You Don’t Understand Blade Runner (A response to Anita Sarkeesian)

I never thought I’d be talking about this bitch ever again.  After she left video games, I figured she’d just disappear into some abstract corner of the Internet and I wouldn’t ever have to deal with her stupid views on topics that she clearly knows fuck-all about ever again.  But then The Drunken Peasants podcast subjected me to her latest video, where she decides to go after one of my favorite films, with her pathetic, paltry, pseudo-intellectual bullshit that shows that her ability to critically analyze themes in films has all the depth and size of a puddle in the parking lot of my apartment building.  Ugh!  I’ll have the video here, so you can see I’m not taking anything out of context.  Let’s talk about it.

She begins with saying that according to the original Blade Runner, the future is going to be racist, have flying cars, but oh boy, noodle shops!  Yeah, because that is TOTALLY what the ethnicity of Blade Runner was about.  You know, like how the lower world is a very ethnically diverse place, while the upper world is very white.  Huh, it’s not like that was a deliberate design choice that Ridley Scott made in order to symbolize the power gap over the time period the film was made.  Nope, not at all!  This woman can’t analyze anything in a way outside of her feminist lens that tells her that everything is bad unless it caters to views that, if we learned anything from her analysis of video games, are clearly contradictory.

After her TERRIBLE intro, she says that all the fans of the original film get to rejoice at the idea of a sequel.  Did she not follow the unveiling of that at all?  This sequel is being met with VERY fierce skepticism by the science-fiction community, as it should.  Hollywood has shown that they are bad at doing sequels and now Blade Runner is on the block.  Granted, they got the director of my favorite film of 2016, Arrival, to do this, and he has the cinematographer he had making Incendes and Sicario, the latter of which is one of my favorite films.  That does leave me feeling hopeful, but let’s hear more about what Anita has to say about this great science fiction cinema landmark.

Now we get to her “burning questions” Blade Runner introduced.  Like “shouldn’t there be more Latinx people in Los Angeles.”  Okay, stop.  Can we PLEASE stop using the term “latinx?”  It sounds like you’re talking about Kleenex, for one.  For another, there was a surprisingly good point brought up on The Drunken Peasants.  See, here’s the thing about Latino and Latina – in old romantic languages based off Latin, words are made to have different genders assigned to words depending on who is speaking and who or what is being spoken about.  It’s part of those languages’ cultural heritage.  Now we have some fucking white people coming in and saying “no!  You can’t have these distinguishing features because that’s not inclusive enough!”  Aren’t you the ones who stress out your fucking ass that we need to have respect for other cultures?  Sure doesn’t seem like you respect their language.  Maybe you need to check your privilege, white bitch.

After going on for a while, it’s pretty clear where this entire video is going – sex robots are bad and promote sexism.  Funny, I just saw an article where it talked about how women are going to replace men with sex robots in the future and didn’t paint that as a bad thing.  Funny how it’s only wrong when men do it.  Groj, I just wish she’d come out and say she’s a man-hater.  Can you please, Anita?  It’s so obvious where this video is going, and you even say that we’re about to be approaching a future in Blade Runner where biomechanical androids exist and men abuse them.  Unreal.  It’s funny, Anita makes fun of the men who have difficulty dating, whether it be to personality flaws, or to them being shy and scared of interacting with people, and mocks them for it.  How many socially awkward women who would seek a robot for companionship would she mock?  What a sexist harpy.  As with all modern feminists – it’s only sexist when men do it.

She then makes the argument that the film has good ideas, but it looks at them from the perspective of white men.  Yeah, I guess that’s true, unless we want to ignore the ENTIRE FUCKING MOVIE!  For example, one of the most interesting elements of the lower world is the language of the city.  The police officer who originally takes Deckard in speaks it.  It’s an amalgamation of all the languages spoken on the lower level.  Roy Batty may be played by a white man, but look at what his role in the film is – a slave.  He is part of a slave race.  Skin color be damned, he’s part of a slave race and is desperate to stop his inevitable death.  Even when he gets to see the head of Tyrell Corporation, the conversation about his demise doesn’t go well and you have no idea if Tyrell told him the truth at all.  To say that this film focuses exclusively on the perspective of white men is fucking ignorant, and also denies all the perspectives of the film from all the various characters.  But hey, let’s simplify it down to the color of people’s skin.  Because that isn’t fucking racist at all.

