@newtboy

i think what bcglorf is suggesting,and correct me if i am wrong bc,is that the ideological intolerance that is permeating the far left,and creeping into the current media narrative...is turning people away from the left and driving them further right.

that how the ultra-left deals with criticism by labeling ALL criticism as an attack,and not a functioning dynamic of dialogue,is counter-productive and again..drives people further right.

so what is a moderate to do?

on the alt-right they have a choice of a grotesque and vulgar racist political philosophy akin to the "aryan supremacy" of the 30's dressed up as nationalism and patriotism.

and on the alt-left they have an equally grotesque group who subvert freedoms and liberties all in the name of "equality" and "tolerance".while single-handedly being the most intolerant of them all.

fascists to the left of me..
fascists to the right..
and here i am..
stuck in the middle...

Sorry, gotta disagree with you @enoch.
First, yes, America is guilty of interference in third world elections, but not so much in free elections.
Second, the level of interference in this election is unprecedented (EDIT: Including evidence the Russians tried to hack voting machines and virus many poll workers, and there's absolutely zero question which candidate they were trying to help).

Third, there is plenty of EVIDENCE his campaign colluded, they've admitted doing so after the election but before confirmation, and that at least he tried hard to hide that fact, and the fact that he has financial ties to them.
There is no publicly available PROOF that Trump himself colluded to steal the election....yet.

There is mounting proof that he has, since the election, at every turn, used the office for private financial gains from numerous foreign entities, which is totally illegal.

Does this translate to undeniable proof that he colluded to steal the election with a foreign enemy? Again, not yet, but the investigation is still in it's infancy, largely due to his interference in it and his stonewalling every legal question. It's far worse than just being a used car salesman abusing his power, it's the "leader of the free world" subverting the constitution for financial gains.

It was actually 17 agencies, and most of them were certain the evidence that Saddam had WMD's was suspect at best, and not credible....they said so, but were drowned out by the few agencies that went along with Bush's narrative...that has been shown fairly conclusively in the intervening years.

Again, I don't believe there was a joint statement about the gassing, that was again Trump's administration claiming certitude about Assad, not the intelligence community.

Not sure what you mean about Gadhafi, he did kill thousands, but again, I don't recall any joint public statement from the intelligence community.

In fact, I recall the joint statement being a first.

That doesn't mean they're right, just that your implication that they are so often wrong is a bit exaggerated and not factual as you wrote it....or at least as I read you.

Unfortunately, the evidence that would be proof is classified evidence...so we may NEVER see it without high level clearance of a bad leak. Not seeing it is no evidence at all that it doesn't exist, you should not be able to see it.

The term "deep state" is an Orwellian term meant to delegitimize ANYONE not in step with the current administration...just call them liberal holdovers and dismiss them...that's the idea...don't buy it. Most intelligence agents are non political....not all, but most.

CNN hasn't been pantsed IMO...they admitted what everyone knows, they are less about reporting important news than they are about ratings. That doesn't make their story wrong or fake, it makes it make sense that they ignore other actual news to talk incessantly about the one story that makes them money/ratings, even with no new information to share. Certainly that detracts from their value as a news source, but doesn't make them Breitbart willing to make up stories out of whole cloth and back them to the end.

Perhaps there's something there I'm missing since I won't watch a Breitbart story or give it a shred of credence, but not from what I've heard and seen elsewhere. I've not seen any evidence they made things up or lied, just that they are operating like a business rather than an independent news source.

What I understood him to be claiming was a large portion of 'anti Trump' people are stuck on the accusations about Russia, but there are so many other issues they are ignoring because of that focus, and I wholeheartedly disagree, with the constant non-Russia protests as my evidence. I just do not see the myopia he decries.
I also disagree the world is laughing at our claims about foreign interference in our election, they are laughing at the hypocrisy of America complaining about our M.O., but they think Russian interference is both real and serious for us and themselves.

