OMG you insensitive, delusional beast. She has many conditions that you aren't aware of, but obviously the creators of GTA V knew about and should've pre-warned her about! You obviously have never conversed with a woman, or had a proper education from a feminist regarding the issues a woman with money for a PS4, GTA V, a large-screen TV and internet access can have.
Comment has been collapsed.
Is it still considered a micro-aggression if it's on a large-screen TV?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, in fact that makes it macro-micro-aggression because you're abusing the HDMI interface to provide HQ-quality micro-aggression. That's practically pre-meditated murder, bro. Take your patriarchy out of here, your kind is not welcome on the internet.
Comment has been collapsed.
I knew it all along so it was the HDMI PORT doing it to my this entire time and i never knew.
Comment has been collapsed.
This and your previous comment made me laugh like an idiot for a minute. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
this comment is so beautifull it spawns a ibomber key
(six)8FHA-A562V-5KVRQ
Comment has been collapsed.
I think this macro-micro-agression goes well with the literally virtual rape this is all about.
Comment has been collapsed.
And about the issues for a woman with an Oculus Rift? HACKERS are already targeting Oculus Rift owners with online mods to enable VR for the this game. Imagine how much more traumatizing it will be. [FYI, Oculus Rift also uses HDMI]
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha, I get to retain that for a whole...9 hours :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Rape is nothing to joke about, i find this topic offensive to girls, and yes i am a dude and i have a major in psychology.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, so the girl in the news report probably shouldn't be making a joke out of actual rape by saying that she was virtually raped in a game, huh?
Edit - also you're white-knighting and that's offensive to feminists
Comment has been collapsed.
The big question is, are the new Type-C aggressions backwards-compatible?
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh good heavens they'd better be or there are going to be at least 8 people upset about that discrimination.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know, man. The gaming media told me that playing GTA on an iPhone is what gets 7 out of 3 kids into kink.
Comment has been collapsed.
SSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHH
whispers
you aren't allowed to speak in such a manner about video game journalists or the sexism police will come get you!
Comment has been collapsed.
"proper education from a feminist".... jajajajajajaja
Comment has been collapsed.
Not sure if you are dead serious or if its the most acid-like sarcasm ever... Either way, Muhahahahahahahahaha!
Comment has been collapsed.
This took a good portion of my daily allotment of sarcasm for the day and it was entirely worth it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I care very much about what happens to women and believe very strongly in equal rights and treatment for women. I just have one issue with the whole feminist movement: Have you seen that they can go overboard with it, take things way too far, to the point where what they say is offensive? Anita Sarkeesian is one such offensive feminist, if you've seen any of her videos you'll know what I mean.
I watched a news video in that link above, and the main thing that bothered me in it was that the person doing the hacking/virtual rape calls the girl herself and is talking to her the whole time while he's doing it online. That's just cruel!
Comment has been collapsed.
So if Sarkeesian is going overboard, what is the word for the people who actually threaten her for expressing her opinion? Or is there not a thing as too far when someone disses your fave videogame?
Comment has been collapsed.
Trolls
Everyone that has any degree of notoriety on the internet has to deal with them. Most people don't try to leverage their trolls for personal gain though...
Comment has been collapsed.
It's only trolling when you don't actually mean it.
Plus actual death threats, and stalking go far beyond the trolling level, and actually it's not something that everyone has to deal with.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's very much something everyone with any degree of fame on the internet has to deal with. If you have any significant visibility online, you get death threats and verbal abuse (both trolling and what could be considered serious). You take it to the police. They'll specifically tell you NOT to publicize that you are receiving these types of messages (because it will only fuel it). Instead of doing that Anita chooses to publicize hers (or in some cases exaggerate or allegedly fabricate them) for and profits from it.
Comment has been collapsed.
When someone is talking about how problematic a certain area providing proof of certain behaviour is definitely on topic. The main point from which she actually profits is her series where she expresses an opinion on videogames much like many people have done before her.
If you really wanna talk on dubious profit sources maybe you wanna check people who profit by actually enabling and edging the abusers?
Its kinda baffling that we are talking about "allegedly" fabricating or exaggerating threats when police has been actually involved. Or that we are trying to shift the blame from you know the people who feel the urge to threaten someone with a different opinion, to the victim.
