wilco said:
Been gone for awhile but I'm back. I just can't let this backwards logic stand. 1. A big deal out of nothing because she made a couple youtube videos stating opinions? The only people I see making a big deal out of nothing are the ones reacting to her. I seriously don't get the overreaction to what is essential just someone stating opinions. So again to my point which you said was misrepresented, you think it is wrong for someone to simply state opinions, seeing as how that is all she has done, my previous point still stands. Don't comeback with that "misrepresenting data" crap either, they are opinions, you can agree or disagree, but stop acting like you have irrefutable evidence that "debunks" her arguments because you don't. 2. I'm glad you bring up Alba in Sin City.... Alba is an important character in sin city, she plays a pivotol role in the movie. She has a storyline.... BUT, there are also other dancers at Alba's strip club. Most of those dancers are background decoration... see how that works. Same thing for watch dogs. So let's review. Alba: Important CHARACTER with her own storyline. Other Dancers in Club: Background Decoration, most likely labeled as stripper #x in credits. So unless each and every npc slave worker in Watch Dogs has a Jessica Alba in Sin City sized role than the Sarkeesians point still stands. There are sexualized women in watch dogs who serve as background decoration. I suggest you watch Sarkeesians video again, you are either not understanding, not trying to understand or incapable of understanding the point. You can argue the validity of her point... but to say she is "lying" well, that just isn't true. 3. I wouldn't ignore them. I'd be fascinated to see them. They'd basically be doing the impossible. Look, you guys don't seem to get how this works. You can't "debunk" mario is sexist anymore than I could "debunk" you if you said Anita Sarkeesian was sexist. I could disagree with you and explain my position, but it's not something you "debunk". I never said Mario was sexist either, but I'd still be curious to see how that "debunking" works. I've actually watched several attempted "debunkings" from mouth breathers like thunderfoot and his ilk, those videos are full of every fallacy you could possibly think of and most don't even bother addressing the arguments in any serious manner. I'd love to see some that actually tackle the arguments head on in an intelligent and respectful manner, if you have links please provide them. I'd be interested. Maybe if you actually showed examples of her misrepresenting "data" instead of just repeating that line a million times over, I would see the light. Give me something concrete. If the watch dogs example was all you had then I'm sorry to say... you've got nothing. |
1. Sorry but I do, and the majority of the internet agrees with me
2. Okay but that doesn't make those characters ANY less signifigance, each charachter doesn't need a Back Story in order to make a point in a story. The fact that you defend her shows how Ignorant you are.
3. Show examples? Look at youtube videos, I don't need to explain them the majorioty of people already have.