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

But seriously, I agree with you and John that the threats are disgusting.
I agree with you and John that the people making them are scum.
If we're in agreement over that, what the fuck "problem", am I part of?

Maybe you no longer are. At first you were dismissive.

Misogyny in games?
I am.
Misogyny in humans?
No.
Art isn't evil.
People are.

People didn't believe her at first, thinking she made up the whole thing. The FBI had to actually come out and say "we've been investigating these and they are happening."

Well, then the FBI has been incompetent, because they tell people who get threats not to respond to them, or publicizing them, and Anita has been Tweeting her ass off.
So, they seem to have neglected to tell her the very basics.

Really? The Birth of a Nation? The Eternal Jew? Snuff films? You can try arguing that they're "not art," but they are. Reprehensible art, but art.

Or they did but she decided not to follow their advice. That is a possibility since she does make her living by trying to stay in the spotlight.

Nope, sorry.
Had this argument with someone back in the earliest days of the 'net, haven't wavered.
The makers may have had wicked intent, but we recognize it as such, and in order to do so, it has to exist for us to comment on.

Don't exist.
News footage and home movies of death being captured don't count.
Likewise, home movies taken by serial killers.
A proper snuff FILM is something with a storyline, and acting, that ends in a real death, and it's planned that way.
Those only exist in urban legend.

Mmmm...no, I don't even acknowledge the term "reprehensible art", because that gets into value judgement, and that gets into the slippery slope of sour faced church ladies burning Elvis records.
It's a deadly precipice.

So it's automatically art if somebody says so?

Where the hell are you getting that from?

Apparently it's automatically art - and art without qualifiers or descriptors - if Diacanu says so.

Guys, guys, just because a game has women being raped, beaten, and treated as sexual objects doesn't mean it's against women. Sillies.

When you refuse to make a value judgment (post # 98).

In the context of attaching a moral component to a work of art, yes.

Where is this game?
Does it exist outside of your imagination?

Christopher Hitchens had this great line.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
I'm going to live by that right now and dismiss your claim.

Women getting harassed online?
No.
Women getting threatened with violence?
No.
Women getting doxed?
No.
Tiresome, pervasive sexism?
No.
Misogynists lying to divert money from a legitimate charitable organization?
No.

You're barely able to pay lip service to any of that.


But holy fuck are you concerned about some blogger saying things you disagree with. You've got no shortage of outrage when it comes to that. People having their personal information fucked with, people having their personal safety threatened, no big deal... but some woman criticizing your precious pop culture, that's something you can't abide.

So, it really comes down to, I'm not EMOTING the proper way for you folks.
In text.
Okay....that's really something.

I refer back to post #63.
I don't like illogic, and the politics of emotion don't get anywhere with me.
Make reasoned arguments, or GTFO.

Are you able to make a moral judgment about a death-threat?
Are you able to make a moral judgment about a threat of rape or an attack on someone's family?
Or are there no moral judgments to be made in your universe?

Post #65, #75, #91.

I think Diacanu needs to get out of his hetero cage and stop being such a phallic oppressor.

So we're back to "B-but it's okay if it's art."

Geez, it had better be.
"Dwellers In The Crucible", got rapey around the edges.
How would you react to some school marm saying your stuff was "reprehensible", or Heaven forbid "degenerate"?
Would you pull a Stephen King, and yank it off the shelves like he did with "Rage", or would you tell them to go swivel on it?

That's going to be the name of my custom OCC bike.

Obscenity, yes, but I'm also thinking of the propaganda value when it comes to things like the movies I mentioned above.

Something Barry Malzberg said on a panel at ICon once concretized it for me. John [Gor] Norman was also on the panel, whining about how the "sissy little girl editors in Manhattan didn't appreciate his work" and he was a "victim" of their "censorship." (And I'm thinking, Actually, buddy, you had a pretty good run until somebody figured out you stole "your" work verbatim from a translation of de Sade, but I kept my mouth shut.)

Malzberg was chairing the panel and he let Norman run on for a while and then steered the conversation around to American Psycho. Someone asked Barry if he thought the book should have been denied publication, censored? He said absolutely not, but "a writer should have a sense of self-censorship, a sense of when something is too much."

What he meant was not only obscenity, not only violence, but what those in the trade call "purple prose." Now, I'm as adjective-crazy as the next person, but there comes a point during the third or fourth draft where you say "Enough, already."

I don't think censorship or even brainwashing is even necessary. If our society could be more mindful of what we consume and how it affects us, we'd be better off. That's what I am arguing for.

Tapatalk is limiting my typing speed.

Then, you're preaching to the choir.

Someone retarded enough to think torturing women is a good idea from tearing Sonya Blade apart in Mortal Kombat, probably not gonna hear ya.