t wanted or needed.  I’m sure you will come on and say, “It was needed!  Gaming is misogyny!  Just look at how sexy that woman is!  That’s demeaning to all women!”  However, there were a TON of very well-educated voices who spoke out against this attitude.  Like this video by Christina Hoff Summers.

Donald Trump won the election because he convinced people that he was some big outsider who was going to fight against the corporate government establishment that people were so tired of.  He capitalized on the same energy the Bernie Sanders had.  I knew that Trump wasn’t some big outsider, because I actually pay attention to history.  He’s center-right, much like Hillary Clinton.  There really isn’t that much difference between them.  GamerGate started as a consumer revolt.  Donald Trump started as a con artist capitalizing on energy that a genuine believer already had stirred up.  The truth is that these two movements have almost nothing in common, outside of people being tired of the status quo, and fighting against it.

The term “Gamergate” emerged as a hashtag in mid-August 2014. It described the attacks, particularly on women in the gaming world, by trolls and eventually their de-facto leader Milo Yiannopoulos, who became Gamergate’s Breitbart champion.

There were no leaders in this movement, dude.  None.  That was part of the problem.  The movement had no unifying message.  Some of its proponents took actions, and some didn’t.  Some chose to do this thing or that thing, but the truth is that all we had in common was a shared dislike of politics in video games journalism.  We just wanted to get straight news, and not have to hear about how Gone Home is the greatest game ever, just because it involves a gay chick.  Whoopty-fucking-doo.  Milo was definitely an ally of the movement, but he was not a leader.  I am really wondering where this guy got his news.

He goes on to make Milo out to be just like Trump.  This dude will take whatever he can to try and make these two things seem connected.  It’s kind of sad, if we’re being honest here.

Female game designers and journalists who spoke out about a more inclusive future for the medium were harassed on social media with threats of physical attacks, rape and death. Their emails were leaked (sound familiar?), and some saw details about their personal lives published online.

Let’s break this down, piece by piece.  I know what “game developers” he’s talking about – Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu.  Zoe Quinn was nothing to the movement but a launching point.  To be honest, we cared more about Nathan Grayson than we did about her.  After all, it was him that she was sleeping with, and him who had given her positive coverage (not a review.  People had said he reviewed her game, and that wasn’t true.  But he had written positive articles about her.  He is also crediting in Quinn’s “game” Depression Quest), which basically broke every rule about conflict of interest.  After she faded from the spotlight, she did everything she possibly could to pretend that the movement still cared about her.  Neat thing – Quinn was actually busted propagating a harassment campaign against a developer of an app.  Dead to rights, she was busted exploited personal information the app developer gave her to orchestrate a harassment campaign, and only stopped when the person threatened to go public about it.  Which they did anyway.  Well-played.

Next up we have Brianna Wu.  A woman whose 15 minutes of fame went on FAR too long.  She was one of the many people who came out and attempted to make the story about her.  Every time she could possibly find a way to make herself out to be the victim, she did.  Like when she exploited the death of a woman who wasn’t even remotely connected to GamerGate to sell her own victimhood.  An act so repulsive that I was openly venomous with her.  Using the horrific death of a woman to sell the fact that she is “in danger” was just sick.  Then, Wu was busted trolling herself on Steam to try and rack up victimhood points.  Guess she didn’t get the memo to make sure to switch to an appropriately-misogynistic sock-puppet account first.  Idiot.

As for the leaked emails, I’m assuming he’s talking about the GameJournoPros list that got leaked.  Neat fact about that – most of the emails and senders whose names got leaked in that were men.  This Todd really must get his news from a fantastic source.

“Lock her up,” Trump supporters shouted about Hillary Clinton.

“I hope you die,” Gamergate champions tweeted at Anita Sarkeesian, a prominent cultural critic who critiques games from a feminist perspective.

Yes, let’s equate what people said at a political rally to what trolls said to a con artist who used them to get victim points.  Sure, that sounds equivalent.

