Okay, guys, can somebody clarify something to me? I'm really confused as to what Sarkeesian DOES. The most common defense I hear of her is t… morehat she's just stating her own opinion while (and let's dust off the old finger quotes here) "journalists" say she's an academic. So is she making an argument or stating her opinion? I don't get it. She says games ca-oh wait lemme rephrase she said that games can "reinforces sexist ideas" which is incredibly wishy washy to begin with. If that's her opinion... well, that does not make it a fact. You can't just say: "oh, I think the industry is sexist" NO, either it is or it isn't!
If she truly is an academic like dem journos claim and she's presenting an argument... well she doesn't list her sources, gets facts about games wrong, misuses words constantly (even going as far as to make crappy fake ones) so that's not looking good either.
oh wait this is about guns??? eh... uh... guns don't kill people, but the postal dude does.
She does list her sources, she just does so at the level of a college sophomore. She's making arguments - some are intereting to think about, some are easy to tear apart, and some are flatout jumping the shark.
One example, she keeps referring to Martha Nussbaum's essay on objectification - the problem is that Martha Nussbaum then goes on to say that objectification is not nessecarily immoral in all situations, a fact which Sarkeesian fails to address. Sarkeesian only picks out the part that forward her idea.
Okay, guys, can somebody clarify something to me? I'm really confused as to what Sarkeesian DOES. The most common defense I hear of her is t… morehat she's just stating her own opinion while (and let's dust off the old finger quotes here) "journalists" say she's an academic. So is she making an argument or stating her opinion? I don't get it. She says games ca-oh wait lemme rephrase she said that games can "reinforces sexist ideas" which is incredibly wishy washy to begin with. If that's her opinion... well, that does not make it a fact. You can't just say: "oh, I think the industry is sexist" NO, either it is or it isn't!
If she truly is an academic like dem journos claim and she's presenting an argument... well she doesn't list her sources, gets facts about games wrong, misuses words constantly (even going as far as to make crappy fake ones) so that's not looking good either.
oh wait this is about guns??? eh... uh... guns don't kill people, but the postal dude does.
If guns kill people, I'm guessing cars drive themselves drunk, pencils misspell words, the fork makes people fat, and wars fight themselves.… more
My point is, its not the gun the person has. Its the person the gun belongs to. I personally own guns, and will defend my rights to the end.
I could go on all day about my thoughts on gun rights, but I'm going to save you all from a horrible rant.
(PS, I thought you were aiming towards your thoughts on gun rights. P!ease correct me if I'm wrong.)
Thus is true, but if you take the right to own guns away you will only be taking the guns away from those who will use it correctly. Those who wish to use a firearm wrongfully will get their hands on one either way. If no one has guns to defend themselves, the one who has a gun is more likely to harm them. The cities with the highest amount of registered gun owners are usually the cities with the lowest crime rate. Why? You be the judge.
Anyone seen the ABC video on her? Total one-sided bullshit. And I've heard that ABC is deleting comments challenging Anita. TotalBiscuit made a very good argument but now it's been removed.
That post was from about five months ago, my views have slightly changed. If you wish to discuss this further, PM me. But this thread as I've come to learn is flooded with ignorance and talking about it here would only insight further fights.
Comments
Can anyone explain to me what Gamergate is?
;-;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipcWm4B3EU4
ITS THE RIDE THAT NEVER ENDS
If guns kill people, I'm guessing cars drive themselves drunk, pencils misspell words, the fork makes people fat, and wars fight themselves.
My point is, its not the gun the person has. Its the person the gun belongs to. I personally own guns, and will defend my rights to the end.
I could go on all day about my thoughts on gun rights, but I'm going to save you all from a horrible rant.
(PS, I thought you were aiming towards your thoughts on gun rights. P!ease correct me if I'm wrong.)
Honestly, she's a complete idiot.
She does list her sources, she just does so at the level of a college sophomore. She's making arguments - some are intereting to think about, some are easy to tear apart, and some are flatout jumping the shark.
One example, she keeps referring to Martha Nussbaum's essay on objectification - the problem is that Martha Nussbaum then goes on to say that objectification is not nessecarily immoral in all situations, a fact which Sarkeesian fails to address. Sarkeesian only picks out the part that forward her idea.
Yes. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But the gun certainly helps!
Thus is true, but if you take the right to own guns away you will only be taking the guns away from those who will use it correctly. Those who wish to use a firearm wrongfully will get their hands on one either way. If no one has guns to defend themselves, the one who has a gun is more likely to harm them. The cities with the highest amount of registered gun owners are usually the cities with the lowest crime rate. Why? You be the judge.
Anyone seen the ABC video on her? Total one-sided bullshit. And I've heard that ABC is deleting comments challenging Anita. TotalBiscuit made a very good argument but now it's been removed.
That post was from about five months ago, my views have slightly changed. If you wish to discuss this further, PM me. But this thread as I've come to learn is flooded with ignorance and talking about it here would only insight further fights.