0
24

[–] Fred 0 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago 

Full transcript, links and resources available at: http://wp.me/p5WxZG-8I4

Captions coming soon!

Says that right in the video description.

0
37

[–] heili 0 points 37 points (+37|-0) ago 

So yes, Samus wasn’t a damsel’ed woman waiting at the end of the game as a trophy; rather, her body itself became the prize awarded to players for a job well done.

Holy shit she's retarded.

0
20

[–] ThisWeirdIndividual 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

You can't win with these people, because they don't really argue. This is their business. She's making a living out of this faux-offense shit.

1
0

[–] jeegte12 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

i see what she means there, i just happen to disagree with the idea that admiration of the female body is a bad thing.

0
9

[–] President-Sanders [S] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I saw an embedded link to the video

What about all the other videos? And perhaps that's why it's slow to add them to the video.

OK condensing her "lies through verbosity"

as both reveal Samus in various states of undress.

2827 characters, 21 tweets (or 42 tweets, using the median tweet length of 67 odd) to say:

"you were rewarded by seeing a character in a swimsuit"

And here is the second lie, paragraphs and MINUTES, probably, ten fucking minutes? to make that point? All lies - all this time, all to switch off the person's analytical portion of the brain - and you'd better believe these fuckwits learn this shit in their paper-mill communications degrees.

The second lie: she doesn't outright say that is bad. She never says ever if something is good or bad "you get to rape small children" and she can't tag on "which is really bad", why is this important? She gets to say "and you do this and this" in the game, be critical of it, but then turn around and say "BUT I NEVER SAID THAT WAS WRONG" I was just mentioning it.

another 698 characters, two long paragraphs, to say "sometimes it's the king giving his daughter"

OK, so, is that bad? again you don't say, and you don't say "which should never be allowed to happen in any story ever".

another 1343 characters to say "this makes the gamer entitled"

another 5902 characters to lie about saying "women are intentionally made to look sexy in games"

And? AND? AND? Really, so we thought a woman talking while getting changed was accidental? And what are you saying? That sex isn't entertainment? WHAT ARE YOU SAYING??

2233 characters to say "what game characters wear undermines real professional women"

1754 characters to say "males are not sexualized"

The best part, this is one hateful fuckhead:

2145 characters to say "you can have sex with more than one women in a game, and not marry them" (seriously, that is what is being said - they are no longer in the game, so it's "tossed aside" - is she against sex work? is she demonizing women's sexuality? who the fuck knows, she's fucked in the head)

1220 characters to literally EXPLAIN WHAT A FUCKING COLLECTIBLE IS then say "pictures of women should not be in games"

3738 characters to say "porn is bad, viewing porn is 'ogling'"

6131 fucking characters to say "I am not saying sex is bad, just when it appeals to men, who are scum and feel entitled"

4647 cunt characters to say "women in games should have skynet level AI and the idea that a woman can be scripted into wanting sex is offensive, omg, like fuck games have a story or anything, also 'male entitlement is learned'."

The key to this"

that interactivity be harnessed to disrupt antiquated gender dynamics

How? Go on you stupid lying cunt - SAY HOW IT COULD BE DONE. You fucking deceitful cunt. You lying fuck.

TL;DR 33870 characters, 502 avg-tweets, to say just 3.6 full-tweets of content

characters in swimsuits,kings giving away his daughter, makes the male gamer entitled, women are intentionally made to look sexy in games, what game characters wear undermines real professional women, males are not sexualized, you can have sex with more than one women in a game, and not marry them, porn is bad, viewing porn is 'ogling', I am not saying sex is bad, just when it appeals to men, women in games should have AI and refuse sex, no scripted interactions, male entitlement is learned, we need to brainwash

That's 1:140 signal:noise ratio.... where "signal" is all bullshit anyway.

0
0

[–] President-Sanders [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Sarkeesian just called her video "long-form feminist analysis":

characters in swimsuits,kings giving away his daughter, makes the male gamer entitled, women are intentionally made to look sexy in games, what game characters wear undermines real professional women, males are not sexualized, you can have sex with more than one women in a game, and not marry them, porn is bad, viewing porn is 'ogling', I am not saying sex is bad, just when it appeals to men, women in games should have AI and refuse sex, no scripted interactions, male entitlement is learned, we need to brainwash

This is accurately all she said in her video. You can break it does further to be just declarative statements:

male gamer entitled. women intentionally made to look sexy. characters clothes undermines real professional women. males are not sexualized. you can have sex with multiple women in game, and not marry them. porn is bad, viewing porn is 'ogling'.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Fred 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You can if you want. I'm just quoting the video description.

0
7

[–] President-Sanders [S] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

omitted

motherfucker.

0
6

[–] JimBoNZ 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Tax. These people are going to get a visit from the TAXMAN

0
4

[–] Crashmarik 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Well she is certainly a biatch, but this is a real plus for deaf people

1
2

[–] President-Sanders [S] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Yeah, you can see https://voat.co/v/KotakuInAction/comments/469963/2193095 just how fucked her content is, 1:140 signal:noise ratio, and the signal is all lies anyway.

The man-blaming and hating is incredible. She says absolutely nothing, and what IS said, fits in fewer than 4 tweets. A year to make this video? FUCK ME BULLSHIT.

The idea that you can't EVER have ANY human relationships, because FICTIONAL CHARACTERS FOLLOWING A SCRIPT don't have the ability to say no, is lock her up in a looney fucking bin kind of dangerous thinking.

