My Facebook feed is filled to the brim from right wing nuts about cops, "pray for cops", "cop lives matter" and the like. Not a single one of them posted anything about the two recent killings that sparked the demonstrations.

And it's like newtboy said, nobody is saying cop lives don't matter, or that black lives matter more than others. What they don't seem to understand is they rush to find an excuse for a cop killing a black man, "oh look at his prior records" and don't care that he was doing nothing in the situation that caused the fatal shooting. They focus on the report that says the one guy didn't raise his hands and say "don't shoot me" and ignore the other report by the same people, released the same day that there was "systemic" racism in Ferguson, and similar reports have said the same about Cleveland and far too many others. When Brock Turner got 6 months for rape, they evoke his swimming records, and deny that if he was black and poor they would have searched for priors instead of his outstanding swimming records, and if he had no priors these same people would have been outraged had a black judge given him only 6 months in jail. They deny such things, but it's evident from their actions every time something like this happens. They lack any real empathy... which is especially funny since many of these people post things like the reason Christians suffer depression so much is they have so much empathy, and I'm thinking I don't see it, and I'm sure those in the LGBT don't see it when you deny them equal rights under the law, or deny them access to the bathroom of their gender identity, and I doubt blacks don't see it when you ignore their plight and instead post about how cop lives matter, or white lives matter.

If they do so out of ignorance, it is purposeful.

I used to be a evangelical, far right wing nut. Then I started vetting the information and news. Learned what sources are trustable and not. There started to be a pattern. I started educating myself further and changed positions. I became a liberal Christian, and eventually lost the faith due to the far right's overly big influence. So if I, who's not overly intelligent (perhaps more than the average person, but not nearly as intelligent as many family think I am), with no skills or real worth can get out via self education, they can to, but they prefer the comfort of their ignorance, and that I can't abide. You can point things out until you are blue in the face and they will just dig in harder to hold on to that ignorance and their limited world view.

I think we can trace a lot of this back to the rise of right wing radio and eventual rise of Fox News which convinced the Christian right that the regular, responsible news outlets were "liberal" when pretty much all news is controlled by a very select few, and none of them have an interest in making people aware of the truth... just because you can watch perhaps 12 hours of CNN before they point out something in the Obama administration that is bad, where Fox does it several times an hour doesn't make CNN liberal... it makes Fox an ass that is singly focused on making people angry at the Democrats and what they deem as liberals, and then they shift the goal post and make old Reagan era style political beliefs the new liberal... and they work to build the division. It's not longer acceptable to work with Democrats on finding a reasonable middle ground, that's being weak, and they want to dig their heals in and have it their way or the highway (basically they want a dictatorship but under the guise of a democracy). Then the rise of social media is perhaps the thing that really pushed the schism further as they further surround themselves in an echo chamber. So when people say "black lives matter" their echo chamber fills up with "well so do white lives and cop lives" and their echo chamber fills up with the idea that those on the left don't care about cops and that we think most of them are corrupt and don't care about their lives.

...aborts rant early as I'm already a million miles off topic...

No one made that claim, but yes, it does. I bet you had a good ol' time making mountains out of molehills over Obama's alleged birthplace, no?
The birthplace of the said assailant/asshat makes a difference to your primary statement/argument:
Syntaxed said: "Perhaps he was wrong about the people that you blokes are letting into the country? Yes? Then how come one of them, (whom you could never tell is a radical, HE HAD A WIFE AND CHILD), just killed 50 members of the LGBT community in the horrible massacre in Orlando?(which was so bad we are getting news coverage of it in LONDON)"
EDIT: This is a clear, unambiguous claim that he was an immigrant, since you seem to not comprehend your own post.

It proves that you are speaking from a position that starts with a total ignorance of or disregard for the facts in order to support factually deficient demagoguery. The asshat in question was not one of those we are "letting into the country"
According to Wiki, in the last 6 years, only 8 out of 21 terrorist attacks in the US were committed by Muslims, but 10 were committed by anti-government non-Muslim right wingers. I guess a ban on all right wing immigrants would make MORE sense?

Your reply proves that you know you have no argument to make, as you instantly discard it when challenged to chase red herrings.

Dear God, I must agree with @radx, how can he say that when women are still kept as sex slaves? Or people are still worked to death? Or there is still war? What the hell?! Look at the bloody state of Europe right now, or perhaps Britain?! Or America for that matter, a radical Muslim just killed 50 members of the LGBT community!!!!!

And the world is BETTER?!

ugh, politicians...

So, firstly, I must agree with @ChaosEngine, a commencement speech is no place for political commentary. A commencement speech's purpose is to allow one who has paved a complex path through life and come out on top, or one who has overcome something great, (and) has a important lesson for those less-learned to share their knowledge, that it may be used for good.

(God that sentence is long, let me catch my virtual breath...)

Next, why, if he is to provide political commentary during a commencement speech, as so many do nowadays, does he slam Trump?

Anybody? Is it his hair? Is it his puffy little face? Is it because he looks like a pumpkin? No? Perhaps its because he is a disaster waiting to happen, because that seems to be the general sentiment from many people who are allowed to speak their minds en-masse nowadays...

But how is Trump worse than Clinton? Hmmm? Perhaps there are buried rape cases THAT WERE MADE PUBLIC BTW, in Trump's past? No?

Perhaps making billions of dollars FROM ONE MILLION is just inherently evil? Hmmm, no?

Okay, that Hairdo, it must burn a hole in the Ozone layer wherever he walks... Or flames must flower at his feet, as lotus flowers did for the Buddha? NO?

Perhaps he was wrong about the people that you blokes are letting into the country? Yes? Then how come one of them, (whom you could never tell is a radical, HE HAD A WIFE AND CHILD), just killed 50 members of the LGBT community in the horrible massacre in Orlando?(which was so bad we are getting news coverage of it in LONDON)

Hmmm, maybe electing someone who actually admits there is a problem, destroying political correctness, and being damned with the "established order" which supposedly keeps you Americans safe isnt such a bad idea...

