You're darn bloopin'!

krudman:

I wrote this stupid joke, couldn’t stop laughing at it, and then drew it. [x]

neornithes:

Scully’s “why is this my life” face: a compilation from episode 4x20

persiancatworld:

#persiancat on ig by http://ift.tt/1fefBAJ
dekoart:

it’s inktober

I struggle a lot with drawing the monado

dekoart:

it’s inktober

I struggle a lot with drawing the monado

lucasbieneke:

send me which disney princess you think i would be

permutationofninjas:

wtfantisjws:

permutationofninjas:

wtfantisjws:

permutationofninjas:

wtfantisjws:

pastygod:

shaynthehero:

That’s how all women should feel about their body.

This is how everyone should feel about their body

I understand your point, but almost all men already do feel this way about their bodies and hardly any women do

-Stephen

Actually, you may be wrong on that one.  When surveyed, men and women report similar levels of dissatisfaction with their bodies: from 15% to 40%. They also have similar rates of several eating disorders, and much higher rates of muscle dysmorphia.  While the forms of disorders which affect men are often less directly visible, they’re just as unhealthy as the eating disorders which more commonly affect women.

Body dysmorphic disorder is a genderless condition.

You linked a source that had an entire section on its website for males but no section for females. That’s a significant sign of a biased source.

Not to mention, they talked about eating disorders, not bad body image. they are not the same thing.

-Stephen

Next you’ll be telling us they’re biased against straight people because they have an entire section on their website for LGBTQ people but no section for straight people.

Good catch, though, noticing that the website focuses on eating disorders!  Oh, wait: 

Large scale surveys concluded that male body image concerns have dramatically increased over the past three decades from 15% to 43% of men being dissatisfied with their bodies; rates that are comparable to those found in women (Garner, 1997; Goldfield, Blouin, & Woodside, 2006; Schooler & Ward, 2006).

Hmmm.  Could the study they cite regarding men and body image issues maybe have something to do with, uh, body image issues?  It’s literally the second fucking bullet point on the page.

Your attempt to refute my statement that it’s a biased source is in no way assisted by pointing out that it has a section on LGBTQ+ people but not straight people. In fact, their LGBTQ+ inclusion is, like, a good thing because that’s an oppressed group, unlike men. What I mean is that their pandering to a privileged group while neglecting its oppressed counterpart(s) is a major sign of bias.

Stop embarrassing yourself.  The reason they have an LGBTQ section is that most people with eating disorders are assumed to be straight.  The reason they have a men’s section is that most people with eating disorders are assumed to be women.  ”Oppression” (regardless of how you redefine the term) has nothing to do with it.

And even if it were relevant that your source lacks a straight people section, you’d only serve to further discredit the source which you just quoted, again, after I already explained why it’s not a good source to use.

You don’t understand the concept of sarcasm, do you?  We assumed you would be smart enough to recognize, upon seeing that, that the reason there were a series of demographic-specific pages was that those demographics have traditionally been ignored in the address of eating disorders.  We hoped that, upon having that wonderful revelation, you would realize how completely and hilariously baseless your reasoning was.  Sadly, that doesn’t seem to have been the case.

Your only other avenue of argument basically seems to be that “this site talks about eating disorders, so it’s wrong about body image,” despite the fact that page in question not only specifically addresses the issue of body image, it literally cites independent scientific evidence when doing so!

Do you see the problem here? See, I want to actually learn something from your arguments but every rebuttal is so flawed, unreliable, under-supported, and collapsible that you’re hurting your cause.

-Stephen

First, we linked you to a site which contained peer-reviewed scientific evidence supporting our point.  Then, when you accused the site of bias (on absolutely ludicrous grounds), we pointed you directly to the scientific evidence itself.  You have not so much as acknowledged the studies mentioned, let alone given even the slightest shred of evidence to indicate that they may be “flawed, unreliable, under-supported and collapsible,” instead trying to tangentially discredit them by unjustifiably claiming bias on the part of a group which cited them.

You are making a fool of yourself because you are too childish to acknowledge evidence even when it is literally waved under your nose.  We sincerely hope that you’re feigning ignorance, because frankly the alternative is just plain sad.

endgaem:

nadia-fortune:

endgaem:

juicybrain:

endgaem:

Remember when I talked about feminists who look for reasons to be offended? This is exactly what I was talking about.
It’s one thing to enjoy playing video games and happen by a scene which is genuinely fucked up (I mean chances are it was intended to be fucked up; it’s like people complaining about the violence and drug use in Far Cry games), but it’s entirely another thing to grind through something you don’t even enjoy for a demographic you evidently dislike playing content that you barely understand, removing context and information, just so you can have a reason to take offence. It’s pathetic.

