21.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 05:57
21.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 15, 2014, 05:57
Oct 15, 2014, 05:57
 
It's not really relevant if Anita is false-flagging or not. She's a fraud either way.

She claims in her scripted, produced videos to be an avid gamer and that she's doing what she's doing because she wants the art form to improve, yet she's been filmed giving non-scripted presentations where she explains that she doesn't like or play video games because they make her feel all icky. She crowdfunded $150, 000 dollars and over about two years has used that money to turn out about three hours of content at a quality level that is, without exaggeration, outdone on a regular basis by several producers at That Guy With The Glasses, to say nothing of non-TGWTG producers like Stuart Ashen or Noah Antwiler (the latter has a skit at the end of his Final Fantasy 13 review where the game's most obnoxious character beats him senseless that looks like it had more effort put into it than the entirety of Anita's content combined.) She's accepting further donations for further content on her website; the website, unlike Kickstarter or Patreon, does not contain any information about how much she's received, how many people have donated, or any explanation about what she's working on besides Tropes Vs Women in Videogames. Speaking of Tropes Vs Women in Videogames, her videos plagiarize content from other Youtube personalities without credit (because getting her own footage would require playing videogames, which, remember, she doesn't like doing,) and often take footage from games out of context so she can claim them as examples of misogyny when, at best, they are no such thing and at worst they are the exact opposite. Her assertions like "players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual characters. It's a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality" would be great if she could back them up with evidence better than Hitman which mechanically punishes you for acting like a dickbag psycho instead of a detached assassin. There's also her assertion that women in video games must always be dolled up for maximum prettiness, not only ignoring the fact that most games with character creators have "no makeup" options, but apparently unaware of the multiple layers of makeup and enormous pieces of jewelry she herself is wearing as she says these things.

Oh and her boyfriend is a professional propagandist who hates videogames because they make people violent. Basically Jack Thompson but with enough common sense to recognize the value of maintaining the appearance of propriety instead of publicly throwing hissyfits.

Anita is held on such a pedestal because of the inability of people to disassociate views and goals with someone who professes to support them, no matter how shady and dishonest they ultimately turn out to be. This leads to this ridiculous "if you don't agree with us %100 you're a horrible, horrible person" mentality that SJWs are so well-known for. Since there is no reasonable defense of someone like this, the only way of making an argument excusing this behavior is to take the position that the ends justify the means; we're fighting misogyny, so it doesn't matter that Anita is a slimeball and a con-artist! It's even worse with Leigh Alexander; Anita has at least some PR skills and can paint herself as a victim, Leigh Alexander shows up drunk on podcasts, makes racist comments, advocates violence against people who disagree with her, and takes sadistic pleasure in her attempts to damage the lives of other people. Trying to justify her behavior requires such surreal leaps in logic you may as well be writing a script for an episode of The Twilight Zone.

Beamer wrote on Oct 14, 2014, 20:22:
Since I think many missed it yesterday, I feel that this blog by a Bioware dev is excellent. He actually has many entries on the topic. His point that #gamergate is utterly ignored by gaming websites is very true, despite there often being claims that those same websites are tarring and feathering the supporters. I think his hypothesis is right - #gamergate supporters just don't matter to IGN/Kotaku/RPS/etc. They don't visit those sites with any regularity.

Probably true. It's the hardest of the hardcore that give a shit about #gamergate one way or the other, and we don't usually bother with those kinds of sites.

The fact that Kotaku, Polygon and Gamasutra have lost major sponsors and every website that participated in the "gamers are dead, lol" articles has lost a large chunk of traffic, and thus ad revenue, would suggest otherwise. One of them's even recently added a paywall.

NOT THE BEES! NOT THE BEES THEY'RE IN MY EYES AARRGRHGHGGAFHGHFGHFG!
Avatar 51686
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Oct 14, 2014Oct 14 2014
2.
Oct 14, 2014Oct 14 2014
3.
Oct 14, 2014Oct 14 2014
4.
Oct 14, 2014Oct 14 2014
5.
Oct 14, 2014Oct 14 2014
6.
Oct 14, 2014Oct 14 2014
14.
Oct 14, 2014Oct 14 2014
13.
Oct 14, 2014Oct 14 2014
15.
Oct 14, 2014Oct 14 2014
25.
Oct 15, 2014Oct 15 2014
33.
Oct 16, 2014Oct 16 2014
7.
Oct 14, 2014Oct 14 2014
8.
Oct 14, 2014Oct 14 2014
9.
Oct 14, 2014Oct 14 2014
10.
Oct 14, 2014Oct 14 2014
16.
Oct 15, 2014Oct 15 2014
18.
Oct 15, 2014Oct 15 2014
19.
Oct 15, 2014Oct 15 2014
20.
Oct 15, 2014Oct 15 2014
     Re: etc., etc.
22.
Oct 15, 2014Oct 15 2014
     Re: etc., etc.
23.
Oct 15, 2014Oct 15 2014
      Re: etc., etc.
24.
Oct 15, 2014Oct 15 2014
      Re: etc., etc.
31.
Oct 15, 2014Oct 15 2014
       Re: etc., etc.
32.
Oct 15, 2014Oct 15 2014
        Re: etc., etc.
34.
Oct 16, 2014Oct 16 2014
       Re: etc., etc.
35.
Oct 16, 2014Oct 16 2014
        Re: etc., etc.
36.
Oct 16, 2014Oct 16 2014
         Re: etc., etc.
39.
Oct 16, 2014Oct 16 2014
          Re: etc., etc.
37.
Oct 16, 2014Oct 16 2014
         Re: etc., etc.
42.
Oct 16, 2014Oct 16 2014
         Re: etc., etc.
26.
Oct 15, 2014Oct 15 2014
      Re: etc., etc.
28.
Oct 15, 2014Oct 15 2014
30.
Oct 15, 2014Oct 15 2014
29.
Oct 15, 2014Oct 15 2014
11.
Oct 14, 2014Oct 14 2014
17.
Oct 15, 2014Oct 15 2014
12.
Oct 14, 2014Oct 14 2014
 21.
Oct 15, 2014Oct 15 2014
Re: etc., etc.
27.
Oct 15, 2014Oct 15 2014
38.
Oct 16, 2014Oct 16 2014
40.
Oct 16, 2014Oct 16 2014
41.
Oct 16, 2014Oct 16 2014
43.
Oct 16, 2014Oct 16 2014
44.
Oct 16, 2014Oct 16 2014
47.
Oct 17, 2014Oct 17 2014
45.
Oct 17, 2014Oct 17 2014
46.
Oct 17, 2014Oct 17 2014
48.
Oct 19, 2014Oct 19 2014
49.
Oct 19, 2014Oct 19 2014
50.
Oct 19, 2014Oct 19 2014