Anita Sarkeesian

I’ve been enjoying a relaxing evening of watching people go off on Anita Sarkeesian’s latest comments. Some of the very same people who are doing so were talking ethics-only just a short time ago, so that part is funny. But what’s even funnier is what Anita said. If you will remember, she’s on tape talking about not being a gamer. Oh, you need a refresher? OK, here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afgtd8ZsXzI

I’m sure most of you have seen that, but it bears repeating after the outburst I’m about to show you. I mean, this tweet is just out of nowhere, too. It’s a clear play for attention. So you might say, “Ralph, why are you writing about this attention whore?” Well, it’s simple: people are talking about her. Someone on Twitter who I like said that we should stop talking about her, and I understand the sentiment. But it’s just not realistic. She’s the biggest SJW mouthpiece in the gaming media, and will likely continue to hold that status for a long while. All we can do is keep highlighting her idiocy and point it out when she says some dumbass shit. Guess what? Tonight happens to be one of those times. In case you haven’t seen it yet, cause I’m a couple hours late, here it is:

1CKEPuOPUcAANyzV

We know there’s a good chance Jihad Jonathan McIntosh sent this shit out. It just sounds like some dumbass shit he would say. I don’t even think I’ve heard Anita talk like that, not that I doubt she’s a nasty piece of work as well. You would have to be to keep up her charade for so long. The audacity of this leech…how can she talk about anyone’s gamer cred? It’s just another outlandish example of her nastiness. (Editor’s Note: this article was delayed due to sleep. More coming in a little bit. Top of the morning to everyone!)

106 comments
  1. They are desperate for relevance. “Bait hard or go home” is the new battle cry of the professional victim.

  2. I get why they don’t like MRA’s, but why do they suddenly have a beef with the atheist community?

        1. The difference is that one group of atheists are atheists because they posses basic cognitive skills.

          Her type of atheists are atheists because it rebels against daddy’s patriarchal religiousness.

    1. Atheism+ was the Atheist equivalent of “Gamers are dead”.

      They were driven off, at massive cost, but Atheism is still standing.

      It was pretty much the Reddit Revolt 1.0 to GamerGate’s Reddit Revolt 2.0:AMAgeddon.

      That’s how Thunderf00t got involved in debunking SJWs.

  3. McIntosh and his ideological ilk hate Atheists because critical thinking is a big “no no” in their circles and Anita and her Feminist ilk don’t like Atheists because of the epic failure of Atheism+ and how it outed their ideology as cancerous and parasitic.

    1. They have a hate boner on for atheists because when they tried to take over, and caused a major schism, the atheists finally worked out the best thing to do was to exile the Atheism+ cultists. Now they are a bunch of rabid rainbow haired weirdos barking at the moon over on the hilariously ironically named FreeThought Blogs madly slinging banhammers on each other for the smallest of infractions against Teh Roolz, usually wielded by resident Asshat in Chief and CowGod PZ Meyers.
      Cunts the lot of them.

    2. Lately I’ve been hearing that A+ failed… But I had been under the impression that the online Athiesm movement was ruined. What’s the full story?

      1. The Atheism Movement was sent into a ditch, but Atheism itself is still standing.

        Now Atheism+ has entered terminal decline, the Atheism+ Forums are dead from the bannings, Rationalwiki is falling apart as Conservapedia fades from memory and the userbase is mostly annoying SJWs, Freethought Blogs is losing clicks at a pace comparable to the first wave of purges (and they have nowhere near the audience they did).

        The final nail in the coffin of Freethought Blogs can be traced back to P.Z. Meyers (think Atheism+’s Josh) deciding to call Michael Shermer (a very notable skeptic) a rapist based on hearsay. It was probably because Freethought Blogs traffic was falling heavily, in the short run it pumped up traffic, but in the long run it killed Meyers’s reputation as everyone who was giving him the benefit of the doubt wrote him off after that.

        Just back in April, Atheist Ireland publicly dissociated themselves from him.

        Basically, you can use WWII as a good metaphor for the Anti-SJW war.

        Austria = Far-Left Politics.
        The Sudetenland = Academia.
        Poland = Sci-Fi & Fantasy.
        France = Comic Books.
        Britain = Atheism.
        The Soviet Union = Gamers.
        America = ???.

        1. So a real libertarian is not a fan of Austrian Economics? Interesting. And promising. But you really don’t want to hear that do you? 😉

          1. No, there’s no way SJWs are going to try to conquer NRX.

            I’m been thinking either professional sports or the Internet itself.

