Controversial Tropes vs. Women in Video Games Series Comes to an End

[SolidState]

Ding dong, the witch is dead.

 

[IceForce]

If she needs a funeral plot, you can give every gamer a shovel and dig a hole to deliver her to satan himself.

Ding dong, the witch is dead.

Whoa nelly. Some of you really aren't helping your cause with some of these comments. Jaysus...

 

[Wrex Brogan]

Now that the iron lady is done. I will say this: If she needs a funeral plot, you can give every gamer a shovel and dig a hole to deliver her to satan himself.

My honest opinion is she was part of the problem that drove gaming even farther to the ground. Female character design in general became utterly unattractive over the last five years in the west. Japanese gaming got bashed to no snd for sexism because the press was defending her so hard they will compare Japan to the devil and that has caused an intentional setback in VR VN development (because that is deemed sexist according to Harada).

So long Annie Thatcher, you will not be missed

Hey! That's not even your own joke! Put that Frankie Boyle back where you got it dammit! Honestly have a little respect for the man's comedy, for christs sake, don't just throw it around so willy-nilly because you don't like someone. 'S quite rude, that is.

[sub]Also holy batman, I thought the SJWs were supposed to be the ones with the victim complex. You guys (general you) are really making it hard to believe that this thread.[/sub]

 

[Kyman102]

My thing about Anita is... Well, I don't get why people even bothered paying attention to her. Like, whatever. She's some bint who happens to be a gaping black hole of anti-charisma.

I watched one of her videos, and it was probably the dullest and most vapid thing I've seen. And I went in thinking "Y'know yeah the game industry COULD afford to be a little more open-minded in how they show women".

THAT BEING SAID I would want to line up each and every person who felt the appropriate response to her was threats of violence and rape, line them up, and just run down the line slapping them in the face as I go. Like, dudes, she is NOT worth that much energy.

Posting critiques noting "And THIS is where she clearly didn't do any research, THIS is why she was wrong in this statement, and THIS claim shows that she didn't do her homework", that's fine. That'd perfectly fine, that was justified. The rampant harassment and threats only make her look like a victim.

tl;dr - Honestly, by this point everyone's response to Anita Sarkeesian should be "... Who?", but some chucklefucks had to make her a big deal by overreacting to her.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

If she needs a funeral plot, you can give every gamer a shovel and dig a hole to deliver her to satan himself.

Ding dong, the witch is dead.

Whoa nelly. Some of you really aren't helping your cause with some of these comments. Jaysus...

The cause is basically lost at this point: the press is to happy to lap up everything from Annie Thatcher while dismissing any opinion from the average gamer as rabbling. At least I have the dignity to compare her to the same woman who destroyed the mining industry in Scotland and uncompromising leader against the Irish.

I still remember how bad the times were for Japanese Games industry. Getting points docked because of unpopular gameplay designed followed by a drought of Japanese Games. Let me tell you it only pushes the fact Anita is no different from Maggie.

 

[The Lunatic]

You really can't be surprised people are happy that a series trying to get video games banned or censored is coming to an end.

People were happy at Jack Thompson getting disbarred too.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

You really can't be surprised people are happy that a series trying to get video games banned or censored is coming to an end.

People were happy at Jack Thompson getting disbarred too.

If we only would believe that the aftereffects will come to end as well but it isn't thanks to how the AAA industry works.

They listened to Annie Thatcher, they listen to her rhetoric about how problematic tropes and the sexist female character designs. They listened to her followers which among them are the journalist elite who have used their authority to strike down those that would disobey like the Japanese. They are going to keep listening to her and no one will be able to oppose her because there is no middle ground developers who have the money to make a game that would offend her followers. The Japanese have packed their bags and fled or tried to curry some form of favor while appealing to their debauched but loyal fanbase at home. Rockstar did not viciously mocked her in Grand Theft Auto, a Satire where nothing is sacred.

She has been unopposed by the gaming press and this is the price we will be paying for the rest of the game industry's life.

 

[Dragonlayer]

I bet the Games Industry Discussion forum is kicking itself right now, just look at all this posts in the News forum!

So it's finally over? We can close chapter III of the Video Game Controversy Saga?

Chapter I: The 90's. "Video games will make your children satanists!"
Chapter II: The 00's. "Video games will make your children murderers!"
Chapter III: The 10's: "Video games will make your children misogynists!"
Chapter IV: The new 20's: ???

