How much LP footage did Anita Sarkeesian "steal", exactly?

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,774
4,303
118
Country
United Kingdom
First Lastname said:
She didn't say ANYTHING about the industry or specifically the AAA games. She literally said she was not a fan of video games and that she did not play them.
Right. Wasn't that four years ago?

People change in four years. They pick up new hobbies.

First Lastname said:
Why do her generalized comments come across as someone from outside the fandom looking in?
People have always rationalised criticism as being from perceived outsiders, even when there's debate within a community itself.
 

Nukekitten

New member
Sep 21, 2014
76
0
0
Irick said:
When they start being paid for their work, it becomes a profession. These videos are not a hobby project. They are the product of a company she started with this purpose.

The argument that she is not a professional is disingenuine.
That's... totally not the way I think of professionals in terms of professional standards. Professionals have standards of training certification and ethical commitments that they have to adhere to. That's where the professional standard comes from. It's not a term that just broadly refers to anyone getting paid, to use it in such a way dillutes the meaning of the term.

Irick said:
Beyond that, I'm holding her to academic standards. Will you dispute her academic credentials as well?
I don't know anything about her academic credentials or if she's using them as a source of authority here. Certainly if she is then she ought not to be behaving in this manner. But then again I don't think she ought to be behaving in this manner anyway just because it's a mean thing to do and we should as a rule try not to be mean.

Nukekitten said:
Hmm, not really what I'd call a citation system but *she shrugs* mileage may vary I suppose.
*quirks a brow*
Well, then... What would you consider a citation system?[/quote]

A set of rules consistently applied across the entire body of the work that provides the necessary information for someone of a similar background to reconstruct said work with less effort than you put in yourself, excepting original reasoning on your part.
 

Rayce Archer

New member
Jun 26, 2014
384
0
0
The_Kodu said:
You know what you want to start being a dick fine I'll play.
Not sure how I'm being a dick. It seems to me like thinking someone is a dick for disagreeing with you is kind of a Sarkeesian way to deal with debate but hey, it's your Internet. You can say whatever you want. For instance you can be wrong about Copyright all day long, or argue that ToS aren't legally binding when they clearly are until you're blue in the face and nobody has the power to stop you. You know what? You can even start a kickstarter to raise money for videos about your views. Then you can have a slice of the pie too!

I'd advise you to learn more about rights and usage before you make them though.
 

Irick

New member
Apr 18, 2012
225
0
0
Nukekitten said:
That's... totally not the way I think of professionals in terms of professional standards. Professionals have standards of training certification and ethical commitments that they have to adhere to. That's where the professional standard comes from. It's not a term that just broadly refers to anyone getting paid, to use it in such a way dillutes the meaning of the term.
She has an actual academic background and training to the ends of the kind of critical analysis that she is engaging in here, specifically she has a BA in communication studies and an MA in social and political thought. She is being paid in order to perform said critical analysis and has formed a company for the purpose of producing and distributing this kind of critical analysis. She herself is performing at least some of the critical analysis as well as presenting it. By literally all commonly accepted definitions of the word she is a professional.

As such, I hold her to the ethics of the profession and the standards of an academic. Consider that one of her goals in this endeavor is to develop a classroom lesson plan around these bits of critical analysis and you may see the extent of the relevance of these sets of critisism.

Nukekitten said:
A set of rules consistently applied across the entire body of the work that provides the necessary information for someone of a similar background to reconstruct said work with less effort than you put in yourself, excepting original reasoning on your part.
http://www.feministfrequency.com/2014/08/women-as-background-decoration-part-2/#more-20630

So this doesn't cut it for you?
I mean, my criticism is that she didn't cite a specific part of her compilation (footage from lets players), not that she's not citing in general. She is citing, providing transcripts, and otherwise making it easy to disseminate the critical analysis of her videos.