            And based on the pattern so far plus their resources that next one will be the one that finishes them.

            But given how things have been going lately, America might = Mainstream Society.

            And that would result in dying so fast.

      2. The online community was not particularly potent to begin with. All the feminists and the legion of pansexuals, autistics, and otherkin (you know the kind of special snowflake mentally ill sorts) aka the Atheism+ that follow them were expelled from reasonable circles and they hold their own laughable, tiny, echo chamber conferences while all the adults go on having fun spreading the truth of critical thinking and mocking religions insidious hold on the Western psyche.

        There’s a lot of personal drama, especially among atheist Youtubers because a lot of people get hung up on “that guy/girl is an asshole!” feelz rather than “this person understands how to argue and makes a great point!” Basically, if they’re a “benign” atheist, then they need to shut the fuck up and let the “militant” atheists do their job, which is helping to free humanity’s mind from ignorance, superstition and shameful manipulation.

        That’s always been the problem: A lot of people who are atheists who, frankly, seem embarrassed by the fact that when faced with a room of “believers” and they’re, by definition, the only non-deluded person in the room they are the one who is viewed as “odd.”

        It’s the typical drama you see in any community, but if you can’t guess where my politics lay, it’s on the side where every claim religion makes is very loudly and very publicly attacked and dismantled for the betterment of the human race. 😛

        1. Thanks for the response! It sounds like they echo chambered themselves to death. These people are parasites and would destroy society if they were pt in complete charge.

          I recognize the human need for an experience of the numinous, and I don’t mind when people call that “God.” Ironically, (If you’re never read Karen Armstrong, she’s an athiest (?) ex-Catholic – she’s quite amazing. Check out her “God” series: A History of God, The Battle For God, The Case For God.)

          You’re always fun to talk to. What do you make of this proposition:

          As a person who recognizes evolution as the most likely explanation for how humans became what they are, I have to recognize religion as an adaptive trait, for the simple fact that we know of no society that has survived without religion for any evolutionarily relevant length of time. Thus, the people who don’t believe in evolution could be said to be following the “rules” of evolution better than those could loudly proclaim we should abandon religion. Calling out religious ignorance is irrelevant from the perspective of evolution because humanity has survived with ignorance since time immoral. Non-ignorance is an unproven trait, adaptively, nor it has never existed across entire societies. The only arguments in favor of non-ignorance are speculation – compared to the empirical fact that ignorant societies have survived. Furthermore, the failure of highly educated people to replace themselves suggests that non-ignorance may in fact be maladaptive.

          What I’m calling attention to is a psychological Heisenberg principle: we can either observe evolution or practice it, but not both at the same time.

          See, Mr. DoGood… I’m just as skeptical of the human mind capacity for rationality as I am of any particular idea it generates, such as God.

          1. Well, non-ignorance is a confusing term, since humans are born into a state of ignorance. Ignorance isn’t a pejorative or a value judgement, it’s simply the lack of knowledge. Human minds are terribly, terribly flawed in how they analyze the world because they’re essentially just very advanced systems for making predictive models (we see prey moving in a direction and based on our previous experience hurling a spear or firing an arrow we can roughly figure out where to aim in order to hit it – aka the anti-James Bond Henchman effect, you know, “aim where he’s going to be, not where he is!”

            The flaw with your proposition is that your assuming that evolution has rules or that there’s some manner of intent. Now, there could be, but there’s no evidence for it. Evolution is simply the very, very gradual process of organisms adapting to their environment via natural selection (or in the case of human intervention, breeding programs – China is going to be doing this with their population, should be interesting). A lot of people have this notion that humans will be very differing in 1,000 years time… but we won’t. Our tolerable environment can only change so much before we die off due to disease/famine/intolerable conditions and frankly any kind of mutation in the gene pool would be seen as aberrant and likely stamped out, especially by the religious who cower underneath a shelter made out of ignorance and fear.

            As for societies that existed without religion… try most of the early human societies. You didn’t get a concept of the after life until sometime after the epic of Gilgamesh was written, as that describes the death of humans as effectively ceasing to exist. The Egyptians developed a pretty detailed after life, but I’m not sure if they were the “first.” I’m not really up on my Babylonian/Sumerian mythology save to know they were overwhelmingly dualistic and had a huge pantheon of demons and gods. Gods, historically, have been depicted as capricious, uncaring, or outright cruel, other because they were reflections of the environments they embodied (the “god of the book” of the “big 3” religions is a desert god, and they’re not famed for their pleasantness) or reflections of the short, miserable, harsh reality of life for 99.9% of people. Fun Fact: Wealth and quality of life were once measured on how much light one could possess. Candles and Oil were very, VERY expensive and those who could navigate the dark could gain quite the advantage over their peers.