We get to hear next how the two female replicants are a metaphor for modern day misogyny.  Wrong!  They are representations of the exploitation of women in subjugated classes.  There was a time when all women in this country were a lesser class.  Hard to argue that.  But the entire narrative of the replicants is that they are a species separate from us who are being subjugated by the humans who created them.  It’s a story about power relationships and how there will always be those in power using their power over those without.  These two female replicants are not some metaphor for the “patriarchy.”  They are part of a larger narrative of those in power destroying the lives of those without, and how when we are out of peoples to conquer, we shall create power dynamics to have.  Like I said, Anita’s ability to critically analyze things has all the depth of a fucking puddle.

Then she talks about the scene with Deckard and Rachel.  All it is in her mind is – he assaulted a woman.  Since she clearly can’t analyze this film, let’s inform the class of how stupid that perspective is.  The narrative of this film is that replicants are lesser than humans.  It’s the belief that our entire species has.  Deckard is a bit hard to follow because he seems to have at least some regard for the replicants and doesn’t want to continue killing them.  However, he is still part of a species that sees them as lesser and deserving of death (even if he is a replicant himself, which is left unclear for a very good reason).  Is the scene with these two very jarring and uncomfortable?  Yup.  Anita criticizing the music is her not being able to see that the music there was a deliberate choice to make the scene more uncomfortable.  Everything in the film is deliberate.  Deckard using his power over Rachel was a sign that he is at least partially just as brainwashed as the rest of society and chose to exercise his power over someone who couldn’t fight back because she had nowhere else to go.  It does make him look like a bit of a bad guy, but the thing is – that was deliberate.  It was meant to tell the audience that even a character who you are supposed to root for is still human and subject to the same forces the rest of us are.  I hate Anita so much.  She is shitting all over a movie I love because it’s pretty fucking clear she doesn’t understand it.

One thing Anita says that just blows my mind – the film isn’t about the women.  No shit, moron!  It’s about the replicants!  It’s about members of a subservient race who are being hunted by a society that says that they aren’t allowed on Earth, on pain of death!  I just love how this imbecile has made it out to be like these three female characters don’t matter to the script at all.  Does this bimbo have any awareness of how themes work?  Any idea how to critically analyze media?  Of course not.  Her Master’s thesis basically sucked the cock of everything Joss Whedon has ever made, back in the day.  He isn’t exactly writing Shakespeare.

We also have some other white person who can’t critically analyze issues of race, either.  Race doesn’t enter at all into the film?  No, because the fact that the lower world is very ethnically diverse and poor, while the upper world is very white and wealthy isn’t a look into racial ideas at all!  Ugh!  Background texture?!  It’s one of the central themes at play, you fucking moron!  Roy and the replicants have to hide in the lower world because they are also part of a lesser class.  Except in the film they are even lesser than the oppressed classes of the lower world.  That’s the fucking point!  Rachel is part of the upper world until she realizes that she is a replicant.  After which she has to go down to the lower world because now she is lesser.  Do you not get anything to do with this movie?!  How did that escape your notice, oh wonderful feminist one?  Aren’t you the idiot who says that your research is “double and triple-checked”?!  Clearly not because I’m not some film school graduate and even I can pick up on this!

This was stupid.  It’s nice to see that her analysis of movies is just as shitty as it was about video games.  I hate this woman and her videos.  Please stop shitting on one of the greatest science fiction films of all time.

Until next time, a quote,

“I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe.” – Roy Batty, Blade Runner

Peace out,

Maverick

Advertisements

Your Apologetics Are Pathetic (A response to Hank and John Green)

Here’s the thing to know about people like Anita Sarkeesian – she lives in the greatest echo chamber of all time.  She has been recorded saying, outright, that all of her detractors are nothing but harassers and she will NEVER engage with them.  She lives in such an ivory tower that I am starting to see why she had the reaction that she did at VidCon.  Liana K says that she believes she was legitimately afraid.  I call bullshit.  She wasn’t afraid. At least not for her safety.  What she was afraid of was the fact that she would actually have to talk to people who don’t agree with her.  And if her precious narrative is in any way attacked, then it all comes crumbling down.  Address her hypocrisy in any way, she can’t sustain the illusion anymore.  Her con would die around her because she doesn’t have her sycophants around to tell her only what she wants to hear.

And why would she have any other perspective.  She has the likes of Hank and John Green sucking her clit so hard that I wonder if she didn’t cum a few times from it.  After all, they are the latest in a series of ball-less males who can’t even let the truth be a concept.  And they went through that in a post on The Medium where they outlined their version of events in respect to Anita the precious angel who must be protected at all times.  From, you know, the truth.  Here’s a link to the post, now let’s rip this thing a new asshole.

It is openly known that women on the internet are subject to far greater amounts (and intensity) of harassment and abuse than men.