I have criticised her for not providing more context in her videos themselves, but that's nothing to do with her system of citation and everything to do with not providing citation in specific circumstances.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
17,683
1,919
118
Diesel- said:
Here Comes Tomorrow said:
Diesel- said:
So what would Anita think of Stalker Series? because in entire series there are all male characters. only.
Not much because its too obscure, so wouldn't generate enough attention. Theres a reason she only talks about AAA titles.

Also, there is narrative reason why there are no women in The Zone.
well i only like badass manly obsecure games. not mainstream games or girly JRPGs. i dont even play games which has female main characters. guess what anita would think of me.
What's so obscure about Team Fortress, the most popular FPS ever?
 

Insanityblues

New member
May 15, 2011
28
0
0
So Anita used footage from various LP's without giving credit... while admittedly a dick move, the subject of her videos is the representation of women in games, so I don't see how this "scandal" is supposed to negate her message. Seems to me like Thunderfoot (a notorious anti feminist) is just trying to stir shit up to distract people from the issue Anita is discussing.
 

Irick

New member
Apr 18, 2012
225
0
0
Insanityblues said:
So Anita used footage from various LP's without giving credit... while admittedly a dick move, the subject of her videos is the representation of women in games, so I don't see how this "scandal" is supposed to negate her message. Seems to me like Thunderfoot (a notorious anti feminist) is just trying to stir shit up to distract people from the issue Anita is discussing.
No, it doesn't detract from her points. You have to address the specific arguments if you want to detract from her points.

It is, however, valid critisism. It's not fair to say someone is just trying to stir up shit if their critisism is actually factual. Using unattributed sources is not very professional or academic. As she represents herself as both professional and academic, this sort of faux paus should be addressed. Admittedly she probably won't have the chance to sit down and seriously look at the critisism until she has dealt with the current situation, but the criticism remains valid.
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
IceForce said:
First of all, I encourage you to watch the following Thunderf00t video:
There's your problem. Thunderf00t is an asshat of epic proportions. I don't why people who even agree with him listen to him.

So which is it? Either she's playing the game(s) wrong (but definitely still playing them herself), OR she's NOT playing them and "stealing" the footage instead.

It can't be both.
It's obvious where Thunderf00t falls on that question, but you're trying to attribute his argument to everyone else on that side to create the illusion of cognitive dissonance. No one else has to answer for Thunderf00t. Who has even claiming that it is both? I actually figure that would be a pretty easy accusation to find(even if turned out to be baseless) since it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibilities that someone could "steal" some of the footage they use and then "play the game wrong" on other footage.
 

Nukekitten

New member
Sep 21, 2014
76
0
0
Irick said:
She has an actual academic background and training to the ends of the kind of critical analysis that she is engaging in here, specifically she has a BA in communication studies and an MA in social and political thought. She is being paid in order to perform said critical analysis and has formed a company for the purpose of producing and distributing this kind of critical analysis. She herself is performing at least some of the critical analysis as well as presenting it. By literally all commonly accepted definitions of the word she is a professional.

As such, I hold her to the ethics of the profession and the standards of an academic. Consider that one of her goals in this endeavor is to develop a classroom lesson plan around these bits of critical analysis and you may see the extent of the relevance of these sets of critisism.
What professional ethics? Doctors take an oath, engineers take an oath. As far as I'm aware, the social degrees have little to nothing by way of professional ethics, no more than computer programmers have professional ethics. Yet no-one accuses computer programmers of breaching professional ethics when they go to work for the NSA. Ethics in general perhaps, but not specifically professional ones. (That may of course change with computer programming being a relatively important craft.)

But let's try turning it around, that might make it clearer where our point of disagreement lies: Do you think that if she hadn't gone to university she wouldn't have an obligation to cite the material she uses? Or to try to present the truth to the best of her ability? Because I don't feel like going to university for seven years or so, and writing papers, is meant to have signified her accepting the ethics of a profession. I think that's just something you do if you've got a respect for the truth.

I don't feel like I took on any ethical obligations when I went to university either: I paid my money, I got as much knowledge as I could out of them, and then I got the rubber stamp on the bit of paper and left. That was the extent of the obligation I feel it created between my school and I, and I consider that to have been completely discharged with my last payment to them and their last tutorial to me - money for service, like buying a burger. It's just an economic exchange.