Gamergate advocates argued that gaming journalists were corrupt and were colluding to bring a politically correct makeover to the medium (read: take away our digital guns, treat women as something more than sex objects and cast someone — anyone — other than a white male as the lead protagonist).

Wow.  What gross hyperbole.  Care to back that up with a citation?  Because, from where I’m sitting, Internet Aristocrat made a truly fantastic series of videos detailing how the story played out (linked here).  I suggest you take a look at that before saying that we were all just losing our shit over nothing, which I take it is what you meant with this comparison.

Also, treat women as something other than sex objects?  Considering how many women were involved in GamerGate, that’s fucking sexist, dude.  That’s basically denying the women involved and their opinions on the subject.  Fuck you.

Those who bought into his words targeted their ire at female critics who sought to intellectualize the medium. Ultimately, they were only bringing to light gaming’s more regrettable traits: that it has long pandered to a male-focused, gun-obsessed community where women were damsels more often than heroes.

To intellectualize the medium?  Oh really? By disabling comments and not once responding to critics, many of whom were level-headed and who wanted honest debate with the likes of Anita Sarkeesian?  Gee, funny how that works.  Seems that revisionist history is alive and well.  But you are making comparisons to GamerGate and Donald Trump.  I’m not surprised.

As for the “regrettable traits,” there have been a TON of fantastic, well-researched, well-made videos that have shown the points that the likes of Anita Sarkeesian has made to be ridiculous.  Here’s one by Mr Repzion.  Here’s one by Triox.  These videos that Anita has done about the “regrettable traits” blatantly ignore context and use bad examples.  But since research clearly isn’t your strong suit, I guess you don’t really care.  Oh well.

The biggest, most visible games are still largely created by men for boys. Gamergate ultimately was driven by nostalgia and fear of change.

“Keep politics out of games,” was Gamergate proponents’ rallying cry, but they may as well have been saying, “Make games great again.”

Bullshit.  GamerGate was driven by the disgust we had at a blatantly-corrupt gaming journalism scene, along with the white knights who defended it.  This idea that we were just like people at a rally is stupid.  Not to mention – games are already great.  They were great before the SJWs decided to inject their bullshit narrative into gaming.  And since games have continued on the straight and narrow and are a billion-dollar industry, it seems they will keep being great.  Works for me.

There’s evidence that major developers are listening to their broader audience rather than being bullied by Gamergate, as recent titles such as “Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End,” “Watch Dogs 2” and “Dishonored 2” have touched on mature themes with a wide variety of characters.

Another one of these hipster gamers who doesn’t have ANY perspective on gaming to realize that touching on “mature themes” goes back a long way.  Like how the character of Billy in Xenogears was a child prostitute to help feed his family.  Or how one of the biggest themes in Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is the tragedy of getting old and the inevitability of aging.  Not to mention the truly dark and dismal themes in the follow-up game Majora’s Mask that touched on why being an adult sucks, that time and death is inevitable, and that life goes on in even the worst of circumstances.  Then there is Final Fantasy X, which looked at the corruption of religion, atheism, and how faith can be used to control a population.  But please, tell me more about how gaming is just now getting “mature themes.”  What a brilliant researcher.  This guy must be making the big bucks at the L.A. Times.

For much of the last decade, the biggest game franchises — “Call of Duty” and “Grand Theft Auto” among them — were driven by guns and disparaging views of women and minorities. And unlike the Republican Party, the game industry has done this without lobbying money.

Man, how bad are you at research?  The most recent GTA had one of the protagonists as a black man.  I am sure you will say the disparaging thing toward women was the whole “have sex with a prostitute and then run them over with your car.”  That’s only disparaging if you think that 1. Having sex with a prostitute demeans women (if you do think that, you are sexist as fuck.  It’s a profession that plenty of women choose to do.  Some are forced into it, but some women do it out of financial desperation.  Are you saying those women are lesser for making that choice?  That’s sexist as fuck), and 2. you ignore the fact that you can run over every single character in the game with your car, if you want.