Maybe electing a Woman with a hideous blot of a record, and a long standing member of said establishment is one such bad idea...

@ChaosEngine.

Yeah. I know. Your last sentence says it all -- he didn't achieve near as much as was hoped for. Hence your disappointment.

From my perspective, I never believed he could do all that was hoped. Because this isn't a dictatorship (thank god, maybe we can survive Trump.) It was clear to me from the beginning that is wasn't possible.

So I wasn't disappointed. I was glad for all that he did manage to get through.

And that is what makes him consequential.

I have my list of things I am pissed at him about for doing -- including the murdering of brown people, including bin Laden. (And I'm pissed at most of the people in this country for cheering state sponsored targeted assassination and ignoring the huge collateral damage of that day and the days that followed.)

History isn't going to judge him on what he promised and couldn't get done. History will judge him on what he actually did. Half-assed heathcare is half an ass more than was managed in over a hundred years. LGBT people aren't disappointed.

And being the first black president -- he'll be in the history books for being that particular breed of person -- the minority who is 10 times better than the ruling majority, who swallows the indignities of prejudice with grace and determination, who rises above the humiliations to become The First. Think Jackie Robinson -- that is what we remember about him, that is the story that has survived. (The recent PBS doc taught me a fuller picture of who he actually was after he survived those brutal first two years in the majors.) That is the story we crave.

He's consequential, all right. Not perfect. Consequential.

On social policies, left and right couldn't be more different. Sure, there are plenty of sane conservatives that have come around towards not treating minorities, women, and LGBT like shit. A lot of times it's that same meme we've seen over and over. Conservatives don't give a fuck until they're personally affected by it. They only stop being pro-war if one of their loved ones dies. They only stop being anti-lgbt if they discover that one of their loved ones are lgbt. Just recently, Kasich got a bit of the spotlight because of his 2nd place in the NH primaries and he gets hailed as the more moderate conservative, but he's still pretty anti-choice, so I'm told.

Now yeah, you're exactly right when it comes to other aspects of the parties. the entire primary process is complete bull. The RNC and DNC are both private organizations. There is no rule whatsoever that they are beholden to votes There is nothing in the constitution about parties. They literally can nominate whoever the fuck they want. Sanders and Trump could win every single primary race and they could still pick anyone they want and ignore the votes. What's worse is that taxpayers fund the primary elections so we're wasting taxpayer dollars on a primary race that literally DOES NOT MATTER. I am an election worker and I recently got contacted that ill be working our state's primary election in May. sure the extra cash is nice (it's only about 100 bucks) but that's 100 bucks we could spend on more useful things and I'd gladly give it up to create a better selection process and eliminate primaries completely. Elections in America are so fucking messed up and resemble a reality show way too much, which definitely explains why Trump is doing as well as he is. If we had actual debates and took shit seriously? He'd never have a snowballs chance in hell. But hey, this is America and we care more about spectacle than substance.

Now yeah, if our only two choices were Cruz or Trump, I'd vote for Trump in a heartbeat. He's the lesser of two evils. (And I also love feeding the RWNJ paranoia that he's a democrat plant). That is the reality of our elections. I knew damned well that Obama was never going to be able to do most of the things he said he would do, even if he did have a friendly Congress. But again, he's the lesser of two evils.

America puts way too much stock in the Office of the President. Congress is where the real power is at, but America's culture mistakenly hinges EVERYTHING on the Presidency, and it's just not true, it's a distraction from the real wheels of power. It's the same in Britain. The monarchy has no real power, they're figureheads. The real power is in Parliament. The monarchy is a distraction.

You're exactly right about lobbyists and money in politics. I've been on board with that on day one. I'm definitely pro Bernie. But even if Bernie wins the general, he's going to have a hostile congress and that's going to limit much of what he can do unless we can take back congress. Again, that's where the real power is. The most he will probably be able to do is appoint more SCOTUS judges.

So democrats, if you want shit to change? stop staying home during the midterm elections. Unless something crazy happens, Republicans aren't going to be retaking the white house any time soon, but you need to start voting in the midterms so that Congress changes. It's this sad little cycle. During general elections, dems come out to vote in droves, but then they stay home for the midterms and Republicans trounce them and they wonder why Congress is right-wing.

So yeah, if for social policies alone, I'll definitely vote for Hillary if Bernie doesn't get the nod. Do I think she'll accomplish much? No, but few presidents do. CONGRESS IS WHAT MATTERS!

You're right with me up to the point we reach the kinds of censorship you happen to support.

What's the penalty for incurring the ire of the social justice elite? Well, only that you'll be branded a sexist or whatever by the entire gaming media, perhaps have your Twitter account banned or your videos taken down from YouTube, or maybe you'll just be arrested on false charges of harassment. It's a storm that a strong individual might weather, but from which any company will steer away automatically. Of course it's censorship.

Games are being censored (they came for the japanese bikini simulators and I said nothing...); social media is being censored: Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, Wikipedia and any number of even less reputable sites are being censored - all in response to social justice histrionics. This crybaby, zero-offence, closed-minded, closed-mouthed malaise is damaging to our culture: damaging to art, to academia, to journalism. And if you acknowledge the need for open expression, you will oppose it.

"There is more than one way to burn a book," wrote Ray Bradbury of interest groups taking offence, "...each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the libraries closed forever." You don't recognise any of this?

Yes, 'critics just don't have the talent to create' is a tired old fallacy and I regret echoing it, but there I was thinking particularly of the likes of Wu and Quinn: loathsome reptiles and degenerates whose own creative efforts are so miserably inept that to garner sales, patreon donations, and fraudulently positive reviews they resort to pretending themselves the brave minority voices raised against the misogynistic, LGBT-phobic, uni-racial establishment - in an industry that has never actually had any of those problems.

