aluminiumtrioxid

Could we not do the strawmanning? It's not like there is no other way to notify the player that within the game world, blowing a prostitute's brains out after paying her for services rendered, is rightfully considered to be ****ed up, without making women unkillable. I mean, being willing to draw the kind of heat such murders would logically incur, for what's basically pocket change, should be the equivalent of walking around with "I'M MENTALLY UNSTABLE AND HAVE ZERO CAPACITY FOR LONG-TERM THINKING" written on your forehead, and even purely from a verisimilitude standpoint, every questgiver NPC should treat you accordingly. Here's the crux of it. They do... it's why you get a wanted level in the game for killing people. And you obviously haven't played the game we're discussing. And you obviously haven't understood a word of what I've been writing.

Could we not do the strawmanning? It's not like there is no other way to notify the player that within the game world, blowing a prostitute's brains out after paying her for services rendered, is rightfully considered to be ****ed up, without making women unkillable. I mean, being willing to draw the kind of heat such murders would logically incur, for what's basically pocket change, should be the equivalent of walking around with "I'M MENTALLY UNSTABLE AND HAVE ZERO CAPACITY FOR LONG-TERM THINKING" written on your forehead, and even purely from a verisimilitude standpoint, every questgiver NPC should treat you accordingly.

This is such a weird argument. It's like, I'm a med student, it's obviously desirable for me to be able to connect the different subjects I am taught into a coherent whole that is more than the sum of its part, yet I'm pretty sure I'd be thrown out from the cytology exam if I started to ruminate about the finer points of intracellular signaling, despite the fact that the two are very much connected, because that's not what the focus of the subject is about. I'm not sure I can explain it more coherently than that. (I'm even less sure it makes sense for people who don't know what my cytology courses are about and how they relate to intracellular signalling.) And I think nothing illustrates her point more succintly than you honestly arguing that people being used as c*ck repositories, then shot in the head in order to save the player a trivial sum of money is a more positive portrayal, because they're "valued for their sexuality", than male antagonists being killed.

But why not assume McIntosh is Sarkeesian's sockpuppet? Based on the (rather scarce) evidence presented, it could be the other way around as well.

I strongly doubt Kickstarter's viability as a business practice will be forever tarnished by a product its funders are largely happy with. By the same logic, Harebrained Schemes (creators of the excellent Shadowrun Returns games) should also be exposed as scammers because in the kickstarter pitch, they promised us that every class will see the world fundamentally differently, which they not only refused to deliver on, but also failed to notify the backers about in advance. So should Larian Studios, because they cut the megadungeon from Divinity: Original Sin, also without consulting with their backers. Such immoral practices clearly have no place in a funding model so fundamentally reliant on consumer trust... ahahaha no, as long as the majority of the backers is happy with the final product they received, I doubt any project will seriously harm Kickstarter's reputation. This sounds like such a weird way to refer to Sarkeesian. Could you explain why you do so? Well the series is titled Tropes Vs. Women in video games, and while the way our society trivializes violence against men is deserving of being discussed as well, it's clearly not the focus of the project. (Actually the - around these parts, much-maligned - phrase "toxic masculinity" refers, among other things, to the underlying societal assumptions feeding these attitudes.) Btw. I don't appreciate your wild assumptions regarding my character and goals, and since I'm refraining from calling you, say, a vile misogynist scumbag who only wants to oppress and rape women, I'd be grateful if you extended the same courtesy (of not strawmanning based on lazy outgroup stereotypes) to me.

...Could we refrain from making the obvious (and therefore, boring) jokes, and instead try to focus on what she's saying? Pretty please, with cherry on the top?

You do realize that part 1 of five being not-great isn't exactly filling me with confidence for the other 4 (actually, 2; I've skimmed through 2 more in the meantime) being great, right? This is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. Except that it's true. The stupidity stems more from a complete lack of self-awareness ("very suitable for reinforcing feminist identity-building confirmation biases" in a topic that literally only exists to reinforce the participants' anti-feminist confirmation bias caused me to laugh out loud in disbelief) than lack of truthfulness. It sounds like, well, someone trying to imitate how he imagines people much smarter than him talk like, and failing miserably. Some of them. Incidentally, I think focusing on the Hitman: Absolution video to the exclusion of all else is really great at reaffirming one's confirmation bias(es) (wink wink), but less great at initiating actual dialogue about the points raised throughout the entire series. In all fairness, that's not inherently self-contradictory. One can have a problem with punishment for killing other people than the target being trivial, including the punishment for killing prostitutes.

