Certainly media has some impact. But from most of the inferential psychosocial research I've seen on the subject of nurture, media rarely plays more than a small and very transient effect, even in adolescents, except in cases where there is absent familial/friends influence, which typically carries the most weight on…

No one should make generalizations regarding a population based upon the actions of an extremely minor part of that population without proper statistcal analysis of how that minority actually represents the whole. It's scientifically, academically, and intellectually dishonest.

C'mon now. Hundreds of death threats cannot possibly, intelligently be considered representative of a population that encompasses millions of individuals.

No they don't. Events like that do not justify the population inferences she has made in some of her videos. Suggesting so is intellectually dishonest.

Then you haven't watched her videos. She makes very specific inferential statements regarding the impacts of gameplay and the use of tropes on general behavior, and has specifically suggested that the aforementioned items increase violent behavior against women.

A major problem here is that the critical eye, in and of itself, has largely gone uncriticized. As I mentioned to another poster, so major inferences and statements Sarkesian, as an academic, has made in her video series are starkly contradicted by actual psychosocial research.

The problem here is that she has basically provided no evidence to support that those tropes have an inherently negative/lasting impact on the behaviors of those exposed to them. There is a good deal of inferential research that contradicts those assertions, particularly bodies of literature that have increased…

Well, academic critique absolutely does not involve making inferential statements on the behavioral effects of video games in absence of supporting evidence. Which she has, numerous times. Like in her Hitman video (tropes: background 1), she specifically states:

This is why if I'm too lazy to actually back an assertion I simply won't comment.

That's actually still a pretty distinct ad hominem. Rather than refute the validity of the statistics in question, it seeks to undermine the notion of their validity not on truth or fact, but on the provider's reliability.

What's the point of engaging in any sort of discourse if you're not willing to actually provide the information and evidence that can shape opinion?

If you don't like debate, you shouldn't be engaging in any sort of serious discourse, ever. And if you are going to engage in serious discourse, it's really sort of a soft and defensive approach if you have a problem with people calling you out on employing actual fallacies.

Basement dwellers? Really?

Still my vote for the greatest multiplayer game, ever.

Speaking from experience, I'd avoid that logitech. I've only had one since the Star Citizen alpha combat sim and it's already broken, and I definitely wasn't pushing it very hard.

I know it's just a comic, but there is far too much space between those boots and the floor for a reflection given the edges of the room. Not awful, but not great artistry either.

Part of the reason he maintains his resources.

The fact that you find the instance of underwear on a bit of character design out of the ordinary says to me that you either don't have much experience or that you have a specific problem with it regardless of under-garment place in character design.

The fact that you find the instance of underwear on a bit of character design out of the ordinary says to me that you either don't have much experience or that you have a specific problem with it regardless of under-garment place in character design.

Which is why so many others came to the same conclusion as I did, when you write things like this: "My obvious point was: it's unnecessary; based on the game's rating, we can gather that she's got fucking underwear on. The artist just wanted to draw panties (tee-hee), which is beside the point of concept art..."…