As for Anita Sarkeesian; that liar, mountebank, fascist collaborator, and 21st century Jack Thompson; that professional victim and demagogue who harnesses manufactured outrage for profit; or in the most generous possible light, that half-educated nincompoop who somehow rode a tide of hysterical activists-without-a-cause to a broadcast platform for her worthless, narcissistic rambling:
It isn't the fact of her fuck-witted critique to which the gaming community so righteously objects but the baffling inaccuracies and outright slanders therein, her self-promotion via false claims of harassment, her attacks on artistic expression and internet freedom.

And these are exactly the kind of sub-intellectual trash who will presume, against all standards of rectitude and conscience, to instruct their betters on what kind of jokes they're allowed to tell.

You never cede an inch to these fucking people. That's how you get Mary Whitehouse, or the Comics Code Authority, or McCarthy, or the FCC, the BBFC, the OFLC, the IWF.

assuming one defines feminism as "the sexes should be equal"

...then the word is redundant. we already have words that describe one that supports equality.

It's become a completely meaningless word because everyone views the word differently.

some people view feminists as "man haters" Im sure there are some out there. That's the problem with any 'ism. There's always a group that takes it way too far. but I'm pretty sure they are a small small minority.

But we see this in other themes as well. Try to give women equality, and somehow that gets interpreted as being a man-hater.
-Try to promote equality for african americans, and that gets interpreted as hating whites.
-Try to promote LGBT rights and that gets interpreted into the idea that LGBT is something that can be "caught" like a cold.

It's rampant insecurity. promoting rights for others isn't going to take your rights away.

See, I agreed with everything you said up until that last statement (that I quoted below).

All organized religions brutally and mindlessly suppress individual freedom. But lately the target de jour seems to be Islam. People like Sam Harris got off track when they forgot that the real target is the dismantling of all organized religion and focused almost exclusively on denouncing Islam--usually with obnoxious overgeneralizations and a complete lack of understanding how diverse Islam actually is.

And that's the major problem with the whole argument Dawkins and Maher are proposing (i.e. that you can't criticize Islam anymore). You can't criticise Christianity or Judaism or any other major religion without hugely overgeneralizing, either. Instead you need to target specific denominations within specific communities and how they practice the religion.

For example, are you upset about how "Christianity" has helped spread AIDS or protected pedophiles? Well then really you're really looking to criticize the Catholic church and it's stance on contraception and handling illegal activities within the church, not Christianity as a whole.

Upset with how gay people are viewed? Again, you're probably not looking to criticize the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and many other Christian denominations who have reformed in recent times to be accepting of LGBT members and clergy. It's not a Christianity problem so much as it is a problem of how specific people in specific places for specific cultural reasons interpret the texts of their religion.

Basically, I don't think it is a problem if people want to criticize how Islam is practiced in a specific context (say, for example, the use of female genital mutilation in some subsets of Islam in Africa). But I do think it is a problem when the speaker is simply set on demonizing the religion as whole rather than making a rational argument, for example overgeneralizing female gential mutilation (which actually pre-dates Islam and was incorporated into it later after Islam's rise of influence in the region) as an example of why Islam is evil.

Certainly people have the legal right to make such an argument (in the U.S. at least). However, I'm guessing most universities don't want to come across as looking in support of such ill-structured arguments that are more akin to tabloid magazine hit pieces than an actual intellectual argument which is grounded in facts and reason.

All that said, I have no inside information about the real administrative reasons why certain speakers have been declined/uninvited at specific college campuses.

Good for him, that was a dumb thing to be asking. The entire thing just seemed like a set up to try and promote the fact that whoever this is works for an LGBT news.. something.

I think it gets back to the "ick" factor, @MilkmanDan. I think. See if this makes sense to you:

At the lizard brain level, if you are strongly heterosexual, same sex activity is repulsive to you -- triply so if you are a man watching male activity. It is instinctive, the revulsion, because it comes from the core of your non-verbal brain.

Even if you are completely in favor of anti-discrimination, you can still understand that instinctive revulsion and can sympathize.

The thing is -- that strong revulsion is in part due to not being exposed to the thing that repulses you. See it enough, have friends and family who are LGBT, that instinctive response gets muted.

And bottom line -- yeah. Private businesses who are open to the public cannot discriminate based on who you are.

Sidebar -- when I was in my early 20's, I lived in Los Angeles. It was at the beginning of acceptance of gay culture, which included what I can only label as "slumming." It was fashionable for heterosexuals to go to known gay clubs. This was deeply annoying to the gay folks, of course, because they were out to have a nice time on a Saturday night, not be essentially creatures in a zoo for entertainment value.

The clubs had a really clever way of dealing with it. The standard policy was -- no open-toed shoes. If you were truly friends and not gawkers, you would know to wear the right shoes. If you were a tourist -- well, most women out for the evening wore open toed shoes.

I was young and stupid and was one of those tourists. My friends and I were turned away. Everyone else was miffed. I was immediately impressed with the whole concept. Yeah. I SHOULD be turned away, and weren't they brilliant at finding a way to do it.

I can still see the sneer on the face of the bouncer. He did NOT like us. That was 40 years ago and I still admire him and that business for protecting themselves from us gawkers.

I have to admit that I'm partially on the "wrong" side of this one.

Housing, not being fired for being gay, that kind of stuff, I'm with John Oliver 100%.

But restaurants, bakers, etc. ... I dunno, I'm a little torn.

Places like Big Earl's in the clip put up a sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason". I tend to think that is a right that we should allow private businesses (NOT things that are set up for the public good like utilities, gas stations, govt. agencies, whatever) to have.

That is NOT to say that I approve of the way that these clowns exercise that right. Dude doesn't want to make cakes for same-sex weddings ... fine. You're a retard, passing up potential customers for a really stupid reason, and also possibly discouraging business from other people that empathize with those that you are denying service to, but ... hey, it is your goddamn business. If you don't want to make a cake for people who's name starts with a Q, I'd support your right to make that (equally dumbass) decision.

