- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:5000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 5025 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 14733
I'm not sure if this is just one big joke, but dear god I'm sick to death of it.
|>>|| No. 14734
It seems to be in fashion now, just like that new-atheism shit was a few years back. It'll blow over and everyone will go back to sanity soon.
But not before the bbc put a programme about the oppression of modern British women on TV tonight.
|>>|| No. 14735
You wouldn't encounter it if you didn't spend all your time on imageboards. I only ever see it in campus newspapers, but I can readily ignore them then because they're campus newspapers.
|>>|| No. 14738
You can be mad about it thanks to your white, cis-male, middle-class, first-world privilege. You wouldn't be saying this if you were a poor black-woman. You complaining about it is in itself a display of your privilege.
|>>|| No. 14741
Posting stuff from Comment is Free is almost cheating. I'm pretty sure they get complete nutjobs to write their opinion pieces and then give them a clickbait title.
|>>|| No. 14744
Yeah yeah. Whenever the next wave of fishing rolls around we can always count on some twats to dismiss it as madness as opposed to engaging with it. You'd have found plenty of similar people around the turn of the last century griping about being sick to death of those bloody Suffragettes.
|>>|| No. 14747
A lot of it is directed towards the video games industry.
A lot of people will say 46% of people who play games are women but that counts mobile games which is a different market to traditional PC and console games.
Just seems odd that this is the industry they choose rather than the real equality problems in 3rd world countries where women may not have an opinion. Interestingly when MGS: Ground Zeros came out there was a theme of "war is hell" from the brutal torture of POWs. One of the characters, a young male child had bolts in his heels and was suffering from PTSD. He was almost forced to have sex with another POW. The female 20 something POW had been tortured, she had two bombs put inside her (with several of her internal organs removed) and was raped. These SJWs ignore the majority of that and focus on the woman in the next game for wearing sexy clothing. They almost ignore the female POW being raped and they ignore everything else. Some of which ignore previous games in the series and in game collectables (collectables that give you context of what's happening in the POW camp). Some wanted this game to be banned yet they go on about video games being art. Art cannot be art if it's censored.
There's a few other games that deal with male rape but it's considered comedy to these sick people. I hope, like other people in this thread, it will all blow over and people regain their sanity.
|>>|| No. 14749
Wasn't the context of this image being that the man flashed his penis in front of the protest?
Sort of funny given most of these protests involve topless women.
|>>|| No. 14752
Yeah the girl in front of the guy with the colourful bag. Those crazy Brazillians.
|>>|| No. 14753
Well it was like an anti rape thing, so I can imagine why some dude whipping his dick out might cause some commotion.
Still... that guys fucking face.
|>>|| No. 14756
I'm kind of still waiting for the day when they inevitably turn on one other but I suppose that won't happen until they run out of targets.
Of course in real life the big one is gay rights. I'm okay with gay people. Everyone I associate with is okay with gay people. Do I want to circle jerk with you on the matter? No and I'm not going to validate whatever argument you are mindlessly parroting on the matter because it just doesn't bear discussion at this point.
Ha. Its called 'Blurred Lines' because of the song that's about Robin Thick raping people or whatever it was interpreted to be about.
The thing I like about this image is there really is so much going on in it.
There is the woman with her face covered clearly throwing something at the guy but doing her best to cover up that she is the one doing it. Textbook example of the person who goes to protests with the intention of starting shit.
The girl on the left of her is clearly a bit shy and has been pushed aside by the two girls who clearly have to be the centre of attention. Whilst the two to her right are discussing clawing the guy.
|>>|| No. 14757
According to the law, until recently men could not be raped. Even now women still cannot rape.
|>>|| No. 14759
The type of people who go on about being annoyed by privilege theory are usually those who don't understand it and haven't bothered to educate themselves. It's a little bit like those people who spam 'ANTI-RACIST = ANTI-WHITE'.
|>>|| No. 14761
Only if penetration takes place. Otherwise, it's mere sexual assault, which has a maximum sentence of 10 years.
|>>|| No. 14762
They have turned against each other before.
For example sex-positive and sex negative fisherpersons aren't fond of each other. There are people in the LGBT community who actually hate trans people. There are women who considered themselves fisherpersons who call out other fisherpersons for not supporting certain issues.