...Seriously, the more I read from Lianna K., the more credibility she loses with me

Well that's refreshingly honest, I'll give you that

It's... not a particularly great article, I think. But it does have some valid points. I'm not sure there's interest for a detailed paragraph-by-paragraph recitation of my thoughts about it, but do correct me if I'm wrong. This is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

Which they shouldn't, according to you, because...? I find worrisome that there exists so many idiots in this society. You're dodging the question. Unlike what our experience in first grade has taught us, calling people who don't agree with us names does not count as a coherent argument about why they're wrong. Nice try, because i never implied that they shouldn't say anything. People can say whatever they want, but if it is idiotic, it simply just is, as i pointed out. And I never implied you implied they shouldn't say anything. I was pointing out that calling people names without expounding on the reasons why you're doing so is generally not seen as the road to constructive debate.

...How exactly would you solve the problem of crap food being available to low-income households? By taking said crap food away from them?

Which they shouldn't, according to you, because...? I find worrisome that there exists so many idiots in this society. You're dodging the question. Unlike what our experience in first grade has taught us, calling people who don't agree with us names does not count as a coherent argument about why they're wrong.

Where did I say the word "problem"? It's an opinion on her work output. They are satisfied but I suspect that has nothing to do with the actual work but her status as the focal point for the entire mess. Well the cries of "con artist" (exclusively from her detractors, mind) do point at the direction of the perceived existence of a problem. Their satisfaction has more to do with the fact that she voices issues many people have always had with gaming and nobody's ever touched the subject before her. So basically, lack of competition. Which they shouldn't, according to you, because...?

And the ones who do pay her are largely satisfied with it, so where exactly is the problem?

[citation needed] [citation needed] [citation needed]

It helps to approach it keeping in mind that 90% of anything created ever is always going to be ****, and there hasn't yet been anything like that, ever.

This right here, my friends, is a thing of sublime beauty.

...Said ravenshrike, the world's leading authority on liberal egalitarianism a random internet person. Seriously, why should we give any more weight to your personal opinion than to the rather extensive academic literature on the subject?

What do you mean? Edit: oh, the poster. Nevermind.

"Looksism theory posits that the primary cause for love-shyness and involuntary celibacy is physical appearance. " Sounds like someone faked this for an undergrad paper. Though the idea of "involuntary celibacy" is pretty funny, as if you're a victim of something Well in all fairness, the linked explanation is from what looks like an "incel" website. It's a... peculiar subculture, giving very different answers to the same perceived problems as the PUA/MRA community does. You might remember Elliot Rodger as a person being involved with them. In any case, they don't really have an overlap with the SJW demographic as far as I'm aware, the two operating on mutually incompatible basic assumptions. Here's what, well, sane people mean by "lookism". Edit: Intriguingly, the wiki page makes no mention of the halo effect, which is a rather well-researched area of basically the same phenomenon.

Except most problems in the world are neither caused by (imagined) benevolence, arrogance or malice, but simple ignorance and incompetence. People either don't, or literally can't, think of the harm their actions are causing. This seems like an irreconcilable difference in how we view the world; I can't help but think it's the height of arrogance to assume that most harm in the world comes as a result of someone's intent - either through backfiring or working as intended -, because it assumes that the universe, in the end, is not a huge and chaotic mess where things just happen and agency is largely an illusion; whereas, I'd venture, you probably think it's the height of arrogance to think that most people are so powerless against the inherently chaotic nature of life as to be unable to impact it in any meaningful fashion. So your problem is, essentially, that power corrupts, and the bigger the power, the bigger the risk of corruption - hence governments need to be limited in power, because that will prevent those who want to bend the world to their will from accruing the means to do so. Am I reading you correctly?

Well the same thing can be said for, say, the overwhelming majority of your fellow human beings, yet their existence is generally not portrayed as a problem; furthermore, most ethical systems call for, indeed, treating them as your friends. I may be missing something here.

Elaborate.

Ah irony abounds, first off slamming people for illiteracy when you apparently can't parse 'if'' Yes, thank you, Master, now I have seen the light. I was wrong to assume people actually tried to inform themselves about a subject before forming an opinion. Foolish me. Well it is a bad quality for a forum to allow. That said, Meshugger did ask me to be less polite in one of the endless incarnations of the GG subtopic. Seriously people, just make up your mind on what you want from me