Kinda the same thing goes for Big Earl's. That might even be one of the cases where the comfort of your standard clientele (redneck bigots) is potentially more important/beneficial to your bottom line than the potential lost business that your discriminating policy causes. In other words, from a purely capitalistic viewpoint, the policy might be a net positive to the business. Maybe.


The one thing that gives me pause on those more private businesses being allowed to "deny service to anyone for any reason" is shifting from LGBT equality to race equality. If that cake maker refused to make cakes for a black wedding, I'd be more accepting that we need some government intervention. I know that my opinion should be the same in both instances, but I can only honestly admit that at the gut level, I have a different reaction to those 2 scenarios.

I sorta think that even the racist cake-maker should be allowed to continue to be racist (so long as we're talking cakes, and not something more *necessary* to public good), because a racist cake maker will probably put themselves out of business without the need for any government intervention. BUT, I'm sure there are places in the US where that wouldn't have been true (and where it wouldn't be true today), and we needed the push of federal mandate to force such people to remove heads from asses. Maybe the same thing is true for LGBT discrimination.

But I do still feel conflicted about it. Even though I know I shouldn't.

1. Kickstarter lies

Before Anita started her Kickstarter campaign she held a talk where she said she was being harassed by a organized group of 4chan members for months. She said these 4chan members subscribed to her channel so they would know when she released new videos so they could attack her. The type of comments she said she received were sexual insults, death threats & rape threats. She said sometimes she got together with a friend to read through the comments because it would get overwhelming. She says that she probably has the biggest block list on Youtube and anytime they leave any anti feminist, harassing, or threating comment they would be blocked. She said that she had gotten use to these kinds of comments. She said she monitored her Youtube comment section so the only comments that were allowed to be shown had to be approved by her.

She lunched her Kickstarter campaign and made a Youtube video for the campaign. She for the first time allowed comments on her video. she makes a post on her website entitled Harassment, Misogyny and Silencing on YouTube. She says this in the post.

"Here is a very small sample of the harassment I deal with for daring to criticize sexism in video games. Keep in mind that all this is in response to my Kickstarter project for a video series called Tropes vs. Women in Video Games (which I have not even made yet). These are the types of silencing tactics often used against women on the internet who dare to speak up. But don’t worry it won’t stop me!"

"These messages and comments have included everything from the typical sandwich and kitchen “jokes” to threats of violence, death, sexual assault and rape."

http://feministfrequency.com/2012/06/07/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/

She says that all of these comments are because of her Kickstarter campaign because she dares to speak critically about video games. These statements completely contradict what she said before she started her Kickstarter campaign. Before her Kickstarter she said she was systemically being harassed by people on 4chan and that among the things they said to her were sexual insults, death threats & rape threats and sometimes it was so overwhelming she read them with a friend as a way to cope with it and she had gotten use to it by that point. So she leaves comments open on her youtube kickstarter video which is something she never did before and she was surprised by the negative comments but how can she be surprised by the same type of comments she was receiving long before she launched her Kickstarter. When she started her Kickstarter and left her comments open she knew exactly what the comments were going to be like because she been receiving them for months prior. So when she says during her Kickstarter that all of the negative comments were because of her Kickstarter campaign she's lying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSoDEA6yw24

2. Other Lies

She says that Grand Theft Auto and Saint Row encourage players to kill women by giving players money for killing random female NPCs.

"some games explicitly incentive and reward this kind of behavior by having murdered women drop bundles of cash for the player to collect and add to their own stash"

The truth is money is dropped by any NPC that is killed in the games and has nothing to do with gender.

She says that the female stripper NPCs from Hitman Absolution were put their because the developer wanted players to kill them. The game discourages players from killing innocent civilians by taking away points. The whole point of the game is to sneak by people and keep unnecessary killing to a minimum while moving toward killing your intended target not to kill random strippers and lose points for doing so. The path to the strippers is one of two paths that the player can take. The path to the strippers is the harder of the two paths to take. The other path that the player can take is easier and doesn't involve coming near the strippers at all.

She also says this in her Background Decoration video.

"their status as disposable objects is reinforced by the fact that in most games discarded bodies will simply vanish into thin air a short time after being killed"

She tries to tie disappearing bodies as something that only happens to female NPCs but it has nothing to do with gender its just something that happens in a lot of games irregardless of gender because of limited ram capacity and not having the game slow down because of bodies pilling up.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EverythingFades

shes a life long gamer
at a Santa Monica College in California back in early 2010 Anita says that she's not a fan of video games and she had to learn a lot about them. she says that she would love to play video games but she doesn't what to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads. During and after her Kickstarter she says that shes been playing video games since she was 5 years old and shes a life long gamer. How can she be a lifelong gamer if she said pre Kickstarter that she doesn't like video games specifically because she thinks that all games are violent. If she's a lifelong gamer than what has she been playing all of this time and why does she thinks all video games are violent. She obviously not a lifelong gamer and only said that as a way to try and give herself more credibility.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJj_7SVAIS4

In her damsel video she said Zelda was never a playable character in a console game. Zelda was playable in the CDI games Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon & Zelda's Adventure. I am not saying these are good games but they are console games where Zelda was the star of her own adventure.

She says that gaming is all boys club and women have until recently been barred from playing games. This is untrue their has never been anything stopping girls from playing games. Most game genres are not gender excluding. Racing, fighting, beat em up, real time strategy, role playing, puzzle, point and click, action adventure, platformers, MMO, Simulation, rhythm action.

Women have been involved in the making of games for years. Theirs been female programmers, artist, composers, designer, CEO, etc. Women have also been involved in the journalism side of things as well. This false narrative that Anita's trying to push that games have somehow excluded women until recently is a lie that she tells to try to push her gender base agenda.

The other thing that she tries to push is the ideal that man are trying to keep women from playing or criticizing games. Both things are false but she keeps to that script so she can fight against the imagery boogie man that she created and so she can justify the existences of her video series.

Anita omitted the fact that she has connections to the developer of the game sword and sworcery but I am sure that has noting to do with the reason why she chose that game's character as a positive female even though it contradicts her previous videos.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/315zh3/possible_ethics_issue_with_anitas_latest_video/.