And of course there's the less mad types who have jumped out of several communities after seeing the mad types take over their cause. There is some talk that SJWs get vulnerable people to join them and essentially brainwash them. Vulnerable people who are struggling to figure out their sexuality or have been abused in some way. It's pretty much a cult at this point.
|>>|| No. 14766
Then there are people who spout sociology buzzwords and expect people to understand hat they mean. When asked about those buzzwords this type of person will usually cry about it not being their job to educate you, and call you some silly insult they made up because all the good insults are ablist.
|>>|| No. 14767
How can it be rape without penetration? Isn't that what separates rape from sexual assault? The fact that the perpetrator is having sex with the victim?
>They can be charged with an offense of equal severity though, surely?
Good luck with that one in the police station.
|>>|| No. 14768
That is scandalous. I used to work with a bloke who claimed our boss was blackmailing him into having sex with her and he was too afraid to quit or call the police. I told him whatever she was holding over him surely couldn't be as bad as being a sex slave and cheating on his wife.
He just sort of mumbled.
So, I went round her house and drew a massive cock in her garden with the word RAPIST along the shaft in red diesel and set her bins on fire. She left him alone after that, or so he claimed. I left soon after and lost touch, which is a shame.
|>>|| No. 14769
What separates rape from sexual assault is that a rapist must be using their penis to penetrate the victim.
|>>|| No. 14772
>There are people in the LGBT community who actually hate trans people
By people, I think you mean militant anglers. Julie Bindel, for one definitely.
|>>|| No. 14775
Nope. The law is explicit that a person commits rape only if they penetrate another with their penis. Penetration other than the vagina, anus or mouth is not rape. Penetration other than by a penis is not rape.
Oh, and apparently now lying to the woman is rape too because consent can now come with conditions.
|>>|| No. 14776
But that's what I said. Only if penetration takes place is it 'an offence of equal severity'. What did I say that was misleading?
|>>|| No. 14779
>Then there are people who spout sociology buzzwords and expect people to understand if they're going to try to critique the concepts those words refer to
|>>|| No. 14780
Actually that's only by the strict definition of the term. They would still be guilty under the Sexual Offences Act by forcing penetration which carries much the same sentencing.
Our law may be a mess but it still somehow works. Don't take all your points from MRAs.
Anyway the difference in sentencing relates to the mechanics of it, putting someone in you is slightly more invasive than something of yours being put in them.
What if I do understand the theory but raise objections due to issues such as having human empathy?
|>>|| No. 14781
Just switch on the BBC doc.
I've seen 7 pairs of tits so far and I've only watched a minute of it so far.
|>>|| No. 14782
>Actually that's only by the strict definition of the term.
Well, yes. That's how the law works. You will never be charged with rape if the prosecution believes you knobbed the victim in the ear.
|>>|| No. 14783
Right, I've seen it twice here today - will someone please explain 'MRA'?
Don't anyone be a twat, I have tried Google and it returned a load of companies the names of which form the acronym 'MRA'.
|>>|| No. 14785
You should be embarrassed by your inability to search the web. It stands for men's rights activis[m|ist]. I know Google results are personalised these days, but I bet you just didn't bother to click the first result (Urban Dictionary).
|>>|| No. 14786
They're talking about rape jokes on the internet now.
Smile for the camera, lads.
|>>|| No. 14788
There's also a bit of a rift between pro-choice and pro-life fisherpersons. The former of which says the latter aren't 'real fisherpersons'.
|>>|| No. 14789
Kirsty Wark saying "suck my fukkin' noggin" and "Mary, Mary my Clunge-Hairy" has made my night
|>>|| No. 14790
Bugger me, you're right too. Don't know how I missed that, sorry; thanks anyhow.
|>>|| No. 14791
And yet here we are with two offences for sexual relations without consent (or however you want to define it).
