Lady Bits Kickstarter by Liana Kerzner

[TheMysteriousGX]

The funny thing about that is how the most common (or at least louder) criticism about Anita isn't towards her arguments, but towards assumptions of her reasons ("she is a con artist") and thought process ("to her, everything is sexist").

I mean, I don't really recall saying either, but seems to me both are substantiated on her actual actions, producing a staggering 5 hours worth of video over 5 years with a greater budget than those of several actual feature films with actors and filming locations and all that jazz, and the substance of the so-called arguments she put forth, either in said videos or on any of her regally remunerated talks.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: she put out what she said she would. That people gave her more money on top of that is neither her fault nor did it obligate her to do extra work she didn't say she was going to.

EDIT: If I ask people for $20 to make a gallon of potato salad, and I say that if I get $40 I'll make two gallons of potato salad, and my project goes so viral I get $2000, I'm not then obligated to make 100 gallons of potato salad.

 

[CaitSeith]

The funny thing about that is how the most common (or at least louder) criticism about Anita isn't towards her arguments, but towards assumptions of her reasons ("she is a con artist") and thought process ("to her, everything is sexist").

I mean, I don't really recall saying either, but seems to me both are substantiated on her actual actions, producing a staggering 5 hours worth of video over 5 years with a greater budget than those of several actual feature films with actors and filming locations and all that jazz, and the substance of the so-called arguments she put forth, either in said videos or on any of her regally remunerated talks.

I never said you said them. Otherwise I would ask you to provide verifiable evidence that support that such claims aren't just arbitrary personal judgement or coming from misinformed opinions; and overall, I would ask why they are relevant to her arguments (beyond being red herrings and straw men).

 

[CaitSeith]

What to trust? A well-documented research with several sources and academic analysis? Or an Internet meme? Tough choice IMO.

Or the time and again observed fact that people will, given the anonymity of the internet, act like dicks simply because they can.

But perhaps we should have a serious academic body look into that first - seems right up the prestigious Maximegalon Institute's alley to me.

Like how surprisingly obvious was for everyone that Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around it, when in reality neither of them is true? Jeez, the anti-science is strong in that sarcasm.

 

[RaikuFA]

Ms. Sarkeesian made the Time Magazine list of "The 100 Most Influential People In The World", for crying out loud.

So did the Kardashians, not a credible list IMO.

 

[Jupiter178]

So did the Kardashians, not a credible list IMO.

Keeping Up With the Kardashians has been running for 10 years and has millions of viewers. Kim Kardashian has more than 100 million followers on Instagram alone, and her estimated net worth is $150 million. You might not like the reasons she's famous, but you'd have to be in deep denial to say that her presence on Time's list damages the credibility of the list.

 

[Jupiter178]

And Sarkeesian spoke to the UN

The criticism of her (and by extension Kardashians) inclusion has more to do with the content than the scope.

Huh? The only test of credibility for a list of the most influential people in the world is whether or not those people are influential. Whether you like the ways in which they're influential is irrelevant. It's not a list of the 100 Most Coolest and Smartest and Nicest and Most Talented People in the World. Scope is what matters, not content. TIME didn't pick Donald Trump as Person of the Year because they think he's super cool.