3. Poor Research

In dismals in distress she said that peach was added to Mario 2 to fill a per existing gender role that existed in the original game Doki Doki Panic except for the fact that her own footage clearly shows that two females were playable in Doki Doki Panic. If she did further research like actually playing the game than she would know that it wasn't just one girl in Doki Doki Panic. The core concept that Anita doesn't understand about games is the fact that graphics assist can be replaced with anything. In fan made mods the cast of Super Mario Bros 2 have been replaced by numerous things like Star Wars ships, Pokemon, Transformers, Spider-Man villains, etc.

http://www.romhacking.net/?page=hacks&game=749

https://youtu.be/t8bub0B1-wk?t=6m15s

In Women as Background Decoration Anita says this

"In order to understand how this works lets take a moment to examine how video game operate as playgrounds for player engagement. Games ask us to play with them. Now that may seem obvious but bear with me. game developers set up a series of rules and then within those rules we are invited to test the mechanics to see what we can do and what we can't do. We are encouraged to experiment with how the system will react or respond to our inputs and discover which of our actions are permitted and which are not. The play comes from figuring out the boundaries and possibility within the gamespace. So in many of the titles we've been discussing the game makers have setup a series of possible scenarios involving vulnerable eroticized female characters. Players are than invited to explore and exploit those situations during their play through. The player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon. Because they were designed constructed and placed in the environment for that singular purpose. Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters. Its a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality."

Theirs two basic concepts that she doesn't understand. The first one is that games are interactive so players can do things that developers never intended players to be able to do. The second is the fact that games have bugs in them which also allows players to do things that the developers never intending for them to do.

For example in Halo 2 players can do button combos. Button combo is a sequence of buttons that, when pressed in order, results in the execution of an exploit. Typical button combos take advantage of unforeseen attributes of certain actions. Some actions, such as meleeing, can disrupt animations for firing and reloading weapons, performing melees, etc. By chaining these and other actions, players can perform special tricks, such as automatic Plasma Grenade sticks and instant close-range kills. However, many players disapprove of such "cheap" exploitations, and Bungie has declared these combos all as cheating and therefore banworthy

http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Cheating

Another example is in early versions of arcade Mortal Kombat 2. Players figured out how to hit babies after performing Babalitys.

http://bbh.marpirc.net/mk2/

By Anita's logic midway endorses child abuse because players tested the bounders of the game and were able to interact with the objects (babies) in the game that were put their by the developer. So that clearly means that the developer supports any action the players can do in the game including hitting babies. Or it can just mean that games are interactive and filled with glitches and just because a player can do something in a game doesn't automatically mean that the developer endorsed it or even meant for player to be able to do it.

In her Bayonetta video she complains about Bayonetta clothes coming off when she summons demons. she doesn't acknowledge or knows that Bayonetta's hair is also her cloths so that's why her cloths disappears when she summons demons. She also makes the claim that Bayonetta is fighting demons when in fact Bayonetta is actually fighting angles. She also says that Bayonetta has a child except for the fact that Bayonetta doesn't have any children. She claims that Bayonetta is a "choose your own patriarchal adventure porno fantasy." Lets take a second to look at what the word Patriarchy means. Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. So how is Bayonetta a game in which players play as a strong women who is always in control of a situation and is more powerful than any man in the game enforcing ideals of Patriarchy. Bayonetta is not a choose your own adventure type game nor is it a porno.

She says this in a tweet

"Everything about Bayonetta's design, mechanics and characterization is created specifically for the sexual pleasure of straight male gamers"

Bayontta was design by a women

http://platinumgames.com/2009/04/17/designing-bayonetta/

http://soulcalibur.wikia.com/wiki/Mari_Shimazaki

McIntosh said this on twatter about the Witcher.

"Geralt from Witcher 3 is emotionally deficient in the extreme. Never cries or laughs. Never expresses grief, fear, sadness or vulnerability."

Witchers are unable to express emotions on their faces because of the training that is involed to become a Witcher. Taken in as children, Witchers-to-be are subjected to intense alchemical processes, consumption of mutagenic compounds and relentless physical and magical training to make them dangerous and highly versatile against their vast array of opponents.

http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Witcher

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/05/31/why-feminist-frequency-is-dead-wrong-about-the-witcher-3/

"In the beginning of “Women as Background Decoration: Part 2,” Sarkeesian references a scene from Dragon Age’s City Elf Origin story, in which a group of guards make disturbing sexual comments over the player character’s dead female companion. Sarkeesian implies that BioWare’s narrative is built on the “brutalization of women’s bodies,” using dead women “as an indicator of just how harsh, cruel, and unforgiving their game worlds are.”

"However, the female elf’s treatment is better understood as a thematic commentary on systematic misogynistic violence. Both women and elves are confined to strict socioeconomic roles within the origin story, as the brutal city government uses institutional force in order to keep women and elves oppressed. Essentially, the game explores the use of sexual violence as a form of violent oppression within a misogynistic institutional structure. Yet, Sarkeesian and McIntosh misread this moment – ignoring a critical look at misogynistic oppression within Dragon Age’s narrative."

"Sarkeesian has criticized the postmodern video game Hotline Miami for utilizing the “Damsel in Distress” trope. However, Feminist Frequency’s analysis completely erases the game’s subversion of the trope – as the narrative’s “damsel” seems to be held hostage by the player, and avenging her death produces no reward. Indeed, writers such as Maddy Myers have dissented from Sarkeesian and McIntosh’s analysis – praising Hotline Miami as a postmodern exploration of hypermasculinity which subverts the “damsel” trope."

http://gamemoir.com/lgbt-gender/frequency-anita-sarkeesians-strengths-weaknesses/

4. Things taking out of context

She shows footage of Fallout New Vegas where a womens body is being dragged around with psychic powers and says that games often permits women to be knockout, pickup, carried and thrown around. All of these things can be done to male NPCs as well. She also says that assault, mutilating & murder can be done to women in games but all of those same things can be done to male NPCs as well. She tries to use these things as examples of sexism towards women but its not sexism if the same thing can be done to male NPCs.

