There's nothing wrong with bias as long as its disclosed. If you say "I'm going to apply feminist theory to the field of video games" and then do it, then you haven't been intellectually dishonest. If you think the treatment of men in video games is terrible (and she actually does talk about that if you watch the…

"why is it that the one woman who gets punched is so terrible, but the hundreds of other guys getting beaten up along the way don't matter?"

Not the 2012 version. The Sarkeesian point was that in 2012, they still sell the game with the same intro. So showing the ending of the game doesn't disprove that point and showing 6 versions of the game from the 80's and 90's doesn't disprove that point. So you're wrong there. Proving irrelevant points and implying…

I also like the part where he pivots from where she was talking about literary techniques (i.e. how you construct stories and what you do to characters) and then turns into a real world example (i.e. what you should do if your girlfriend is kidnapped) and makes it seem like that's a valid form of argument. Sneaky guy!…

I watched a bunch. The first point was "she didn't show the part where the girl punches the guy in the end" and then he didn't show the part where the guy punches the girl in the beginning. Then he goes off on Hospitals for some reason. What was your favorite point?

Oh jeez. Unimpressive. If you prefer condescending douchebags to shrill feminists, I guess that's your taste.

People argued for and against the New Deal when it was enacted. They had the legislation to look at and discuss. You barely respond to what is available. Give more examples. Quote the woman. Prove her wrong. Gimme some of the evidence and explanations you demand from your students.

Also, you make assertions about how you like arguments to be backed up and then assert that she makes arguments that aren't backed up....

You haven't seen all the videos yet. You're judging an incomplete project.

"There's better ways of tackling the subject and there's better people who could tackle it."

This is cultural criticism, not science. She's constructing an argument, not reporting a fact-finding mission. Cute attempt to invalidate her argument by pretending the entire enterprise is somehow invalid, though! Try again. Or engage in the argument, why don't you? Maybe you'll learn something about how bad you are…

That sounds tedious and I can understand why she would rather not do that. Commentary on the internet can happen anywhere. She was unable to shut this thread down.

We'll all look back at the "XBoner!Lol!" days and laugh at how wildly silly our reaction was in a year. People will buy the actual thing, play real games and forget about the imaginary fears and doubts and confusions they had when the thing was announced. Hardcore Gamers Who Don't Have an Internet Connection will…

Got it. Thanks for sharing.

I think that's an aesthetic choice, not a budget constraint. "Artificial" isn't a pejorative.

I bet as far as the gameplay goes, you have to shoot guns, get behind cover sometimes, ride on a few different vehicles and shoot the weak spot on big bosses. Prove me wrong, Bungie, prove me wrong.

Symbolically, not as a plot device. Speaks to the character of the man who built it.

This functions symbolically exactly like Daniel Plainview's private bowling alley at the end of There Will Be Blood.

What's disgusting, exactly? Do you just hate quarterbacks? Not sure what your point is. Please elaborate.

Fixed gear bikes are cheaper, lighter, more durable, require less maintenance and are good enough to get around most urban environments. There's nothing particularly dangerous about them unless you decide to take the brakes off and just use your feet to slow you down. But that's optional. You can fuck yourself up on…