If he doesn't get to do the "push his glasses up, causing them to gleam and emit a little *ping* sound" move during at least a few dramatic moments, I will be sorely disappointed.

Bonus points if that's part of an actual special move animation.

Presumably for the same reason that Times Square, the Hollywood sign, etc. pop up a lot in American media. It's just a recognizable, iconic location.

Sure, you absolutely include that...to a point. You acknowledge potential objections or dissenting views. And you know, if Sarkeesian were doing an in-depth academic study of this stuff, then yeah, that might be worthwhile.

Stephen Totilo posted two "letters from the editor" type articles on the subject in the past...I dunno, week or so. It addresses the alleged (and essentially baseless) "conflict of interest" allegations.

The reason they didn't cover the rest of it (her ex's post, who she's involved with, etc.) is presumably because…

Oh, sure. I mean, there's nothing wrong with enthusiasm. Roger Ebert clearly and unabashedly loved movies, and his reviews were better for it. There's absolutely room for both approaches.

It's cool! Thanks for the exchange.

So, yes, she didn't cover male domestic abuse, and she's contributing to the silencing of the subject, so yay, go Anita! Way to be progressive and helpful.

What happens if the book was written in a time period that is historically accurate for there to be blatant racism? Doesn't excuse it, but it makes far more sense for there to be racism in the novel if the time period is correct. This novel is to point out just how bad racism was during this time period, and an…

That's a fair point, but...they need to get over it. That's how this stuff works. You don't hear literary critics getting death threats because they "don't REALLY love books".

It definitely does feel like things have reached a boiling point in the way that they really haven't before. It's both fascinating and horrifying.

Unfortunately, though, I don't see it getting resolved any time soon. It seems like the tensions run too deep and, frankly, being a sociopath on the internet carries too few…

Except she's made it clear that the tropes themselves are the actual problems, when she expresses the message they send. If you say a certain trope sends the message that women are weak, and/or sexual objects, and that these tropes and games influence people to believe this, you are in fact saying that the trope is…

Satire is tricky (and difficult to do well). The danger with satire is, in satirizing something, you can also end up reinforcing the ideas you're trying to attack. Noting that something is satire is important context, but it's also not a "get out of criticism free" card.

And when she launches into things, such as...second video I where she immediately goes from video game violence against women to how there is an epidemic of domestic violence in real life? And even that she skews in such a way to say that it only affects one gender.

But she's not presenting the games themselves as a problem. Again, most of her videos open with a disclaimer about how it's totally okay to like things with problematic elements. When she includes an example from, say, Watch Dogs, she's not saying that Watch Dogs is an irredeemable pile of misogyny that any…

Except that's not the purpose of her videos. Her videos are intended as an introduction to various tropes as they apply to portrayal of female characters in video games. They are basically "Video games 101" material. They're intended for an audience that's largely unfamiliar with these ideas.

I honestly think defining it as "academically problematic" is a stretch. That relies on, frankly, a pretty superficial, mechanistic, binary reading of her arguments.

That is such a spectacularly uncharitable and misanthropic reading that I'm frankly almost speechless.

You try putting up with that level of constant hate and threats (never knowing which one MIGHT actually be legitimate) for an extended period and see how blasé you are about it.

I guarantee you that if she didn't disable comments, the comments sections of her videos would be a cesspit of vile misogyny, threats, and bullshit. The few potentially rational arguments there would be drowned in a sea of filth.

That's because these videos are intended as basically "101" material. They're not supposed to be an in-depth analysis; they're basically an introduction for a mostly-unaware audience.

And honestly, whether she has any interest in video games or not doesn't strike me as particularly relevant. Either her critiques are…

No, she's talking about how certain tropes repeat over and over again within the industry. That doesn't mean any given example, in context, is horrible; rather, the sheer volume of these examples is meant to raise awareness and questions about why, exactly, certain themes and images seem so ubiquitous.

She begins most…