She claims that the objectification of female NPCs is terrible.

"Unlike other NPCs that exist for purposes outside of their sexuality, Non-Playable Sex Objects have little to no individual personality or identity to speak of. since these women are just objects there's no need or reason for players to have any emotional engagement with them. meaningful relations or interactions are not even possible. Their programming simply does not allow for it."

She tries to say this is unique to female NPCs. The lack of deep personalities, non emotional engagement or meaningful relations is true of all Pedestrian NPCs male or female.

"when assaulted by the player non playable sex objects might scream. but regardless of their canned automated reaction they are will designed to be expendable to be used and then tossed out."

Same thing is true for male NPCs as well.

In background decoration she talks about female character being objectified while showing footage of the main protagonist from Watch Dogs in the process of shutting down a human trafficking ring.

In her background decoration video she said this.

"In the realm of interactive media I use the term "instrumentailty" to refer to the practice of using virtual women as tools or props for the players own purposes. Courtesans in the Assassins Creed series, for instance, are available to be "rented" and used to help you "blend in" to the environment. Once acquired, they can be ordered to flirt with guards to distract them. Allowing the protagonist to slip by undetected. "

The courtesans were one of the four factions allied to the Assassin Order, with the other three being the thieves, mercenaries and Romanies. They usually aided the Order by collecting information from clients, or by acting as distractions and allowing allies to slip into restricted areas.

The player can also hire male thieves & mercenaries to aid them with blending into a environments and killing. So is using man as Tools bad as well or is it only bad when it happens to women in Assassin Creed.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Courtesans

Anita and mcintosh purposely says controversial things on tweeter to provoke a negative reaction from people so they can use the response to prove Anita's continued harassment. mcintosh even admits to purposely provoking gamers with his comments.

https://youtu.be/Xi5qQ3GIbD0?t=7m50s

Here's an example of Anita provoking a reaction from people and using the response as a example of her continued harassment to coincide with a Kickstarter update.

You only have to watch the first 3 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLD8gHkaqLc&index=21&list=PLbGeY5L25KBr_OtPsRJWfKoNslm2UZA6a

Lets take a look at some of these comments.

"A few months ago I started posting deliberately provocative tweets whenever I'd see the angry gamer mod launch a harassment raid on someone"

"I'd only post things I basically agreed with, but I did it in an overtly antagonizing way designed to enrage these specific hateful gamers"

"The goal was to see if I could draw some of their fire & distract them a bit from their usual targets. It worked like a charm. It still is"

"Its shockingly easy to drive these bozos into frothing fits of rage. Simply tweet critically about their beloved Ico, MGS or Bayonetta"

ANITA

"not a coincidence it's always men and boys committing mass shootings. the pattern is connected to ideas of toxic masculinity in our culture"

"manhood, not guns or mental illness should be central in newtown shooting must read 2012 article by @ jacksontkatz huffingtonpost.com"

"mass shootings are one of tragic consequence of a culture that perpetuates toxic ideas of masculinity. this is how patriarchy can harm men too"

"there's no such thing as sexism against men. that's because sexism is prejudice + power. men are the dominant gender with power in society"

"games press: allowing unmoderated comments contributes to the culture of sexism and harassment. you can't be neutral on a moving train"

"Absolutely brilliant article by @janelarejones discussing the amazing levels of sexism in BBC #sherlock's irene adler"

"I finally watched the 1st season of Mad Men & i was HORRIFIED, it is not interesting or subversive to watch uncontested sexism & racism"

"I'll be discussing the reasons Bayonetta is so pernicious in my Fighting Fuck Toy video. Bayonetta is a quintessential example of the trope"

"Everything about Bayonetta's design, mechanics and characterization is created specifically for the sexual pleasure of straight male gamers"

"Disappointed to see most major Bayonetta 2 reviews completely ignore or even praise its shameless sexism and flagrant use of the male gaze"

"I have to say, I really don't like going into comic book stores because everywhere i turn i face misogyny and sexism"

"the US bombed them back to traditional values. feminism does not exist in Japan. while I don't like judging an entire culture, that does not excuse them"

"I've played a ton of awful sexist video games but God of War 3 really is one of the most brazenly misogynist titles ever produced"

"GTA5 is in the news this week because of its horrendous violence against women. Watch our episode on the issue here:"

"A favorite harassment tactic of online abusers is to send me gameplay footage or still images of the degradation of women in video games"

"Rockstar: when gameplay from your product is regularly used to harass women it might be a sign you're contributing to a hostile environment"

"time after new GTA launch before fans started harassing me with gameplay of the use & murder of prostitutes? 86 mins"

Shows a picture of her holden Metroid Other M and comments
"About to replay this monstrosity. The things I do for you people...#cringe

"Anime is the most disgusting, sexist, and misogynistic form of media to ever come out of Japen. Anime defiles women and caters to perverts and losers. those cartoons are corrupting teenagers and promoting rape culture.

"Dying Light has a damsel in distress storyline. Dear game developers, its 2015 aren't you embarrassed by this yet?"

"The Witcher 3 does to Ciri what Arkham City did to Catwoman Thugs yell "bitch" and "whore" and sexually harass both women as you play them"

"Welp, I guess we could just use The Witcher 3 to illustrate the rest of our #tropevswomen series because it includes all the sexist tropes"

"Also the "it's realistic for enemies to sexually harass female characters” excuse is nonsense in fantasy games filled with ghouls & wraiths"

"Dear gaming industry: If you want to appeal to women maybe consider not having your game yell "bitch" and "whore" at us while we're playing"

"Enemies in Witcher 3 yall gendered insults at the playable female character but insults thrown at the make lead are decidedly not gendered"

"Enemies call Geralt "freak" & "mutant" due to fictional prejudice against magic. When they call Ciri "cunt" it's rooted in real life sexism"

"Games like The Witcher 3 use sexism & sexual violence for "gritty world-building, presenting it as regrettable but natural and inevitable"

"In fact, Witcher 3 is a particularly egregious example of this problem. The game repeatedly uses brutal sexual violence as window dressing."

