SIONR: Feminists are the Ones Objectifying Women

Listening to feminists talk about women in video games, you get this weird idea about how they see women in them.  All the time it’s about how women are sex objects and viewed as something you can use and throw away.  But you wanna know something I have noticed about that?  The only person calling women in video games sex objects is feminists.  That’s it.  I genuinely haven’t seen any gamers talking about female characters like they are a sex object.

The obvious rebuttal is, “but men talk about their bodies in a sexual way!  How is that not objectifying?!”  If someone talks about sex, that means they see the person as an object?  I am romantically and sexually attracted to a girl I went to have coffee with today.  Does that mean I see her as an object?  I have had fantasies about the two of us being intimate together.  Almost certainly never going to happen, but that’s what it is.  I still see her as a person that I find interesting and enjoy talking to, who I just happen to also find appealing on a sexual level.  There have been plenty such women in my life.  A couple men too.

But I can hear you say “but that’s real people!  They have personalities and aren’t just made to look like a sex toy!”  Plenty of sexy women in games have personalities too.  Let’s take an example Anita Sarkeesian loved to rag on – Bayonetta.  That woman was a kick-ass Umber Witch who killed angels and took shit from no one, and yet she has weaknesses and human flaws.  She has a child following her who calls her “mummy” and almost has her believing that she is the girl’s real mom.

Let’s look at another example – Jack from Mass Effect 2.  She’s damn-near naked from the waist up.  The only thing covering her nipples are belts.  But she has a dark and twisted history of horrific abuse which had led her to become a violent monster.  The vast number of tattoos on her body each have a story, all of which you never know.  She’s a badass fighter and it kind of pissed me off that I couldn’t get her back on my team in the last game.  I’m talking about Mass Effect 3, by the way, not Andromeda.  So far as I’m concerned, that game doesn’t exist.

Okay, perhaps that is too gray for all of you.  After all, it’s pretty clear that her nakedness is part of her character.  Let’s go into a character who is all about being sexy – Tina Armstrong.  She’s is the stereotypical big-breasted and skimpy outfit blonde character.  And yet, I still don’t see her as nothing but an object.  I see her as badass fighter who can and will fuck you up, all while having a sexy body to boot.  I guarantee that if she was a real person, not one guy who thinks she is sexy in the series she is in would have the balls to hit on her in real life.  Turns out, sexy women who have confidence in their bodies tend to have most men being too scared to talk with them.  Confidence is powerful and nobody could say Tina isn’t powerful.

But then I see Twitter posts like this one (linked here) saying that when women are sexy in video games, that makes me think less of women in general, it really does rub me as these people inserting their own biases into their posts.  See, I don’t think less of women as a whole in any way because of sexy women in gaming.  I haven’t met a single gamer who isn’t a MGTOW who has.  I can jerk off to B Jenet in King of Fighters and still think nothing less of my incredibly capable female coworkers or supervisor who is the Momma Bear of our office.  She’s tough, and more than a little distant, but her knowledge has made all of us know that when we don’t have an answer, she does.

I’m starting to think that feminists are the ones who are really seeing women as lesser because of what they see in media.  It’s already clear that sex negative feminists like Anita Sarkeesian are terrified of sexuality and can’t handle women who aren’t scared to death of their womanhood.  She goes out of her way to insult all the fictional examples of women who aren’t afraid of their boobs or vaginas.  Makes one wonder what they think of real women too.  But I wonder what the chick who wrote that Twitter posts thinks of them too.

We’ve been getting more and more stories coming out recently of male feminists who are actually perverted pigs who used feminism to try and get in women’s pants.  Makes you wonder if they are actually the same people that women like this think of.  But then you have to wonder if the woman who wrote that post is just the same.  If she sees women in sexy outfits and does nothing but reduce them down to their clothes.  Would make her very female.  After all, it isn’t men who are constantly critical of women because of their clothes or makeup.  Not typically.  The vast majority of shit-talkers of how people look are women.  Men don’t care about the dress so-and-so celebrity wore.  Women do.  Men don’t care about what brand of handbag such-and-such had.  Women do.  Nowhere does the average man care about this stuff.  Women do.

So maybe it isn’t the sexist gamers who are really doing the objectifying.  Maybe it’s the feminists who say that they are the ones looking to fight for equality.  I think Syetenatheist made a song about this.

Until next time, a quote,

“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.” – H.L. Mencken

Peace out,

Maverick

Advertisements

This Video is Devoid of Context (A response to ONE)

You know what I hate – videos that start with one thing and decide that they are going to completely nix that concept and instead focus on whatever pet project they are going to go after.  Today it is the idea that women in the third world are poor because men have all the jobs.  Oh, but rather than talk about that, their video that is supposed to pimp this topic out decides that they are going to focus on First World problems that are so devoid of context and lacking in any reason to care that I am amazed we don’t have a sad violin playing in the background.  I’ll share the video, so none of you can saying I am taking things out of context, and then we’ll break it down.

Alright, so we got some chick in a foreign country just having a baby and asking if it’s a boy.  The doctor says no.  What does that have to do with anything?  Is the idea that this chick in what I presume is a Third World country would rather have a boy than a girl?  What is the argument there?  What is the message?

Next we got some girl who is sitting that naked butt on a stone countertop.  Yeah, that’s already unrealistic.  But she is looking at some pic of a girl who is fat and it says “NO.”  Then she looks at her own slight chub and is all distraught.  I’m sorry, but what’s the point there?  It’s clear this chick is in the First World.  She’s on her smartphone with an electric toothbrush in a house that looks very nice.  Clearly she isn’t living in poverty.  That being fat means you are in poverty?  What?