As for CoD, those games run the gamut in terms of ethnicities of the protagonists and antagonists.  And there are lots of chicks in the games too.  Where’s the sexist part there?  Still showing off those stellar research skills, Todd.

It may as well have been content unwittingly aimed directly at the so-called alt-right community, the loosely defined movement made up of social media-savvy white nationalists that has also attracted neo-Nazis, anti-Semites and misogynists.

Find me some evidence, ANY evidence, that this insane bit of hyperbole is even remotely true?  There isn’t any.  None.  You are so full of shit.

“The people who promoted Gamergate said they were concerned about journalism ethics,” read a post on PressThink, a site maintained by New York University professor Jay Rosen. “As a professor of journalism with a social media bent, I felt obligated to examine their claims. When I did I discovered nasty troll behavior with a hard edge of misogyny.”

Wow, a quote that has NO additional context.  I’d love to hear their evidence.  Maybe a link to the article, so we can review it ourselves?  What’s that?  Nothing?  Gee, it makes me think that you were just quote-mining for people who agreed with you that you could use to help make what you say sound good.  In fact, a single link at all in this article would have been nice.  You know, help the credibility thing along.

So Hollywood isn’t out of touch with the real — make that conservative — America, after all. The entertainment powerhouses behind the world’s biggest games have directly targeted it. And now the rest of the country  — the majority of voters behind the popular vote, if you will — can’t press the jump button to avoid it.

This article was as lacking in evidence was it was in ANY substantive connections between GamerGate and Trump.  I’m not at all surprised that the connection was made, but I was at least hoping that destroying it would be harder than this.  And I’m sure that Todd will say that researching all of this is difficult.  Well, I think I’ll let Milo destroy that argument to close this out.

Until next time, a quote,

“I’ve been doing it for a year.  It’s not that hard, you just gotta do the work.” – Milo Yiannopoulos

Peace out,

Maverick

When a Feminist Says that Women Don’t Want to Be Sexy

I did a Critical Examination where I talked about how dumb the latest video of Anita Sarkeesian is by pointing out that any expression of sexuality of a character in an art form is open to interpretation.  However, there is one thing that was glaringly bugging me.  Something that I couldn’t just leave alone.  Mostly because it highlights a dichotomy between sex negative and positive feminism that is just so amusing to me.

A long time ago, the YouTuber Shoe0nHead did a video where she made sport of the things that feminists have talked about.  She said that it is one of her least-favorite videos and that she would delete it if it wasn’t so popular.  The reason why is because she makes a statement poking fun at the whole thing about feminists being so butthurt about women showing skin in video games, and then poking fun at the women who get butthurt when they walk outside in their underwear and people are off-put.  She didn’t understand that there were two differing points of view on the subject.  The first is Sex feminism, that says that female sexuality is icky and any depiction of it is wrong.  The kind of thing that Anita Sarkeesian falls into.  Unbelievably-squarely.  Not even kidding, she hits the mark so fucking well.  The second is Sex + feminism, which says that female sexuality is supposed to be loud and proud and fuck the haters.  That’s where we get the things like Slutwalk.  If that’s still a thing.  Haven’t heard much about it in some time, but still.

What I think Shoe missed is the fact that these two dichotomies and the contrasting thoughts between them is worth pointing out.  Why?  Because this discrepancy is interesting.  Anita Sarkeesian, in her “Lingerie is not Armor” video, says that one of the arguments that people make for why female characters dress the way they do is because the character wants to do that.  She claims that that is the most ridiculous argument of all the one’s she’s heard (all of which are bullshit, and one of which is so weird that I have NEVER heard it said by anyone).  Did you all catch that?  She said that no woman anywhere wants to be sexy.  Wow…

It’s statements like that that make me wonder how other feminists can listen to her.  There was a video she made about “Women as Background Decoration” where she made a point about sex workers in video games being exploited and how no woman would want to be in that position in real life.  Naturally, that ruffled people’s feathers.  Because no woman anywhere wants to do things like porn or has chosen of her own free will to hook.  Right?