We see youtube and internet personas each and every single day. For a great variety of topics. It's not every day though that their personal info goes out the internet, or they receive threats severe enough that include mass murder, or there is an organised effort to sabotage them. We are not talking the "u suck", stuff that indeed more or less is a kind of criticism.
In any case. You don't have to agree or like what she says. But if you are gonna look the other way over this entire shitstorm and call her offensive your priorities are in need of readjustement.
Comment has been collapsed.
"The main point from which she actually profits is her series..." - That's factually inaccurate. Her funding for those videos closed in the middle of 2012 and netted her just under $160,000. Last year alone she brought in $441,930 just via donations to FF and who knows how much more in payments for speeches she gives and television appearances and interviews. So no, $160,000 of income 3 years ago is not her main source of income.
"If you really wanna talk on dubious profit sources maybe you wanna check people who profit by actually enabling and edging the abusers?" - feel free to present some such information. I'm curious.
"Its kinda baffling that we are talking about "allegedly" fabricating or exaggerating threats when police has been actually involved." - you mean like the police that said there was no credible threat at Utah State where she cancelled her speech. A cancellation that was the catalyst for launching her into a new level of national fame and directly responsible for drumming up more than 90% of Feminist Frequency's earnings for the year (by their own financial disclosures)?
"Or that we are trying to shift the blame..." - where did I blame her? I actually said it's something everyone with internet fame has to deal with. Pointing out that she chooses to try to profit from and publicize her online harassment is not the same as victim blaming as much as you've been trained to knee-jerkedly respond that it is. Draw the logical path between the two if you care to.
"But if you are gonna look the other way over this entire shitstorm" - where did I do so?
Also, I don't care whether or not her videos are "offensive". I'd rather point out where they're factually inaccurate and as such detrimental to her own (claimed) cause.
Comment has been collapsed.
feel free to present some such information. I'm curious. => http://boingboing.net/2015/01/14/how-crowdfunding-helps-haters.html
The article above is just a sample. Much more information is available online.
". So no, $160,000 of income 3 years ago is not her main source of income." It is a source of income from speeches and appearances that are relevant with what she started there. A great deal of donations stems from the fact that people keep watching her videos and whatever else she has to offer.It's really partial to say that she made this amount of profit from these videos when she continues the same path and people continue to donate because of them.
And maybe the Utah police didn't find the threat serious enough to the university. Would you actually prefer that she had gone on with it whatever the cost? The police actually did find the threats against her serious enough to forward them to the FBI. I hardly doubt that there was a need to resort to a "fake cancellation"" when she has had more exposure the past year as it is. The link between the earnings and the cancellation is your own hypothesis.
They'll specifically tell you NOT to publicize that you are receiving these types of messages (because it will only fuel it). Instead of doing that Anita chooses to publicize hers (or in some cases exaggerate or allegedly fabricate them) for and profits from it." So a person decides to share an experience and this is what fuels the abuse? People who chose to continue this shit are those who fuel it. This quote here is you shifting the blame.
If you wanna disagree with her videos on a factual basis, it is your own right to do so. It's even welcome. The best discussions happen over civilised disagreements. Don't try to convince us though that internet fame = threats = abuse = profit and that everyone goes through the same thing.
Even though we don't see things the same way been nice talking to you.
Comment has been collapsed.
"The article above is just a sample. Much more information is available online." - While I'm very glad you gave me an example of what you were referring to, this article is riddled with problems that make it fail to do a credible job of making a case that factual/logical refutation of some of the points/assertions made in Anita's FF videos is, as you described it, "enabling" abusers (and casts doubt upon the rest of the information online that you alluded to, if it is indeed a fair representation of that information). To be sure, there have definitely been legitimate and despicable cases of doxxing and examples of communications that merit investigation by the authorities. They SHOULD be investigated and dealt with appropriately and the blame laid a the feet of those responsible for such actions. The problem with the article however is that it casts as wide a net as possible, to try to include everyone from doxxers to those providing fact based, rational counterpoint (and everyone in between or around) and literally attempts to:
1 - lump them all together (logical fallacy of oversimplification and false equivalency demonizing the fair critiques along with the abusers)
2 - link them all to Nazis (a sure sign that an argument is incredibly weak)
3 - liken them all to racially motivated murderers (shamelessly opportunistic for the author to use these unrelated events to try to color the reader's opinion), and
4 - straw man the entirety of their goals and motivations (tied to 1).