The law is funny like that but then it is very, very old. If you wanted to continue spouting things you could go on to say that legally lesbian couples cannot consummate a marriage because that has certain aspects of the mechanics whilst gay men can because sticking your willy in someone is established law.
|>>|| No. 14792
Main type of fisherpersons I encounter are very much of the intersectional variety. They try and help all the oppressed groups, because it's easier to fight oppression with a larger force. That's why fisherpersons also tend to be the sorts to talk about white privilege, able privilege, thing privilege, hetero privilege, binary privilege, cis privilege etc. While this is nice in theory, a lot of it seems like they're only supporting these minority groups so they can get the black/gay/disabled folk behind fishing. And I think some of that SJW stuff can really turn people against an otherwise worthy cause. One might want to assist these oppressed people, but when you're being called a white cis-het privileged male and effectively told that your opinions aren't as worthwhile and to stop mansplaining, it doesn't help their cause.
Also they never seem to address classism, which is annoying, as lack of class mobility has been a major issue in this country for years, and definitely affects more people than something like non-binary polyamorous relatonships do.
|>>|| No. 14793
So it turns out that mainstream press caused us regular people into misogynistic.
I'm ok with this. I was expected a very biased documentary but it's not too bad.
|>>|| No. 14797
>Also they never seem to address classism
The ones I know do, but from the Marxist sense of class.
|>>|| No. 14800
They're talking about the issue of consent now
They're obviously not going to talk about how people are confused if a person is consenting and have a fear that they're going to be called a rapist the next day. With the discussion of what can be considered rape in this thread there is a lot of confusion and it needs to be sorted somehow.
There's a lack of balance and one side is being favoured over the other.
|>>|| No. 14802
I saw two fisherpersons get into a massive spat about class: one a southern, middle class, woman of colour, the other a white, working class, northern lass.
The former said the latter was racist, and that class in no way even compares to race. Apparently she had no idea what sort of oppression she goes through every day. It just struck me as utterly self-obsessed and entirely lacking empathy.
|>>|| No. 14803
I would love some soft core pornography in my morning paper. The problem is that I just can't bring myself to buy a copy of The Sun.
|>>|| No. 14804
>people are confused if a person is consenting
I don't even. Is it that difficult to find out?
|>>|| No. 14805
There's been cases of women who lie about rape even though both parties were consenting. The only way you can truly prove there was no rape going on is placing hidden cameras around the bedroom but that's a bit illegal itself and fairly disturbing.
|>>|| No. 14806
I am sorry to interject but whom are you calling a fisherperson and why?
The one possible version I can come with is that you are referring to women who were not very fond of a word 'fisherman'. Up to the point that it has probably been covered by media and caused some amount of ridicule, laughter and so on. Am I right?
|>>|| No. 14808
this wordfilter makes the whole thread a bit confusing. I'm not entirely sure what you're asking because of it.
|>>|| No. 14810
This time can't cope soon enough. Radfems can suck my arse, the mardy, Tumblr using cunts
|>>|| No. 14812
>Tumblr using cunts
This isn't much of an insult. Tumblr is looked down upon I think largely because of its high concentration of social justice warriors and their propensity to make shitty GIFs. You may as well insult practising Christians for going to church.
|>>|| No. 14813
Is she drunk? Yes? Then "yes" means "no".
Did she ask you to withdraw? Then that's binding and if you fail "yes" means "no".
Did you exaggerate or outright lie about anything? Then "yes" may mean "no", especially if she's shallow.
Was she scared before you arrived? Then "yes" might be disregarded.
Did the condom split? Then "yes" means "no".
|>>|| No. 14814
Define 'drunk'. I'm not being fernickety here, I'm really unsure about how things sit. Are we talking a little tiddly, catatonic, or somewhere in the middle (or rather, presumably somewhere in the middle but where exactly)? What if the man's drunk?
Essentially, my issue is this: if you've got two drunk people who have consensual sex, and the woman regrets it in the morning, then what? What about the same situation where the man regrets it? I'm not trying to make a point about things being unfair, I don't mind if the answer's 'the man has to bear responsibility' - I just genuinely don't know how it works.
|>>|| No. 14815
There is the fascinating conspiracy that outsiders infiltrate sites in order to gain mod powers or to influence opinion. Doesn't stop at SJWs though.
Just the other day I read that reddit removed (unsure if it was deleted or just removed from the front page. I don't use the website) its technology section as they figured out certain words and acronyms (such as "NSA") were filtered in some way to prevent people from talking about it.