That’s called research my friend. How the hell is she supposed to talk about something if she does not do research ?! If she didn’t, you’d be first in line to say so. I bet thinking and researching a subject before you talk is not a problem you must run into too often is it ?

No, it’s called confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty. Good try, though.

Except calling her research into her proposed /argument/ ‘confirmation bias’ and ‘intellectual dishonesty’ is absolutely ridiculous.

No, it isn’t, because it’s backed up by fact. Just because you don’t want to hear it doesn’t mean it is automatically rendered ridiculous or invalid. Do you understand what confirmation bias is? It is having a hypothesis, and then only looking for things that support that hypothesis, and either ignoring or refusing to research anything that contradicts that hypothesis. It is any good researcher or analyst’s worst enemy, and evidently something Anita Sarkeesian doesn’t give a shit about.

You’re expecting someone who is arguing a point not to be swayed by personal belief, as if firstly an argument cannot be created unless in complete isolation from all personal influence; two, that both sides of this entire debate aren’t influenced by personal belief and three, her argument and research is any less valid than the other side just because her evidence relies on something gained through thoroughness.

This argument is complete bullshit. I never said she shouldn’t have her own personal bias; we all do in every aspect of our lives. But her job as an analyst is to put that aside and not be swayed by personal belief as it can, and if you allow it to, will get in the way of your results, and skew them beyond belief. For you to try and excuse being swayed by personal bias is juvenile, and apparently a misunderstanding of how proper analysis works.

Sure she finds one example in a videogame to prove her point and sure it isn’t useful for her argument, but to infer that it is nitpicking discredits the entire basis of an interpretation based on passages, sources and evidence. Although this is hardly an established academic setting, this is exactly how academic papers are created.

Are you joking? Of course nit-picking and cherry-picking call her argument into question. It’s called nit-picking or cherry-picking because it removes the point being argued from the context in which it originally existed, thereby removing any chance of properly understanding the circumstances around it, and effectively misrepresenting it. She did this with Hitman: Absolution, she did this with her critique of Bayonetta, she did this with her critique of the casting for the Hunger Games, and how you cannot understand how that qualifies as intellectual dishonesty is baffling to me.

'Removing context'? Although I cannot vouch for FremFreq's analysis entirely, I think the context created is entirely set in the society we live in - a sexist scene might seep into a game due to notions already established in society, which is being attacked by FremFreq for upholding them. The 'Hitman' example comes to mind, in which a woman's corpse is used as a distraction.

I already addressed this in a link above, but you’re penalized for interacting with the prostitute with a points deduction, which later affects how you, as an assassin, can buy equipment for the next mission, and it also affects your stats. This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say intellectual dishonesty, so thank you for giving me a prime example of it.

What context is needed here apart from the established argument that women are objectified?

If you want to make an argument, then use one that you don’t have to manipulate. Simple as that. The example she gave of being “rewarded” for objectification is nullified by the fact that 1. You are effectively penalized for it and 2. You can do the same exact thing, and worse, to the male guards in the game (i.e. strip them almost naked) and 3. the context of the mission, where you’re there to kill the strip club owner.

A thing proven time and time again through examples in the media outside of videogames?

But we’re not talking about examples outside of video games, we’re talking about video games, so this is completely irrelevant.

You’re attempting to tackle a praxis by looking at things that Anita says in isolation; in relation to only videogames and denying that sexism elsewhere in the media can’t possibly seep into the Videogame Industry.

Don’t straw man arguments, it isn’t flattering. Nobody has argued that no tropes have ever existed; of course they do, and they have, you’d have to be completely obtuse to deny it. But arguing the entire video game industry is misogynistic for having video games with perceived misogyny in them would be to argue that a library is anti-Semitic for having a copy of Mein Kampf in it. Doesn’t make sense.

Besides which, to complain that someone who goes through a medium. of which they are not a casual consumer, and points out social issues is being petty is ridiculous.