Citation, mother-fucker!  Show me a single peer-reviewed source that shows that women get far more harassment online than men.  Oh, wait, citing sources is something that you’re afraid of.  After all, data can be a touchy thing.  We’ll see down the line where you flat-out lie out your ass for a narrative, but we’ll get there when we do.

That’s just one reason why we had a panel called “Women Online” featuring women who had received a variety of kinds of abuse, from repeated sexual advances to stalking to years of targeted harassment.

There is a fairly prominent genre of social/political commentary on the internet that focuses on specific individuals as a path to attack ideas and build outrage. These creators do not violate harassment policies, but the result is often that the vitriol of their followers ends up focused not on ideas, but on people (usually women.)

Where do I begin.  I just love that they build this narrative that people like me aren’t out to attack ideas that we final stupid.  We’re trying to secretly build outrage.  We are secretly trying to create a movement of hate and harassment that the poor (usually women) have to face.  Don’t you feel so bad!  You create hate!  And that’s what you’re trying to do!

Then they basically say that the content creators are subsequently responsible for what any of the people who watch their videos do.  Bullshit!  Find me a video, any video, where TJ Kirk, Sargon, Chris Ray Gun, Armoured Skeptic, TL;DR, or any of the big name anti-SJWs have EVER called for harassment or condoned it in any way.  Find me one!  Come on, you beta fucks!  Go watch through their anti-SJW catalog and find me one video where they congratulate any of the trolls in their audience who send awful shit to these women you are so eager to protect from an imagined threat that Anita felt with Sargon sitting quietly in the audience.

Which is what happened, by the way!  Look at ANY of the video evidence from that panel where Sarkeesian lost her cool.  There is not a single one where anyone is harassing her or being unpleasant.  The nice thing about this Con was that everyone was filming, and there are 10,000 angles to see how this entire narrative is bullshit!  But we’ll get back to that.

Many people in these communities end up believing the righteous thing to do is threaten, harass, and dox the thinkers they’re arguing with. Whether or not this is an intentional strategy to cultivate harassment or an awful side-effect, the result is some of the worst discourse and most intense harassment on the internet.

Unbelievable.  So, not only are the creators on YouTube turning a blind eye to the actions of their fans, they are directly responsible for it.  They don’t outright say that it’s their fault, but they may as well.  They are claiming that these people actually believe that it is “righteous” to harass and dox women.  Oh?  Then how do you explain the SJWs who do that shit?!  Like Zoe Quinn in her harassment campaign against Candace Owens?  Maybe when the SJWs turned on Laci Green after she had used the word “tranny” to describe trans people when she was younger.  Hell, Ben Kuchera outright said that they have every right to dox you, with Jim Tubalardi Sterling nodding and agreeing with him.  I challenge you to find me the big name in anti-SJW videos who has EVER said that doxing is okay.  Meanwhile, I can find plenty of SJWs who believe that doxing is not only a good thing but should be the response of choice.  You betas are such fucking hypocrites, all so you can defend St. Anita’s honor.

This year, we had a contingent of attendees (some who paid, some who snuck in with fake passes) who had been either perpetrators of this harassment, or had, for years, watched as the outrage they cultivated resulted in followers doxxing, harassing, intimidating, and even threatening the lives of the creators on these panels.

Nobody snuck in with fake passes.  Nobody.  Find me a citation for that, you fuckers!  Everyone who was in there had paid to be there.  And since you can’t research much, there are 1,000 videos which show that not one of the people in the audience were harassing anyone.  Not one!  Find me one!  Anyone.  Come on, you feminist fucks!  Do the research thing and find me a video that shows it happening!  If you can put down the Tumblr for long enough to go to YouTube, and it is so bad, this should be easy.  John and Hank are lying!  This is lies!  These people are propagating absolute nonsense and they don’t get called out on it.  Everything wrong with modern media can be traced back to chucklefucks like this who can pull shit right out of their ass so they can create a narrative to sell to an audience who isn’t even going to bother questioning.  Because find me the SJW who is critical of their publications.  If that was the case then sites like The Mary Sue and Huffington Post would have died years ago.

It is difficult to imagine that this group of people (who are aware that their channels have been base-camps for years of harassment of some of our panelists) did not realize that their arriving early to fill up the three front rows of a panel was going to be intimidating. In any case, it looked like intentional intimidation to most people in attendance, and the panelists were understandably on edge throughout the discussion.

Why not just say that they are yelling and throwing shit at them?  I mean, you’re making all this shit up anyway, so why not just go big?  The SJWs who read this shit aren’t going to question.  Say that Sargon was glaring and snarling right at Anita the whole time.  Why not?  This is all terrible fan-fiction for St. Anita anyway.  Go big or go home.