But I haven’t heard much about this video.  Why?  Ladies, this woman is literally saying that no woman wants to be be sexy for her own gratification.  That is the most patently-absurd thing I have ever heard.  Let me get any of the lady-friends I know who follow me on Instagram and ask them if that’s the case, with their selfie output.  Or perhaps I could go to a beach and ask one of the women wearing a two-piece if she wants to look sexy for her own gratification.  I bet the answers would be pretty much unanimous – yes.  How do women not find this sort of thing unbelievably-condescending?  A woman who claims to speak for you and your gender as an advocate is saying that you do not want to be sexually-appealing.  Ever.  I would think women who work very hard at fashion or other things might want to smack a bitch in the face.  Very hard.

Okay, just did an impromptu poll of my lady-friends.  Almost-universally the response was that anytime they dress up, sexy or otherwise, it is so that they can feel good about themselves.  It is self-aggrandizing.  So I just blew the brains out of Sarkeesian’s argument.  I blew it’s fucking brains out all over the floor.  Why do I talk about this stuff?  Honestly, I think the reason is because I am just so fascinated by the fact that there are women who take what this bitch says seriously.

More than that – why does Anita feel this way?  Well, part of it is because she’s a con artist and she has a narrative to pander to.  But assuming that she’s not, and she actually believes any of the words that come out of her mouth (and there are plenty of women who do think this way, so it still works), I can’t help but think that she is sexually repressed.  She is so afraid of her body and her sexuality that she can’t imagine an idea where someone would be happy enough with how they look to want to show it off.  Again, this is taking what she says at face value.  We all saw that picture of her in a dress at a Time Magazine event.  But for those who actually do buy this (because they’re REALLY dumb), it must mean that they are so scared of how they look that this is the only way they can justify a woman dressing in a sexy way.

Oh, and she again ignores that lesbian and bisexual women exist and find women sexually attractive.  What else is new?  So, I still have responses from girly-mates coming in on my social media about this, so now I will ask the women in my audience here – do you ever dress up in a way that shows off your body or flaunts your sexuality for your own sense of self-satisfaction?  Just so you can feel good about yourself?  Let me know in the Comments.

Until next time, a quote,

“Enjoy your body.  Use it every way you can.  Don’t be afraid of it, or what other people think of it.  It’s the greatest instrument you’ll ever own.”  – Baz Luhrmann, Everybody’s Free to Wear Sunscreen

Peace out,

Maverick

Critical Examination: Sexy Armor as Expression

Now that Anita has finally cut the last of her shackles loose (Jonathan McIntosh), she’s making new videos about the stuff she was already making videos of, and there’s a noticeable drop in quality.  It’s almost like McIntosh scripting things for her was what made it work.  Because while Anita doesn’t believe a word that comes out of her mouth when it comes to all these feminism nonsense, Jonny boy did.  He bought it all.  Now the driving force behind making good points about stuff on her channel is gone.  But hey, when you’re a con artist, it’s only natural that you want less loose ends to work with.

Her latest video is entitled “Lingerie is Not Armor.”  You can look it up at your leisure.  I’m honestly not responding to the video itself, because the points she’s made are all ones that she’s brought up before.  The idea that sexy women is bad because men are sexist pigs (a mentality reminiscent of the patriarchs in 50’s television shows), these things were designed for men and men alone (because she has to make sure and exclude lesbian and bisexual women.  We’ll get back to that later), and it’s not the same when it’s men.  She also makes points about how the armor is impractical, but that’s a non-issue.  Games weren’t designed for realism.  When I play Bloodborne and a giant monster slashes at my character and does a fuck-ton of damage, I don’t believe that if I stab myself with a blood vial that I’m magically cured.  Games are fantasy for a reason.  If you want a realistic game where women are in armor, fantastic.  Oh, right, back during the time when armor was a thing, you’d pretty much never find a woman in it because women were at home tending after the place and making babies.  But don’t pay attention to that.  Historical context is a magical thing that Anita Sarkeesian knows fuck-all about.