That said, you do seem correct to me in that she may not meet the technical standards of her training and thus discredits it. I don't know how good her training was, but this is certainly not something that we would expect to be representative of decent training in any research focused degree (assuming those were research focused degrees where she went) - but that's far and away from an ethical issue. It's far closer to a shoddy workmanship issue. As mentioned before, I think she's bad at her job.

Irick said:
http://www.feministfrequency.com/2014/08/women-as-background-decoration-part-2/#more-20630

So this doesn't cut it for you?
I mean, my criticism is that she didn't cite a specific part of her compilation (footage from lets players), not that she's not citing in general. She is citing, providing transcripts, and otherwise making it easy to disseminate the critical analysis of her videos.

I have criticised her for not providing more context in her videos themselves, but that's nothing to do with her system of citation and everything to do with not providing citation in specific circumstances.
Nope. There's a collection of, (often poorly written,) magazine/newspaper articles listed at the top of a transcript, attesting, (often questionably,) to some of her claims. That doesn't really count as a citation system to me.

The clips cited in the text I can't immediately think of a better way to cite, though perhaps linking to them would be an idea to allow for people to see them in their context. Just referencing the entire game is somewhat akin to referencing an entire series considering the length of some games.

To me, a system is something that you apply consistently according to a set of rules. What she has feels closer to throwing a few media clippings where some people agree with some of her points into a pile and stapling the thing together.

I suppose strictly speaking 'whatever's to hand' is a rule. But in my eyes much of her work seems largely uncited and unsupported by argument in the text. :/

----

Edit: I realise some of the above may come across as much more assertive than it sounds in my head. My attitude towards the issue goes more or less:

'Someone's bad at their job *shrug* It happens, no biggy. Just don't take them too seriously.'

But absence of tone of voice on the internet :|
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
im talking about how, if she isnt going to record her own gameplay, she should atleast cite her sources. you know, a proper fucking investigation, have you ever written a report?

i mean this is painfully simple stuff for ANY sort of research
Well I thought the citations for where she was getting her information was obvious. If she's talking about a certain game she obviously got it from...wait for it...that game! Considering they're her sources and she very clearly cites them by, you know, saying their names and such I don't see what your issue is.
thats like citing "the computer" in a book about software engineering

the matter of study isnt the source when you are citing someone else's work

you definitively have never written a report before

LifeCharacter said:
go ahead and leave then

play or record, my point was that, she had 150k and six months to work, she didnt work, that is not "slightly" lazy
Right, she didn't work. How do you know this? Oh wait, silly me I forgot, you don't. You've extrapolated that because she used Let's Play footage to lighten the work she had to do she must not have played the games, because that makes logical sense now.

And, once again, if you consider using Let's Play footage such a gross display of laziness, you're being ridiculous and you need to reevaluate how you judge things.
we have no evidence we worked, but we are still expected to believe she worked? sorry i dont buy this "the patriarchy ate my homework teacher"

no evidence of she working, she most likely didnt work

also i love how you love to side step the issue, wasting 150k dollars and 6 months with no results at the end of it is a gross display of laziness, if she hadnt wasted 6 months and 150k dollars she wouldnt be a scam artist


LifeCharacter said:
what is she getting paid for then? i mean if she is going to spend 150k, waste 6 months and half-ass the research, why is her opinion important? is that the attitude of someone who takes her research seriously? can you imagine if more people acted like this?
She's getting paid to create fucking videos, not record herself playing video games so a bunch of whiny idiots who will never believe anything she ever says can have proof she played video games even though they'd just disregard it for some stupid reason. That you consider not wasting her time replaying games for the sake of an incredibly small clip of a game half-assing the research says more about you than it does about her.
she is paid to make a proper research, from her kickstarter

"Creating these videos take a lot of time and money to produce. I will be researching and playing hundreds of titles from across the gaming industry (including some truly awful games that I wouldn?t wish upon anyone!). Your support will go towards production costs, equipment, games and downloadable content."