0
3

[–] nomenimion 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Other than promoting earrings that could double as basketball hoops, is she good for anything?

1
8

[–] President-Sanders [S] 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

she's just a false-flag hate-monger who gave spam-blogs the headlines they needed to get the clicks.

she's like trump, but unlike trump, who actually makes sense for all the insanity, she's just a hateful little shit.

0
5

[–] heili 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

She is the puppet that Jonathan McIntosh shoves his hand up the ass off daily.

0
1

[–] jeegte12 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

i fucking love hoop earrings. she'd be real nice to look at if she wasn't so old

0
2

[–] nomenimion 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

They should call it Feminist Infrequency.

0
1

[–] nomenimion 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I'm watching the video, and I just came to the part (at about seven and a half minutes) where she claims that "women as reward" is problematic because it "encourages a sense of entitlement to women on the part of the presumably straight male players" (this is not a direct quote).

BULL SHIT. What evidence does the priestess in plaid offer that putting hot women in video games is any more "problematic" than hot women on the cover of Vogue Magazine, or internet porn, or topless slut marchers? Men and boys enjoy the female body, and have for over 200,000 years. It's only "pernicious" when a silly, frumpy shyster needs it to be so she can score even more easy cash from her vast harem of suckers.

I'll make more comments after watching more of the video. (Btw... I can't be the only one who really wants to play Metroid again...)


I'm at eleven minutes now, and I just reached the point where Anita says that the "pernicious" Easter eggs involving women's breasts jiggling "serve to remind players that the female characters are there to be exploited for their own amusement."

Ummm... guess what? The ENTIRE GAME exists solely for the players' amusement. That is the ONLY REASON the games are there!

I feel like I'm watching a sermon by a religious extremist who believes that human beings are put on this earth for the sole purpose of atoning for sin, and that therefore all pleasure is evil. Except, of course, Anita only regards male pleasure as sinful and "pernicious."


Thirteen minutes, and Anita has just unleashed a true whopper. I laughed outloud this time.

She says that games that allow you to dress up female character in sexy costumes are especially pernicious because it "undermines them." In other words, one minute you were taking the lady cop seriously because of her credentials and experience... but then all of that is destroyed by the flood of hormones that ensues after you dress her up in a revealing outfit.

So much to work with. Let's start with this: it doesn't undermine the female characters because THEY AREN'T REAL PEOPLE. A computer game character, male, female, transgendered or Gigan-gendered, doesn't give a rat's hairy bunghole how you view them. THEY AREN'T REAL.

Furthermore, you, the gamer, have no power to oppress women by ogling imaginary female characters in their panties. If you don't believe me, try it some time.

Just try to make Jessica Valenti go away by making a video game character's tits jiggle. There is no magic. It doesn't work.

Underlying all of Anita's bullshit is the especially PERNICIOUS notion that women are inherently weak, desperate creatures who need to be protected not only from the negative behavior of horrible, uncouth males, but who can even be ENSLAVED BY THEIR BADTHOUGHTS ALONE.

In other words, her entire spiel is one gigantic damsel in distress trope. I pity the women who buy into these disempowering beliefs. Can you imagine how painful it would be going through life actually worried about how poor, oppressed video game characters are being treated?

One point is hard to deny: in Anita's world view, MEN ARE VERY, VERY, VERY IMPORTANT, and always will be, and your potential as a woman is limited by male attitudes regarding even the most trivial things, such as a video game heroine's costume.

0
1

[–] President-Sanders [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Well said, I pity you for actually having to listen/watch to her forced slow cadence and ironic half-winking to her fans, smarmy fuck-ugly meat-grinder of a face as she sad there like a sausage casing stuffed with bloated drowned rats.

The point on dressing was amazingly hilarious - there's a dangerous and weird way she is shaming in-game sex-workers, or just lying to take the fundamental issue of a binary-computer-program and use it to lash out with her dangerous and authoritarian hate-mongering views - it's easy to vilify sex-workers by saying "and then numbers change which encourages this behavior" - IT'S A GAME, EVERY FUCKING BEHAVIOR IS ENCOURAGED, BECAUSE IT'S CONTENT, THE ACT ITSELF IS ENCOURAGED BECAUSE IT'S CONTENT. You stupid, fucking, mare.

  • in game characters, human or otherwise, being made to show skin, undermines REAL LIFE women .... (qualifier: who are professionals)

lol - women cannot go about their daily lives if somewhere on the planet someone is making an idle drawing of boobs, because that undermines them. This is the same as shooting people are an art gallery or at Hebdo for drawing muhammad. @:{ fuck prophet muhammad and his camel fucking ways.

It also shows that she thinks, for some possibly medical condition induced reason, that she is the heir to female, that she owns, represents and is somehow an interested party in an ENTIRE FUCKING GENDER because she stole some lipstick from her mum's purse.

That's like me thinking I am the fucking president of FIFA because I used my shirt as a goalpost once.

Any one thing that happens to a character, that might be female, owes her nothing, affects her no way, and she has no ownership or special right to be offended, she can be all she wants, but can't claim it's any more valid because "females".

Anyway, she's a hate-mongering profiteer, attention == ammunition she's using to force companies to give her money.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] President-Sanders [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I did it for there last video, it's on KiA on reddit a while back, didn't even check to see if the post gained traction, was posting it from a username I don't use much I think.

I think I referenced "keepsubs.com" in my comment which I used to pull the actual subtitles off, then used a simple regex to format them into a block.

load more comments ▼ (1 remaining)