"This level of extreme violence shouldn't be considered normal. Its not an excuse to say it's expected because DOOM. Thats the problem #BE3"

"Its really troubling (and depressing) that the #BE3 audience is enthusiastically cheering for bodies being ripped apart"

"Only a few minutes into the Bethesda press conference and it's wall to wall glorification of grotesque violence. I can barely watch #BE3"

"If the games industry truly wants to mature it's going to have to focus much more on creative and humanizing interactions #E32015"

"The #Fallout4 crafting system is cool imagine how much cooler it could be if it wasn't SO focused on building stuff to kill other stuff"

A bit sad that #Dishonored2 didn't make the leap to an exclusively female lead but really pleased they're using Emily in marketing #BE3

"Saints Row is not a satire of sexism, it's sexist satire. Same goes for the Grand Theft Auto franchise"

"Like the myth of reverse racism, reverse sexism only exists if you happen to have a time machine"

"Portraying women of color as exotic, hypersexual and animalistic like the succbi in the Witcher 3 is part of a very long racist tradition"

"It makes me profoundly sad that mainstream pop culture now interprets feminism to mean "women can drive fast and stoically kill people too!"

MCINTOSH

"San Francisco is full of repugnant white dudes who believe capitalism and their personal technology idea will save the poor brown people"

"probably not super productive to tell random techie dudes that their business model is both evil and racist. but damn it they had it coming"

"dear silicon valley tech startups: there is no such thing as altruistic capitalism. you can't get rich while "helping" impoverished people."

"They are 100% sincere in their belief that their form of "altruistic techie capitailsm" is god's gift to the world"

"capitalism as an economic system and the continuous growth it requires is impossible to sustain. that's not ideology. that's math #ows"

"the games industry has a problem. Tens of thousands of people construct their identity around its products than act like hateful sociopaths"

"#JeNeSuisPasCharlie because I don't use my free speech to mock and deride the most marginalized and vulnerable in society like Charlie Habdo"

"Extremist vigilante shooters kill 3 in Los Vegas. meanwhile game developers at #E3 continue to glorify extreme vigilante violence"

"Gaming could be a perfect medium to help re-learn values of empathy and compassion but sadly it's most often used to permote the opposite"

"I'm not ashamed of being a man. Quite the contrary, I work to change toxic cultural ideas of what "being a man" means"

"so many toxic assumptions about violent masculinity here. You could write a thesis just about this game setting menu"

"Things that are not oppression:3) Pointing out extremely toxic sexism in hobbyist communities. 4) Criticism of video games"

"It's not a few bad apples. Gamer culture itself is absolutely steeped in extremely toxic ideals about masculinity"

"Each day a bunch of helpful gamer dudes helpfully tweet at me to help prove gamer culture is deeply sexist and toxic"

"Dear clueless gamers replying to me: The point of Male protagonist Bingo is not to win, the point is to illustrate limiting toxic patterns"

"Many promote a culture of aggressive toxic masculinity. So you just helped answer your own question there buddy"

"I’ve seen some mention the abundant sexism in The Witcher 3 but I’ve yet to see any real discussion of its toxic depiction of masculinity."

"Geralt of Rivia is the perfect embodiment of hegemonic masculinity. #TheWitcher3"

"@Scottcoeditor Rage and anger are two of the only emotions men are really allowed to express in patriarchy (which is super unhealthy)."

"Anger and rage are the only real emotional expressions male game protagonists are allowed. Needless to say that's a toxic message for men."

"Mass media narratives, especially games, are often constructed in ways that justify and exonerate men for their angry and violent outbursts."

"Reminder that both Bayonetta games include boss attack animations by Rodin which strongly imply Bayonetta has just been raped."

"If anyone needed further proof that Bayonetta is not any kind of feminist icon. RT @SJWIlluminati: hahahahahahahaha "

"We've fallen so far in critical discourse that I now regularly have to start debates with “You do know Bayonetta isn't a real person right?"

"@TheQuinnspiracy It also has a lot to do with control. They can control Bayonetta’s actions but can’t control human women, so they lash out."

"Don’t think Bayonetta is designed & marketed specifically for horny straight dudes? Nintendo partnered with Playboy. "

"Lollipop Chainsaw, BloodRayne, Dead or Alive and Bayonetta are ALL designed in the same way, as hyper-sexualized fantasies for straight men."

"Precisely. RT @mercurypixel: @radicalbytes Welp, they talk about Bayonetta like she's a freaking real human being, so... don't expect much."

"Bayonetta was created by Hideki Kamiya as his “ideal woman”. He also said "all women outside should dress like her" for his viewing pleasure"

"Bayonetta was created by Kamiya as his "ideal woman" RT @Brostalgia In fact Mari was told by her male boss to male a sexy fighting character"

"Amazed to see sexist gamer dudes now adopting feminist terminology to defend jiggle physics. We can thank Bayonetta 2 reviews for that one."

"Media literacy 101: Bayonetta’s creators make their fictional character do poses for the game camera specifically for the player’s benefit."

"No it’s really not. Bayonetta’s game camera is the most transparent use of the male gaze in video games I’ve ever seen."

"Actual comment. Doesn't understand fiction is constructed. "Stop sluts-haming Bayonetta. She fights and does sexy poses for her own benefit”

"I shouldn’t have to point this out but there is no actual sex in Bayonetta or Tomb Raider etc. Objection to the male gaze is not anti-sex."

"@a_man_in_black Bayonetta’s body/sexuality is specifically presented and displayed as a reward for successful actions taken by the player."

"@a_man_in_black Might account for the "i/her" dissonance if straight male players both self-project into & are sexually aroused by Bayonetta"

"@a_man_in_black Partly has to do with gender. Bayonetta is designed for straight male players but we’re not meant to truly identify with her"

"The special “naked” attacks essentially turn Bayonetta into a hypersexualized puppet designed to thrill the puppeteer."