This is the same intellectually dishonest and irrational rhetorical strategy that Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck employ when they similarly liken everyone in the USA's Democratic party to Nazis because they can similarly strawman them all together and then draw a laughably tenuous line between them and Hitler. It's at best irresponsibly dubious logic that's incapable of proving the point it attempts to and at worst could be seen as an attempt to frame all contrary opinion (regardless of merit or lack thereof) as "hate" in a cheap, populist attempt to rally casual observers against the rational portions of the opposing viewpoints that those observers would otherwise likely distinguish from the irrational or abusive portions. This should be clearly beneath everyone in the conversation. It's the same reason that in other comments I've been careful to distinguish between SJW feminism and feminism as a whole. Conflating the fringe with the whole helps nothing (by either "side").
"It is a source of income from speeches..." - the paragraph following that is fair, but you're changing your argument now. You originally said she get's most of her income from those videos. That is demonstrably false and that's all my rebuttal on that point was arguing. It's fair to attribute some of her donations to the ongoing viewership of them, but seeing as last year she had literally less than 10% of her total income prior to cancelling her USU speech, it is hard to positively correlate a significant portion of her income with organic or happenstance viewership, and clearly not the majority of it.
"The police actually did find the threats against her serious enough to forward them to the FBI." - actually I believe they're required to do so by law. It was not a judgement call based on their opinion of the seriousness of the matter. So the fact that federal investigators were informed/involved doesn't mean it was ever a serious threat.
"I hardly doubt that there was a need to resort to a "fake cancellation"" when she has had more exposure the past year as it is." - I never said the cancellation was "fake"? It was very much real. She really cancelled her own speaking engagement despite the police and FBI told here that there was no credible threat to literally anyone involved including "students, staff or the speaker" and then even increased security to attempt to allay her concern about that non-credible threat.
"The link between the earnings and the cancellation is your own hypothesis." - that's fair to assert, however the case for that link is so appallingly easy to make that it's nearly inescapably obvious based on FF's own publicly disclosed information. I'm fully aware that correlation is not the same as causation, but correlation this tight is hard to achieve without either causation or a common catalyst between the correlative data and as such is incredibly analytically relevant. By FF's own disclosures prior to the cancellation she'd averaged <$5,000/month, received just 5 mentions in the media (1 of which mentioned her exactly once, another included her for a total of 107 seconds out of an hour long program, another which was in total 12 sentences in an entertainment magazine, another a blog concerned with what computer hardware she works on...leaving just 1 significant example of media attention specifically about her and her work...and that from mother jones, so it's kinda expected), and had only 1 of her top 5 tweets of the year (the last of the top 5, at that). However, in the month she cancelled her USU speech (again, that she was fully aware posed no credible harm to anyone) and the two months immediately following she received $397,778 (more than 9x the donation income to that point over 3x as long a period and at a rate more that 27x her average monthly donations to that point), received all of the rest of her 20 mentions/appearances/interviews in the media (including NTY, BusinessWeek, The Colbert Report, Rolling Stone, CBS, NPR, The Guardian, and AP...so 1 big name prior to 8 after), the top 4 most popular tweets, and her tweets received in that single month more favorites than the entire 9 months preceding it combined (nearly 10x the monthly average to that point). If you can't see the tight correlation there, then you're willfully ignoring it. No one would honestly look at that and conclude it's coincidental. I cannot unequivocally assert that cancelling a speech at which there was no threat was a calculated move on her part to garner attention (I won't pretend to know her specific intent), but it's a matter of public record that having done so was an order of magnitude more profitable for her than her campaign was before doing so. It is of course speculative to posit that thereafter she may have been (and might continue to be) tempted to publicize her ongoing opposition (as she continues to do even in cases when it is minor and clearly just hollow trolling) in an attempt to similarly gain from it, but it would be naive to think that she's unaware of the degree to which she has benefited from deciding to cancel that event...where no credible threat to anyone existed.