I'm talking recent history, last 3 years. No point in rehashing the 20th century. Had NATO really been a thought, he would not have invaded Crimea nor annexed the East Ukraine. I see NATO troops as sacrificial lambs, put in harm's way to force member nations to act if they are over run by a hostile nation....and even then there's no guarantee any action will come, but it's easier to sell military action if some of 'our boys' are killed or captured.

Russia, Russia, Russia is about the implications of world, or at least super power war. If they did collude (like we often do in other countries) to subvert our election, that's an act of war that could lead to military action if not handled carefully and thoughtfully....something Trump is incapable of.

Is there evidence...apparently, according to the FBI and several prosecutors at least. Has the public seen enough of it to evaluate it for themselves...no. That means one should keep an open, engaged mind on the important subject....not act like he's already convicted, and not pretend there's nothing there but whining. Certainly not forget it and move on to the next scandal....I think we are capable of being outraged about numerous things at once....and again I point to constant protests as proof (not that they accomplish much).

Those transcripts are classified, so we'll have to wait for someone to hack his emails/the FBI and release them to WikiLeaks to read them, but the administration has admitted that they would show that he discussed their intention to eliminate the sanctions Obama had just implemented that day, even though he was a private citizen at the time and Trump was not yet president, contrary to what they've been selling us for the last month.
Subverting foreign affairs in collusion with a foreign nation's diplomats, that's called treason.
Allowing someone you KNOW subverted foreign affairs by colluding with a hostile foreign nation and it's diplomats and lied about it repeatedly both in public and privately to the administration to retain high security clearance for almost a month after the subversive crimes come to light...that's complete incompetence that rises to the level of impeachment, IMO. Far worse than what Nixon did.

just a totally expected and easily anticipated reaction to trumps inauguration.

the very people whose paycheck relies on partisan politics are putting on a show.

/golfclap

so when obama won,we saw white,lower income americans lose their shit..riot on the streets,and openly bemoan the end of american exceptionalism.

we saw republican mouthpieces and commentators somberly criticize obamas inauguration speech.like someone had just taken their last cookie.

and what did those giants of intellect,and power-houses of political analysis focus on over the next few months?

birth certificates.
kenyian born.
muslim.
richard wright.

they were not really making accusations,they were just asking.
juuuust asking questions.nothing wrong with that right?

so during the obama years,the political pundit class made issues of the most inane..and quite frankly..stupid of all things to focus on,and IGNORED the very real problems that obama deserved actual criticism for.

so all we are seeing here,is the political pundit class doing the exact same thing.

i have called trump "americas greatest used car salesmen" and "the best internet troll",but now that i am reading david cay johnstons "the making of donald trump",it appears i was being kind.

trump is far more despicable,grotesque and venal than i ever could have imagined.

but for this pundits to take such an easy,and lazy tact to create drama where there is none...just reveals just how far they will go to subvert their own integrity.

hitler references?
dude...that is lazy.

@ChaosEngine

Comparing your joke to Jim Jeffries joke is a bit unfair, I think. @Chairman_woo gave an excellent analysis of why Jeffries's joke was masterfully crafted, with multiple levels of irony that all orchestrate beatifully together to subvert the listeners' expectations--even if you disagree with the subject matter of the joke.

Your joke, on the other hand, has none of that. It belongs in the same category as Dave Tosh's joke to the female heckler in the audience:

“Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by, like, five guys right now? Like right now?”

Tosh said that in anger and frustration. I see yours and newtboy's comments coming from the same place. Both are jokes filled with malice and lacking cleverness, and therefore I find them to be wholly unfunny and in fact disturbing. Of course, YMMV.

Now, as far as the rest of your post goes, I think you might have missed the point of my previous post: your anger is misguided because the gentleman who made the comment that outraged you said what he said because he was put under pressure to make a statement that opposes his own party's rhetoric at his party's national convention during a Presidential election year!

It's pretty easy to see how someone, knowing they were likely going to be on TV and seen by millions, might make an overzealous statement to show support for their party that in hindsight turns out to be asinine. In fact I'm sure that's what the show's producers were banking on when they originally came up with the idea for the segment. Whether this particular person--or really any person--will ignore evidence that is contrary to their beliefs is unknown no matter what they may say in public. And their statement is especially suspect when being asked to give an unrehearsed response to a question on TV.