"For male gaze in Bayonetta 2, pay attention to things outside of the character’s control like the cutscene camera & player directed attacks."

"Looks like most Bayonetta 2 reviews fail to mention the hyper-sexualized male gaze of the cutscene camera and player directed strip attacks."

"When Bayonetta 2 reviews come out we’ll very quickly see who actually cares about issues of sexual objectification & exploitation in gaming."

"Endlessy amused at some gamers complete inability to do even the most basic textual analyses of their favorite games. # MaleProtagonistBingo"

"For those who keep bringing up Sonic as a counterexample for Male Protagonist Bingo. I'll just leave this right here"

"The core value of patriarchal masculinity is control. It's not a coincidence that control is central to many video game mechanics & stories"

"Fascination that you somehow don't think there're any messages in Smash Bros. Start with violence solves conflicts"

"Amused to see so many hateful #gobbledygate user list aspiring game developer in their bio. Yeah good luck with that. You're gonna need it"

I don't think it's supposed to be taken in a general way and applied to "gay" people, but rather telling the story that isn't very often heard about those people who don't identify as either gay or straight, or who fall into the bisexual, asexual or questioning (gay/bi/trans curious) categories of the LGBT[QIA].

The truth is, we want to believe SO BADLY as a society that we are either gay or straight. And then we want to label ourselves to find community and identity SO BADLY, that some people get caught in the middle of two (or more!) different worlds, and that neither normative communities quite describe their sexuality. Hence the final comparison with the romantic comedy Sliding Doors. Also, that's why these crazy parties exist in the first place. (You're NOT invited.)

Let's see, there's:

L is for Lesbian, which is women's special gay letter. Technically you could just call LGBT, GBT, as some women identify as gay but not lesbian, or vice versa, or both. But women are special because of feminism, so they get L and G but men only get G.

Don't get on my ass because I speak the truth. I attend plenty enough GBT events to know the fluctuating social stigmas within the group, as well as the bitter rivalries between different letters of the acronym (or those who want to lengthen or shorten the representative letters). It's confusing to people who have this misconception that all stories of gay or lesbian people apply to all gay or lesbian people. It's so diverse, what's even the point of labels any more?

Anyway, moving on.

G is for Gay, which is women or men, but in common usage was (or is, depending on your perspective) for men. Yet as time goes on and the information age fills in our social gaps, women have begun to identify as gay. In fact, I have a genderfluid friend who was born female, but often identifies as a gay male, and has even been accepted into the ranks of the the Gay Men's Chorus. Take that label obsessed society!!

B is for Bisexual, which is a broad category that I'd say more aptly covers this situation, but even more so I think the Q (Questioning) with a little or a lot of A (Asexual) of the greater acronym LGBTQ or LGBTQIA is an even better term for these two star crossed lovers.

T is for Transgender, which is another broad category but with very specific splinter factions of crossdressers, transexuals, transvestites, genderfluid, etc. etc. Some of these terms, depending on the context are either outdated, have new or older and more specific defining characteristics, or even more often, people define themselves as the umbrella term itself, transgender, because the feelings of one or the other specifics oscillates and changes as transgender people (male and female) age. I know trans people of all ages and wow, the perspectives are vast, and are rarely consistent throughout the years. (You just DON'T know how you'll identify at the age of 65+.)

Q is for Questioning, which is for people who just don't know what they are. This one is really an open ended letter and often isn't included because it represents an ignorance of the self. Maybe you figure out your sexuality or gender specifics right away or maybe it takes you years of experimentation to find your niche. Or maybe you transcend the boundaries forever, always changing and never staying the same throughout the years. The main thing here is that you don't know. Maybe you have a gay romance and then you're like, "Damn, I'm definitely straight" and now you're not even part of LGBT. Q is like the gateway letter. lol

I is for Intersex, which is for people who have genitalia or other gender defining anatomy which is different, not entirely present, is equally both, or more of one than the other. Look it up, because I'm the least familiar with this one, though I do have friends who are intersex. I just haven't asked them enough specifics out of respect. Also, recent research into genetics has shown that you could have a portion of your body that isn't gender defining, but which is made up of the opposite sex's genetic code. I've heard of people who have had their toe or their heart identified as male, but the rest of their body is female. Some people will never even know they're intersex, and depending on what part of their body is intersex, may not experience any feelings other than their body's dominant sex. (I don't have a scientific link, but it was part of a topic that I attended at PRIDE.

A is for Asexual, which is for people who don't have sexual feelings, or who don't act on sexual feelings for any number of reasons intellectual, physical, or both. I don't know how broad this category is but I myself go through periods (sometimes years) of asexuality. A defining characteristic for some people who have misidentified as gay or bi. For example, my parents thought I was gay and I had friends who would openly call me gay, despite me not showing ANY sexual emotions towards either sex. Though I did have both guys and girls who would hit on me or have sex (oral or otherwise) with me on the down low, despite my half interest in both! People are curious and when you can't figure out someone's sexual identity, some people will lay it on so thick, it could be seen as sexual harassment. I knew several girls that just wanted to have sex with me so bad to figure out if I was gay or straight. I just didn't care about either sexes at the time, though I was pleasantly stimulated to varied effects.

I think this is the story that isn't told. If you're asexual or going through an asexual period, that doesn't make you gay!

There could be more movies or shorts out there telling this story, but this is the first honest look into the Q and A of LGBT that I've ever seen. Shit, and I thought when I published my book I'd be the first. Damn. heh

I'm a hebesexual or hebephile, but while I'm born this way same as gays and tranny's, I'm demonized.

when will all sexual preferences be given full and complete rights?

You can not choose your sexual preference we are told.
if that is true and you are born that way then all sexualities should be given legal rights.

political correctness only wants lgbt to have rights and not the over 100 other sexual preferences.

very intolerant group. Political correctness is a disease itself.