"Mens Rights Activists" Impersonate Domestic Violence Organization online. Hilarity ensues.

You're not worth the effort. Fortunately, someone already did the work for me.

http://www.feministfrequency.com/

Enjoy.

In this thread we have learned what some people's True Religion is. The rhetoric has been...extraordinary.

Indeed. This thread is gonna get call backs for years.

And I am sure that, years from now, we'll still get the same old excuses like we just heard out of 14th doctor. The old, to paraphrase, "just because she says gaming companies need to change and not produce games like these any more doesn't mean she is calling for any type of censorship" ploy.

Yes, self censorship is still censorship any way you slice it.

So in what manner is it acceptable to criticize media?

People can criticise away to their heart's content but the moment you start saying that the stuff you don't personally like needs to no longer be made... Then you have crossed the line into advocating censorship. Sure, she has every right to demand censorship just as I have every right to speak out against her calls for censorship. The answer to objectionable speech is more speech not less and that is where she goes off the rails demanding less speech.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAAH

I haven't played nearly everything on that list, but of the ones I have played.

Yeah, she just went from little to zero credibility.

Just another feminazi.

Example of good and useful criticism:

" I don't like product Z because of reasons Y, W, and X. I think product C is superior due to reasons M, N, O so I urge you to buy product C instead of product Z."

Notice how that didn't involve advocating any form of censorship? It didn't demand that product C be removed from the market or that consumers should no longer even have the option of buying product C?

Well what makes it funny is she isn't just going after the ones that could be considered bad...like GTA. She's on a witch hunt and where she can't find any, she's hallucinating them.

And the good little drones are eating it up.

You're both adorable. I'm glad you're here to defend us from those evil feminist oppressors.

How many of those games have you played?

I also bet if it were a Christian complaining about the same things you would be shouting them down. If they were complaining about the sex, the violence, or the objectification of women. You would be one the first to defend the games.

So, threatening people with rape is bad, we agree.
There are unfortunate tropes, we agree.
Games don't make you a rapist or rape threatener, we agree.
Shit, we agree on everything!
But you've treated me like human garbage anyway.
Weird.

You disagree on censorship...

You disagree that gamers and devs are all (or mostly) a bunch of misogynists.

No, I'm not emoting enough.
Moral stances have to have demonstrated dramatic emotions behind them, because everybody has to be the same.

NOOOOOO!!! DON'T THREATEN ANIIIITAAAAA!!!!!!!!

SHE'S MADE OF CANDY AND MAGIC!!!!!! YOU FUCKING MOOOOOONSTERRRRRSSS!!!!

AWWWWW-HAWWW-HAWWWWW!!!!!!

WHYY?!?!!?! WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?! WHAT KIND OF WORLD ARE WE LIVING IN!!?!?!?!?!?!!?

There, how's that?

It may not be as important as some other things. No need to even make that case. But we are a multi-faceted society. We have room for more topics of concern.

Now, earlier John claimed that this guy hated women because he spoke out and called bull shit on Sarkeesian's claims but I would like to offer people a chance to make up their own minds by watching his rebutle for themselves to see if they think it was well reasoned or just motivated by this alledged all powerful hatred.

Hint: Reasoned disagreement is not hatred even if you hate the facts the guy brings up.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I

That might be true, actually. Motivation matters regarding the credibility of a critic.

Not to mention, Christians historically do demand bans on media they disapprove of, and those demands have been successful in getting bans enacted many times. Christians (and religious types in general) rarely stop at just complaining.

Or just highlights hypocrisy.

Show us where John said the guy hated women.
Don't talk about reasoned disagreement if you plan on embellishing what was said. I said the guy was anti-feminist. I also didn't call it an all powerful hatred.

I seem to be confusing you and a post by another user.

Misogyny is a person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or is biased against women simply because they are women. I had to go back to page nine to see who said it.

You just quoted Dicky.

Also:
mi·sog·y·nist
məˈsäjənəst/
noun
noun: misogynist; plural noun: misogynists
1.
a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women

You can be a misogynist and not actually hate women. I realize this doesn't fit into yes/no, black/white world, but there you go.

Yes. I was correcting when you posted then I liked your post to get your attention to the correction.

No, misogyny is not a person; it is a quality of some acts, communications, conventions, or attitudes. You can't disprove the misogyny of one act by pointing to other acts of the person, as if everyone were necessarily always either a misogynist or not.

This from the person who compared talking to other people disfavorably to diarrhea rather than admit he was plain wrong. You seem to think the things you say don't really count, somehow.

And yes, this also seems to be the case with a lot of the misogynist trolls who somehow believe calling it "trolling" makes it less real. "Trolling" is a description, not an excuse.

I think everyone has agreed that it is terrible and should stop just that it is also unfair to say everyone is responsible for the actions of just a few individuals. Also, yes, nthe antigamergate people really have tried to dismiss and marginalize the entire group as misogynists and women haters because of this. There are legit critiques which they are desperately trying to avoid answering.

Why did you decide to splice that quote at such an odd place?

I really don't know how to say that any clearer than I did in the post you just quoted. Did you read it?

There certainly are; I have some of my own. But legitimate criticism starts with what Sarkeesian actually said. Yours still insists she's making claims she explicitly and repeatedly said she isn't making.

She has said she wants video games to change the logical conclusion to that statement is she wants certain types of games to be made and certain types of games to be no longer made. Do you think that is an unfair statement?