In all her videos talking about this subject, there’s one thing that I think is getting lost in the conversation – the subjectivity of art.  It really is.  This fact beats the hell out of everything that Sarkeesian is saying, because it can’t be denied.  Which brings me to this Critical Examination.

When I listen to this piece of music, it produces in me an emotional reaction.

For me, it’s a feeling of peace.  But there are other things.  It also brings back memories of my grandmother.  I used to listen to this piece a lot at her house.  I remember the sunny days when I used to sit and talk with her.  It’s nice.  Makes the feels muscles work.  What reaction does it put in you?  If you’re a metalhead, probably nothing.  Or maybe one of “Why am I listening to this?”  I could have a room filled with a dozen people and there would be a dozen reactions to this piece.  All of them coming from a very different place.

Let’s take a look at a different piece of art.  This one is from a former friend of mine.

Solitude

Solitude, by Emily Gelino-Bequette

What does that make you feel?  I know that everyone in my audience is going to have a different reaction to this piece.  It’s the nature of art.  I think it’s beautiful and it elicits an actually sorrowful reaction because of what happened between the girl who painted this and I.  Bet you don’t feel that way.  That’s natural.

I know what you’re asking – what does this have to do with sexy armor on women in vidya.  Well, I’ll tell you.  Video games are an art medium.  It cannot be denied at this point.  They incorporate all the elements of art, from the visual to the audio.  The best games are able to use the art of good storytelling to weave fantastic narratives that get the players emotionally invested.  But even without the story-telling, it is still an artistic medium.

The Sarkeesian argument boils down to this idea that women in video games are nothing more than designed to be sex objects.  How laughable.  The reason for her ignorance (you’re mansplaining, Lucien!) is because she knows nothing about the video game design process.  Let’s take one of her favorite targets to rail on – Quiet.

Quiet 2When you first look at Quiet’s character design, that is pretty sexy.  Those who don’t understand context or how this medium works would look at her and be very quick to castigate her as just some sex object.  “Progressives” like Jim Sterling did just that.  But here’s the thing – this isn’t just some character who was designed to titillate the male player.  This was a character who had a TON of work put into her design.  The Sterlings and Sarkeesians of the backwash that is games journalism seem to forget that the facial animations, motion capture, and voice acting were all done by the same person.  A person who had to work her ass off and go to crazy lengths in order to get it to look and act as genuinely as she seems to in this game.  But hey, I’m sure that they’ll say that she has some “internalized misogyny” or some other dumb thing.  Because why bother giving women credit for the work they do when there’s a point to be made, am I right?

Naturally, they also can ignore context too.  Like how you don’t have to have Quiet as a team member.  After the battle with her, you can kill her.  That is an option.  Or you can never take her on missions with you.  Not to mention that there are different clothing options for her, some of which aren’t even remotely sexy.  Like this number.

METAL GEAR SOLID V: THE PHANTOM PAIN_20160305183144

Believe it or not, but I actually like this outfit better, but that’s just because I find chicks in uniform kind of hot.  Makes me wonder what it would be like to peel her out of it.  Sexy.  In any case, these things are lost to the people we’re talking about.  Why?  In Sarkeesian’s case, it’s because she can’t afford to let context damage the narrative.  The narrative has to be maintained, no matter what.  To hell with those who disagree.  Sterling is a sexist idiot who drank the Kool-Aid.  He’s like McIntosh in that way.