Chapter IV - The new 20's: "Video games will make your children transphobic!"
Chapter V - The new 30's: "Video games will make your children anti-genderfluid!"
Chapter VI - The new 40's: "Video games will make your children robophobic!"
Chapter VII (European) - The new 50's: "Video games will make your children kuffar!"
Chapter VII (US) - The new 50's: "Video games will make your children Sinophobic!"

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

[snip]
You haven't demonstrated how Lewis' law is circular logic, you've instead given an alternative example of circular logic that doesn't represent the meaning of Lewis' law. Lewis was simply pointing out the irony of how criticisms of sexism attract sexist remarks. These sexist remarks simply add to the proof that there is sexism in the first place; if there wasn't any sexism, then people wouldn't leave self-demonstrating sexist remarks.

You make an assertation which you leave unsubstantiated, what for? I can just reply with, no you're wrong - and it would hold as much merit as what you wrote.
I simply used proof by contradiction. You can't rationaly construct an argument like Lewi's did. Assumption that any opposition to action justifies the action. I'll give you even simplier example:
I take your wallet,
you punch me in the face,
I tell officer that me taking your wallet was justified because... you punched me and your wallet is necessary to take ammends from,
for my bleeding nose.

Do you really expect that officer would go with 'Oh ok then, carry on!'

What you did there is still a distinct thing from what Lewis is saying.

Here's a more accurate comparison:

I complain that people punching others in the face.
Someone hears what I say and punches me in the face.
The fact that I've been punched in the face demonstrates my complaint that people are punching others in the face.

And in the case of Lewis (or Sarkeesian), its just as simple:
She writes an article complaining that there is sexism.
People read her article and leave sexist remarks.
The fact that people have left sexist remarks proves her observation of there being sexism.

Punching me in the face may have been overreaction and unjustified, but setting up an argument that it
justifies stealing your wallet is just an attempt at very poor circular logic.

So to work this back towards Lewis or Sarkeesian, it now sounds like you are arguing that no, even though the sexism feminists are subjected to is bad, it totally doesn't justify them writing about sexism.

Congratulations on proving yourself wrong with your own example.
Now read it. Wait, something's wrong. Lewis said justifies not demonstrates. Here lets correct it. Oh no, circular logic happens :S

Either way. I am pretty sure that what you 'argue' is what Helen ment. Still she was wrong even on that.
Going by your example, with this little mischevious 'demonstrate' misquote. You can't derrive anything from it either. Only that someone punched you in the face. You COULD be right (people are punching others in the faces and this is one of these people)
BUT
It could also be that this 'someone' just heard you, thought it's a cool idea and punched you. Had you never gave the idea nothing would have happen. At this point both hypothesis are as good. Thus cherry picking one without substance of any proof to back it, is irrational.

Got it now? There isn't logical way to defend Lewis' lapse.

Wait, how does switching "justified" for "demonstrates" change anything? If someone punched me, it would justify my complaints about the punching. If someone punched me, It would also demonstrate my complaint about the punching. Being pedantic about the verb does nothing to disprove the observation that there is some punching going on. I didn't mention the motives behind the punching, just that it is happening in the first place.

You really try to bite off way more than you can chew, if you want to argue, yet fall back on such ignorance that you can't tell the difference between words with reversed causality. Bravo.
The following attempt to literally flip the table with calling basics of critical thinking 'pedantry' was amusing though somewhat predictable.
Don't pretend you want to discuss something if you plan to just cry 'semantics'/'pedantry'/'no fair!' about basics of logic in the end. You wasted plenty of my time (yours as well) and I don't appreciate it. Bad show.

 

[maninahat]

[snip]
You haven't demonstrated how Lewis' law is circular logic, you've instead given an alternative example of circular logic that doesn't represent the meaning of Lewis' law. Lewis was simply pointing out the irony of how criticisms of sexism attract sexist remarks. These sexist remarks simply add to the proof that there is sexism in the first place; if there wasn't any sexism, then people wouldn't leave self-demonstrating sexist remarks.

You make an assertation which you leave unsubstantiated, what for? I can just reply with, no you're wrong - and it would hold as much merit as what you wrote.
I simply used proof by contradiction. You can't rationaly construct an argument like Lewi's did. Assumption that any opposition to action justifies the action. I'll give you even simplier example:
I take your wallet,
you punch me in the face,
I tell officer that me taking your wallet was justified because... you punched me and your wallet is necessary to take ammends from,
for my bleeding nose.