she wastes 6 motnhs of time, 150k dollars, and doesnt even cite her sources when she doesnt play the games

thats a piss poor research if ive ever seen one, they wouldnt even give me a 4/10 at my university

LifeCharacter said:
"yeah they paid me millions of dollars and gave me years to work on cancer research but im too lazy for that, im just going to copy and paste someone else's paper and give him no credit for it"
What a massive example of false equivalence. Your comparing superfluous video that supplements her arguments to the core of cancer research. You know what a real comparison would be, the Let's Play footage and the layout of the cancer researcher's title page, because both are largely irrelevant to the overall point of the work.
"your comparison is not valid because its not about the exact same thing"

ok here are others:

"yeah they paid me thousands of dollars and gave me months to design a webpage but im too lazy for that, im just going to copy and paste someone else's work from the internet and give him no credit for it"

"yeah they paid me hundreds of dollars and gave me weeks to come up with an original cake recipe but im too lazy for that, im just going to steal someone else's recipe from a cookbook and give him no credit for it"

"yeah they paid me thousands of dollars and gave me months to come up with footage to support my arguments but im too lazy for that, im just going to steal someone else's gameplay videos from the internet and give him no credit for it"

"yeah they paid me V of dollars and gave me W to come up with X but im too lazy for that, im just going to steal someone else's Y from Z and give him no credit for it"


LifeCharacter said:
oh you want to derail the discussion already? how nice

if you want her argument refuted youtube and google is that way, better people than me have dissected her poorly constructed arguments, if you wont listen to them, you wont listen to me

right now we are talking about her "research" if you can even call it that, we can discuss her laughable arguments later
Oh, so you apparently didn't have less than 3 minutes to spare blowing my mind with how obviously wrong Sarkeesian is. Okay, I guess. I'll just wallow in my ignorance and it's all your fault. Shame!
it might take 3 minutes to destroy her arguments, but you are going to spend 3 days covering your ears saying "LALALALA CANT HEAR YOU", again stop trying to derail the discussion

if you want, look for her detractors on youtube, which will most likely have their youtube comments enabled, and provide counter arguments to their points there

LifeCharacter said:
so you expect me to ignore her words and read her mind to know what she meant? bravo

im gonna take a wild guess, make an outrageous assumption, and say that, when she said she "im not a fan of video games" she meant that she is not a fan of video games, as CRAZY as that might sound

oh and nice job completely ignoring my proof that not all games are violent and therefore her excuse for not playing is pathetic, and a clear sign that she doesnt know anything about video games
Yes yes your interpretation of her words as her never playing video games ever forever because she's a liar is the best of them all and she's so obviously wrong. If you want something substantial go read MarsAtlas's post, because I'm lacking the enthusiasm to humor you at the moment.
my interpretation of her words?

its a quote, word for word of what she said hahahaha

ok sir, what did she meant when she said:

"im not a fan of video games..."

"i would like to play video games, but i wouldnt want to go around shooting people and ripping out their heads its just gross..."

and again you ignore my evidence that not all games are violent, bravo

LifeCharacter said:
oh let me see

-not a fan of video games
-had 150k and 6 months to record footage, she didnt
-stole footage from LPs and didnt credit them with the clear intention of making everyone believe she played those video games

yes, im going to draw the conclusion she did not play those video games, because that what you do with circunstantial evidence
Not a fan of video games... years ago.
2 years before her kickstarter, and did she conveniently became a fan right after that lecture?

and she obviously lied when she said she was a gamer her entire life, but we are still supposed to trust her?

LifeCharacter said:
Not recording myself playing video games does not imply that I didn't play video games. Also, is there some page of her more recent videos saying which LPers she stole footage from, or is there some other conspiracy to explain the footage and still disallow the possibility she played the games?
did someone pay you 150k dollars and give you 6 months to research about video games

you seriously dont understand how logic works, you literally got my argument backwards

"she is not a gamer because she didnt record gameplay" - i didnt say this

"she didnt record gameplay because she is not a gamer" - i said this

just because P -> A, doesnt mean A -> P

LifeCharacter said:
"Stole" footage from LPers without crediting them, with no clear intention that someone didn't pull out of their ass because they're obviously a mind reader.
what?