You say your are angry at "woolly thinking" but I think what you really mean is you are angry at ignorance. Personally, I agree with you that feigned ignorance is something to be angry at--politicians who know the facts but continue to say despicable things (i.e. Trump) that they know their people want to hear in order to further their own careers are most certainly deserving of our anger and possibly some form of appropriate punishment, such as being removed from office, if it can proven that they were being dishonest with the public.

But I can't be angry at actual ignorance--people don't know what they don't know. Or even worse, people who think they know when in fact they only have some (but not all) of the facts. Not everyone is lucky enough to grow up in an environment that values education, critical thinking, and seeking out multiple opinions. And even growing up in such an environment is no guarantee that a person is going take advantage of the priviledges presented and become a reasonable and reasoned adult. But my own personal belief is that all of us who are healthy individuals have the capacity to learn, grow, and change our minds given the proper environment and time, regardless of the current state of our knowledge or beliefs. All those things you mentioned--slavery, homophobia, the drug war, etc.--it's pretty clear we are in fact learning and moving on. The transition may be painful but it is happening.

One thing I find interesting about your thinking on this matter is how it exactly mirrors that of the Republicans presented in the video. You see "wholly thinkers" or ignorant people or whatever you'd like to call them exactly as these Republicans see Black Lives Matter activists--as some nefarious and dangerous group of "others" that should be distrusted. I prefer to see them as human beings who are, admittedly, flawed... as am I in a great many ways. I guess it just comes down to having a more optomistic view of humanity.

EDIT: "Would you reconsider in the face of new evidence?" is not a simple question at all. For example, I don't believe torture is an acceptable method of intelligence gathering. You could show me study after study "proving" its effectiveness and I still would never approve of it. On the other hand, if you showed me a study that found a competing laundry detergent got stains out better than the one I was using, I'd probably switch detergents the next time I went shopping.

*Warning I've only gone and done yet another wall of text again! This may or may not get read by anyone on here (good god I wouldn't blame anyone for skipping it), but at the very least it's formed the backbone to a video script so it's not a complete waste of my time! (he tells himself)*

This is as much @bareboards2 as yourself, but he already made it clear he wasn't willing to engage on the issue, so you're getting it instead MWAHAHAHHAHA! *coughs*

I don't wish this to come across as over condescending (though I'm sure it will none the less as I'm in one of those moods). But pretty much every (successful) comedy premise operates on the same underlying principle of irony. i.e. there is an expectation or understanding, which is deliberately subverted, and what results is comedy.

In this case, amongst other things we have the understood premises that:
A. rape is a bad, often horrific thing.
B. that there is an established social taboo about praising such behaviour.
C. that there is a section of society inherently opposed to making light of things of which they do not approve (or in a way in which they do not approve)
D. most words and phrases have an expected association and meaning.

What Jim Jefferies (an accomplished and well respected comedies amongst his peers) has done here, is take these commonly understood premises and subverted the audiences normal expectations in order to evoke a sense of irony, from which the audience derives humour and amusement.

A simple joke might take a single such premise and perform a single inversion of our expectation. e.g. my dog has no nose, how does he smell?....terrible!

By subverting our assumed meaning (that the missing nose refers to the dogs implied lack of olfactory senses), the joke creates basic irony by substituting this expected meaning for that of the odour of the dog itself.

This is of course a terrible joke, because it is as simple as a joke could be. It has only one layer of irony and lacks any sense of novelty which, might tip such a terrible joke into working for any other than the very young or simple minded.

We could of course attempt to boost this joke by adding more levels of irony contextually. e.g. a very serious or complex comedian Like say Stuart Lee, could perhaps deliver this joke in a routine and get a laugh by being completely incongruous with his style and past material.

And herein we see the building blocks from which any sophisticated professional comedy routine is built. By layering several different strands or ironic subversion, a good comedian can begin to make a routine more complex and often more than just the sum of its parts to boot.

