6 ms·

Speaking against a particular brand of feminism does not make one a misogynist. From watching his videos, it's pretty clear that he isn't prejudiced against wom

by pk3469 8y ago

Speaking against a particular brand of feminism does not make one a misogynist. From watching his videos, it's pretty clear that he isn't prejudiced against women. He just calls out bullshit claims by the likes of Anita Sarkeesian, who is on record stating that video games are a 'male sex fantasy' and whose only credential is being a perpetual victim. People like Phil Mason and Stephen Fry are a desperately needed public voice against bullshit disguised as feminism or social justice. If Anita Sarkeesian went unchecked, games like GTA would be banned by now and reclassified as rape simulators. This attitude of blindly dismissing people's arguments or entire credentials just because you bought into an agenda, this refusal to engage in civil debate and discuss matters on their merit. I think this is one of the factors destroying democracies around the world today. Everything must be polarizing, everyone expressing views you disagree with must be shunned. Any attempts to debate established status quo must be shouted down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian

favorited 8y ago
> whose only credential is being a perpetual victim The Wikipedia page you linked says she's a "media critic, blogger, and public speaker." It seems to me those are her credentials.
- pk3469 8y ago
  She is all of those things by virtue of playing public victim. She was a no name vlogger with a handful of subscribers. Her entire 'career', if you can call it that, began when the internet overwhelmed her kickstarter to fund a bunch of videos about how misogynistic video games are. She's the Kim Kardashian of feminism and an insult to 2nd and 3rd wave feminists who fought to improve society through intelligent discourse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJUxqkcnKA&list=PLBBDFEC9F5893C4AF https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJUxqkcnKA&list=PLBBDFEC9F5... Watch this and tell me that you think she is making an intelligent argument about anything. And while you're at it, have a think about why the comments and votes might be disabled on those videos.
  - favorited 8y ago
    I'm aware of who Anita is, and I have no expectation of changing your mind about her. That said, I think she was "all of those things" when people contributed over 100k to her Kickstarter, which was before the Gamergate harassment started. So she was earning her keep well before she was made the "public victim," as you say. Of course the comments are disabled for her videos. Normal YouTube comments are toxic enough. She literally got bomb threats over scheduled appearances on conference panels – do you think comments on her videos are productive? If your Twitter was filled by anonymous users threatening to rape you, and kill your parents, etc., then you'd disable comments on your videos too.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
viraptor 8y ago
> Speaking against a particular brand of feminism does not make one a misogynist. From watching his videos, it's pretty clear that he isn't prejudiced against women. I have an issue with naming of those videos. It's great to call out people who misinterpret some labels and are harmful to others. But calling that "facts vs feminism" isn't helping. His other videos manage to call out specific things like solar highway, rather than being called "tech vs facts". Why imply that feminism is bad if you're going to talk about one specific person's idea? (that's not generally accepted)
- pk3469 8y ago
  He doesn't talk about just one person's idea though. Have you actually watched any of those videos? They're not ideally named and they're not his best content, but to pass that off as misogynistic is just beyond disingenuous.
  - viraptor 8y ago
    I'm not saying they are or aren't misogynistic. Just that they're really badly named to be clickbaits and feed on the existing hostility against a bigger community. I've seen a few fragments and honestly they don't make me interested in analysing the whole thing. What they don't seem to do though is help any cause beyond getting more popular and setting up us-vs-them ideas.

by pk3469 8y ago

favorited 8y ago

> whose only credential is being a perpetual victim The Wikipedia page you linked says she's a "media critic, blogger, and public speaker." It seems to me those are her credentials.

pk3469 8y ago
She is all of those things by virtue of playing public victim. She was a no name vlogger with a handful of subscribers. Her entire 'career', if you can call it that, began when the internet overwhelmed her kickstarter to fund a bunch of videos about how misogynistic video games are. She's the Kim Kardashian of feminism and an insult to 2nd and 3rd wave feminists who fought to improve society through intelligent discourse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJUxqkcnKA&list=PLBBDFEC9F5893C4AF https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJUxqkcnKA&list=PLBBDFEC9F5... Watch this and tell me that you think she is making an intelligent argument about anything. And while you're at it, have a think about why the comments and votes might be disabled on those videos.
- favorited 8y ago
  I'm aware of who Anita is, and I have no expectation of changing your mind about her. That said, I think she was "all of those things" when people contributed over 100k to her Kickstarter, which was before the Gamergate harassment started. So she was earning her keep well before she was made the "public victim," as you say. Of course the comments are disabled for her videos. Normal YouTube comments are toxic enough. She literally got bomb threats over scheduled appearances on conference panels – do you think comments on her videos are productive? If your Twitter was filled by anonymous users threatening to rape you, and kill your parents, etc., then you'd disable comments on your videos too.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

viraptor 8y ago

> Speaking against a particular brand of feminism does not make one a misogynist. From watching his videos, it's pretty clear that he isn't prejudiced against women. I have an issue with naming of those videos. It's great to call out people who misinterpret some labels and are harmful to others. But calling that "facts vs feminism" isn't helping. His other videos manage to call out specific things like solar highway, rather than being called "tech vs facts". Why imply that feminism is bad if you're going to talk about one specific person's idea? (that's not generally accepted)

pk3469 8y ago
He doesn't talk about just one person's idea though. Have you actually watched any of those videos? They're not ideally named and they're not his best content, but to pass that off as misogynistic is just beyond disingenuous.
- viraptor 8y ago
  I'm not saying they are or aren't misogynistic. Just that they're really badly named to be clickbaits and feed on the existing hostility against a bigger community. I've seen a few fragments and honestly they don't make me interested in analysing the whole thing. What they don't seem to do though is help any cause beyond getting more popular and setting up us-vs-them ideas.