LifeCharacter said:
"Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact?like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

like i said, you DO NOT KNOW THE MEANING OF THOSE WORDS
You really need to stop pretending that you're some master of the English language sent to teach me the error of my ways. I know exactly what circumstantial evidence is and I don't believe I've ever said anything to contradict your wondrous definition up there. I just claimed that your circumstantial evidence wasn't convincing.
yes you need some english lessons, and this comes from a non-native english speaker

my evidence IS convincing, unless you are going to argue that video of her saying "im not a fan of video games" is fake, and that she didnt actually steal those LP videos, and i must say, at this point arguing that takes some serious mental gymnastics and i mean olympic level

no, you CAN ARGUE, my inferences, my arguments, arent convincing

you do not know the meanings of these words


LifeCharacter said:
that video is from 2010, she started her kickstarter in 2012

"several"

you expect me to believe that someone who is "not a fan of video games", thinks that they are "gross", someone who admited NOT playing video games, had a change of heart within 2 years, became a fan of video games, but still wont play video games for her research?
So you expect me to think absolutely nothing happened in two years? I won't say she became a fan, because that's something completely irrelevant to her playing video games, and you don't get to claim she isn't playing video games because that's what you're supposed to be proving to me. Apparently, you think she just sat around with a thumb up her ass for two years because, if we allowed the possibility that humans actually change from year to year we might have to admit that she (gasp!) has played a video game, after which reality would, of course, collapse in on itself.
let me put it this way, theres more evidence of she not being a fan of video games and knowing very little about them, than there is evidence of the opposite, she has also lied in the past, several times

just like theres no evidence she played those games, you are making the claim she played those games, shouldnt the burden of proof lay on you instead of me?

LifeCharacter said:
not to mention she outright lied several times to the press saying she has been gaming her entire life and that she is a fan of video games... you know, except for that one time she wasnt a fan of video games and never played them
So where did she say she never played them. Go, right now and find it. I'm tired and have more productive things to do than talk to a wall that thinks it can read minds and slander people based on no real evidence.
oh boy here we go again getting my arguments wrong, my argument is that she lied when she said she played games all her life, its CLEAR, thats not true, theres that video of she admiting to not play video games fairly recently, prove the opposite


is like a man saying "sir ive never consumed drugs in my life" 2 years after rehab
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
thats like citing "the computer" in a book about software engineering

the matter of study isnt the source when you are citing someone else's work

you definitively have never written a report before
Sarkeesian's "matter of study" is the video games and she cites the video games and things you can do within them for her videos. Should she also cite the LPers as a secondary source for the footage they provided? Sure, but not doing so does not somehow make it impossible that she actually conducted research, nor does it make their footage the matter of study of her work.
it makes her a scam artist that wasted 150k dollars and 6 months of time not doing a proper research


LifeCharacter said:
we have no evidence we worked, but we are still expected to believe she worked? sorry i dont buy this "the patriarchy ate my homework teacher"
Well it's a good thing no one's using "the patriarchy ate me homework" as an excuse, so congratulations on continuing the tradition of intellectual dishonesty. I said it was a practical method of attaining footage that is at best supplementary to her work and whose only purpose is to illustrate what she's talking about.
yes with no proof that she actually PLAYED those games, but yet you still defend her with arguments such as "maybe she didnt have the time", thats the reason behind my "the patriarchy ate my homework teacher" comment

also

-6 months
-not enought time

yeah right

LifeCharacter said:
That you need to have footage of her playing the games herself to believe she plays the video games just means that you pretty much are an unreasonable member of the non-audience (do you even watch her videos, or do you just watch some rambling idiot's criticism of it?) that can be ignored. I mean, I play video games and I expect people to believe that without having to upload hundreds of hours of me playing Mount and Blade or Civilization, but, then again, I'm not the Feminist Doombringer who wants to steal all the precious video games from the poor men so maybe that explains it.
yes i do need proof if im going to believe someone's claims

i mean would you believe me if i said im the world's greatest theoretical physicist without any evidence to back it up?