Next up we got a bunch of Asian people in a conference room and some girl is about to stand up for some reason, and the boss man says “no.”  What’s the context here?  Did she get passed over for a promotion?  Maybe it wasn’t her turn to speak.  Maybe they’re going around the table and it isn’t her turn yet.  Without any context of any kind, we have no idea why “no” was said to her.  What’s the point of this?  That social justice idiots can’t make a point without totally divorcing context from it?

Then there is a little girl in Germany who wants to buy a shirt.  Her mom says “no.”  Why should I care?  When you are a little kid, your parents can tell you that they don’t want you to wear certain clothes.  It sure doesn’t look like fucking Goodwill that they are shopping at, so how is this a point about poverty?  What did this have to do with anything even approaching the title of this video?!

Oh my god, a clip that actually has a point!  We have some girl in some African country being sold off to a man.  Wow, amidst all the women with their First World problems, they actually acknowledge that child marriage is bad.  It is.  I totally agree.  The fact that there are countries that still have this blows my fucking mind.  It kills me that in a video where it is supposed to be representing women in the Third World, it sure is nice that the video FINALLY acknowledges that these women and REAL problems actually fucking exist!

Then we get to some black woman at…somewhere turning in some kind of paperwork and being told “no.”  Um, where was this?  Was that a job application?  Was she applying for a loan?  Is this a bank?  What the fuck is the context there?!  Explain, video!

Oh, and then we have some teenage girl who is on her laptop when she suddenly has an apron put over her and the father figure is having her work while the little brother says “no.”  Since I don’t see a mom, it seems that the dad is the one providing for these two children.  What a horrible person, for having the child that he looks after help him with family chores.  That’s just sexist!  It doesn’t show that she was working on a school paper or something like that, so is the point here that fathers asking their daughters to help around the house is bad?  It’s shit like this that makes people think Millennials can’t handle life.

Alright, then we got some party guy and girl and when the girl doesn’t reciprocate the guy’s advances, he says “no.”  The guy’s a jerk, but I have to ask – what does this have to do with poverty being sexist?  That jerk guys exist?  This video is the personification of “one of these things is not like the other.”  Virtually all of these clips are just feminist talking points and have fuck-all to do with the title of this fucking video.

Now we have some girl in the Third World wanting to go to school, and her mom says “no.”  Why?  Is this in some country where radical Islam has taken root and a girl being in school could potentially have her killed?  If that’s the case, the mother is very right to say no.  Without a single ounce of context, this clip could mean anything.  But at the very least it does tie in to what the video is supposed to be fucking talking about.

The video then fucking ends by saying “none of us are equal until all of us are equal.”  You have got to be fucking kidding me.  90% of this video was stupid First World problems, totally devoid of context, and you are going to make the argument that this showed inequality?  Yeah, it showed one, arguably two places where there is sexism that hurts girls.  And for those places, yeah, I genuinely do think something should be done.  But for the rest of that bullshit, it is just another glowing symbol of how feminism is all about equality, after pushing their talking points and almost completely forgetting the women who actually need help right now.  Way to lose the plot, idiots.

Until next time, a quote,

“I have a question for you, Lord Gilferd – what do you do when there is an evil you cannot defeat with just means?  Do you stain your hands with evil, or do you remain steadfast and just, even when it means surrendering to evil?” – Lelouch vi Britannia, Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion

Peace out,

Maverick

Stop Using Ignorance of the Medium to Sell Your “Journalism” (A response to Polygon)

People who can take this publication seriously baffle me.  How?  How can anyone read what they write and not go “this is totally slanted shit”?  These people clearly are incapable of discussing this medium in anything resembling objective way.  They can only write articles espousing opinions about stuff and showing off that they have no real understanding of the medium in which they are writing about.  That’s what this is.  Another article written by someone who doesn’t get how vidya works, and has to also shit on the sequel to one of my favorite games in the process.  It seems that Polygon decided to take a crack at the newest trailer for The Last of Us: Part 2.  It’s a pretty awesome trailer.  We have some violent people doing horrible things in the fallen world, with some characters we haven’t met before fighting back.  It made me want to know more.  I’m really hoping for gameplay footage and a release date soon.  But Polygon had other issues with it.  Here’s a link to their stupid article, let’s talk about it.

Bones bludgeoned with hammers. A noose wrapped tightly around a struggling woman’s neck. The blade of a knife pressed into a vulnerable stomach. The gruesome imagery Naughty Dog manages to cram into a five-minute trailer for The Last of Us Part 2 is physically uncomfortable to sit through.

Only if you never played through the first game, Julia Alexander.  For those of us who know this series, we saw how in the world of The Last of Us, humanity had descended into madness.  An infection making fungus zombies has wiped out most of humanity and those that are left are tribal and destructive.  It’s a game where the central theme is the last spark of humanity in characters, and how those who are able to maintain that goodness die while those who eschew goodness to survive live.  It’s a cold and tragic story about characters who all have to make a choice to abandon their humanity in order to live.  So for me, I can watch that and think – wow, this is hardcore.  What is the story with these characters?  I am really interested.

The victims of the vicious assault, two women, are unnamed. It’s not clear why we’re watching two people be tortured, but we’re asked to take in the extreme violence under the assumption that we’ll be rewarded with more information for doing so. That information never comes, however, and all we’re left with is residual nausea.

Is all this person has played is Mario games?  Does she even know about the first one?  I would love to see her reaction during the scene in the restaurant in the first game where Ellie is savagely beaten and the implication is that after David is done beating her, he is going to rape her.  If you aren’t aware of what kind of trailer this is, don’t watch it.  Go back to phone games or Nintendo’s cookie-cutter material.