My complaint is that she evidently understands so little about the games she is criticizing. If you’re going into a medium of which you are not a casual consumer, the obvious thing to do would be to conduct copious amounts of research, and whether or not that research supports or rebuts your claim you stick with it. That is what analysis entails. It also highlights one of my biggest issues, though, and that is the apparent influx of social issues being injected into websites that are about video games. Naturally it wouldn’t be wrong to point out certain things from time to time, but websites like Kotaku have become social issue-charged, reactionary and absurd clickbait shitholes that incorporate issues that, in many cases, have nothing to do with video games at all. You can go through Patricia Hernandez’s articles to see that much.

You claim that she is under confirmation bias when you use her example to tar all feminists as easily offended - you picked out a cultural critic investigating a new medium in this case.

Don’t put words in my mouth. When did I ever say anything about “all feminists”? Find it. But you won’t, because I didn’t. Fuck off with your flimsy fallacies.

On belief - if anything, her being divorced from the subject in any way is better for her critique because she is not swayed by nostalgic notions of video games.

It would be great if this were actually the case, but she went in with a preconceived notion about video games. Before she even started Tropes vs. Women she is on record as stating that she would play video games, but and I quote: “doesn’t want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads”. Because apparently before she started, that is what she believed video games consisted of; she didn’t even seem aware that there are genres of video games. 

However, her detractors constantly cite cultural critics such as herself as bringing about a degeneration in videogames, claiming that they want games to be apolitical and wishing for some status quo, at least in the removal of the influences of these critics. That entire argument is swayed by belief - it is an inherently reactionary/conservative stance on games that comes about due to a perception that before games were questioned, it was better.

I love this argument because it’s one parroted by all of Sarkeesian’s supporters: That her opponents are either reactionary, conservative or more specifically “ultra-right Republicans”. Because God forbid someone who isn’t your political opponent disagree with someone you support. Alienating arguments you disagree with is a very poor tactic. Reflects badly on you. 
There is a valid point being made on the “conservative” part, though: Video games aren’t about politics; why inject them into it? If you have a legitimate claim to be made, then fair enough, but turning video games and websites into social justice issues? That doesn’t strike you as the least bit absurd?

The constant complaint that feminists whom critique gaming are just biased is ridiculous - the buzzword ‘truth’ is constantly thrown around when dealing with the Gamergate issue in that those who propose the ideas of the campaign are trying to deliver an unbiased and inherently true version of events. No matter how you look at it, both sides are in an argument that is jettisoned by political belief and you cannot get away from that by claiming to be apolitical, which is a common tactic.

Gamergate is about politics because it was made political; provided this slacktavism and websites like Kotaku had never partaken in the activities that they did, that wouldn’t be a point. But it’s why we are where we are; journalistic integrity. And when you talk journalism, politics will undoubtedly follow.

Gamergate is a conservative movement, as evidenced by the fact that the same people who denounce Anita are throwing their hats in with literal Breitbart.com writers.

Jesus Christ could you sound more pathetic? What is the purpose of generalizing a group as “conservative”? Does it make your argument more valid? Obviously not, it just makes you look juvenile.

Also ‘scenes that are supposed to be fucked up,’ yeah that’s something, but when the argument rests on the idea that games are doing fucked up stuff all the time to certain groups, it falls down, doesn’t it? The argument that sexism remains in video games is partially propped up on the idea of sexism’s normality, however subtle or blatant it is.

No, because the games being called into question are doing it indiscriminately. God of war is brought up because of how he treats the women in the game, conveniently ignoring the fact that he tortures and mutilates everyone in Olympus indiscriminately. Hitman: Absolution is brought up because of how he treats the prostitutes, ignoring the fact that you can not only do worse to the men, but that you are actively penalized for it. Someone even brought up Assassin’s Creed II for the prostitute mission where an “escort” is killed, ignoring the fact that your mission is to save her, and if you don’t you fail the mission. 
Bottom line is if you need to remove context from something to support your argument, your argument was flimsy and questionable to begin with.

endgaem:

nadia-fortune:

endgaem:

juicybrain:

endgaem:

Remember when I talked about feminists who look for reasons to be offended? This is exactly what I was talking about.

It’s one thing to enjoy playing video games and happen by a scene which is genuinely fucked up (I mean chances are it was intended to be fucked up; it’s like people complaining about the violence and drug use in Far Cry games), but it’s entirely another thing to grind through something you don’t even enjoy for a demographic you evidently dislike playing content that you barely understand, removing context and information, just so you can have a reason to take offence. It’s pathetic.

