Never said it was right, but when you spam 4chan, the reaction that Sarkeesian got was expected due to the reputation of 4chan. And to be honest, its hardly "victim blaming" when the victim initiates the reaction. That's like felling sorry for the black guy who gets beaten at by the KKK after he moons them during one of their meetings. This is one of the instances where the phrase, "she asked for it" is honestly too true to ignore.Quadocky said:
Here you go with the red herrings and such. I'm sorry, but her barely researched "critiques" are pretty flawed. Anita Sarkeesian takes a backwards approach to finding sexism in forms of media. She starts off with the conclusion that whatever she's talking about is sexist and then uses cherrypicked points to try and prove it. My problem with that method is that she automatically labels the subject sexist rather than explore the possibility of it being a subject with some sexist aspect. She labels subjects as completely sexist and at points has admittedly judged things she hasn't completely looked at(like when she called a Kanye West music video sexist and openly said she didn't watch the whole video). I'm not rendering her judgments as anything more than half baked criticisms.
There's also a major issue of transparency of opinions in her online works, but I'll get into that later.
Thank you, this is the third time that you've pointed out that people are insanely callous on the internet. I'm out of gold stars. But seriously, the irony of how you claim that I'm giving her an "imagined authority" when she says her critiques is really too funny. Especially when coupled with the fact that you keep giving the words of trolls and people who aren't making intelligent discourse much more authority than they warrant.
Just a thought, quit bringing up the troll opinion because its not helping your point. To be real here, I don't even know your stance on this, its not clear and you've yet to state why you're defending Anita Sarkeesian. You seem to be defending her from trolls, not intelligent points.
By trolls, not by people who have points. If you can't accept the fact that people have legitimate gripes with her, why are you even arguing?
That's fine, but you're not arguing my points against her very well. I'm also not calling her a scammer or underhanded. Haven't done so at all during this back and forth. I'm questioning her ability to critique something without ignoring context completely. Are you debating me? Or do you wish you were debating trolls? Because you don't seem to have a handle on what I'm talking about and keep wanting to drag the conversation to something it has nothing to do with at the moment.
And you have no proof of this at all. You're ignoring people who are making an attempt at civil discourse over and over. Now please stop this nonsense of skirting around what I'm talking about.
The point is: Its like watching a bunch of racists argue whether or not white people can be racist while hanging a black man for looking at a white woman.
Pardon the morbid comparison, but that is basically the depths of wrongness I keep encountering in relation to Anita when people are just so keen on discussion about her.[/quote] Yet you've still ignored all of my points and only established that the majority of people you seem to be paying attention to can't make a well mannered argument. You've also proved that neither can you.