"So a person decides to share an experience and this is what fuels the abuse?" - that is what the police and criminal psychologist will affirm. It's not my opinion. It is that of professionals whose job it is to protect you and advise you on how to best protect yourself. If you take exception to this, your problem is not with me. I'm just relaying the information here.
"People who chose to continue this shit are those who fuel it." - quite true, but it does not mean that that their actions exist in a vacuum or that giving them attention is a good idea...as the experts specifically advise against
"This quote here is you shifting the blame." - no it's not. It's relaying the consensus expert opinion on such behavior. It's trained, educated, experienced professionals telling someone that one specific behavior of theirs (after the initial offense, mind you, for which they as a rule are specifically not at fault) is encouraging and rewarding people for their abuse of you. It has nothing to do with me, the messenger.
"If you wanna disagree with her videos on a factual basis, it is your own right to do so. It's even welcome." - no, it's labeled "hate and bigotry" even in cases when it is, as you aptly put it a, "disagree[ment]...on a factual basis". The article you linked is a perfect example of such as it lumps in examples of factual disagreement with legitimate examples of hate and bigotry. Mischaracterization, oversimplification, false equivalency, and straw man fallacies are the default tools of those lazily opposing a rational, fact-based counterpoint to the FF videos (note - I say "those lazily" doing so because not everyone does so lazily, but for those that do, such are the tools of the trade). I do greatly and honestly appreciate YOUR sentiment that rigorous debate/discussion of the issues at hand is welcome, but that does not mean it is generally the case among those that agree with Anita's analysis, just as it's not the case that everyone that disagrees with her does so in a civil manner. Pointing out the problems on both sides is not a problem, but carelessly casting the net too wide (as the article above does) is detrimental to the dialogue as a whole.
"The best discussions happen over civilised disagreements." - quite so
"Even though we don't see things the same way been nice talking to you." - Likewise. This has definitely been one of the more feasible interactions I've had on the topic with someone in disagreement and I appreciate both your candor and your time, which in turn is why I gave replying to your comment this much time and consideration (as I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that the people that just want to yell and crab aren't worth spending limited free time giving a serious rebuttal). Welcome to my WL and thank you for putting up with my run-on sentences.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not that she expresses her opinion, it's how she does it. And she won't be happy until women in games are butch ugly with flattop haircuts, 6 feet tall, wearing men's suits and with massive muscles from lots of steroid use. It's also not about dissing your favorite videogame, it's that she's attacking the videogame market as a whole. Problem is not that women are abused digitally in games, that's nothing new, women have been abused for the last X thousands of years, and you can't take away every form of entertainment ever (some people want violence taken out, others want [fill in the blank] and the list goes on.) Problem is in not teaching our youth that what happens in a videogame stays in a videogame and should never be done outside it in any form.
Comment has been collapsed.
As with any other large movement, the fringe element (in this case the tumblr feminists/SJWs) give a bad name to the larger movement (Feminism) and unfairly turn people off from the larger movement by coloring their perception of it.
Feminism in and of itself (the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities) is a positive force throughout history and should be appreciated as such when it's addressing real problems in society (like ones that are actually verifiable as a systemic problem...with...you know...data). This kind of SJW feminism is nothing more than divisive, illogical, and self-serving. Do not let Anita Sarkeesian or SJWs color your perception of feminism. They need to be driven out of the ranks of rational feminism and called out for what they are: destructive zealots.
Comment has been collapsed.
While you attempt to distinguish between the call for dialogue and the call to arms is commendable, you're still off-target. See my diatribe, below.
Comment has been collapsed.
"I ... believe very strongly in equal rights and treatment for women."
Then I feel bad for you. This whole notion that people are somehow "equal" is a pernicious lie. Nobody is "equal" to anyone else, and the idea that what is good for one person is necessarily good for another is the main source of misery on this planet. Men are not women, women are not men, and no individual is the same as any other. Rather than trying to treat people equally---a gross injustice---we should be trying to treat people justly and fairly. Training the general population not to swallow crap when it is spoon-fed to them via flowery speech would be a good start.