The point I’m making is that these characters and their “lingerie armor” is just as open to interpretation as any other form of this medium.  Every perspective is going to be different.  Even though SJWs seem to move in lock-step with one-another, even their empty heads have different opinions about what characters like Quiet represent.  But the thing about Sarkeesian is that she doesn’t leave herself open to that perspective.  Her entire argument is beholden to the idea that her interpretation is the only one.  There can be no other.  A statement that is as ridiculous as it is asinine.  The ego of this woman, to believe that if it isn’t how she sees women, it’s wrong.  I can’t help but wonder why this woman and her ilk have such a problem with conservatives.  Their mindset is just like the dad in Leave it to Beaver.

What I find most troubling about this is the fact that so many people follow this point of view.  They think it’s the correct way to view things.  Did any of her sexist followers even bother to look at the fact that art is more than just one individual person’s perspective?  Of course not.  Because Saint Anita said so!  Feminism is their religion, after all.  And you don’t questions the preacher’s message.  Just ask Catholics how that works.  These people have a values system that is given to them by their leader and is understood to be above reproach.  Why?  Because if you question it, you are sexist and hate woman or whatever else.

Meanwhile, for those of us who actually care about this medium and are actually people who play video games (something that, by her own statement she does not), we can see that this issue isn’t as simple as – woman in sexy outfit is bad!  The thing that truly baffles me is how many people who claim to be critics of this medium go along with that thinking.  The likes of Naughty Dog takes what this woman says very seriously.  It’s so weird.

Since this is all subjective, let me know what your opinions are in the Comments.  Unlike Anita, I allow people to express their opinions.  I know, really weird, right?

Until next time, a quote,

“I dream my painting and I paint my dream.” – Vincent Van Gogh

Peace out,

Maverick

Candace Owens and the Business of Cyber-bullying

I read a rather fantastic post today by the creator of a website that I was and still am a little skeptical about.  It was called Social Autopsy.  It is a site that was meant to unmask the bullies on the Internet.  The basic idea is that when something nasty was sent to a person, you screen-cap it and you can submit it to this site.  They would collect names and make profiles for people.  Yeah, that’s where the capacity for abuse comes into play.  Anyway, Owens’ Kickstarter was shut down just a couple days after it went live.  Why?  As Owens explains in a post on her website (linked here), it was Zoe Quinn and her ideological cabal.

Owens gets a lot of things wrong in that post.  First, her perception of GamerGate was from Wikipedia.  That’s unfortunate.  Wikipedia’s bias against the consumer revolt was obvious from day one.  They were unflattering as all get-out.  No surprise, since they got their information from sites like Kotaku, whose ax to grind is so profound that they are going to go down with Gawker’s ship once the legal battle with Hulk Hogan is over.  Owens also was so unbelievably naive when it came to concepts like doxxing.  How she didn’t know what that is astounds me.  But it is what it is.

The thing that Owens puts that really got my attention is something I’d like to share with you.  Do check out the rest of her post.  She tells this amazing story of bullying and harassment that started after she tried to have a civil conversation with Zoe Quinn.  It was so utterly-perfect for everything that Quinn “warned” her about that Owens was easily able to put two and two together.  And the moment she threatened that she had gotten to the bottom of who it is and told Quinn that she was going to The Ralph Retort to put the information out, the harassment stopped.  Utterly and completely.  Convenient, no?

But Owens learned something from this experience.  Something that those of us on the inside of online culture have known for a while.  I’ll let her put it out.

I am sharing my story. As a woman who had no prior knowledge of this situation, or plans to reach out regarding it. I am sharing my story, as an entrepreneur who made a sincere attempt to take out an issue of cyber-bullying, and unintentionally happened upon what may be one of the darkest implications of the net we’ve seen to date.

That it is a business; that trolling and harassment is not only an unfortunate societal issue, but that it is a business that affects the bottomline of many people. That there are .orgs established because of it, that books deal are stricken regarding it, and that individuals are being propelled to fame as spokespersons on the exact same issue that they would never want to see nipped in the bud. Because they feed it.