On the otherchan there has been plenty of talk about how marketers and forum-sliders are trying to change them into family friendly consumers which is kind of difficult considering it's a massive anonymous imageboard. There was a recent security issue that proved some posters are trying this sort of thing.
|>>|| No. 14816
I was drunk when I lost my virginity, like falling down drunk. Some may say I was raped or taken advantage of. Honestly not arsed, it gave me one thing to not worry about.
|>>|| No. 14817
>Did she ask you to withdraw? Then that's binding and if you fail "yes" means "no".
He loses a lot credibility with this. It's nonsense. That's a case of "no" meaning "no" and it really doesn't belong with his other examples, some of which I doubt are grounded in reality, especially the last one.
|>>|| No. 14818
>if you've got two drunk people who have consensual sex, and the woman regrets it in the morning
Then potentially you're a rapist. There's the matter of whether she'd have let you do her sober, and whether in your drunken state you did enough to confirm consent.
|>>|| No. 14819
So it's rape when the man continues to have sex despite the fact the woman doesn't have the capacity to consent or revokes her consent. I don't see the problem.
I didn't even understand your bit about condoms and had to Google it, which makes it appear to be some reference to Julian Assange. I'm not surprised an MRA like yourself is clued-up on such obscure rape case law.
|>>|| No. 14820
why do you imply MRA is a bad thing? I think all genders should have rights.
|>>|| No. 14821
>It's nonsense. That's a case of "no" meaning "no"
No, lad. It's "yes" meaning "no". In the case that set this particular precedent, it was common ground between the prosecution and the defendant that the woman had in fact consented to penetrative sex.
|>>|| No. 14822
>doesn't have the capacity to consent
u wot m8?
>revokes her consent
u wot m8?
|>>|| No. 14824
I think all races should have rights, but find the idea of a white rights organisation to be inherently troubling. Same concept applies.
|>>|| No. 14826
So apparently disagreeing with the "all men are rapists" thing makes you an MRA now? Get fucked, lad.
|>>|| No. 14827
But the sex that took place after "yes" but before "no" wasn't rape. As you say, it was consensual. The sex that took place after "no" was rape. No means no. I'm very aware that many fisherpersons lose all sense of reason in describing things as rape, so don't mistake me for being on their side, but you are equally full of shit.
|>>|| No. 14829
So what you're saying is everyone should have rights but specific groups of people shouldn't have rights?
|>>|| No. 14830
>The sex that took place after "no"
There wasn't any. There was no "no" given during the act.
|>>|| No. 14831
>Did she ask you to withdraw? Then that's binding and if you fail "yes" means "no".
But you said the man still had his penis inside her..? That's during sex, is it not?
|>>|| No. 14832
No, that's not even remotely close to approximating anything like what I'm saying you utter fucking cretin.
|>>|| No. 14833
Nope it was exactly what you meant. I may be a cretin but at least I'm not a hypocritical racist who hates themselves and generalises entire groups of people.
I'm less of a horrible person than you which is a victory in my book.
|>>|| No. 14834
>But you said the man still had his penis inside her..?
I had assumed that you'd do the mental work to realise that I'm not talking about a woman calling a halt during the act. The woman had consented to sex, but expressed a wish that her husband should withdraw before ejaculating. They then proceeded to have sex, but he did not withdraw. He was convicted of rape on this basis.
|>>|| No. 14835
I should add that she was lucky it hadn't happened 20 years earlier, before the rather wonderfully titled R v R. That was the case that finally put an end to the idea that marriage implies consent.
|>>|| No. 14848
Saying a group deserves rights is not the same as saying you need something to advocate those rights.
Come on lad, it's not hard to understand.
|>>|| No. 14849
>One might want to assist these oppressed people, but when you're being called a white cis-het privileged male and effectively told that your opinions aren't as worthwhile and to stop mansplaining, it doesn't help their cause.
You tell them that and their reaction is along the lines of "So what you're saying is that you're such a horrible person that you only want to help people when you benefit from it?"
|>>|| No. 14852
Oh. My. Fucking. God. My internet stops working for one fucking evening and this happens. Nae even the pround .gs is any longer immune.