Our founder, Hank Green, talked with our panelist and said two things:

  1. He told her that her comment had violated our policy, but that he understood that there was a broader context (which to be clear, we were blissfully ignorant of until this weekend, and remain inexpert in.)
  2. He apologized to her for not having been more aware of and active in understanding the situation before the event, which resulted in her being subjected to a hostile environment that she had not signed up for.

“Oh, please, Anita!  We love you!  We would never speak ill of you!  Please, don’t say mean things about us!”

Even when they are supposed to be castigating her for breaking their policies, they are kissing her ass!  That’s who these losers are!  Even when it has been clearly demonstrated that she violated their policy, they have to make very clear that Anita still did nothing wrong.  What a bunch of spineless cowards!  Complete pussies. They can’t even hold to their own standards.  When the Internet holds them to task to enforce their own policies, they have to make sure that they do so in a way where St. Anita isn’t put out or even made to feel guilty for what she did.  Because, after all, if someone actually forced a feminist to take responsibility for the things they do, what a world it would be.

This is a difficult situation to build policy to alleviate, but we ask that all of the people involved consider the power of our actions and statements both online and in the real world. But one specific note, if people attend VidCon to collect footage to later use in videos that criticize not just ideas, but focus the outrage of their followers on individuals, they will not be welcome back.

To wrap it all up, this is them saying that unless the YouTubers who take these worthless, toothless, spineless butt-wipes to task castigates their audience as well, then they won’t be going back next year.

John and Hank, fuck you.  You are the WORST that professional butt-lickers has to offer.  You buried your head so far up Anita’s ass that I am amazed her shit isn’t smeared all over you face.  This is disgusting.  You make up bullshit statistics.  You lie about what happened.  Then, after all of that, you make clear that unless other people join you in your parade to St. Anita, they won’t be welcomed back.  As if anyone actually wants to go to an event hosted by cowards like you!

It’s because of people like you that SJWs can’t handle the real world.  You know why Anita couldn’t handle seeing Sargon?  Because nobody has put her in a situation where she may have to take responsibility for the things she has done.  You couldn’t even castigate her without making sure she understands that she didn’t do anything wrong.  Laci Green faced her detractors and actually was able to take responsibility for the shitty things she has said and done.  She buried the hatchet with Sargon.  Part of me hopes she’ll go on DP and bury the hatched with TJ too, but that may be a bit optimistic.  All it took was stepping out of her echo chamber and she was able to realize that there is a bigger world out there which she can disagree with without feeling attacked and hated.  Meanwhile, people like you do everything in their power to make sure that the real world can’t touch Anita and her ilk.  You are part of the reason that this generation is full of complete pussies who can’t handle the slightest disagreement.  I hope you are proud of yourselves.

Until next time, a quote,

“Don’t waste your time with explanation.  People only hear what they want to hear.” – Paulo Coehlo

Peace out,

Maverick

Bad PR 111: Anita Sarkeesian, Sargon of Akkad, and “Garbage Humans”

As anyone will tell you in the world of entertainment, all it takes to ruin a spotless image is one bad comment.  Ask Michael Richards or Gilbert Gottfried what that’s like.  Do I think that’s fair?  Not at all.  In Richards case, his biggest issue was that he could never let it go.  People would have forgiven him if he could have stopped bringing it up all the time.  He let his bad choice of words ruin his career forever.  Gottfried took the smarter approach – lay low and just let the buzz blow over.  Now he’s alright.  But some people who do something stupid have a bad habit of just digging themselves a REALLY deep hole.

Let’s look at Hillary Clinton and Kathy Griffin.  Both of these people are women who decided to be very stupid with their language, and rather than shut up and lay low for the worst to blow over, they just kept piling on and on.  In Kathy Griffin’s case, she hired a lawyer to be a mouthpiece for her butthurt instead of just taking the licks like an adult and walking away from what happened.  Hillary Clinton is arguably worse.  After blaming literally everyone for her failure except taking even the slightest smidgen of personal responsibility (she learned it from SJWs), she then blamed the DNC.  You know, the people who rigged the primary for her and openly said they have no compunction about doing it again.  Women that the left cheers for have a bad habit of not knowing when the shut up and let the damage blow over.

Which brings us to Anita Sarkeesian.  At VidCon yesterday, there was a panel where Anita Sarkeesian was speaking.  A ton of the anti-SJW crowd went and sat front and center, wanting to actually get to see her human side.  To be clear, they weren’t heckling her, they weren’t taunting and jeering at her.  By all accounts, they were respectful as could be there.  One of these people was Sargon of Akkad.  When Anita eyeballed him, she decided to put her own foot in her mouth.