A trailer is a pitch to its audience of what to expect from the full game. In the past, Naughty Dog’s trailers have captured a particular mood or suggested a compelling relationship. But here, the promise is almost exclusively gore. There’s an argument to be made that the trailer raises an enticing question — Why are these women being attacked? — but that mystery is both too familiar and too broad.

What?!  What the fuck does that even mean?!  Too familiar and too broad?  And exclusively about gore?  There was hardly any gore in there!  We saw a girl’s arm get busted with a hammer.  Brutal, but not gory.  But what does too familiar and too broad mean?  That’s fucking word salad.  It’s done by a person who wants to make their point seem really profound, when the truth is that it is just them not wanting to say “I don’t like it!  And my opinion is all that matters about this!”

Without any context, the trailer fails to introduce (or even really tease) the story players will embark on. That is its problem.

I guess Julia has never heard of world-building before.  You know, a scene in something to set the tone for what kind of world this story takes place in?  Is this a totally revolutionary thing to her?

The fact that their antagonist is a woman herself does little to undercut what this trailer is on its most blunt level: an extended sequence of brutal and unexplained violence against women being used to thrill the viewer, and ultimately, sell a video game.

Did Anita Sarkeesian write this with a pen name?  Yes, because gamers just love to watch women get beaten and hurt.  That’s totally all this was about.  Give me a fucking break.  This trailer was setting a tone, dumbass!  The tone is – this world is violent and unforgiving.  Even women who are beefcakes like the woman being hung can’t escape the reality of what a violent world it is.  There was meant to be some thrill to the players, because we have seen this world before and we are meant to now be excited to see it again because it’s clear that the violence in what’s left of humanity society hasn’t gone away.  The lesson here is – themes are too complicated for feminists.

There’s a difference in how Naughty Dog handled the trailers for The Last of Us and The Last of Us Part 2. In The Last of Us, Joel may be gunning down hunters, but we understand why he’s doing it, and those he’s attacking aren’t women or marginalized people. The trailer is violent, but it’s justified; none of that justification exists in The Last of Us Part 2’s trailer, where violence simply exists.

Oh my god!  It’s almost like this trailer was trying to inform the viewers that the world of this game is violent and harsh and unforgiving.  And it doesn’t matter what your gender or skin color is.  You can be brutally beaten and killed all the same.  Themes, mother-fucker!  Are you too dense to get this?  Can you turn the feminism off for five fucking minutes to actually critically analyze something in a way outside of “this is insulting to women and minorities!”?

Providing a trailer with little to no context leads to more questions about how this trailer came to be. How many women were involved in the creation, editing and approval of this trailer? In an industry (and studio) that’s predominantly run by men, did women feel comfortable offering a critique?

And here we get to the meat of her argument, what it all boils down to.  All of this blatant ignorance of what this trailer was trying to do was meant to just be another statement about how sexist gaming is and how there aren’t enough women in it.  Groj, what a complete waste of time.  This article did not substantially say anything.  Just, nothing.  It was just someone who can’t turn off the feminism for long enough to get through the trailer, or if she hates it that much go watch something else.  It’s more SJW bitching because they can’t handle this medium, and Polygon gives her space to do it.  Ugh.

The new Last of Us Part 2 trailer was supposed to introduce new characters, including Yara (and possibly even Ellie’s mom), but all we met were victims of abuse. We met ideas of what women should be in games like this, not actual women.

That is so fucking sexist!  How do people who say this shit not see that?!  All the women in the trailer are is victims of abuse?  So, their personalities and whatever traits we will learn about them in the full game don’t matter?  It only matters that they are living in a violent world and are victims of that violence?!  What a way to totally denigrate them based on your own prejudices.  By that token, I could say that Carol in The Walking Dead is only the victim of abuse from the first season and not acknowledge what an awesome and twisted character she becomes to where we are now.  Or I could say that Diana in the new Hitman is only someone who submissively took intimidation because of the scene on the train where the representative of the organization Providence talked with her and clearly exerted his power over her, without looking at how Diana is a skilled handler and has all the power in the dynamic of her and Agent 47.

How are feminists not able to see how sexist shit like this is?  Unless women are fucking Mary Sues, they are wrong and need to be changed.  Fuck this article.  It’s retarded.  Hey, Neil Druckmann, you said you take what these people say seriously.  They are insulting your game because they can’t theme.  Are you seeing why the rest of us say they’re full of shit?

Until next time, a quote,

“I’m gonna fine and I’m gonna kill every last one of them.” – Ellie, The Last of Us: Part II Reveal Trailer

Peace out,

Maverick

Let’s Respond to 20 Things Men Can Do to Support Women (according to Medium)

I haven’t done one of these in forever.  After I got through all of BuzzFeed Yellow’s insipid catalog of crap, I haven’t had one of these to do.  Well, a woman who isn’t know for anything outside of being a glorified blogger decided to go to Medium and make another list.  I decided to respond to it and see if I fit the terms of a person who supports women, according to the criteria that she laid out.  Here’s a link to the article, now let’s see how I do.

Overcome your own transphobia. Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Accept the lived truth of NB and GNC people, whether or not they are women.

Nothing to overcome.  I treat people as they come.  I don’t care about trans people any more or less than I don’t already care about anyone else.  I’m a misanthrope.  Granted, I believe in treating all people with basic levels of respect, so long as they treat me in kind.  That seems like a good criteria.  Unless of course that person is Riley J Dennis, in which case she can fuck right off because she is a prick who has the same beliefs about sexual preferences as pray-the-gay-away preachers.  So I got this first one down.  Excellent.

Be pro-choice and be vocal in support of reproductive rights. (And generous! Give to the National Network of Abortion Funds!) Understand that the opposite of reproductive choice is forced childbearing.