Ms. Owens, welcome to the online reality that myself and so many of those who have been opposing SJWs have been dealing with.  A reality that people do not seem to understand, and go out of their way not to accept.  The media will not try to get it.  After all, the perpetrators of this culture are among them.  The people who keep this twisted business that she describes going are in the media.  They cozy up to them.  It’s all a game to them.

The reality is that Owens is right – cyber-bullying is a business.  The people who are at the profit end of it are what we call “professional victims.”  These are people who not only don’t have a problem with the cyber-bullying.  They encourage it.  They feed on it.  Without it, the likes of Anita Sarkeesian would never have been able to fill her coffers for a bullshit Kickstarter campaign that she has never and will never complete.  Hell, she ran a new campaign that only got to its goal because some of her professional victim friends didn’t want to see a counter-fundraiser that was going to a charity to help real women do better than their own charity.  Women who claim to be for equality gave $200,000 to a campaign that will never, ever help any real women.  It will go to help make a series of five videos, from a person who has been shown to ignore context, not care about facts, and twist whatever perceptions she can to make her points seem right and everyone else seem wrong.

The professional victims, the crybullies, not only do not want the bullying to stop, they need it.  How else would they get that sweet Patreon money without producing anything?  We’ve seen it time and time again.  Brianna Wu was busted trolling on Steam to get some victimhood.  Thing was, she forgot to switch to an appropriately-evil, misogynistic sock-puppet account before she did it.  The Internet made sport of her stupidity.  Anita Sarkeesian was able to play the victim card, when someone that she didn’t like started a fundraiser to try and help actual women.  She spat on a fundraising effort to give to a charity for women in the Third World, because it was making more money than her latest coffer-filling work.

Now we have Zoe Quinn, who has been thoroughly shown to have orchestrated a massive campaign to destroy the work of someone who, while their site had some issues, was just trying to get into the free market.  That is incredible.  Zoe Quinn used GamerGate to her own advantage in order to hurt someone that she didn’t want starting a website that would have been used to unmask cyber-bullies like herself.

The media will never admit it.  Brianna Woe and Quinn can cry their crocodile tears about how hard it is.  Hell, Wu even had an appearance on a Syfy to talk about how “The Internet Ruined My Life.”  No, really, that’s the name of the show.  But Wu wanted it that way.  So does Quinn.  So does Sarkeesian.  So do all of them!  The reason that cyber-bullying will never stop is because there are people in this world whose entire financial success hinges on how much hatred they can get.

Whenever you hear people asking why there is so much hate online, let them know that it is a business.  A twisted, disgusting business.  One that hurts all kinds of real people.

Until next time, a quote,

“I cannot immediately assume how thick this cyber-industry runs. What I can tell you though is that if an idea—a mere 2 1/2 minute video that was on Kickstarter and being looked at by no one— incited a cyber war within 18 hours, then it is a business that has profit margins that would ripple our economy if it came crashing down.” – Candace Owens

Peace out,

Maverick

Do You Think Women Find Nothing Sexual? (A response to Anita Sarkeesian)

Why does this idiot keep making these videos that are so blatantly stupid?!  It’s so frustrating!  I don’t want to respond to this idiot.  But then I remembered that she is making more of these “Tropes vs. Women in Video Games” posts, and I knew that I would find something so stupid that I would have to find a way to stop myself from hanging myself over the railing at my apartment building because if this is the peak of what third-wave feminism has to offer, then I want it to just die already.  More than I already had.  In her latest video, Anita decided to take on the idea of the male gaze.  This is something that Christina Hoff Sommers and others have said that she uses to justify so many of her stupid ideas, and now she decided to prove them all right.  I almost admire this moistened bint.  I’ll share her video, so you all can see that I’m taking nothing out of context, and then we’ll talk about it.

Another instance where I just feel like this video while watching Anita.

First off, I want us to get something out of the way right off the bat – Anita Sarkeesian is pandering an idea about “exaggerated hip sway” that basically decides to ignore science.  See, while the SJW crowd will deny this up and down, it’s been proven scientifically that there are real differences between men and women.  We are a sexually dimorphic species.  There are real, biological differences between men and women.