            So, in short, the human mind, when working properly and not over-stressed can be very rational, but often a combination of ignorance and the irrational fear that comes along with it leads people to believing in and using internally inconsistent ideas and thoughts. That’s the vicious cycle of ignorance: it’s self-perpetuating. People get comfortable with a degree of ignorance which they convince themselves they are, in fact, not ignorant at all by virtue of holding it as a belief (confirmation bias – you don’t believe things that aren’t true, but that’s not how truth works). Rather than always questioning what is in front of them and always looking for verification of truth, people just accept what sounds reasonable, rather than what is reasonable. And thus the masses have been manipulated for centuries and will likely continue to be, up until the point religion potentially is banned…

          2. Long before the written word, early humans had burial rituals. Questions about the afterlife and the search for the numinous are ancient drives. The Abramatic faiths are not the only forms of religions.

            The fact is, non religion on a societal scale is unproven as an adaptive trait, and unreligious people aren’t having replacing themselves, while religious people are.

          3. You can’t make an argument claiming that spurious, ignorance based reasoning about things people don’t know (aka religion) and survival/evolution. That doesn’t make any kind of sense. Religion is in no way, shape or form necessary for a cohesive society. Social rules and a hierarchy of authority are all you need. That was, historically, asserted through contests of strength, not woo. That came much later in the game. Human “civilization” stretches back at least 12,000 years, and that’s just using building sites as a bench mark.

            You also have to consider pre-civilization human groups (large clusters of mobile, extended family). Also, there’s a fallacy in your position that all religion somehow justifies any single religion or spirituality as valid. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Almost every religion/spiritual belief that’s ever existed has fallen into obscurity or become “mythology.”

            It’s a very common (and disturbing) tactic of Christians and just about every other one of the approx 42,000 religions (not including sects) on the planet right now to claim that because there’s a history of “belief” aka Superstition based on ignorance of natural phenomena (which can can pretty much explain) it somehow justifies their belief system. That’s simply not the case. The majority of belief throughout history has been in conflict with every other form of belief. As for “what comes after” – that’s just a carrot and a stick to get people to do what you want. Promise them paradise in exchange for obedience, or eternal damnation if they resist. It’s the sweetest con every invented.

  4. Rally takes something to question the gaming credibility of someone else, entire groups, when your own is pretty much just out there.

    I mean, aside from Mirror’s Edge, or anything having a “positive” female character, has she ever talked positively about a major game? Its game mechanics rather than one just having a lead female role? Again, one she finds to be acceptable.

      1. depends on who is complaining about Athiests. If you got the religious folk complaining about Athiests, they lump Agnostics in with it all the time. Social Justice crowd? Depends on who is saying it.

        1. Yeah, but whenever Atheists want to boost their numbers against the religious they try co-opt agnostics into their beliefs with the bullshit “believe vs. know” and “hard atheist vs. soft atheist” arguments.

          Yeah, from an Abrahamic (and some other) religious point of views an agnostic is effectively the same as an atheist. From a true atheist point of view an agnostic is not the same as an atheist, and not the same as a religious person. But no, can’t have those dirty “fence sitters” not contributing to the glorious fight for secularism.

          1. Frankly, we don’t actually care. Agnostics are welcome to be pussies as much as anyone else.

            The only difference is that an agnostic is saying “well, it is impossible to actually know, so gosh I guess everything is possible and my mind is a gaping open dream-catcher!” while an atheist says “well, of course it is impossible to actually know, but that doesn’t mean one just goes around giving credibility to every unfounded un-evidenced assertion on the planet, so no I absolutely don’t believe in whatever fantasy concept you’re peddling”.

            Agnostics are not religious and they may not believe in religion, but they are not atheists. They’re basically the girl who says she doesn’t believe in religion that still goes to the new age crystal shop to get something that will help her with headaches if she wears it on a necklace.

          2. I prefer to subscribe to the believe in Erovicus, the Beetle. Who is destined to arrive in the year 2020, with a chorus of angelic mariachis, and give all believers in Erovicus $100, as has been Prophesied by Burnt Toast I ate

      2. No, atheists don’t hide in the middle ground. We state what we (don’t) believe in and leave it at that, rather than trying to ride the fence sot hat we can avoid the potential discomfort of interacting with people who *are* religious when our lack of religious beliefs comes up. We’re okay with saying “nope, I don’t believe in anything” rather than “garsh, I’m agnostic, so I just don’t know”.