I have made donations in the past to Planned Parenthood, which I trust infinitely more than your charity because it is known for the results it gets and the transparency which it operates.  I have always been pro-choice.  Got this one too.  Damn!  I am on a roll!

Support subsidized birth control. Support women’s healthcare. Support women’s preventative healthcare. Support medical trials that include (or even prioritize) women.

I’ll do you one better, cupcake.  Instead of just supporting women’s healthcare, I support universal healthcare.  That way, everyone can have the healthcare they need without worrying if it will put them in bankruptcy.  So I am actually one-upping you here.  Nice!  I think I may be a very good “ally” for women, according to this woman’s criteria.  But I won’t be supporting medical trials that prioritize women.  If it’s for a drug or medical procedure that’s for both genders instead of just being a drug for women, then there’s no reason for me to support prioritizing women.  None.  So you got me there.

Support nontaxed menstrual products. Ask your workplace if tampons and pads are free. If they’re not, advocate for them to be free. Get over any embarrassment you may have about menstruation.

Don’t care about menstruation.  It’s all just biology to me.  As for supporting non-taxed, why would I support a product being given out for free?  Condoms aren’t free.  If it’s a product made by a company, why would I support them not charging money for it?  Companies can have whatever policy they want in regards to selling this stuff, but as for me, I don’t support us just giving shit away to people if it cost money to produce.  So I can’t support this part.  Guess my ally cred is slipping.

Vocally advocate at your workplace for longer and more egalitarian paid parental leave, whether or not parenthood is part of your life. Advocate for lactation spaces. Advocate for on-site or subsidized childcare.

Here’s a question – do you believe this should be applied equally to men.  Some countries have paid paternity leave.  That seems fair.  But here’s the thing – people leaving on maternity leave is an imposition on a company.  I’m not about to sit here and pretend that a corporation whose only concern is making money should just totally wave off the fact that losing an employee to have a kid is a problem for them.  Is that fair?  No.  But it’s the risk women taken when they choose to have children.  I’m sorry, but most women understand that risk when they take that step.

Tell your elected officials that you are a man who votes and you prioritize women’s issues when you decide who to vote for. Then actually prioritize women’s issues when you decide who to vote for. Understand that women’s issues are your issues.

I don’t prioritize women’s issues.  I prioritize issues that affect my life.  Like when my state chose to legalize pot.  I vote in that election.  I voted in the primary for Bernie Sanders, then wrote in Harambe in the general election because I didn’t (and still don’t) support either of those ass-clowns.  If that’s a problem, sorry-not-sorry.  Issues for other women are not necessarily my issues.  I’m not a feminist.  I’m an egalitarian.  In that same election where we voted to legalize pot, I voted to raise the minimum wage because the girl I was dating at the time was making that and I supported that issue.

Whenever you are in a group composed of only men (whether it’s social, work, church, or whatever) ask yourself why there are no women present. Then ask out loud why. Force an honest answer.

I have no groups I am a part of that only have men.  I’m not really a group person.  I don’t believe in Gawd.  My office has a ton of women in it.  My immediate supervisor is a woman, and she is viewed as the mom of the office for being so good at whipping it into shape.  She’s a hell of a woman and has years of status under her belt showing she’s earned her place.  So yeah, this question has no relevance to me of any kind.

Cultivate genuine, intimate, nonsexual friendships with women.

Got a ton of those.  No problem whatsoever.

Seek out women to be your heroes and mentors.

My heroes are George Carlin and H.L. Mencken.  Find me a woman who can compare to them and I’ll let you know what I think.

Any time you see a building, street, institution, etc. named for a man, see how long it takes you to spot another one named for a woman.

What the fuck do I care what a building, street, or institution is named after?  Nothing.  Why do you care?  What effect does this have on your life?

Ask yourself what things you don’t do, for whatever reason, that you also think of as something women tend to do. (Sew? Send birthday cards? Care about skincare?) Try doing it for a while, just to see what it’s like to be a person who does the thing.

I love to cook, I take care of my sad apartment by myself.  I’ve sewn buttons back on clothes.  Went shopping for lotion with a girly-mate and was cool when she bought some for me.  There’s nothing to think about.  What is this idea that all men seem to believe that there are some tasks that only women are supposed to do?  I guess only women can have lesbian sex.  There’s a task.  I found one.  Happy now?

Talk less. In all spaces. At all times. At a lower volume.

Um, no.  So long as I’m not hurting anyone or being rude and interrupting, I’ll do whatever the fuck I want when I’m not at my job.  Don’t assume you have ANY right to tell me how to conduct myself.

When you need support, reach out to men as well as women. Work to be a person your friends of all genders can reach out to when they need support. Create a culture of openness around yourself.

Nobody wants me around when I need support.  See, I’m kind of a negative person suffering from hardcore depression.  However, because of my depression, I keep an open door to all people in my circle of friends who need to talk.  That’s important to me.  Because I am the kind of person who is easy to forget, I will never let anyone in my circle who wants me there to feel they are forgotten.  So got the openness status all locked down.

Consume media marketed to women. Don’t perform your consumption.

I don’t care who media is marketed towards so long as it fits in my view of things I like.  My favorite film of all time is a hardcore love story (5 Centimeters Per Second).  Does that count?  I’ll consume whatever I like.  I like and dislike a lot of things.  My likes and dislikes run the gamut.  But I don’t think about it as something marketed towards women.  I think about it in terms of – do I think this product looks good?  If yes, then I consume it.  It’s why I drink fruity drinks and not whiskey shots.  Why are you working so hard to divide media when you should be taking my approach and encouraging people to create media that is meant to be marketed as broadly as possible?

Deprogram your beliefs about thinness being an optimal state of feminine beauty. Deprogram your beliefs that your desire matters in determining a woman’s worth.