And does every thread on /101/ have to be a cunt off?
|>>|| No. 14854
Fuck you, I'm just sad that .gs has turned into /r9k/ in the space of a day.
|>>|| No. 14857
I hate the word 'progressive'. It implies so much that it isn't necessarily.
|>>|| No. 14859
What are you even talking about? Which side do you think I'm on? And who the hell told you I'm closeted!?
|>>|| No. 14860
>I hate this word, I hate that word, I'm too edgy to engage with the concepts behind them
|>>|| No. 14865
You're doing a strange thing were I've engaged you in an act of jest and now you're being serious with it and, well, I'm not sure where to go now.
|>>|| No. 14866
yes, everyone who doesn't have a hard on for anita sarkeesian and a burning hatred for MRA's is a lager drinking, Clarkson loving bigot. Well done ladm8.
|>>|| No. 14905
Exactly, because sex is something a man does to a woman or, more precisely, which a man wins and a woman gives away. This silly notion that people seem to cling to that sex is something two equals do together is just that: silly.
|>>|| No. 14906
I know lots of women who love the male porn star James Dean. He doesn't seem to be particularly gentle though, every video I've seen of his he's smacking some woman about, spitting in her face e.t.c.
Why do the girls like him so much?
|>>|| No. 14907
I watched a video of a blogger fucking James Dean. She wrote about it and it was a load of shit.
It was pretty much her saying how empowered she was for fucking a porn star and told her mam about the whole thing.
|>>|| No. 14908
I seem to remember that he talks to the woman beforehand about what they want etc so they agree beforehand they want rough treatment.
|>>|| No. 14909
I don't think that's particularly unusual. There was a porn actress who did an AMA on reddit who called him a "wolf in sheep's clothing" because he pretended to be this great sexy guy when actually he's a violent prick.
|>>|| No. 14910
So if you told a bunch of complete lies to a woman and she agreed to sex on that basis, would she have reasonable grounds to claim she'd been raped when she found out it was bullshit? I'm thinking about guys who lie that they're some big shot or offer promises of favours for sex but fail to deliver (the favours that is). Whilst definitely a deceitful and twattish way to act I don't think it deserves putting in the same category as potentially violent and thoroughly unpleasant rape.
|>>|| No. 14911
I recall a quote from an interview from his early years in the industry, when he was about 20. At that time, he was doing a lot of MILF scenes, because that's the main market for a young male performer. When asked how he got through scenes with a woman that he isn't very attracted to, he replied "I find one beautiful thing about the woman and focus on that".
That's the magic of James Deen in a nutshell. Most male porn performers are just stunt cocks - they're well endowed and have a great deal of stamina, but that's the limit of their abilities. Deen is operating on a different level entirely, because he understands both women and the nature of performance.
If you watch his scenes, you'll notice that he makes persistent eye contact. Most male performers tend to look at what they're doing, or gaze off into the middle distance while mentally reciting times tables to slow themselves down. To borrow a phrase from the self-help industry, Deen is "present in the moment". He is interested in the girl, not just her holes.
He looks like an ordinary guy who is having a great time fucking all these women, rather than some gym lunk grunting his way through 200 reps of reverse cowgirl. He's funny and charming and a little bit goofy, but he also has a big cock and knows how to use it.
Little surprise that he's in a relationship with Stoya, who is his direct female counterpart.
|>>|| No. 14913
No "rape by deception" isn't a crime in the uk.
There was a Palestinian bloke who got done for pretending to be Jewish so that he could boink an Israeli woman though.
|>>|| No. 14916
Well, I'm sorry but if you're going to live your life like a fucking Carry On film then expect repercussions.
|>>|| No. 14917
This is the best advice I've heard in years. I'm going to change my name to Dick Biggun and start up a milk delivery firm.
|>>|| No. 14918
>I seem to remember that he talks to the woman beforehand about what they want etc so they agree beforehand they want rough treatment.