        1. Well, as someone in the middle of the road, my issue is what if definitive evidence to the existence of a divine being is found by someone religious, atheist, whose also an extremist. Would that evidence be perverted, hidden or outright destroyed, in part because it proves one side right or wrong in a long standing argument.

  5. -sigh-

    Just when you think things can’t get worse, these idiots keep digging deeper. I’m not the most religious person, but I do affiliate with one, and I respect Atheists, especially those who call her out. Heck, I’ve stated before that I enjoy watching some atheists who enjoy taking the time to point out faults of idiots like Anita: TL;DR, Sargon and a few others.

    Unless they talk about religion and such, I’ll listen to them – And for the most part, they are right (especially when they link their sources and materials). I find it odd that she’d go after these two specific groups especially when there are countless others who call her out on her bullshit every day – Religious, atheist, women, and countless others – Probably an agenda here.

    Hypocrite Anita walking!

  6. It was 100% Josh who wrote this. The guy is getting desperate. I say it again: His behaviour at E3 broke feminazifreq’s back and now he tries everything to stay relevant.

    Nobody is paying attention anymore. Bye Josh!

  7. You should always put your foot down against bad behaviors, otherwise people will think they’re doing the right thing. Sarkeesian is a con-artist who tries to sell a cure for a disease of her own invention. She should ALWAYS be called out.

  8. could people get this right please? The feminist Frequency account is not “Anita Sarkeesian” it’s the organization “Feminist Frequency”. When the twitter account is used you don’t say “Anita Sarkeesian tweeted” but “Feminist Frequency/Femfreq” tweeted

      1. It’s Anita Sarkeesian which is probably why some people get the wrong idea, it was the Feminist Frequency logo once, but she’s basically their brand.

  9. So a person who doesn’t believe in the existence of God can’t play video games because all they can do is not believe in the existence of God.

    Feminist philosophy at its finest.

  10. I don’t follow every tweet *in the Maximillion Pegasus voice* Johnny Boy *normal voice* puts out through FemFreq but the use of “cute” and “dudes” seem out of place in this tweet. Almost like he didn’t really think this one through very well.

  11. How can she group the walking talking embarrassments that are mra’s to atheists who are critical thinking sceptics. She’s so thick.

      1. Blowhards are blowhards, religious beliefs or a lack thereof as well as levels of thinking capacity have nothing to do with that one.

      2. yes because they’ve assessed the nonsensical belief that in a universe this scale, talking monkeys like us would be unique. We’re just inevitable.

      3. And earlier in the 20th century, you would have said that people marching for their civil rights were “uppity niggers”.

        When control over a system is overwhelmingly one thing, you don’t generally expect the counter view to simply be quiet and precious about it. Militant atheists, as fucking obnoxious as they can be, are that way precisely because there is a world of religious indoctrination and influenced legislation to fight against. Believe you me, I’m sure they’d just as well not have to deal with any of it and be able to shut the fuck up about it.

        1. No, no I wouldn’t have said that.

          I would have thought civil rights activists had valid concerns. In my experience with declared atheists, they love shoving their faces into everybody’s business and make assumptions about people and claim they’re right all the time.

          Kinda like what you’re doing.

    1. Many “internet atheist” are social awkward people who latch on to Atheism as a subcultural identity. Without Atheist identity, they are just plain uninteresting weak mans (this is mainly western world thing). They tend to be walking talking embarrassment because they can never shut mouth about what they’ve just learned! Yap yap yap!

      MRA is issue in western country because mans have let fat, ugly, feminist hag who should be mocked and laughed at, have power. In Slavic lands, whale of land know her place.

        1. What is even more obvious is fact that I struck raw nerve with statement. Hit dog is of hollerings. My statement was of pure truth.

          1. *detects homosex & punches touchy-feely burger mans in mouth*
            Touch me again and become bleeding!

      1. That’s a pretty absurd statement to make, when the internet consists of half of the entire population of the world and in North America, 310 million of the 357 million people are online.

        1. No, it is statement of fact. Everyone on Internet know of annoying atheist nerd who cannot into shutting up about their belief. Always spill spaghetti. You cannot even hang out with these people. If there are girls, they will be the one to drive girls away as soon as they open mouth. Richard Dawkins must have drained balls 24-7 because these nerd are always sucking him. How do you know if someone is Internerd Athiest? They will tell you and remind you. Over and over. Fine, your are not of liking religion. I am not of liking annoying little weak mans (so many weak girlish mans in EU and Burgerland. Not saying you are of weak)

    2. As an atheist, yourself, I would have thought you’d have more healthy skepticism to see what an MRA actually advocates for instead of eating the dirt left by the mainstream media.