No.  Fuck you.  What I want in a partner is my business.  It’s not yours or anyone else’s.  Same with what you want.  Since I’m bisexual, my desires for men and women are my own.  And yeah, I’m never gonna find a landwhale attractive.  I’m sorry.  I don’t mind women with a few extra pounds.  I like a girl I can eat a pizza with or get a burger and not have her going on about how bad it is.  A totally platonic girly-mate occasionally comes over for dinner and she goes to the gym but also likes the food I make.  I just won’t find attractive a quality in a person that I believe is detrimental.  If someone is eating themselves to death, I find that unappealing.  There’s nothing wrong with that.  Obese has NEVER been the standard of beauty.  It never will.

Jerk off without porn for a while. EDIT: This really should be “Pay for your porn.” In particular, seek out (and pay for) porn that’s made by women, queer people, and people of color, and that’s produced ethically. Consume sexual culture as thoughtfully as you would consume any culture.

I jerk off without porn all the time.  I have a very vivid imagination.  I don’t care who porn is made by.  I care about the content.  Don’t even bother to look into who made something.  It’s almost like I’m just trying to get off and then go about my day.

Learn about racism and intersectionality, and do everything you can to empower and amplify black women and NBWOC.

Not into the social justice scene.  Not even a little.  I fucking hate this victim culture people in the first world have.  So yeah, can’t get on-board with that even a little.

Detach yourself from straw-man definitions for hot-button issues (intersectionality, cultural appropriation, political correctness, preferred pronouns, etc.) and learn what they’re really about. Unpack the real meanings behind phrases like “SJW” and “feminazi.” Believe people when they say they’re in pain.

I have detached myself from straw-man definitions.  See, part of why I respond to posts like these is so I can make sure I don’t leave out context.  For many years I have responded to posts like this and made very clear my disdain for a large swath of people within the social justice community because of the things they say and the ideas they propagate.  So yeah, not gonna get behind this either.

Prioritize kindness.

Decent advice, I guess.

Befriend children.

I hate children.  I will never like children.  The job I have right now is the greatest form of birth control in the universe.  So yeah, never gonna do that either.

All things considered, this was pretty standard feminist advice bullshit for men.  Seen shit like this before on BuzzFeed.  Honestly surprised she didn’t say to stop looking at lesbian porn or something like that, but whatever.  How did I do?

Until next time, a quote,

“I won’t bore you with the details, but after reading these articles I discovered three modes of excuse-making – I mean thinking! – 1. pointless list-making, 2. dumb observations, and 3. overly intellectualizing” – Harry Ass Plinkett

Peace out,

Maverick

Lucien’s First Take: Tingle Trailer Pre Alpha

There are days, growing in number, when I think that the real failure of GamerGate was that we gave a platform to the stupidest and most corrupt part of video games.  After all, the disgusting, amoral horse-face known as Brianna Wu is running for Congress.  Can’t wait to watch her get destroyed in debates.  We also gave the talentless hacks like Zoe Quinn a platform as a “game developer.”  Because if her choose-your-own-adventure “game” Depression Quest didn’t show you what a great talent she is, then the fact that she has a new Kickstarter project that has over 2,000 people who have donated should give you pause.  What is this project for, you ask?  Well, why should I tell you, when I can show you instead.  The phrase cringe-worthy is so overused these days, but it’s so fucking fitting.  Get ready to cringe until you have no capacity left to cringe.

Let me put this in context for you – 2,000 people have donated to this.  That’s right, at least 2,000 people wanted to see this.  That is assuming Quinn didn’t use sock puppet accounts to make it look better than it is.  We learned that she will use sock puppet accounts to get what she wants.  Like during that very mature fight she had with Candace Owens.  However, let’s give this madness the benefit of the doubt and assume that over 2,000 people actually saw this and were like, “yeah, this seems like a worthwhile cause.”

What will they be getting for their money?  Well, I’ll tell you – this insane bullshit!  A full-motion game that didn’t learn from the fact that full-motion games were universally terrible.  And what is this game about?  Well, as we learn from the opening scene, it’s about pounding ass!  That’s right, this game apparently is about the “Tingleverse” where gay sex abounds and I’m assuming Tom Cruise is working at a fudge factory packing fudge.

I, I don’t get this.  Who is this appealing to?  Who thinks this is funny?  What’s the joke?  That you can draw dicks?  Okay, I guess.  That we have people in weird costumes being gay together?  That we can get talentless hacks like Mara Wilson, Jim Sterling, and Willy Wheaton to be in this?  Wait, is that Dante fucking Basco?!  How far you can fall from Avatar: The Last Airbender to this insipid crap that has gotten thousands of dollars raised.  I think it was over $80,000 as of my last checking the Kickstarter page.

And it’s gay erotica?  Is the idea here that all these people just decided that they would do something stupid just for the fuck of it?  If that’s the case, why would 2,000 people decide this was worth giving their money to?  Fuck it, I’m calling it, this is Zoe Quinn with sock-puppet accounts.  I’m sure Willy and his succubus wife gave sizable donations, but I think the bulk of the small-time donations are from Quinn using sock-puppets to falsely inflate this product.

Maybe the goal here is to get on gamers nerves so she can say, “look at those losers!  They’re all mad over this stupid thing?!”  I’m not mad, Zoe.  I’m…what was this made for?  I don’t get it.  Who finds this funny?  What was the funny part?  Mara Wilson being in a chair talking about gay sex?  That’s not funny.  Why didn’t they get Gail Chord Schuler to do it?  She’s shown to be pretty damn good making gay sex funny as fuck.  Look up her book “Jesus the Eternal Bridegroom.”  Her reads of that book is the greatest thing ever.  Still have fond memories of that on the Drunken Peasants.

