Hey, at least they didn't lie to the FBI about being threatened like your rat-faced little angel did.

Cammy: https://tinyurl.com/z4wjfkb

Cammy plain denying reality now

Still, "rat-faced little angel" displays a certain flair with language.

coincidently, about the same run length as "Stalker"

"Rat faced little angel" please ask yourself if you would have used a similar insult if she was a man. You probably wouldn't have.

Every time an Anita video comes up, one of her haters has an exciting new imaginary crime to accuse her of.

Even now the elite fedora lords of 8chan are meeting to decide if they should claim she caused 9/11 or just go ahead and accuse her of inventing death as a concept.

lol @ CN

I dunno, does the man look like a rat?

A JO for 2? These guys really have their hands full!

Link?

(This is a blast-from-the-past, but I don't think we've ever actually had a link to the whole movie. We've just had links to the drama behind it. The delicious, delicious drama.)

I can't recall the full film being on here, but even if one is, it might not be the same one. They made two versions because they started fighting half-way through post production or something.

I think the one that was here before was only a bit over an hour but I could be wrong.

Also, this documentary looks stupid beyond words. I like the idea of watching it, but it might be too draining.

A couple things:

First, Milo whats-his-face was *part* of gamergate. It helped launch him as an alt-right celebrity.

Second, neither Milo nor gamergate would have "faded" if they had been ignored. They just would have solidified as the norm, since both were effectively trying to re-establish a status quo. (I know, "re-establish a status-quo is something of an oxymoron, but so is the alt-right.)

Third, this documentary is kind of draining. I was wrong about it being a good'un. Its lies and misrepresentations are more tedious than comic.

>>First, Milo whats-his-face was *part* of gamergate. It helped launch him as an alt-right celebrity.

That's hilarious. I thought I was fairly hip to Internet goings-ons, but the gamer gate thing may be one of deepest reaching, petty and fucking stupidest things ever. Tell me it influenced the election, I'm ready for it, fuck it.

Sarkeesian deconstructs video games and video game tropes from a feminist perspective. That's all she does. She has done some public events, has been pretty outspoken on cyberbullying (which she has been the target of for years), and supports other female-oriented gaming culture.

That's pretty much it. The people trying to compare her to whoever else are basically full of shit. She has never advocated censorship, she has never advocated or condoned any form of harassment to back her positions, and she has never condoned any sort of in-industry blacklist or "purge" as her moronic critics has suggested. She's a critic. Period. You can agree with her. You can think her opinions are dumb. Whatever....but she has never done 99.9% of any of the things she is typically accused of. She has opinions. This hurts the feelings of micro-penii manbabies on the internet who need their toxic VG culture hugbox to be free of any sort of examination. And they react to the criticism that their culture might be problematic and abusive by....being problematic and abusive.

That's a good summary of her work, as well as its impact.

I often cringe when I see her being held up as an amazing brilliant trailblazer, because her work itself ranges from obvious to kinda dumb. Her videos are (IMO) snoozefests, and her claims tend to be rather limited... which is good from a defensibility standpoint, but make for rather boring viewing.

And yet.... she really *has* demonstrated an amazing level of bravery & tenacity in constantly facing down her online harassers & bullies.

Anita Sarkeesian: a fairly mediocre critic, but a pretty amazing person.

>>Tell me it influenced the election, I'm ready for it, fuck it.


Well, on the alt-right side it was a big rallying point, maybe the first thing that really brought the antifeminist/MRA crowd, racists, and the more generalized reactionary reddit/4chan factions together under a single cause.

On the opposition side, it became an Internet flash point for the whole "gender is the only issue/our opponents deserve only mockery/we can't lose because right side of history manifest destiny" line of thought that the Clinton campaign latched on to and lost the election with.

So yeah, it was a contributing factor.

I think I'm actually going to watch this. It expresses anti feminist views in a more conversational tone than the average shrill shrieking attention whoring you tube videos.

Yeah, it's worth taking the time to understand why people believe this stuff, because they don't just fall out of the womb like this and you don't have to agree with them to learn from them.


It's really long, though.

Speaking of alt-right thievery, has Milo gotten around to distributing that $100,000+ scholarship donation money he collected two years ago that somehow squirrelled its way into his personal bank accounts?

Milo was not worth the riots but he certainly is a despicable little skid mark.

Advertising is not speech, and I'm not sure I'd support it but I would definitely consider a ban on ALL public advertising.

Also, most of those regulations about marketing to children were gutted by Reagan and especially Bush the Elder, which is why you saw a huge spike in the intensity of marketing to children directly via cartoons around '88-'89. Ninja Turtles (the TV show, not the comic book) was the first major launch after the most severe round of deregulation, that's why there was SO MUCH merchandise and cross-branding and general market saturation compared to even G.I. Joe or He-Man (which were already the result of Reagan's deregulation and would have been illegal a year or two earlier).


I haven't read much of this, but it looks like a good solid overview of the whole thing:

http://www.awn.com/animationworld/dr-toon-when-reagan-met-opti mus-prime

>Old_Zircon
>Advertising is not speech and regulation of advertising is not censorship


FIXED



Anyway, I still think Anita is a bit of a hack and I don't have the slightest doubt that some of her supporters were pulling the same bullshit tactics on Aurini+co. that were being used on her (although probably not on nearly the same scale, because while that kind of shit - online smear campaigns, threads, general harassment - is something that comes out of the left too, but I feel like when it's from the left it's more often coming from concerted effort by small fringe groups or individuals, whereas the right it's usually low-commitment troll dogpiles PLUS the dedicated loners. The left doesn't do mob mentality very well, that's why we fail at politics so much) but I'm 100% with her on this one.

I drank way too much coffee at work this afternoon.

Oh, incidentally the ascent of the first generation to grow up in a post-Reagan world of constant marketing is why popular culture and the arts in the USA have been stuck in a horrible, human-centipede-style-shit-ouroboros of self referential nostalgia an past-its-date postmodernism. If you were born after 1984 and didn't live on a hippie commune off the grid, you have never experienced life outside of a market transaction. I'm a handful of years older than that and didn't have a TV in the house until I was 6, but I didn't escape it.

Think about what that did to our conceptions of the world and each other.

>I still think Anita is a bit of a hack... but I'm 100% with her on this one.


For the record, I'm on board for most of what she says, I just think it's presented in a hackish, shallow way. My complaints with Sarkeesian are purely tactical and stylistic, not really substantial.

Reagan was the best thing Robert happen to children's entertainment

>Advertising is not speech and regulation of advertising is not censorship

Well, this is what the filmmakers are claiming. This is their proof that she's pro-censorship You'd think that if they had a better example, they would have used it.