      1. MRAs have some good points (boys falling behind in school, the huge problem of sexual abuse of boys by women being altogether ignored, the shitshow that is the inequality in the family court system, where a man can have true, 50-50 custody and STILL pay a shit ton of child support, suicide, depression, the list goes on.), but they have this annoying habit of whining like feminists, so I have steered clear of that community for some time.

        1. Its tough, isn’t it? The issues are serious enough to warrant attention, but they don’t get the attention. Ask nicely and you get ignored. Shout angrily and people pay attention, and then tell you to go be quiet and we’ll get to it when we can.

          I’d like to the the MHRM steer clear of the victim mentality, but its hard to do that when so many of its members are… victims. I guess the trick is to find a way to be motivated to work on an issue without building an identity around it.

          1. Yeah, there should be a guide. Ralph’s onto something about not having kids, but if you do, I would suggest not having kids with women who have positive attitudes toward abortion. A positive attitude about abortion indicates an almost sociopathic selfishness. Keep in mind this does not mean believing abortion should be illegal, just that it is killing and it is most often selfish and that she would never do such a thing.

            I would also suggest having kids with humble women and women who are actually right for you. Because a separation/divorce is gonna cost you.

            In Canada I know it’s important to leave her with strong earning capacity. Marry educated women.

            I get that it’s tough, but Clark’s response below is exactly what turned me off of the MRA movement.

          2. If you find a way to help men in the broad sense you’ll be doing more than most.

          3. We are men. We still do our best helping ourselves. This is framed too often as a negative, it isn’t.

            The problem which is most solvable by group action is the family court issues. It is here where there is overt, systematic inequality that cannot be solved easily or cheaply. Group action, legal challenges (sometimes jurisdiction to jurisdiction will be necessary), will cost a lot of money because each state/province has their own system.

            The other problems come down to fighting back, to getting the right mindset, raising our young men with the right mindset, shielding them from the pernicious culture around us and teaching them that being alpha is good and being an SJW beta cuck is bad.

        2. So they have legitimate points but you think they’re whining? That’s straight up double think. You can’t can’t say something is really worth the attention and then call it whining a second later. YOU sound like a feminist. Drinking from those male tears as teh poor menz try to “derail” any and all issues that both genders face but women are more important.

          Also, if they whine like feminists then why aren’t they getting any attention except mockery? Could be no one’s listening to them.

          1. The fuck are you talking about, I sound like a feminist?

            It is dumb comments like that that informed my comment. Being stupidly hypersensitive to the fact that I do not like your approach.

            Systemically, the problems I described are difficult to solve. I am currently looking into some legal issues with the child support issue, for example (the current scheme may be unconstitutional here in Canada, but it would take me years to actually do something)

            Education is simple; be a good parent. My sons’ll have plenty of options in life.

            The mental health issues are varied and difficult. Men have to take responsibility for helping themselves in this as well. That means seeking out and using the resources.

            We are not feminists, we do not make shit up and lie. We are men, we may support each other, but we also should do better than engaging in the same type of victim mentality the feminists do.

      2. They don’t though, MRA’s are crippling embarrassing to listen to. I mean fuck, meninist? That’s a thing without a trace of irony. All the kinda valid points they want to make fit under different umbrellas. The amalgamation in to MRA is just so dumb. The correct answer in the MRA/SJW shit is like with most things, in the middle.

          1. Except, Feminists don’t get humor and took “Meninist” at face value. Which in of itself, is FUCKING HILARIOUS.

        1. Meninisism is complete satire. Its quite literally a mirror image of feminism to make it look bad. Its just a joke on the internet.

          MHRA’s are trying to do something new… identity poltics but with enough of a classical structure to not fall into the same traps with most identity movements do. Essentially, they’re trying their best to steer clear of the “poor me! victim mentality” while also encouraging men to speak up – loudly – about their problems. Its a bit of a two-step, but seems to be the only way forward.

        2. Meninism is a parody hashtag where feminist talking points are gender swapped. It’s supposed to show how stupid feminist arguments are.

