I know everything there is to know about him, which isn't much because he went to considerable effort to destroy his past. Yes, he was an evil mofo, but there is zero correlation between him and Sarkeesian. Zero. lol

There is indeed very much in common between both of them.
Both are manipulators and both have no problems in "starting flame wars" to reach their goals. Also both try to hide their evil actions behind a facade of altruism and sponsoring.

The only true difference is that the early 20th century was a time in which one was expected to have some culture and refinement in order to get anywhere. Nowadays any imbecile can be an "influencer" just by having a Twitter or an Instagram account. The standards have lowered a lot in that aspect.

A crook is a crook and they always act in similar patterns, despite the cultural and historical differences. And I knew plenty of crooks, after having worked for several years on the oil industry, which I quit for ethical reasons.

I wonder what her salary was..

But like politics in general it's just one big circle jerk.

And it's the only one, quote odd.

SJW's as a group (but no one specific) Sure.

SJW's suck :P their ideology and whining and bullying tactics, infiltrating companies and destroying them from the inside and outside until they fall apart losing what was once great about them. They as an ideology need to be abolished.

But that's an opinion, one that seems to follow what the market says in regards to woke/SJW/feminist/progressive/diversity movies, comics, companies, etc. They scream loudly, but if you don't give an inch they will go away.

I thought JoshIntosh was the brains behind Anita then for whatever reason they split.

Some of the videos linked to him are interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mRF0rBXIeg


If only there was a nice presentation for that other famous company.

The nicest thing you can say about them is, nothing. All that leaves is trying to make the others look worse, which doesn't seem to be working very well for them. But things being what they are, if they continue to pull in the exclusives, they'll gain some traction, which raises the question of how much money they have at their disposal.

If Anita had been pushing her toxic brand of feminism out of a genuine want of making the world a more equal place for people of all genders, I might have some sympathy, but...

... from her days of shilling online for pyramid schemes, it was clear her interest in feminism was as an opportunist.

Her money-making engine -- much like shady-late night tv ministries -- was lubricated by her self-defined "propagandist" (his words, not mine) boyfriend and sweetened with her audiences' favorite word -- victimization. Folks, don't forget to donate to Anita's world tour of globe-spanning vacations... er... fact-finding trips.

The fact that she squandered 1.6 million dollars (and I could write for pages on how ridiculous almost every one of her points in her poorly argued videos were. no serious academic could take her work seriously ) was always her plan (breakdowns of her spending are available online)... although she certainly had expected to ride her "victim" train back for more donations.

I understand there are women looking for leadership and wanting to assert themselves. I understand they want an equal society. I understand there are real victims out there. But it was painfully clear to anyone watching the Anita circus that she was a charlatan pretending to be a real agent of social change.

I've said it before, but MLK Jr. would be turning over in his grave if he could see how these current "champions" of social change (in this case against video games) are actually thieves. It's beyond sad.

Sure, thus the Alt-right love for Trump, and sites like Info Wars, etc. - a real concern for grift.

I think you're missing the point.

The Alt-Right and those you listed are a whole other argument (which btw many of us would agree with your distatste). But, Anita attacked video games and a majority of the video-gaming public. If the Alt-Right, Trump, Info Wars, etc. did the same, I'm sure they'd be under a social microscope and "attacked" here as well.

If Anita was a genuine mechanism of social change, she would never have set up her argument as a fight -- she would have set it up as inevitable change toward a more equal society. It wouldn't have been about tearing down the past as much as educating and building a better future. But, opportunists using propaganda tactics want the conflict in order to generate money. Her videos and FF could easily have been about celebrating positives in society and games, but she chose the dark side.

I fear that many young "champions" of social change are either charlatans like Anita or (like many journos) are convinced that change comes through conflict -- these are no students of history.

No - I think you've missed mine. See my first post about low hanging fruit.

Ah yes, classic "if you don't like Anita you must be alt-right."

Next time you wonder why Trump got elected maybe look in the mirror real hard. Maybe stop pushing anyone right of authoritarian/democratic socialism even further right.

Ah yes, classic "let me write something in quotes to distance myself from having to confront anything you've said and instead engage with this hilarious caricature of what I wish you had said."

No, I understand your point completely... and you are wrong.

While both sides pick low hanging fruit, it doesn't discount the reality that there are bad actors and they should be exposed and rooted out. How the truth might be used is never a reason to discount truth.

You are painting a simplistic picture to bolster your argument -- which being someone center Left myself, I know to be faulty.

Yet again I have to say... if someone from the list you gave of "bad actors" attacking gaming, I'm sure they'd be taken to toll here as well. Anita's exposure as a charlatan in her crusade is not evidence of membership in the Alt-Right. I certainly don't agree with arch conservative Jack Thompson.

What do you understand and what would I be wrong about because it doesn't seem like you have anything for either.

Ok so let's just accept that Annita is a bad actor excusing ourselves from the responsibility of acknowledging the history of her popularity being owed to the freak out of the Alt-right, Proud boys, or w/e the anti-cuck-boy 'real right' meninists are calling themselves these days.

Point to a feminist that you agree is doing a good job of highlighting the problems of representation in games, (or whatever really) - that is helping to question/challenge problems with the status quo. Given your 'understanding' of problems like this and disgust for certain 'journos' and appreciation of history I'm sure there's someone you have in mind that's doing things the right way - right? You're so immersed in this problem I'm sure you could be a real resource of information and knowledge for me.

About what? How? Is my simplistic picture more simplistic than a simplistic unsupported assertion?

What describes you being center-left? - Aside from a few weak proclamations about 'understanding' something before landing on the typical cliche, lazy, parroted rightwing punching bag of 'journos.' Feel free to share your reading list of pulitzer prize winners I should throw in my feed. :)

There is a problem of representation?