/soapbox off
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand what you're saying but there is an important difference between people being "equal" and people being "the same". No, of course no two people are the same and I'd wholeheartedly agree that those that assume such and try to act thereon do cause problems for everyone. However that's is very different than guaranteeing everyone equal protection under the law (generally this is what people are talking about when they talk about equality...except for fringe ideology that wants to try to hammer out equal outcomes from different lives). The only non-arbitrary way to treat all people justly and fairly (as you put it) is to grant them equal protection under the law and then leave them all to live their lives as they see fit. Personal political sidebar: it seems obvious to me that the best way to guarantee equal protection under the law is to have the law responsible for as little as is strictly necessary to govern a society, but instead in the USA we've asked our national leaders to take responsibility for as much of our lives as possible and are constantly asking for them to take on more. This is the recipe for guaranteeing inconsistency in an individual's protection under the law.
There will always be differences in every sort of statistic/data between the sexes, races, genders, and every other type of demographic divide and it's not the law's job to "fix" that. Generally speaking (yes, there are exceptions to this generality) those differences in data/stats are natural expressions of the differences of the people and how they choose to live their life. It's not a cause for feminists to march against or MRAs to whimper about from the corners of the internet. Where there are true violations of someone's right to life/liberty/property, regardless of their sex, race, et cetera the rule of law should guarantee protection. But if we're talking about things like "you make more than me and I think it's because of this difference I'm pointing out"...then I think we're straying into grayer areas.
TL;DR - I agree, but would differentiate between equal protection under the law and treating everyone like they're the same. The former is best achieved by minimizing the governing bureaucrats' responsibilities (and thus power) while the latter is an illogical and silly platitude based on, exactly as you put it, "a pernicious lie". Only ask the government to equally protect our individual rights to life/liberty/property and let people live their lives however they like outside of that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree that the laws should apply to everyone equally (AKA "equal protection under the law"), but I would point out that many laws are written without consideration for the significant differences between people (most notably, the difference between the sexes). While it can be argued that laws written by mankind are going to be flawed because we are flawed, it is possible to address flaws with hindsight. This, unfortunately, does not usually happen. Because of that, we end up with the mess we have now, where some rights women should have are not given, some rights men should have are not given, and standards which are not completely applicable to either sex are enforced upon both. It is both dumb and ignorant.
Men and women should be treated justly and fairly with regard to the rights, responsibilities, and privileges that are inherent to their natures. The fact that the differences between the sexes is often ignored or overlooked leads to problems which are compounded by those claiming that people should all be treated "the same." While you restrict the meaning of "equality" to "equal enforcement," the general population does not, and therein lies the pitfall of "equality" as a motto.
And don't think that those who introduced the motto (now a creed) didn't know the evil it would lead to. That was their sole intention. Divide and conquer while leaving themselves loopholes to retain power.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed and high five. This is why I'd prefer we didn't overlegislate like we do. Sadly, the case for less centralized responsibility and power is almost never popular, especially in a time where fear is so primary a motivating factor.
Comment has been collapsed.
What sort of problems does occur when women and men are treated equally? Can you give some examples of bad man-made equality laws which leads to "the mess we have now", and how islamic laws are better? Is it because women were created naturally less intelligent by Allah:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri
The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind."
Sahih Bukhari 3:48:826
Comment has been collapsed.
Well... That's a chimera of a post.
OK, you've raised five issues (actually, six), so I'll take them one at a time. Believe it or not, I've actually kept my answers brief.
Q. What sort of problems does (sic) occur when women and men are treated equally?
A. On a social level, both men and women get offended when treated like the opposite sex. More to the point, men expect to be treated like men, women expect to be treated like women, and the two "styles" are notably different. Occasionally, you will meet an individual (usually a woman) who insists on being treated like "one of the guys," but if anyone is foolish enough to do that, trouble will inevitably follow (and sometimes a lawsuit). On a political level, women continue to push for protection of individual rights over those of society, government involvement in the private lives of citizens, and "political correctness" as a social measuring stick. All of these are feminine-oriented agendas which work well in the raising and protecting of families but are suicidal in the arena of government.
Q. Can you give some examples of bad man-made equality laws which leads (sic) to '"the mess we have now?
A. Yes, I can. Anyone living in the U.S.A. should be able to answer this question (we are surrounded by so many daily examples of it), but I will assume your question is rhetorical. In the interests of being cosmopolitan, I will use three examples found in most "civilized" countries: divorce; maternity leave; and inheritance. (Anyone who wishes to delve into civil law may look up the details for him- or herself.) If you were asking about specific laws---as opposed to bodies of legislation---then I will cite affirmative action and sexual harassment, instead.