Do you really expect that officer would go with 'Oh ok then, carry on!'

What you did there is still a distinct thing from what Lewis is saying.

Here's a more accurate comparison:

I complain that people punching others in the face.
Someone hears what I say and punches me in the face.
The fact that I've been punched in the face demonstrates my complaint that people are punching others in the face.

And in the case of Lewis (or Sarkeesian), its just as simple:
She writes an article complaining that there is sexism.
People read her article and leave sexist remarks.
The fact that people have left sexist remarks proves her observation of there being sexism.

Punching me in the face may have been overreaction and unjustified, but setting up an argument that it
justifies stealing your wallet is just an attempt at very poor circular logic.

So to work this back towards Lewis or Sarkeesian, it now sounds like you are arguing that no, even though the sexism feminists are subjected to is bad, it totally doesn't justify them writing about sexism.

Congratulations on proving yourself wrong with your own example.
Now read it. Wait, something's wrong. Lewis said justifies not demonstrates. Here lets correct it. Oh no, circular logic happens :S

Either way. I am pretty sure that what you 'argue' is what Helen ment. Still she was wrong even on that.
Going by your example, with this little mischevious 'demonstrate' misquote. You can't derrive anything from it either. Only that someone punched you in the face. You COULD be right (people are punching others in the faces and this is one of these people)
BUT
It could also be that this 'someone' just heard you, thought it's a cool idea and punched you. Had you never gave the idea nothing would have happen. At this point both hypothesis are as good. Thus cherry picking one without substance of any proof to back it, is irrational.

Got it now? There isn't logical way to defend Lewis' lapse.

Wait, how does switching "justified" for "demonstrates" change anything? If someone punched me, it would justify my complaints about the punching. If someone punched me, It would also demonstrate my complaint about the punching. Being pedantic about the verb does nothing to disprove the observation that there is some punching going on. I didn't mention the motives behind the punching, just that it is happening in the first place.

You really try to bite off way more than you can chew, if you want to argue, yet fall back on such ignorance that you can't tell the difference between words with reversed causality. Bravo.
The following attempt to literally flip the table with calling basics of critical thinking 'pedantry' was amusing though somewhat predictable.
Don't pretend you want to discuss something if you plan to just cry 'semantics'/'pedantry'/'no fair!' about basics of logic in the end. You wasted plenty of my time (yours as well) and I don't appreciate it. Bad show.

You'll have to enlighten me. I called you pedantic because you made a deal out of me using a different word, even though I can illustrate that whichever word I used, my point was still valid. You haven't invalidated my point, you have just accused me of being too ignorant about "basic logic" to get what you're saying, which I suppose is true, seeing as how I still don't have any idea where you are coming from. How are complaints about sexism not justified by the sexist responses they get?

 

[Avnger]

a series trying to get video games banned or censored

Please show me anywhere within the youtube series that calls are made to ban or censor video games. Because you're taking 1+1 and getting 4000 here mate. If you want people to take your criticism seriously, don't dress them up in such ridiculous hyperbole.

 

[webkilla]

*le snip*

I'd argue there's a difference, mainly because men can be more. Yes, men often pick up the role of cannon fodder, but they can also play the role of hero, villain, comic relief, leader, support, intel provider, and all of that within the FPS genre. Men have alternatives. When a woman gets fridged, not so much. They're commonly the only female characte, and if they're more female characters, they have very minor roles. I'm going to take a wild stab and guess that Legion still had plenty of major male characters left by the end.

Even then it's a moot point. The problem is named women dying, for the sake of a man's character arc, when they're the only woman in the story. Female henchmen? Go for it. Exposition Conquistadors gave us women to fight as and against, and it was fine.
Maybe wait until you know my views on something before calling me a hypocrite. K?

Nope, still gonna call you a hypocrite - but this time for a different reason:

"men can be more"

Please tell me you are kidding, right? Did you just imply that women can't be anything other than victims in video games? That women only can have minor roles in games?

...and then you point out yourself a game where can both play as a woman and fight other women?

So you're disproving yourself now too?

But seriously... have you never heard of any other games where you can play as a female character? There are tens of thousands of RPGs and other games with character customization where you can pick between a male and a female player character. That alone should be more than enough to show just how silly your assertion is.