          The Men’s Rights Movement can be seen here: http://www.avoiceformen.com/

          It comprises of women and men who use facts to back up how men are more in need of help in wester societies than women, but get VASTLY less help and empathy. They also point out how feminism is being used to further alienate women from men, turn men into monsters, and make sure men’s collective needs, systemically, are ignored.

  12. Considering that a good percentage of her audience are atheists, making that post probably wasn’t such a good idea.

  13. They do realize that some of her staunchest allies come from the Atheism+ community, that rancid cesspool led by Rebecca Watson and PZ Myers…two other noted non-gamers?

  14. Ralph’s tweet is amazingly relevant. Htich would have had a field day with her ilk. Unfortunately unlike the religious people the progressives don’t do debates.

    1. if there is a afterlife hitch is waiting there on a debate stage just for them. also maybe once humanity can make robot bodies and other futuristic stuff maybe there can be made a cyber hitchens.

    1. She only has 300,120 followers on Twitter and a massive 85,000 likes on Facebook. Numbers wise she is pretty insignificant and if not for the media attention she gets no one outside of feminist circles would even know who she is.

      1. Oh I don’t disagree but/… I think s he is on the “diminishing return” of the product life cycle, so to speak.

  15. But why do they need more money? Intel has to be giving them money, I am sure Josh has a comfortable trust fund, what would the point be of soliciting more victim money, besides greed of course.

      1. I don’t think that’s it though. It is too risky. They have credibility, exposure, etc.

        Most frauds love the thrill of the scam. I think it is the power manipulating people into giving them sympathy gives them. The money is nice, but it is the cult power that I believe really motivates them.

        So I still ended up answering my own question.

        1. Is there a visible difference between a scammer who overreaches due to loving the thrill of the con too much to stop and a scammer who overreaches due to not being smart enough to realize they’re overreaching?

          1. Overreaching is overreaching I suppose. Not being stupid, I guess I can understand the former more than the latter.

          2. It’s the difference between losing all your money gambling because you were caught up in the excitement, and losing all your money gambling because you don’t know how to play the game.

        2. Harper is definitely playing the long con too. Following her stuff, I find her contemptible, but she should not be underestimated. She’s not a complete idiot, just a horrible human being.

          1. Of course the problem with Harper is that she can’t stick to a plan, and her innate assholery means that if she’s forced to have contact with someone for any significant length of time, she’ll turn on them and attack.

  16. It’s hilarious how SJW’s literally hate EVERYONE lol. While I’m not an Atheist, I do sympathize with them on this issue. I know I watched this video of some Atheist ranting about how it’s gonna be great when all the “racist, sexist White Male” Atheists die. So yeah, fuck’em.

    1. A few years ago, a poll conducted by a university showed that more people would rather their child fall in love with just about anyone more than an atheist. The only person they would want their child to be involved with less than an atheist was a terrorist.

      So when you paint all of your enemies as someone that 80% of the population hates (and commonly posts things online such as how they want atheists to die and they wish they had a shotgun so they could murder atheists and show them the afterlife), you are making a pathetic attempt to sway all of this blithering idiots into sympathizing with you. Common enemies and all.

  17. She does not have a patreon. All donations are done through her feminist frequency site so she can avoid paying taxes since it is listed as a 501C3.

  18. What an ignorant intolerant cunt.

    I never realized that the 3,000 games I have between GOG and Steam alone (not counting the thousands of physical games) I have and the tens of thousands of dollars I’ve spent on gaming was discredited by my lack of belief in a magic sky man.

    I’m sure her retort would be, of course, that she was trolling people because “now they see what it’s like when someone says you aren’t a real gamer just because of your gender”… totally ignorant the fact that the reason people say she isn’t a real gamer is that she has stated she doesn’t play video games.

    Of course, there are other major differences between myself and Sarkeesian. For instance, I earned my $200k USD last year through hard work and long hours of productive contributions to society. She earned her $400k USD by being a fucking narcissistic ambulance-chasing parasite begging people for money.

  19. She probably doesn’t like atheists because we usually refuse to believe in extraordinary claims without any evidence to support it, and making extraordinary claims without evidence is quite central to her message and business model.

  20. Ladies and gentlemen, here is gaming’s “ambassador”, promoting goodwill and peace in the community by writing incendiary tweets and making popcorn gifs to mock people.

    Brava.

  21. She’s trashing me and she can’t name 3 fucking violent games when Colbert asked her. She lost the last fraction of credibility there. Anyone who’s really a gamer would have to be forcebly stopped otherwise the show would take 3 hours…

    Also she hates atheists because we don’t “listen and believe” her religious feminist shit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.