This always happens prior to shooting in professional porn - the contracts that are signed beforehand are comprehensive and incredibly specific, to protect the company from litigation.
|>>|| No. 14920
Section 76 provides that given certain deceptions it is presumed both that there was no consent and the accused knew it. Arguably if you claimed to be someone you were not, and claimed that the woman could meet someone if they gave you head, then you had deceived her as to purpose of the act. Wider than these specific provisions, the courts have decided that consent can be conditional, without necessarily drawing a line limiting what it can be conditional on. Potentially, you could be prosecuted on the basis that she would have consented to sex with the person you claimed to be, but not to sex with the person you really are - which would be difficult to deal with, because your defence points are the sort of thing that don't go down well in court.
|>>|| No. 14921
I'd expect that the "talent" would be told in advance what's expected of them, in much the same way that in the mainstream business actors will be sent the script before they decide.
|>>|| No. 14922
Thin privilege is a great one too. Aside from the fact that for guys, being on the skinny side of the spectrum can be just as bad as being on the chubby side.
|>>|| No. 14927
When do actually encounter this shit? You never do, ever. Stop going out of your way to find stupid things.
When you see a sign reading "Achtung Minen", go around, not across.
|>>|| No. 14936
Are you accusing him of being a closet fatty like those anti-gay preachers in America?
|>>|| No. 14938
Because the only reasonable way to get fat into your body is by ingesting it.
|>>|| No. 14941
No you're body makes the fat to store the excess calories you gobble down. Keep up fatlad.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 14942
Agreed. Most of my fatness comes from beer. 100% fat free, still makes me fat.
|>>|| No. 14950
Well, that is just the one study. I'm surprised to hear their conclusion. It would seem obvious that regularly drinking a beverage with a high sugar content would lead to putting on weight.
|>>|| No. 14951
Beer doesn't have a high sugar content, most of the sugar you put in gets fermented. Fizzy soft drinks or sweet ciders would be far worse for sugar.
The thing with beer is that quite a lot of it is water, so you can fill up your stomach a lot faster than if you were ingesting the equivalent energy content in solid form. Sure if you were to drink 15 beers a day every day the calorie content would get to you but very few people drink that heavily compared to the number of people with 'beer bellies'. It's mostly a genetic factor in terms of where your body stores fat and how quickly it metabolises energy.
|>>|| No. 14953
Beer generally rocks in at ~200 calories per pint. Fifteen pints a day on top of a sufficient food intake is not necessary to put on weight. Every beer you drink is like eating a bar of chocolate.
|>>|| No. 14955
>Beer generally rocks in at ~200 calories per pint.
Yes and no. The content will be around 200, but your intake will only be around 50-70. The bulk of the calorific content is in the ethanol, which your body doesn't store.
|>>|| No. 14956
But your body tries to burn it up as fast as it can, thereby making it store carbs as fat.
|>>|| No. 14957
>The 'beer belly' phenomenom is a myth lad.
Who let Goebbels on.gs?
|>>|| No. 14959
>Every beer you drink is like eating a bar of chocolate.
No it isn't. I can eat a bar of chocolate at 8 o'clock on the bus, but I can't sit with me pint of OP without receiving disapproving looks.
|>>|| No. 14964
Anita Sarkeesian is a goonish, anti-sex troglodyte who's just gaming the media on the pretense that she gives a fuck about anything she's talking about beyond her petty little misinterpretations of them.
I'm upset that she's gained so much traction off the back of acting like victim.
|>>|| No. 14967
Not quite, but close. In laymans' terms, alcohol is a (delicious) poison and your body treats it as such. In particular, your liver makes it a priority to metabolize alcohol over other things and, rather than make food available as energy, it takes a shortcut and feeds lipid cells while it's busy breaking down alcohol into something not quite so harmful. That's acetaldehyde if you have an unfortunate genetic trait in that regard (i.e. are not of, roughly, afro-european decent). If not the latter, you probably produce a reasonable of dehydrogenase enzymes to catalyse it into formic acid. I.e. paint stripper to an ant bite.
Either way, your body more happily stores rather than makes available calories while it's fighting off poisoning. So beer in itself doesn't make you fat, but the kebab you have after? Doubly effective.
|>>|| No. 14968
She only mildly irritated me because she was asking for $250,000 to make a web-series, something a million billion other people do on a budget of almost nil.
|>>|| No. 14970
I'm more annoyed about her asking for the money to make the web series and so far only two videos have been made and it took the first video several months after it was meant to go up.