With men, we have more broad chest and shoulders, more square jaws and developed musculature.  This is because the males of our species developed to be the defenders and providers.  Meanwhile, women have softer features, softer skin, a more pronounced chest, and a more pronounced ass.  Their hips widen at puberty and then the typical woman walks with a hip sway.  In not one of the clips that Anita stole from some other person who actually played the games did I see an “exaggerated hip sway.”  Almost all my friends growing up have been women.  I am bisexual.  I’ve had enough women who I’ve gone out with in many capacities to observe how women are.  These women weren’t swaying like they are on the catwalk.  They were walking like normal people.  With Catwoman, Sarkeesian blatantly ignores that the goal of having her walk the way she does is keeping in character.  She’s supposed to be like a cat!  You fucking idiot!  But all this talk about how exaggerated and sexualized so many aspects of the female characters are completely ignores the real biological differences that exist between men and women.  If it weren’t for the fact that she’s a con artist, I would think that this is a sign that she doesn’t know shit about women and biology.  It wouldn’t be surprising.  Modern feminism is fighting tooth and nail to pretend that biology and gender don’t exist.

But the real thing that I take umbrage with is her big talking point about the male gaze.  This woman’s statement about how people interpret sexuality just amazes me.  I want to break down all the things that bugged me.  First, she literally points out that the only time that gazing and finding something attractive is bad is when men do it.  Like so many thing associated with modern feminism, it’s only sexist when men do it.  Because women are oppressed!  In the First World!  In a way that NO feminist has been able to show.  Why do I make that distinction?  Because complaining about female portrayal in video games is a First World problem.  Women in the Middle East being forced to wear certain clothing don’t give a shit about this.  These people never cease to amaze.

But this comes directly into conflict with the second issue.  Sarkeesian makes a blantant double-standard about people looking and finding things attractive.  It’s okay when women do it, but not when men.  She literally makes the argument that when it’s a guy showing his muscles and being all buff, that isn’t sexual.  That’s power!  How the fuck can you say that?!  Are you saying that no woman finds that hot?!  Is that the argument?  No woman anywhere finds beefcake men hot?  Well, that’s complete bullshit.  A former girly-mate of mine is only attractive to beefcake men.  Slim men are a turn-off for her.  As are these men who don’t exhibit the “toxic masculinity” that you all bitch about so much.  Beta males, in other words.  She wants alpha, rugged men.  She’s married to one.  Your entire argument hinges on the idea that nothing a man can do is sexual, because there is the implicit statement that women aren’t going to find it that way.

Not to mention – you once-again leave out the idea that women might find another chick in a game hot!  For all your talk about “exaggerated hip sway,” what about if a woman finds that sexually appealing?  Hell, I have two that I could call up right now and ask if they find chicks who are hot sexually attractive, and they would be very affirmative.  Why?  Because they’re GAY!  They are sexually attracted to other women!  Oh, but that’s right, it’s only bad when it’s men.  That’s your standard.  That’s the idea you want to perpetuate.  You are effectively able to cut out lesbian and bisexual women yet-again because you have literally said that they don’t matter in this conversation.  It’s all about the men.

You are a con artist.  You have to be.  Because if you aren’t, then the fact is that you are the biggest, stupid, promoting of ignorance misogynist that I have EVER SEEN!  But you’re a con artist.  Anyone with perspective can see that.  Since you’ll never face any of your detractors, your narrative never has to be damaged.  This is why I have such a problem with you.  You perpetuate stupidity, all under the guise of a narrative which you adopted to make yourself money.  You are such a piece of shit, and while I don’t condone the threats against you, I hope that people wise up and stop feeding your lying coffers.

Until next time, a quote,

“He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do a second or third time, till at length it becomes habitual.”  -Thomas Jefferson

Peace out,

Maverick