Nothing in there is funny.  I half-expected to see Steve Shives in this.  I guess this is where the talentless’ careers go to die.  We have washed-up celebrities like Wesley from Star Trek, Mara Wilson, and Chris Kluwe.  And I am fucking shocked that they got Dante Basco to do this.  Did his career suddenly die off as well?  Did he peak with his last role in cartoons and now is just playing out the string?  We already knew that Jim Sterling sides with the sex SJWs, so him supplying the voice to a monkey isn’t the shocking.

I’m just trying to understand what the goal was here.  To see how many idiots and their money could be parted?  Did they want in on that piece of Anita Sarkeesian pie?  Why wasn’t she helping out with this?  Actually, scratch that.  My opinion of her has immediately improved because she has more self-respect than to join in with this crap.

Nope.  I give up.  This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen.  It will never get dumber than this.  The SJWs will think they made me mad or are hoping for some gamer to get their knickers in a twist.  They haven’t.  It’s like they decided to make something about gay sex in the hopes of getting people riled up so they can say, “They can’t take a joke!”  Didn’t work.  I’m not riled up.  Why?  Because I honestly can’t understand the motivations here.  If I understood what they were going for, maybe then I’d be mad.  But I don’t, so I’m not.  Wow, what a complete waste of my time.

Initial Verdict
“You’re in a fudge factory packing fudge.  You’re a fudge-packer.”

Peace out,

Maverick

SIONR: ‘Lord of the Flies’ Female Remake

This is more of bookworm rage than nerdrage, but there is rage here.  I’m so goddamn tired of how everything is having to be remade for the SJW audience so they can say that it’s about equality.  Especially when it comes to adapting books that I genuinely think are good.  Why?  Because when I see some changes made to things, it just leaves me wondering – did you just not read the source material?!  Like the adaption of “The Golden Compass.”  That series was a straight-up middle finger to the Catholic church.  Phillip Pullman made no secret of how much he hates Catholicism and thinks the church is a corrupt aristocracy.  But the film had to turn it into some vague government entity.  No!  Did you not read the fucking book?!  It was very clear – the church is the one in control of that society.  Lord Asriel embodied a kind of protestant reformation.  Seeing the film gloss over that, along with all the other crap they fucked up, pissed me off.

Now I am seeing news about how there is a remake film of “Lord of the Flies.”  And they have an angle with this – instead of it being about a bunch of British boys being stranded on an island, it’s going to be about a bunch of girls being stranded on an island.  All the roles will be female.  Oh, fuck me!  Did you all not read the fucking book?!  The writers of this idea are saying that it’s not about equality, but I am calling bullshit right now.  This was done to cater to the SJW crowd.  And it pisses me off.

Here’s why this doesn’t work – whatever your opinions about identity, at our biological core there are two genders: male and female.  And our species is sexually dimorphic, by which I mean that our brains are wired differently.  Men and boys are wired with higher traits for aggression and the need to exert dominance.  We are more wired to see violence as a solution to problems.  In primitive societies, there has NEVER been an instance outside of mythology where the men in a society were exclusively the gatherers and the women exclusively the hunters.  There are societies where men and women tend to share duties, but never one where the roles are completely reversed.  It all goes back to biology.

Whatever your beliefs on personality identity, or how masculine or feminine your traits are, it’s a biological fact that men and women have different traits.  So, in “Lord of the Flies,” you have a bunch of boys trapped on an island.  The novel is about them trying to establish a society of rules, because they are proper British youth, but that government falls apart and the society devolves into tribal madness, which culminates in them killing a boy with spears.  Given the biology of boys, that makes sense.  The novel is a look at how the most upstanding and proper boys can become animals the moment they are removed from all semblance of order.  It’s a great examination of a contention the Joker had in The Dark Knight – “their morals, their code, it’s a bad joke.  Dropped at the first sign of trouble.”  It’s what makes it good.  The idea that us humans aren’t as removed from the animal kingdom as we might think.

I put it to you – the same thing wouldn’t happen with girls.  I can already hear people – just watch women in a group.  They’re catty and back-stab.  Sure, in an all-female society, things would get pretty cutthroat.  But the reality is that women’s minds are wired to seek coexistence rather than conflict.  They try to keep a familial unit intact.  Would there be infighting and crazy shit in a female version of this?  Sure.  But they wouldn’t take it to the extreme that the boys do.  Unless it was a situation where the food was gone and it was kill or be killed.  And even then, there would be those who would try and figure out an alternative.  We’re talking science here.

When will this bullshit end?  When will we stop getting the pro-equality versions of stuff?  I can’t even imagine what a remake to Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings films would be like.  Or To Kill a Mockingbird, especially in today’s racial culture.  Or the 1954 version of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, one of my favorite films of all time.

A lot of people will say I just can’t stand things being changed in adaptation.  Fuck that noise!  My problem is when it doesn’t make sense in context of the original, or totally spits in the face of what the original was trying to do.  Great example – the American version of Death Note.  That movie fucking sucked.  Why?  Tons of reasons.  But for me, it’s the fact that the main character isn’t motivated by a twisted sense of justice.  It’s the fact that he wants to impress a girl.  A fucking girl!  All the diabolical intellect of Light Yagami replaced by the insipid bullshit of Light…Turner.  Fuck that name.  Can America just abandon making anime adaptations now?  Please?!

This movie is going to suck.  I can already see the Steve Shives’ and the feminist idiots lining up to cheer on and praise this film, when I guarantee not one of those pathetic idiots read the actual book.  Or if they did, they just wrote it off as misogyny or some dumb thing.  As for me, not even gonna watch this retardation.  Thankfully, lots of female bookworms are out against this too.  If CNN, who wears their bias for this crap as much on their sleeves as every other even-slightly left-leaning outlet, is willing to show off plenty of women who think this is stupid, then you know you fucked up.  Too bad I can already see the pathetic culture war that will follow.