Female Shepard from Mass Effect (and crazy face fem-Ryder from ME: Andromeda), all of the Tomb Raider games, the Elder Scrolls games, freaking METROID, the Resident Evil games, Portal 1&2, the untold numbers of fighting games where female characters can kick just as much butt as male characters

But no, women only get minor rolls

Dude - do you even have any clue what you are talking about?

Women are NOT always just a designated victim. And you have still not shown why, in the games where the plot does revolve around saving your wife/girlfriend/the princess/whatnot is a bad thing. Show me a study that proves that playing such games make men more sexist, make women more shy and less able to act on their own. I hold that such does not exist.

Also, you say that when a woman gets fridged she doesn't get any more choices. Bullshit. The last Tomb Raider game was praised for showing a female main character going through a tough ordeal and coming out stronger. The recent Horizon Zero Dawn game, same thing.

Of course, the true hypocrisy you fail to detect in yourself is the "Galbrush paradox"

You can google the term, but the TLR is that it is simply not socially acceptable today to make a video game showing a woman getting beaten, shot and abused as much as we do with a regular male main character in a video game. Hell, when the last Tomb Raider game came out there was a shitstorm over a cutscene where it looked like she almost got raped. Never mind that it was just part of lara Croft's adventure, part of her getting captured but then freeing herself, and kicking ass - but no, can't have a game where it looks like women are getting hurt like that!

If it was a male main character nobody would have blinked an eye.

That is the true hypocrisy of your harping about fridging women: We are apparently not allowed to see fictional women hurt to motivate the player to take action - but its totally ok to see fictional men get hurt to achieve the same, because... double standard.

Galbrush paradox - look it up

 

[Erttheking]

*le snip*

I'd argue there's a difference, mainly because men can be more. Yes, men often pick up the role of cannon fodder, but they can also play the role of hero, villain, comic relief, leader, support, intel provider, and all of that within the FPS genre. Men have alternatives. When a woman gets fridged, not so much. They're commonly the only female characte, and if they're more female characters, they have very minor roles. I'm going to take a wild stab and guess that Legion still had plenty of major male characters left by the end.

Even then it's a moot point. The problem is named women dying, for the sake of a man's character arc, when they're the only woman in the story. Female henchmen? Go for it. Exposition Conquistadors gave us women to fight as and against, and it was fine.
Maybe wait until you know my views on something before calling me a hypocrite. K?

Nope, still gonna call you a hypocrite - but this time for a different reason:

"men can be more"

Please tell me you are kidding, right? Did you just imply that women can't be anything other than victims in video games? That women only can have minor roles in games?

...and then you point out yourself a game where can both play as a woman and fight other women?

So you're disproving yourself now too?

But seriously... have you never heard of any other games where you can play as a female character? There are tens of thousands of RPGs and other games with character customization where you can pick between a male and a female player character. That alone should be more than enough to show just how silly your assertion is.

Female Shepard from Mass Effect (and crazy face fem-Ryder from ME: Andromeda), all of the Tomb Raider games, the Elder Scrolls games, freaking METROID, the Resident Evil games, Portal 1&2, the untold numbers of fighting games where female characters can kick just as much butt as male characters

But no, women only get minor rolls

Dude - do you even have any clue what you are talking about?

Women are NOT always just a designated victim. And you have still not shown why, in the games where the plot does revolve around saving your wife/girlfriend/the princess/whatnot is a bad thing. Show me a study that proves that playing such games make men more sexist, make women more shy and less able to act on their own. I hold that such does not exist.

Also, you say that when a woman gets fridged she doesn't get any more choices. Bullshit. The last Tomb Raider game was praised for showing a female main character going through a tough ordeal and coming out stronger. The recent Horizon Zero Dawn game, same thing.

Of course, the true hypocrisy you fail to detect in yourself is the "Galbrush paradox"

You can google the term, but the TLR is that it is simply not socially acceptable today to make a video game showing a woman getting beaten, shot and abused as much as we do with a regular male main character in a video game. Hell, when the last Tomb Raider game came out there was a shitstorm over a cutscene where it looked like she almost got raped. Never mind that it was just part of lara Croft's adventure, part of her getting captured but then freeing herself, and kicking ass - but no, can't have a game where it looks like women are getting hurt like that!

If it was a male main character nobody would have blinked an eye.

That is the true hypocrisy of your harping about fridging women: We are apparently not allowed to see fictional women hurt to motivate the player to take action - but its totally ok to see fictional men get hurt to achieve the same, because... double standard.