That’s called research my friend. How the hell is she supposed to talk about something if she does not do research ?! If she didn’t, you’d be first in line to say so. I bet thinking and researching a subject before you talk is not a problem you must run into too often is it ?

No, it’s called confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty. Good try, though.

Except calling her research into her proposed /argument/ ‘confirmation bias’ and ‘intellectual dishonesty’ is absolutely ridiculous.

No, it isn’t, because it’s backed up by fact. Just because you don’t want to hear it doesn’t mean it is automatically rendered ridiculous or invalid. Do you understand what confirmation bias is? It is having a hypothesis, and then only looking for things that support that hypothesis, and either ignoring or refusing to research anything that contradicts that hypothesis. It is any good researcher or analyst’s worst enemy, and evidently something Anita Sarkeesian doesn’t give a shit about.

You’re expecting someone who is arguing a point not to be swayed by personal belief, as if firstly an argument cannot be created unless in complete isolation from all personal influence; two, that both sides of this entire debate aren’t influenced by personal belief and three, her argument and research is any less valid than the other side just because her evidence relies on something gained through thoroughness.

This argument is complete bullshit. I never said she shouldn’t have her own personal bias; we all do in every aspect of our lives. But her job as an analyst is to put that aside and not be swayed by personal belief as it can, and if you allow it to, will get in the way of your results, and skew them beyond belief. For you to try and excuse being swayed by personal bias is juvenile, and apparently a misunderstanding of how proper analysis works.

Sure she finds one example in a videogame to prove her point and sure it isn’t useful for her argument, but to infer that it is nitpicking discredits the entire basis of an interpretation based on passages, sources and evidence. Although this is hardly an established academic setting, this is exactly how academic papers are created.

Are you joking? Of course nit-picking and cherry-picking call her argument into question. It’s called nit-picking or cherry-picking because it removes the point being argued from the context in which it originally existed, thereby removing any chance of properly understanding the circumstances around it, and effectively misrepresenting it. She did this with Hitman: Absolution, she did this with her critique of Bayonetta, she did this with her critique of the casting for the Hunger Games, and how you cannot understand how that qualifies as intellectual dishonesty is baffling to me.

'Removing context'? Although I cannot vouch for FremFreq's analysis entirely, I think the context created is entirely set in the society we live in - a sexist scene might seep into a game due to notions already established in society, which is being attacked by FremFreq for upholding them. The 'Hitman' example comes to mind, in which a woman's corpse is used as a distraction.

I already addressed this in a link above, but you’re penalized for interacting with the prostitute with a points deduction, which later affects how you, as an assassin, can buy equipment for the next mission, and it also affects your stats. This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say intellectual dishonesty, so thank you for giving me a prime example of it.

What context is needed here apart from the established argument that women are objectified?

If you want to make an argument, then use one that you don’t have to manipulate. Simple as that. The example she gave of being “rewarded” for objectification is nullified by the fact that 1. You are effectively penalized for it and 2. You can do the same exact thing, and worse, to the male guards in the game (i.e. strip them almost naked) and 3. the context of the mission, where you’re there to kill the strip club owner.

A thing proven time and time again through examples in the media outside of videogames?

But we’re not talking about examples outside of video games, we’re talking about video games, so this is completely irrelevant.

You’re attempting to tackle a praxis by looking at things that Anita says in isolation; in relation to only videogames and denying that sexism elsewhere in the media can’t possibly seep into the Videogame Industry.

Don’t straw man arguments, it isn’t flattering. Nobody has argued that no tropes have ever existed; of course they do, and they have, you’d have to be completely obtuse to deny it. But arguing the entire video game industry is misogynistic for having video games with perceived misogyny in them would be to argue that a library is anti-Semitic for having a copy of Mein Kampf in it. Doesn’t make sense.


Besides which, to complain that someone who goes through a medium. of which they are not a casual consumer, and points out social issues is being petty is ridiculous.

My complaint is that she evidently understands so little about the games she is criticizing. If you’re going into a medium of which you are not a casual consumer, the obvious thing to do would be to conduct copious amounts of research, and whether or not that research supports or rebuts your claim you stick with it. That is what analysis entails. It also highlights one of my biggest issues, though, and that is the apparent influx of social issues being injected into websites that are about video games. Naturally it wouldn’t be wrong to point out certain things from time to time, but websites like Kotaku have become social issue-charged, reactionary and absurd clickbait shitholes that incorporate issues that, in many cases, have nothing to do with video games at all. You can go through Patricia Hernandez’s articles to see that much.