Q. How are Islamic laws better (than man-made laws)?
A. The full answer to that question is too long to give here, so a general explanation will have to suffice. First, Islamic Law (or Sharee'a) is made up of tenets contained within the Qur'aan. Regardless of whether or not you agree with those tenets, they are clear, easy to understand (and enforce), and immutable. (i.e. They remain as they are.) This is very different from man-made legal systems. Second, these laws operate as a legal framework within which the Islamic Judicial System (Al Qadha`a) operates, making the system both comprehensive and flexible enough to apply to whatever situation may present itself. Instead of being reactive, Islamic Law is proactive. This, too, is very different from man-made legal systems. Thirdly, because it is a framework, Islamic Law provides room for social, economic, and cultural legislation designed to address "current issues" without becoming canonized. In other words, people set up additional rules in accordance with the guidelines set by Islamic Law, and when those rules are no longer in accordance with the guidelines of Islamic Law, they are scrapped. An example of such a man-made rule is the Saudi prohibition of female drivers. Again, this is very different from man-made legal systems.
Q. Is it because women are created naturally less intelligent by Allah?
A. Say what? There is nothing in the Qur'aan or Sunnah that says that women are less intelligent than men. Whoever told you that is either a) pitifully ignorant, or b) a liar. I suggest you should treat him (or her) as such.
Q. What about this hadeeth narrated by Abu Said Al-Khudri?
A. This is why it is not feasible to have a discussion about Islam on SteamGifts. There is neither the time nor space for it. Regarding your citation, there are multiple problems with it.
- It is only a piece of the hadeeth, taken out of context, and therefore useless to anyone who seeks understanding of it.
- It is badly translated. Quite badly. As in 6 out of 10 badly. Arabic is a poetic language, and you have to be careful with translation.
- The meaning of a verse from the Qur'aan or a hadeeth from the Sunnah is taken from the person who originated it. That is to say, the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings upon him) and his Companions. It was revealed to them, it was explained to them, and they put it into practice. They understood the full meaning of the verse or hadeeth, and their explanation of it is the correct one. We who come to the texts thousands of years later do not presume to know better than they, and we do not interpret the texts according to our own thoughts and whims. Doing so leads one astray, possibly far, far astray, and hence the great need for Islamic education among Muslims.
[NOTE: As an aside, the text you cite above is connected to the (documented) fact that a woman's critical analysis is susceptible to emotional influence. In other words, sometimes she overlooks or forgets important details when giving testimony. That is why, in a court of Islamic Law, another female witness is there to remind her. See Fat-hul Baaree for the explanation of it.]
Comment has been collapsed.
Because it's not like she can just leave(disconnect)...
This is a sick "joke" and i find it insulting to victims of actual rape.
Comment has been collapsed.
That seems pretty inconsiderate of you to shift the focus here to victims of IRL rape. For shame, you misogynist.
Comment has been collapsed.
The whole mindset is sickening. There are real victims of rape, both female AND male. Shit like this, not only makes rape seem more like a casual insult, but also brings down the entire equal rights movement into the mud.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well said. This chick is insulting anyone who suffered actual abuse.
Comment has been collapsed.
If only there was some way to escape it. Some magical button that simply removed you from the situation. Almost like an OFF button, only more OFF. They should really patch that in.
Comment has been collapsed.
NO NO THE TV MAN SAID THEY'RE ONE AND THE SAME!
ANGRY!
GET OFF MY GRASS!
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 this came to mind after hearing that cringe worthy interview, ironically I did what she couldn't, just stop watching/playing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah, this comment of mine shows my stance on the matter better then this one random comment which wasn't a response to the statement people are modding this game in that way, but about the fact that instead of switching lobbies which as you know takes only a minute or so or even quiting the session the writer opted to stick around and then continue to write an absurd statement about being raped online to serve as clickbait which is really abusing the term rape for self benefit imo.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's a couple problems with your assertion here.