Galbrush paradox - look it up

Yeah, in a hurry so I'll have to keep this brief. You missed a lot of key points. I didn't say women could only be victims, just that they're reduced to only being victims when they're fridged, and that games that do this often don't have women in other roles. The problem isn't that women get killed, but because they exist to only be a victim. Hooker in Hotlinr Miami got killed and she existed just to be a victim, but the two female fans from the sequel died, but they had a role beyond being victims. The way they died was doing it right. I never claimed it made people sexist, and Tomb Raider and Horizon Zero Dawn aren't example of women being fridged. Mainly because they're, well, alive st the end of the story, and their pain is about them, not someone else feeling bad that their girlfriend died. So many games actually hurt men to motivate the player? Reduce them to only victims? With no other men in major roles? Honest question, I rarely see that.

Sorry if I wasn't clear with any of this.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

Of course, the true hypocrisy you fail to detect in yourself is the "Galbrush paradox"

You can google the term, but the TLR is that it is simply not socially acceptable today to make a video game showing a woman getting beaten, shot and abused as much as we do with a regular male main character in a video game. Hell, when the last Tomb Raider game came out there was a shitstorm over a cutscene where it looked like she almost got raped. Never mind that it was just part of lara Croft's adventure, part of her getting captured but then freeing herself, and kicking ass - but no, can't have a game where it looks like women are getting hurt like that!

If it was a male main character nobody would have blinked an eye.

You know the game was made, it was released and it sold well. Why do people get hyperbolic about censorship over games that don't get censored? I mean tomb raider was filled to the brim of lara getting punched in any way the designers could think of, but very few people actually batted an eye at it. It is totally socially acceptable today. I might even call it quite common.

 

[Nazulu]

Snip

I think you're going to have to explain to me how it's hypocritical for me to say that you should actually be engaging with the people who ask you questions. It'd only be hypocritical if I criticized you specifically for telling someone how to write their post, which I didn't. I criticized the manner in which you responded to them, which is different. Hypocrite is a word that means something, you can't just slap it onto every situation.

Hard to show interest in why you wrote your post when getting that reason is like trying to get water out of a rock.

Hard to do when you refuse to meet anyone halfway.

Time stamps. The time in the video where the important thing happens. Like 14:00. I really don't feel like that's asking too much. So now you're saying that not everyone has the time to get when I want, when I'm asking you to point out the important parts of the video you posted? As in, you don't have enough time to watch the video to look for highlights? If you don't have enough time to watch the video, why should anyone else bother?

More uncooperative than confusing now.

Now I just think you're just purposely misunderstanding me.

Hypocrite for not explaining yourself when just saying something is crap after expecting me to go into more detail, because I don't know what you're on about now. And like I said already, I'm not going to bother trying with people who want to be smart.

Also, you seem to think that I have to do things a certain way, which I don't, and I couldn't care less if you think otherwise. If people don't want to watch the videos to see where I got my info from, that's on them, because they can't "dedicate 20 minutes of their time" then I take it they're not interested. That's how I feel about this. Again, I don't care how you see it, because I believe you should be dedicated if you want to learn.

You're not helpful in the least. This is all repeating myself now.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Yes, that's really an issue with her.

Well, I disagree, but more on that below.

And an issue with those who cite her as an expert in feminist theory and the media, passing on her work as authority without giving it significant scrutiny.

I'm sorry, who - exactly - cites her as an "expert in feminist theory"? Surely only those who somehow oppose feminism, or convulse at its very name, would do something like that...

It isn't just by individual statements that a cause goes down, but by an unwillingness for anyone within that camp to challenge or criticize statements; a "circling of the wagons" to defend statements and individuals who shouldn't be defended, simply because they're allowed to remain part of the group identity; and a prevailing attitude that anyone who would dare challenge someone within that identity from without or within is the enemy.

Feminist Frequency - and the reaction to it - was always about something more than games, or game critique. People on all sides 'circled wagons'.

Those extremists may magnify the focus on the worst of what they oppose, but everyone who fails to provide a firm counter-example cannot help but share the fault- and the shadow falls over the whole when anyone not firmly in a camp observes.

If I'm reading that correctly, that seems a remarkably tribalistic attitude to take. I'm a feminist and I saw merit and inanity in what the channel put across. I have no duty to anyone or any 'cause', nor can I control or affect how others [over]react.