Until next time, a quote,

“Sure, as long as the machines are working at you can dial 911.  But you take that away, you put people in the dark, you scare the shit out of them, no more rules, you’ll see how primitive they get.” – David, The Mist

Peace out,

Maverick

15 Characters Some Idiot Thinks are Offensive (A response to Chris O’Connell)

That’s a pen name, by the way.  This person is so ashamed of what pathetic click-bait this is that they don’t want to have their real name associated with it.  It seems that they want to talk about 15 characters in games that Sony has made who are just so offensive.  There’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s get right down to it.  Here’s a link to the article, so you can see the stupid for yourself.  Let’s rip this to pieces.

15. Ivy Valentine (Soul Calibur)

Regardless of what the developers claim, Ivy’s outfits keep getting skimpier and skimpier, calling more attention to her looks than her actual fighting prowess. Yes, she is one of the best fighters in the series, but the developers can’t get past the horny teenager shtick.

From a purely practical standpoint, Ivy’s outfits are crazy. Not only are they not practical, no human on earth could keep them on standing still, let alone pulling off the moves Ivy does.

Yes, let’s castigate her lack of realism here.  The character who uses a sword that can extend into shapes and is possessed by demonic energy for the lack of realism in her outfit.  Also, what’s the problem with making her sexy?  The lack of realism in her outfit doesn’t mean shit to me.  Yeah, the boobs would fall out.  I don’t play video games expecting perfect realism.  If that were the case, then The Last of Us would have ended with Joel not ever being able to get a car because gasoline does spoil, believe it or not.  It’s something that literally EVERY post-apocalyptic game, film, and TV show gets wrong.  Without exception.

There is nothing wrong with making Ivy hot.  My girly-mate Quinn said she wants to motorboat those tits as much as any guy.  Turns out, lesbians exist.  I know the SJW camp wants to pretend they exist, or not let their opinions into the conversation by saying it’s made for men (that’s so homophobic, when you think about it).  Ivy is in control of her sexuality.  Her character is aware of how hot she is.  She views the whip-like nature of her blade in a very dominatrix way.  Plenty of women like to be the Dom in their relationship.  Are you saying their sexual choices are bad?

14. Sheva Alomar (Resident Evil 5)

Their entire argument for how she’s offensive is a clothing option you can unlock.  They completely gloss over how she is a badass and tough character, all so they can rag on the fact that you have an outfit to unlock that’s risque.  This was such pathetic click-bait.  I am more ragging on this article for the garbage it is so I can get some rage I have been bottling today off my chest.  Roll with it.  They actually do make an argument that her character is bland and virtually non-existent.  A sign that this guy has never played this game.  Is she clearly a side-kick?  Yup.  But she is still a tough fighter and serves a role in the story.  She’s not the co-op partner in Halo, who just is a phantom that disappears with each cutscene.  Seems by saying her character is non-existent that you are the one reducing her to how she looks.  Kinda sexist.

13. Rikku (Final Fantasy X)

This is the one that really pisses me off.  They are showing her from X-2!  They only talk about her look in X-2!  Yeah, I have my problems with that looks too.  It’s stupid.  I genuinely love her character in Final Fantasy X!  Her character, worldview, look, and her culture’s atheism are some of the best parts of the game.  Rikku is a likable girl who is bubbly as a cover for some deep problems with the world and a thinking mind that is trying to find a way to save her cousin.  But all this bullshit article can do is focus on her outfit and they don’t even put the right goddamn title on the game!  Fuck this article!

12. Quiet (Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain)

Sexy woman bad!  It really is amazing how SJWs basically treat any woman who is even a little sexy as wrong.  I have to wonder what they do when they see women who want to show their bodies off.  Like a girl I know.  She works hard to stay in shape, and she likes to show her body off in very revealing outfits.  She’s not a model, but with how hard she works to be in shape and how unabashed she is about her sexuality, I can’t help but think that people who think like the asshole who wrote this article would say they are wrong.  No wonder they don’t have a problem with Islam.  Just admit that you want women in a burka and be done with it.

11. Larry (Leisure Suit Larry Series)

Yes, Leisure Suit Larry is offensive.  Anyone who plays these games knows that.  And how is this on Sony?  The biggest game in this franchise was for PC.

10. Duke Nukem (Duke Nukem Forever)

This article isn’t even trying anymore.  And again, why should Sony feel bad for it?  The developers of the game should feel bad because they created a piece of trash.  It’s a bad game.  Everyone in gaming admits that it’s a bad game.  No one likes this game.  But Duke was always meant to be offensive and over the top.  Who is surprised by this?  Toddlers?

9. Auntie Poulet (Grand Theft Auto: Vice City)

Fun fact: Auntie Poulet is voiced by Miss Cleo. That is where the fun ends with this offensive character. Auntie is a voodoo priestess stereotype that has Tommy Vercetti kill Cuban NPCs for her after drugging him.

Auntie Poulet leans into the whole voodoo stereotype to the point where she becomes unbelievable as a character. It is ridiculously over the top and offensive. Women from Haiti are not all voodoo priestesses that use their magic to get their way.

What the fuck are they even talking about?  Who thinks that all Haitian women are voodoo priestesses?  Where the fuck does this “stereotype” exist?  Nobody thinks this!  And the stereotype about voodoo priestesses is that…they drug characters…and have them kill criminals to help them?  I don’t get it.  This article has really lost the plot here.  And so far as I remember, this game was also multi-platform.  How is this Sony’s fault?!