You claim that she is under confirmation bias when you use her example to tar all feminists as easily offended - you picked out a cultural critic investigating a new medium in this case.

Don’t put words in my mouth. When did I ever say anything about “all feminists”? Find it. But you won’t, because I didn’t. Fuck off with your flimsy fallacies.

On belief - if anything, her being divorced from the subject in any way is better for her critique because she is not swayed by nostalgic notions of video games.

It would be great if this were actually the case, but she went in with a preconceived notion about video games. Before she even started Tropes vs. Women she is on record as stating that she would play video games, but and I quote: “doesn’t want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads”. Because apparently before she started, that is what she believed video games consisted of; she didn’t even seem aware that there are genres of video games. 

However, her detractors constantly cite cultural critics such as herself as bringing about a degeneration in videogames, claiming that they want games to be apolitical and wishing for some status quo, at least in the removal of the influences of these critics. That entire argument is swayed by belief - it is an inherently reactionary/conservative stance on games that comes about due to a perception that before games were questioned, it was better.

I love this argument because it’s one parroted by all of Sarkeesian’s supporters: That her opponents are either reactionary, conservative or more specifically “ultra-right Republicans”. Because God forbid someone who isn’t your political opponent disagree with someone you support. Alienating arguments you disagree with is a very poor tactic. Reflects badly on you. 

There is a valid point being made on the “conservative” part, though: Video games aren’t about politics; why inject them into it? If you have a legitimate claim to be made, then fair enough, but turning video games and websites into social justice issues? That doesn’t strike you as the least bit absurd?

The constant complaint that feminists whom critique gaming are just biased is ridiculous - the buzzword ‘truth’ is constantly thrown around when dealing with the Gamergate issue in that those who propose the ideas of the campaign are trying to deliver an unbiased and inherently true version of events. No matter how you look at it, both sides are in an argument that is jettisoned by political belief and you cannot get away from that by claiming to be apolitical, which is a common tactic.

Gamergate is about politics because it was made political; provided this slacktavism and websites like Kotaku had never partaken in the activities that they did, that wouldn’t be a point. But it’s why we are where we are; journalistic integrity. And when you talk journalism, politics will undoubtedly follow.

Gamergate is a conservative movement, as evidenced by the fact that the same people who denounce Anita are throwing their hats in with literal Breitbart.com writers.

Jesus Christ could you sound more pathetic? What is the purpose of generalizing a group as “conservative”? Does it make your argument more valid? Obviously not, it just makes you look juvenile.

Also ‘scenes that are supposed to be fucked up,’ yeah that’s something, but when the argument rests on the idea that games are doing fucked up stuff all the time to certain groups, it falls down, doesn’t it? The argument that sexism remains in video games is partially propped up on the idea of sexism’s normality, however subtle or blatant it is.

No, because the games being called into question are doing it indiscriminately. God of war is brought up because of how he treats the women in the game, conveniently ignoring the fact that he tortures and mutilates everyone in Olympus indiscriminately. Hitman: Absolution is brought up because of how he treats the prostitutes, ignoring the fact that you can not only do worse to the men, but that you are actively penalized for it. Someone even brought up Assassin’s Creed II for the prostitute mission where an “escort” is killed, ignoring the fact that your mission is to save her, and if you don’t you fail the mission. 

Bottom line is if you need to remove context from something to support your argument, your argument was flimsy and questionable to begin with.

cyristal-artist:

Gentlemann’s Club

Steam group | Commission info
shitpeoplesayintf2:

My sister and I get into an argument over how to properly Sniper.

shitpeoplesayintf2:

My sister and I get into an argument over how to properly Sniper.

Re: Self Diagnosis

sundownwinter:

sadlaughing:

You literally have absolutely no excuse to not consult a doctor:

There are online places where you can go to talk to live doctors.

If you have access to a computer, you have access to a doctor.

There you go, kids. Go get diagnosed for realsies.

Leaving this here for later.

shitpeoplesayintf2:

My sister was noting my tendency to getting items with Strange/Haunted/etc labels, and offered some sage advice. 8U

shitpeoplesayintf2:

My sister was noting my tendency to getting items with Strange/Haunted/etc labels, and offered some sage advice. 8U

damnnateyou:

;) sup

damnnateyou:

;) sup