LifeCharacter said:
also i love how you love to side step the issue, wasting 150k dollars and 6 months with no results at the end of it is a gross display of laziness, if she hadnt wasted 6 months and 150k dollars she wouldnt be a scam artist
Footage of her playing video games is not "results." Arguments about and examples of sexist tropes in video games are the results that were expected and promised. Just because you believe that not recording yourself playing video games means you haven't actually played video games (though I'm sure there's plenty of exceptions you make for non-feminists) doesn't somehow make footage of her playing video games the end-goal of the project.
she has no proof of she doing any actual research, but are we expected to believe her?

"though I'm sure there's plenty of exceptions you make for non-feminists"

yay for false accusations

LifeCharacter said:
she is paid to make a proper research, from her kickstarter
Recording herself playing video games is not proper research. Playing the video games is proper research. Showing examples from the video games that help illustrate her point is proper research. Not citing LPers for providing the footage is merely improper citing for her project. Citing is, once again, not part of the research process, it is part of actually writing your paper based upon the research. I can use thirty books for research and not cite them without my research suddenly becoming non-existent.
let me see

-6 months between videos
-not recording her own gameplay
-150k dollars spend
-not crediting other people for playing the games she allegedly played

you call this proper research? youd be laughed out of any decent university if you tried to present a thesis like this

LifeCharacter said:
ok here are others:

"yeah they paid me thousands of dollars and gave me months to design a webpage but im too lazy for that, im just going to copy and paste someone else's work from the internet and give him no credit for it"

"yeah they paid me hundreds of dollars and gave me weeks to come up with an original cake recipe but im too lazy for that, im just going to steal someone else's recipe from a cookbook and give him no credit for it"

"yeah they paid me thousands of dollars and gave me months to come up with footage to support my arguments but im too lazy for that, im just going to steal someone else's gameplay videos from the internet and give him no credit for it"

"yeah they paid me V of dollars and gave me W to come up with X but im too lazy for that, im just going to steal someone else's Y from Z and give him no credit for it"
I want you to think honestly for a few seconds when you respond to this for me. Are you honestly saying that the footage Sarkeesian uses in her videos is equivalent to the text of a cookbook or an entire webpage? They're visual aids for fuck's sake. You know what woukld be comparable to a cookbook or a webpage in this context? The transcripts for her videos. Her actual arguments. Not visual aids. The footage is comparable to a picture of ingredients found in a cookbook.
yes my comparisong isnt a exact copy of sarkessians' actions, because is a figure of speech, is that so hard to understand?

she was paid tons of money to do X, V amount of dollars to be exact, she was given a huge amount of W time, she stole someone else's Y from Z and gave them no credit for it

LifeCharacter said:
it might take 3 minutes to destroy her arguments, but you are going to spend 3 days covering your ears saying "LALALALA CANT HEAR YOU", again stop trying to derail the discussion

if you want, look for her detractors on youtube, which will most likely have their youtube comments enabled, and provide counter arguments to their points there
So even though it would only take three minutes to create an argument so compelling it would absolutely destroy any intellectual opposition to your point of view, you refuse to do it because I might not believe it. Got it. I'll just assume you can't since you've given absolutely zero evidence that you can.

And I'm not going to look up her detractors on youtube, I've seen a few of them and they're about as intellectually dishonest as you, possibly even moreso. Thunderf00t spends huge amounts of time on irrelevant tangents and on cherry-picked examples, that one woman who focuses on Peach and Zelda's argument can be summed up as "But unsubstantiated fan-theory! But it's just a game!" Also, they take well over three minutes per response to each of her videos.