In this case, Jim is taking the four main premises listed above, layering them and trying to find the sweetest spot of subverted expectation for each. (something which usually takes a great deal of skill and experience at this level)

He mentions the fact that his jokes incite outrage in a certain section of society because this helps to strengthen one of the strands of irony with which he is playing. The fact that he also does so in a boastful tone is itself a subversion, it is understood by the audience that he does not/should not be proud of being merely offensive and as such we have yet another strand of irony thrown into the mix.

You know how better music tends to have more and/or more complex musical things happening at once? It is the same with comedy. The more ironic threads a comedian can juggle around coherently, the more sophisticated and adept their routines could be considered to be.

Naturally as with music there's no accounting for taste as you say. Some people simply can't get past a style or associations of a given musician or song (or painting or whatever).

But dammit Jim is really one of the greats right now. Like him or lump him, the dude is pretty (deceptively) masterful at his craft.

There are at least 4-5 major threads of irony built into this bit and countless other smaller ones besides. He dances around and weaves between them like some sort of comedy ballerina. Every beat has been finely tuned over months of gig's (and years of previous material) to strike the strongest harmonies between these strands and probe for the strongest sense of dissonance in the audience. Not to mention, tone of voice, stance, timing etc.

I think Ahmed is basically terrible too, but it is because the jokes lack much semblance of complexity or nuance. Jeff Dunham's material in general feels extremely simple and seems like it uses shock as a mere crutch, rather than something deeper and more intelligent.

Taste is taste, but I feel one can to a reasonable extent criticise things like the films of Michael Bay, or the music of Justin Beiber for being objectively shallow by breaking down their material into its constituent parts (or lack thereof).

Likewise one could take the music of Wagner and while not enjoying the sound of it, still examine the complexity of it's composition and the clear superiority of skill Wagner had over most of this peers.

I guess what all this boils down to is, Jim seems to me to be clearly very very good at what he does (as he ought after all these years). Reducing his act to mere controversy feels a lot like accusing Black Sabbath of just making noise and using satanic imagery to get attention (or insert other less out of date example here).

The jokes were never at the expense of victims, they are at the expense of our expectations. He makes his own true feelings on the matter abundantly clear towards the end of the section.

As as he says himself his job is to say funny things, not to be a social activist.

I take no issue with you not liking it, but I do take issue with the suggestion that it is somehow two dimensional, or for that matter using controversy cheaply.

Offensive initial premises are some of the most ironically rich in comedy. It's like deliberately choosing the brightest paints when trying to create a striking painting. Why would you avoid the strongest materials because some people (not in your audience) find the contrast too striking?

Eh, much love anyway. This was more an exercise in intellectual masturbation than anything else. Not that I didn't mean all of it sincerely.

Actually, I've ignored the superdelegates in my math because I've basically assumed that they will go with whoever has the popular vote at the convention, but since you brought them up....

There's one scenario no-one has considered yet; probably because it's extremely unlikely, but just for fun, let's say Bernie continues as projected and arrives at the convention trailing Hillary by about 200 delegates. Meanwhile, Trump has been attacking the ever-loving hell out of Hillary and her poll numbers in the general election are starting to look REALLY bad, as in Trump might/could/probably will/almost certainly will win.

So far, this is all pretty much what's going to happen.

But in this strange alternate dimension, the DNC pulls its head out of its collective arse and realises "holy shit, we could lose the white house! Hang on, Bernie polls much better against Trump!". Unable to convince Hillary to drop out, the superdelegates swing en masse to Bernie handing him the nomination AGAINST the popular vote.

How do you feel about this? On one hand, yay, #FeelTheBern, #FuckYouTrump and on to the white house and potentially the most significant change in US politics in decades (or not, who knows how much one president can actually do).

On the other hand.... there's no way around the fact that the DNC will have subverted the will of the people. If the situation was reversed, and the superdelegates gave the nomination to Hillary where Bernie (hypothetically) had more pledged delegates, well, there would be riots.