First, she chose to specifically buy a game about violence. Now she is complaining that there is violence in that game. This makes absolutely no sense.
Second, she doesn't have to stop playing the game. She just has to stop deliberately choosing to play on modded servers. This is the case in EVERY online game. If you decide to play on a modded server your gameplay is going to be subject to the code on that server. Every one that has ever played a game online has at some point changed servers because they didn't like the one they were on. This is not a matter of age, sex, sexual history, or anything else noted in the video. If you don't like one server, play on another one. No one is stopping her from playing the game she paid good money for.
Comment has been collapsed.
"you just auto-join one, so she doesn't deliberately picks servers, you jsut get put in one" - yeah, so if you find one that is full of idiots doing something you don't like, you just hop out of that server and queue into another one...
"we didnt sign up to have our character frozen and getting sexual acts done too specially with some kids screaming in the microphone finding it funny" - you bought a game about extreme violence and then complain that it people playing it weren't engaging in the correct kind of violence. got it... also, kids being annoying and doing things you don't like is what happens on any popular video game online (as I pretty clearly pointed out previously). just hop onto a different server.
"you are already plain ignorant that it might cause some distress for people" - oooooor it would seem more reasonable to assume that people for whom violent acts are distressing...oh...i dont know...shouldn't choose to play violent games. this is called being a grown-up.
Also, yes, if she decided to stay on a modded server full of people doing things she didn't like, then it's entirely fair to say that she subjected herself to seeing polygons wiggling around.
Comment has been collapsed.
"You know i can go back and forward trying to explain things" - please don't. It isn't working out well so far.
"Basicly you are a dick who...[and so on]" - seems as logical as any of the rest of the points I've rebutted so far... Woo ad hominem and strawman! Woohoo!
"And basicly defending something people aredoing, that is bannable..." - lol, care to point out where I defended what they were doing? Pretty sure I called them idiots, but that's probably the same as defending them somehow, right?
"so im pretty sure we are aloud to complain if other people are breaking the rules" - yep, you absolutely are allowed to complain about it. as I've said in other comments, report them and move on. It does not make what they're doing actual rape though. that's the point i've made repeatedly and you've agreed with...although I don't think I could go along with you when you say you want to slap her for it...that's...no.
"Also you might want to look into growing up yourself, instead of being a 12 year old who is like 'deal with it'" - woo! more ad hominem and strawman! you seem adept with such.
Comment has been collapsed.
Uhm, sorry to butt in...
But, imo, it's one thing to take it over the top (i mean so far over the top i can't even...) like that obviously dellusional woman on the interview did.
I bet every self-respecting woman out there is probably nodding in shame after listening to that demented one. And i brazenly say demented, because i can't imagine she's in her right mind.
Not even gonna comment on the modders = hackers and what not... (sigh) or the shameless Xbox promotion over PS4...
Was i honestly the only one noticing that, btw? It's even beyond the point (to me at least) if Xbox does have those safety measures that PS4 doesn't, shameless promotion is shameless. They didn't have to refer the brand names to state their point, that right there made them look so biased... O.o
But moving on...
That said... (even though, not that i want to make a big deal out of this, i really don't):
It's an entirely different thing to advocate that each and everyone who dislike some modding that happened that does impact their gaming experience should... deal with it!
It's not about this one totally SJW-esque rape issue, i'm more concerned about each and any thing that is modded to impact the experience of anyone who is expecting a certain gaming experience and ends up getting another.
I'm sorry, but i wholeheartedly disagree with that. And yes, i get that you mostly mean it as a form of saying there's no need to get so upset about it, and even though i will agree with you on that much, the fact that the game does not have a safeguard (to my knowledge) in place for this, shouldn't be taken lightly.
IF you were right about there being specific servers just for MODs, that would be a completely different story, especially if there was an assortment of servers with layers of permissions (which to be fair, seeing as i don't own the game to date i can't confirm there aren't, but according to everyone i've consulted with, that does own it, there really aren't). If anyone owning the game happens to know my knowledge of this to be wrong, i'll retract my statement.
Until then...
That's like saying if you enter a server of any game and people are cheating, just move on to another server, expect that there are no cheaters there, rinse and repeat, and not expect the game DEVs to do anything about it.