And kicking a hornet's nest has never resulted in anything but a bunch of stinging. Fierce and violent arguing about trivial matters, a deeper divide between people who are going to suffer for furthering an inability to work together, a deeper and more passionate sense that facts are irrelevant before the steamroller of the all-powerful narrative. This is the legacy of demagogues- whether they channel millions of votes or just a six-figure sum on Kickstarter.

"Demagogues"? Sheesh, that escalated fast...

And I disagree. For starters I saw no "fierce or violent" arguing from the original Tropes series, or much of FF's output. Their video reviews, in particular, have been remarkably measured and even handed. The only fierceness or violence I saw was in certain peoples rather manic reactions to them (often it would be people reacting without seeing the damn videos, as well, which is pretty pathetic).

Again, this was never just about games, and so the 'controversy' and the hornet's nest was really - forgive the mixing of metaphors - just an overdue boil being lanced. There are issues in society, and within gamer culture. Now there is an open dialogue about that.

Did some keep circling their wagons? Absolutely, and that'll always be the case. But I'd rather people's agendas - on all sides - are exposed, so that something more productive may be cohered going forward, or simply for the sake of more honest discussions.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

I think you're going to have to explain to me how it's hypocritical for me to say that you should actually be engaging with the people who ask you questions. It'd only be hypocritical if I criticized you specifically for telling someone how to write their post, which I didn't. I criticized the manner in which you responded to them, which is different. Hypocrite is a word that means something, you can't just slap it onto every situation.

Hard to show interest in why you wrote your post when getting that reason is like trying to get water out of a rock.

Hard to do when you refuse to meet anyone halfway.

Time stamps. The time in the video where the important thing happens. Like 14:00. I really don't feel like that's asking too much. So now you're saying that not everyone has the time to get when I want, when I'm asking you to point out the important parts of the video you posted? As in, you don't have enough time to watch the video to look for highlights? If you don't have enough time to watch the video, why should anyone else bother?

More uncooperative than confusing now.

Now I just think you're just purposely misunderstanding me.

Hypocrite for not explaining yourself when just saying something is crap after expecting me to go into more detail, because I don't know what you're on about now. And like I said already, I'm not going to bother trying with people who want to be smart.

Also, you seem to think that I have to do things a certain way, which I don't, and I couldn't care less if you think otherwise. If people don't want to watch the videos to see where I got my info from, that's on them, because they can't "dedicate 20 minutes of their time" then I take it they're not interested. That's how I feel about this. Again, I don't care how you see it, because I believe you should be dedicated if you want to learn.

You're not helpful in the least. This is all repeating myself now.

My apologies, I honestly misunderstood. I found that video to be garbage because it over indulged in ranting, hyperbole, and generally baseless claims.

You don't have to, but it's the commonly accepted way of debating around here, and it works out better for all involved when two people are on the same level.

 

[Nazulu]

My apologies, I honestly misunderstood. I found that video to be garbage because it over indulged in ranting, hyperbole, and generally baseless claims.

You don't have to, but it's the commonly accepted way of debating around here, and it works out better for all involved when two people are on the same level.

Yeah, I picked the wrong video (oops), that was the first I saw of his, but I was interested to know how he came to that opinion and he's been through all the details before. I missed the history from when this all started and they don't bother sharing all the evidence all over again. And he often puts his sources down but not with that video unfortunately so I'll have to find it again.

I've tried to understand where I went wrong but I don't believe I have committed any crime so to speak. In fact, I thought I was making it easier for everyone by just saying she did this and that and pointing to where I learned this. You may be right, but I don't feel any of those who responded were really interested (instead I feel like I offended some people).

And I do it this way because I write the same way over Youtube and some other sites and some people actually see where I'm coming from. Not that everyone's willing mind you, but that's OK, it's up to them if they're interested, or think I'm a waste of time

Also, for some reason I keep getting flagged for every post I make in these types of threads here. It's happened before and before that. Who hates me?

 

[McMarbles]

Oh good, the scam artist is finally shutting up.

Yeah, what a scam artist, actually delivering what she promised, which is a thing that scam artists do.

I swear, the collective IQ of this site went down a hundred points the day she showed up, and never recovered.

 

[IceForce]

I swear, the collective IQ of this site went down a hundred points the day she showed up, and never recovered.

Escapist should've just hired her as a content contributor. I mean hell, she has such a dominating presence on this site anyway, and she isn't even here. They may as well've just given her a job, and brought some more traffic to the site.