That and the fact the video game footage wasn't even recorded by her at all.
It's made people reluctant to support crowdfunding in the same way people are very annoyed that the Towns developer has dropped the project when it's no where near complete making people lose faith in the early access scheme. There is a lot of anger in the video game community for a variety of reasons and Anita is one of them. She popularized the whole women in video games thing and as a result games are being forced to appeal to a demographic that will not buy them. By demographic I mean the whole SJW crowd who will whine about something as trivial as women not being represented in a world war 2 game. It's kind of like how the BBC will cast a black person to be a nobleman in a period drama where the time period did not look favourably on black people. They're somewhat forced to do that because some busybody will complain about the lack of diversity on that programme.
|>>|| No. 14974
>It's kind of like how the BBC will cast a black person to be a nobleman in a period drama where the time period did not look favourably on black people.
Are you referring to Merlin? IIRC black people were basically considered interesting oddities before the renaissance (they just weren't often encountered, although they existed) and the idea of them as a separate race deserving of contempt didn't really exist until the Atlantic slave trade began.
|>>|| No. 15002
As much as I'd rather not blame victims of internet harassment for their problems, the way in which this particular individual has controlled and cherry picked any negative correspondence that she's received is dishonest and misleading.
That said I don't like to contribute to being a hateful cunt on the internet and I don't condone those that do so.
|>>|| No. 15004
I don't think it would be entirely unfair to say that she brought a good part of that upon herself, which most people who end up in that situation haven't done.
|>>|| No. 15005
I agree. She should not have shown how misogynistic the gaming community is, and she definitely shouldn't have stood up for herself, because she is a woman.
|>>|| No. 15008
Yeah, because being confused by someone taking $160,000 for 'research funding' is woman-hating bigotry. Even her supporters are getting ignored when they're asked "yo Anita where the $ at?" ( e.g. readwrite.com/2013/03/19/anita-sarkeesian-i-love-you-but-please-show-me-the-money ).
People like Sarkeesian are a lot like Pewdepie and Alex Jones; they're experts at developing and monetising their media profiles. Factor in the 160,000 with the substantial level of disclosed donations (see http://www.fisherpersonfrequency.com/donate/donors/ ) you begin to take notice of how much wedge this little project is accruing, relative to the amount of work it really entails (not a lot).
Ironically one of the beneficiaries of this scheme is Jonathan McIntosh, her (maybe) partner and 'producer'. The two have (apparently) been together since 2007. Some stalwart keyboard warrior has done the stalking for me, although a lot of the links have since 404'd; http://anongamer.tumblr.com/
|>>|| No. 15009
In fact let's do a spot of number crunching. According to Sarkeesian, there are over 100 'monthly sustainer' donors to fisherperson Frequency (her website). These sustainers give US minimum each month (see http://www.fisherpersonfrequency.com/donate/ ), up to $25 a month. At a minimum, fisherperson Frequency is taking over $500 a month in donations, plus $160,000 from Kickstarter, plus whatever the approximate 500 'one-time donors' have given (I think $5 is a reasonable estimate, though information detailing this is not available).
This adds up, using my approximate numeracy, to a substantial amount of moolah. I wonder what they spend it on.
|>>|| No. 15013
This is embarrassing. Go back to the other place, where you can hate on her more efficiently. Maybe there your copypasta would be more appreciated.
|>>|| No. 15015
Yeah, obviously if anyone calls out a woman on where Kickstarter funds went it's because they're being misogynistic, nothing to do with having apparently pocketed an obscene quantity of other people's money.
|>>|| No. 15016
But that's just a cover for your misogyny, like how "Halal food" is a cover for racists and bigots to hate brown people.
|>>|| No. 15017
Because fraud is totally the same thing as waving a dead chicken in the air.
|>>|| No. 15018
The only "crime" she is guilty of, is the "crime" of being a woman, who spoke out of turn and stood up for herself.
|>>|| No. 15021
So women are weak-willed and feeble-minded enough to be easily bullied? That's misogynistic, lad.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]