And you're the one who brought up how you could refute her arguments so incredibly easily that it would only take 3 minutes. I assumed 3 minutes of effort on your part that completely and utterly proves how wrong everything Sarkeesian has ever said wrong wouldn't be much of a derailment. I also have very little interest in debating Sarkeesian's points, mostly because I find her bland and boring and not worth the obsession people have for her, I just have interest in calling out people's baseless and bullshit-laced claims.
considering youve spend like what, days? fisting reason and logic, trying to argue the lack of evidence is proof sarkessian plays games, no, im not willing to derail this conversation into sarkessians pitiful arguments, there are plenty of people out there addressing those, im going to ignore this point from now on

LifeCharacter said:
2 years before her kickstarter, and did she conveniently became a fan right after that lecture?
It didn't have to be right after. She had two years. Is it now controversial to claim that people can and do change from year to year?
its controversial when given the chance she cannot seem to prove she is a fan of video games

LifeCharacter said:
did someone pay you 150k dollars and give you 6 months to research about video games

you seriously dont understand how logic works, you literally got my argument backwards

"she is not a gamer because she didnt record gameplay" - i didnt say this

"she didnt record gameplay because she is not a gamer" - i said this

just because P -> A, doesnt mean A -> P
Oh no no no. You're argument was not that she wasn't a gamer, it was that she didn't play the video games. Don't try to shift the goal posts and make your argument seem logical. It's not that I don't understand how logic works, it's that your logic is both 1) not what you claim it to be and 2) supported by conjecture and conspiracy.
im giving you a reason of why given 6 months and 150k she couldnt be arsed to record her own gameplay and instead, steal someone else's gameplay and not credit them to make it appear as if she actually played those games

she is not a gamer


LifeCharacter said:
I'm saying that you have no way of knowing what her intentions were just because you really really hope that they're ones that allow you to demonize her.
because we cant draw our own painfully obvious conclusions?

if her intention was not to pretend she played those games, why didnt she mention that gameplay was taken from LPs until she was CAUGHT?

LifeCharacter said:
yes you need some english lessons, and this comes from a non-native english speaker

my evidence IS convincing, unless you are going to argue that video of her saying "im not a fan of video games" is fake, and that she didnt actually steal those LP videos, and i must say, at this point arguing that takes some serious mental gymnastics and i mean olympic level
You should know that none of this really proves or even argues that I need an English lesson. It's just an argument that states how convincing your argument is and hopes saying it will make it reality. Since your argument is that she hasn't played the games, her not being a fan or recording herself is not compelling to anyone who isn't looking for substantiation for their whiny conspiracies.

no, you CAN ARGUE, my inferences, my arguments, arent convincing

you do not know the meanings of these words
I am arguing. I know what your inferences and arguments are. Though you seem to be getting a little confused on what they are.
again, thats my argument, not my evidence, you dont know the meaning of those words you say

but come on, PROVE she didnt steal LP videos, PROVE she didnt say she is not a fan of video games

LifeCharacter said:
let me put it this way, theres more evidence of she not being a fan of video games and knowing very little about them, than there is evidence of the opposite, she has also lied in the past, several times

just like theres no evidence she played those games, you are making the claim she played those games, shouldnt the burden of proof lay on you instead of me?
I am making the claim she played those video games because she is able to talk about them and pull out examples to support her arguments to relative success. Sure, she could have just watched LPers and looked up wikis, but then, I could accuse absolutely everyone who ever talks about video games of doing the same.
i talk about video games, check my steam stats, i play that shit, thats how you know i play video games

wheres anita's proof that she played those games?

LifeCharacter said:
oh boy here we go again getting my arguments wrong, my argument is that she lied when she said she played games all her life, its CLEAR, thats not true, theres that video of she admiting to not play video games fairly recently, prove the opposite
No, your argument was "she got 150k dollars for her "research" and didnt even play the damn games." [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.862715-How-much-LP-footage-did-Anita-Sarkeesian-steal-exactly?page=2#21498321] You do not get to pretend it was something different now.
she didnt do her research because she isnt a gamer, is that simple, you see, im presenting my argument and then i present my reasoning behind it