8. The Women Of Killer Is Dead (Killer Is Dead)

A game from a company know for making games that hold nothing back and are more than a little sexually empathetic is bad because you can have sex with women in it!  Yeah, this guy wants chicks to wear burkas.

7. Ashley (Resident Evil 4)

Although not as sexual as Sheva, Ashley does not help the Resident Evil franchise. The president’s daughter is a damsel in distress that the player begins to loather not only for her vapid, tasteless portrayal, but also because saving her butt is frustrating and infuriating.

Damsels in distress are an unfortunate video game staple that demeans women and is offensive. Ashley is the most pathetic version of this trope. She can barely stand on her own two feet, let alone stop from being taken repeatedly. It is really upsetting to watch as such an underdeveloped character drives the plot. After recovering Ashley for the tenth time, the gamer wishes she could at least hold a gun, for women and sanity’s sake.

What the retard who wrote this (and clearly just took lines from Anita Sarkeesian’s old series of videos) fails to realize is that we hate Ashley not because of some bullshit involving a trope.  We hate her because her AI is poorly programmed and she can only be kidnapped or killed.  Yeah, saving her is a pain in the ass.  It’s bad partner AI.  I am really regretting responding to this.  It’s basically like debunking the watered-down version of an Anita Sarkeesian clone.

6. James Earl Cash (Manhunt 2)

Manhunt is not meant for the faint of heart. That is why parent groups wanted to never let it see the light of day. The game forces the player to take part in the brutal killing and torture of any enemy Cash can get his hands on. The violently sadistic nature of each kill leaves little to the imagination.

Cash is an offensive character because how he disposes of each enemy. The snuff film angle really has not been replicated since the second entry in the series. You could say he is being told to do such things by the Director, but how quickly Cash takes to it all is in his nature. Cash was created to be the gamers vehicle into this world of gore.

I swear, this idiot who wrote this is so close to being close to the point without it going right over their head.  Yeah, Cash is a violent degenerate.  He’s a psychopath who does horrible things for the sake of a narrative.  That was the point.  Rockstar wanted to make a game so violent that it was piss people off.  Players ate it up because they understood that this game is just a twisted way to get some crazy out on digital people.  It’s like how people listen to those ASMRs about having a girlfriend to simulate a relationship.  You get to have some emotional catharsis and no one is actually hurt in the process.  How did this point escape this retard?

5. Sammy Wasabi (Freaky Flyers)

There are no good characters in Freaky Flyers, as the stereotypes are laid on pretty thick in this game. Sammy Wasabi might be one of the worst one though. Sammy Wasabi is a horrible Asian stereotype that has buck teeth and flies a plane called the Kamikaze Express.

I did a little research on this one.  What’s the problem with this guy?  There is this huge intro about how he is a genius.  He’s got a ton of accomplishments to his name at a young age.  He is a fun character.  Not to mention, are we not going to point out that the clearly American characters in this game are made to be the stupidest people you can possibly imagine?  Is this all exaggerated stereotypes, sure.  But they clearly are not above making every character a stereotype in the negative.  I half-expect the black chick I saw in the trailer for the game to call the guys she kicks the shit out of “suga.”  If a game is honest about what it is doing, I don’t see the problem.

I’m sure the argument is that if we perpetuate these stereotypes, it will make people more racist.  I can see this guy, and I don’t think that all Asians have broken Engrish and buck teeth.  In an age before everyone was some butthurt pussy who needs to have their ideas constantly validated, I bet there were plenty of Asians who saw stuff like this as amusing as I do the fact that the Americans in this game are stupid as fuck.

4. Barret Wallace (Final Fantasy VII)

Although he is the first black character in the series, he is unfortunately a walking stereo-type from his mannerisms, lack of intelligence, and over the top speech. Japanese developers have continually had a hard time portraying other races in a positive light. In fact, that might be an undertone throughout this list. Barret might be the most infamous example of a Japanese developer trying to create a Western black man for Western audiences.

Barret is one bad mothereffe, but that does not make up for his representation. His tattoos and Mr. T like appearance are just the cherry on top of this sundae. Gamers grew to look past his exterior as they progressed through FFVII. He is a solid character underneath it all, but first impressions matter, and this one was super offensive.

I’m calling it!  This was written by a person who never played ANY of these games.  Wanna know how I know that?  Because Barrett is a bad motherfucker and everyone who plays the games knows it.  He has a cybernetic arm that can be upgraded with better weapons.  He’s the leader of a resistance (or some might say eco-terrorist group) group and you know that he is a boss from the moment you meet him.  I love that they got that right in the new version of him in the remake that I’ll never play because fuck Square Enix and their episodic bullshit with this game.  I’ll wait for the full version to come out.  First impressions don’t mean shit.  If that was the case, then I’d think Tidus in Final Fantasy X was nothing but a whiny bitch, or Balthier is a Han Solo rip-off.  It’s what’s under the skin that matters.

I hate these Sarkeesian wannabes and their bullshit arguments.  Context matters!  Character matters!  These people say it doesn’t.  I fucking hate that.  By that logic, you can easily write off pretty much every character I like.  By that logic, Joel is the worst person ever in The Last of Us, because he is an asshole who is gruff and violent.  But then you get to know him and see the forces at work inside him which as you understanding by the end why he chose to sell humanity up the river to save Ellie.

The last entries are all from games I’ve never even heard of, but trust me, it’s all bullshit.  We’ve seen up to this point that these people castigating conservatives is funny, because their views on how women match up real nice with Islam’s, and their views on race end right where the skin does.  Hell, they even said it.  They don’t care about what’s underneath that.  It’s all about how the person looks.  These people are sexist, and racist.  Fuck that noise!

Until next time, a quote,

“For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” – H.L. Mencken

Peace out,

Maverick