This may just be the most unprofessional thing she’s ever done.  Which is genuinely surprising, to me.  It’s pretty clear that Anita is calculating.  Everything she does is part of maintaining a narrative of her victimhood and how she needs everyone to come to her defense.  I’ve long maintained that she is a con artist, and that hasn’t changed.  My first thought when I see stuff like this is – we’ve finally seen a human moment with Anita Sarkeesian.  People went to that panel in the hopes of seeing her be human, and that’s what they got.  For a brief moment, the human side of one of the most profitable online con artists came out.

But here is where my PR education comes into play.  What happens next?  What will Anita do?  I honestly don’t know.  Already the fans of hers have gone after Sargon and he has publicly called for the people hosting the Con to ban her from the cyberbullying panel that she will be a part of.  There’s no way she will be banned.  Of course not.  If Hank and John Green actually did that then they have would have the SJW tirade so far up their ass that it would never stop.  Anita and her cohorts have already shown that they can orchestrate a harassment campaign at a moment’s notice.  Like how Zoe Quinn went after Candace Owens using her friends and sock accounts.

So the question becomes – what will you do next, Anita?  You’re going to be back on stage, and Sargon has already said he will be there.  In fact, you can guarantee that the rest of the anti-SJW chums will be there.  I’m sure they’ll be respectful, as was the case yesterday.  Will you lose your cool again?  Will you use this as another opportunity to smear?  What will you do?

I am genuinely curious to see what happens next.  Because there are a couple of options here.  First, the smart option – play it down and just stick to the message.  Or even better – skip the panel and quietly walk away from this.  Let the Internet firestorm die down while your white knights do the fighting for you.  It’s what she’s done before.  The second option is the double-down option.  Where she goes on that stage and then says that she is totally blameless and it is everyone else’s fault.  Then it becomes a savage war of online videos where the white knights and the detractors blitz and the Internet loses its collective shit.

The thing is, Anita, this doesn’t make you look good.  There are a TON of videos where people show video footage from the event where you are spouting at someone who didn’t do anything to you.  He wasn’t heckling you.  The audience wasn’t attacking you.  You hijacked the panel and used it as a platform to attack Sargon as soon as you saw him in the audience.  From a PR standpoint this makes you look like a vindictive cunt.  You had to make a panel about being a woman online and promoting female content creators about you and how mad you are.  It was a genuine human moment, in all the wrong ways.

I just don’t get why someone who has been so careful about the narrative and the usage of a platform only when she approves to do something like this.  Some people have said this was a calculated move, and I don’t think so.  There’s no good angle here.  It’s too easy to show that Sargon wasn’t doing anything to her, and that the panel wasn’t being harassed. Naturally, her white knights will paint is as just that.  They’ll say the panel was being so horribly abused by all those EVIL anti-SJW YouTubers.  But there is video evidence that that wasn’t happening.  Only after Anita started running her mouth did the crowd get rowdy.  That’s understandable.  So this wasn’t calculated.

Perhaps all of the stress is really getting to her.  That’s natural.  See, when the SJWs go out into the real world, where their viewpoints can be challenged, they crack pretty fast.  Anytime they are at a platform where the narrative isn’t tightly controlled, they lose their ability to keep the focus only where they want it to be.  It’s why watching a debate between Brianna Wu and her opponent in the congressional election she is now a part of would be funny as fuck.  For Sarkeesian, being in an environment where she can take criticism and actually have to answer legitimate questions probably scares the shit out of her.  Sargon even said later on he just wanted to talk to her, which she blew off.  But I bet the thought of having to answer real questions from people who won’t accept pithy answers is the most frightening thing in the world.

Maybe that’s where the calculus of this comes from.  Instead of having to answer questions, she creates a firestorm so she can just not have to.  I bet that’s what will happen at the cyberbullying panel, because it’s a virtual guarantee that the audience will have legit questions for her there too.

The PR lesson is this – this was a bad move.  A very, very bad move.  Whether this was her human side coming out, or desperation coming into play, Anita has done real damage to her image.  This isn’t going to go away.  Just like the video where she says that she isn’t a gamer and doesn’t like video games, now this video will haunt her where she called a detractor sitting politely in the audience a shit-head and a “garbage human.”  Will she recover?  That is what honestly interests me.  Because I have seen Anita’s abilities as a con artist to be kind of inspiring.  I can’t wait to see what she does next.

Until next time, a quote,

“Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.” – Robert Frost

Peace out,

Maverick

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