Interested to hear your thoughts on this scenario (unlikely as it is).

BTW, the fact that your vote is essentially meaningless (luckily for you, it happens to be meaningless in your favour) in your state is yet another symptom of just how very fucked the electoral college is.

I would say this is pretty much on the button, though. This way clearly isn't working, but the people who have money and power have convinced the majority that nothing can change and even if we could we would be worse off.

I don't think i'm being melodramatic or conspiracy theorising either. Rupert Murdoch and the Barclay brothers tell people what to think and they think it. Democracy has been subverted by money in most western countries with corporate lobbyists willing to spend billions to get a politician on-side, "anti-lobbying" legislation that actually attacks grassroots and activists from broadcasting the truth at election time (and leaves lobbying untouched), and unfair campaign spending/fund-raising that leaves the rich with all the advantage.

The media in Britain have consistently presented a skewed and incorrect representation of the left-wing party leader. It is clearly a campaign by vested interests to stop a man who would bring their reign to an end. The language that they use and the metric by which they judge "their" guy is COMPLETELY different to how they judge the "other" guy.

What's worse is, fairness and balance in the media has deteriorated to such a point that it is now absolutely fine for all this to happen.

As Lawdeedaw said, we are already a long way up shit creek and we didn't even pack the paddle. Some people are getting very rich and are very comfortable, they have immense power and they will say anything to convince you that it's best that it stays that way. Including lying and using manipulative language and statistics in their national publications and television stations. And all you as an individual really has to do is vote someone into power that cannot be corrupted. You've got Bernie, we've got Jeremy.

"Too rich to be corrupted" is farcical though - let's only trust rich people then. Not only does this suggest that rich people are more trustworthy just by dint of having lots of money, but that poor people are less trustworthy because the greedy little paupers can't restrain themselves from 'upping their station'? I would rather judge someone on who i perceive their character to be than based on what is in their bank account, but i guess i'm fucked up like that.

@Jinx
this is why i specifically titled this "third wave",which i am fairly new in understanding,but it does not resemble the feminism that i have been exposed to.

i have many feminist friends who resemble nothing like this "third wave" of feminism.the deeper i delve the more fanatical and zealous i find their positions.

the feminists i know do not hate men.
do not seek to subvert them or marginalize them.
they seek for equality,for human dignity,for a right to be/choose who they wish to be,and they extend that to men as well.

which is very much a humanist approach.

but THIS flavor of feminism is a whole new animal.

if you own a penis,
you are evil.

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"

A fascinating episode in the struggle between unions and the establishment is currently taking place over here. A change in the regulations of union membership within a company allowed the union of railroad engineers to grow a pair and actually represent their members in a meaningful way.

Keep in mind, unions over here were not busted, but subverted instead. "Domesticated", you might say. Now here's a small union in posession of tremendous leverage: if the trains stop rolling, half the country grinds to a halt.

Many corporate lackeys in government got scared and a new law was proposed to curtail the power of smaller unions. A law that is deemed quite unconstitutional, by the way.

And that's when the umbrella organisation of this small union pitched in with a statement that can be summed up unequivocally as "it's on, bitches". It's just rhetoric so far, but the small union already made good on their threats last month, so I'm somewhat hopeful that we'll finally get to see some meaningful pushback against the war on unions.

@Asmo

Except my daughter doesn't want to play other games--she wants to play Mario Brothers games. They have excellent game and level design. Why should she have to go elsewhere? Are you trying to say Mario Brothers games not for girls?

All my daughter is asking is to be allowed to play as the Princess--maybe after you free her from Bowser. That doesn't seem like much to ask, as it would have exactly zero effect on gameplay.

Personally, I'd go much farther and say when a game series continuously sends the message that women are helpless victims who need to be defended by men, when they're continuously objectified as trophies to be passed from player to villain and back to player again, then something is very wrong with that game and things need to change. Yeah, other games may be great, but why should that prevent people like Sarkeesian or myself from pointing out the games that aren't? Why should the trend itself not be pointed out when we can find examples of it outside of the Mario series?

No, it's not required that every game have a male/female playable character. It is, however, good business sense not to insult potential female customers of a product by portraying females (playable characters or NPCS) in sexist ways (or homosexual characters in bigoted ways, or ethnic minority characters in racist ways, while we're on the topic). This doesn't seem very difficult to understand and clearly game companies DO understand it because most are making great efforts to be diverse and more realistic in their portrayals of characters. However, just because some are trying doesn't mean we shouldn't point out the bullshit in those that don't. Games like the Mario platformer series, for instance.

You disagree with the way Sarkeesian presents her message... okay. I don't have a problem with that. I think everything you wrote grossly misrepresents what she's saying about games and gamers, but you're entitled to your opinion there.

Moving on... sorry you felt insulted. That was never my intent. But your comments on this issue are written in an extremely emotional manner as if you've somehow been personally wronged. If you don't want people to take it in that manner, you might want to think carefully about the tone your posts on this topic take. I have no idea what that link you provided was supposed to prove, so I'll just leave it alone.

On "Damsel in Distress," it's "your trope" because you've been--throughout this thread--defending it as if it is some bastion of literature that must be preserved. You are quite literally the only person I've ever seen actually try to defend it. And as I said, if it is that dear to you, you can have it. Games will still get made using it.

Other media,though, have long since moved on from it. Take the movie Die Hard as an example. Yeah, the main character's wife gets taken hostage by terrorists and that provides a nice emotional hook to move the plot forward--damsel in distress, right? If it were a game, though, we never would have heard from Holly Gennarro McClane again until Bruce Willis killed all the terrorists. Or maybe a video recording of her would show up after every "boss fight" where she tells John McClane, "Sorry honey, but I'm being kept in another part of the building."

But that's not what happens is it? The character of Holly is central to the plot of the movie and she appears nearly as much as John McClane does. She tries actively to subvert the terrorists by hiding her true identity and by taking responsibility to make sure the hostages are treated well during their captivity.

In other words she's portrayed as a real human being with personal agency throughout the movie.

And that's the point that you seem to be missing. That doesn't happen often in games despite the fact that it does happen in every other form of media (or at least in the examples from media that we generally consider "good"). When we are talking about the "Damsel in Distress" trope in games, THAT is what is being critiqued. Not the fact that someone was kidnapped to provide an emotional hook, but that one particular gender is always targeted and--to add insult to injury--is presented as weak, helpless, and without any agency of their own. They exist for the sole purpose of being rescued.

Thanks for the pro tip, BTW. Had no idea you were a pro at being a patronizing git but I'll take your word for it.

I think the first 5 minutes was the most important part of the conversation. It's bigger than both men and he's got a point. The burden of proof in "journalism" has been on a downward trend for the last 10-20 years and sites like Salon have decided to just throw it out the window outright.

What they've discovered is that spreading "based on a true story" style journalism is much more profitable than traditional journalism and their (relatively) new and growing religion allows them to do it without sin.

This religion is much more damaging than any popular, established religion in practice today. This religion doesn't need buildings or ordained practitioners. This religion creates its own propaganda as a side effect of its practice. Its worshipers can often hide in plain sight and subvert civilization for years without direct personal repercussions; in fact they are often rewarded for their behavior.

The religion is Objectivism, and its deity is "the invisible hand". When your morality is judged by your profit than you've undone a core pillar of civilization. The damage of all other practiced religions in the modern era pale in comparison.

The first five minutes of this video were the only part of this conversation that were relevant to the real challenges of our times.

That's Matthew Silver. He's not crazy, he's a provocative clown who operates from a considered philosophical basis (you can agree with him or not). I spent a fair amount of time observing and talking to him over the span of a few weeks at Union Square in NYC. Great guy! Yeah, he's a little off sometimes but people who dedicate themselves to thinking about big societal issues and taking some action to subvert those things which they perceive as dangerous tend to be.

Check this out if you want to know more:

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Matthew-Silver-The-Great-Performer-The-Back-of-the-Busk