Or saying that there should be no bannable offenses on multiplayer games... imagine what it's like (just to point one example) to play CS:GO, having a teammate TKing all the time, and not get banned, because HE finds it amusing and everyone else should deal with it.
No, just no.
As much as i am pro-modding, it should be optional for everyone, not force-fed by some onto others.
If people get a kick out of ruining other people's gaming experience no matter how, that's not A-OK.
If that isn't the case entirely however, then i made a small rant over nothing and nevermind. Like i said, can't confirm it factually, because i don't own the game yet. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Gee, tell me, why someone who PAID for console, network service and game should be the one to turn it off? Especially when harassment is not only against EULA, but also against law in a lot of places? Nice victim blaming you got there, I must say...
Comment has been collapsed.
Well in this case, that person PAID for a game that specifically revolves around a life of crime...violent and brutal crime. Expecting not to see characters be victimized in said game is ridiculous. If you bought Nintendogs and then complained that it triggered you about your trauma of having been mauled by a dog in your youth, it would be entirely fair to say that you having bought that game was foolish and that if you have a problem with a game about dogs, then don't buy a game about dogs.
That and you can just hop onto a different server. You don't even have to turn it off. That's common to every single gamer whether they're offended by that specific server's customization, not interested in the specific map, or just plain not as good at the game as everyone else on that server. This is called being an adult and having realistic expectations.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, but that's not real. This is real virtual rape.
Comment has been collapsed.
And this shit appears right before valve&bethesda paid mods fail... Suddenly mods are bad
Comment has been collapsed.
I dont even ... why .... Just why is that even a thing .
They keep trying to make it as if games cause violence and stuff ... like Please stop .
Comment has been collapsed.
Right, but what they're doing might actually be a crime. This is more serious than that. Didn't you hear the TV man? GET SCARED! GET MAD!
Comment has been collapsed.
Regardless of the rape, having a player be able to control another player ruins the game for the controlled player. Sure, you can turn the game off, but you came to the game to play, right?
Comment has been collapsed.
That argument I can see. Is there no way to just hop onto a different server though? I don't have GTA5 on any platform so I don't actually know how they handle player/resource allocation so it's an honest question.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's true, I remember the flying hack on COD4 on PS3, that sucked, everyone was a sniper from the rooftops.
Comment has been collapsed.
lol :D
it's an xbox ad that just uses wacky scare tactics to make people buy that console :D
Did they really present this stuff as a serious news piece?
Comment has been collapsed.
LOL I enjoyed that take on it
And, yes it does appear that the newscaster and the interviewees are all being serious. Carry that cross folks.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, someone else noticed it, hadn't gotten to this comment. :)
So shameless. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
I despise feminist bitches like her. Exactly because of those retards, the subject of actuall rape is treated like a joke that doesn't happen in real life.
Comment has been collapsed.
Understandable
I have pity for them instead. They're seriously being taught this kind of thing and told that they should crusade about it. There are places where people in positions of authority are legitimately rewarding them for deliberately not thinking logically or critically about these kinds of things.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed. I've seen some women claim they are "raped" many times a day just by people talking to them, or looking at them... It makes me wish someone would rape them for real, so they understand rape is serious, and not just something you call out when you don't agree with someone else in some way... I'm probably a terrible person for thinking that though. Oh well.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I think wishing rape on them might be the wrong way to go with that. Calling everything in sight rape definitely waters down the seriousness of actual rape though.
Comment has been collapsed.
^ I'm ashamed of those females, lol.
Also all I see when I watch this video:
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't be. Stupidity isn't bound to one sex or gender. Her being a moron confers absolutely nothing on anyone else sharing any demographic commonality with her.
Comment has been collapsed.
It could be worse, she could have been on an XBox One with Kinetic watching the whole time.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's getting hilariously more awkward. How about throw in HoloLens once Win10 rolls out?
Comment has been collapsed.
The fact that you came up with an all too appropriate Futurama reference in response to this that I did NOT think of...I cannot WL you hard enough, fair user. You have all my unnecessarily enthusiastic golf claps.
Comment has been collapsed.
Zoidberg saying "robut" will be funny every time I hear it.
Comment has been collapsed.
OMG this can be abusive to kids OMG! Like there's no 18+ rating on the game, huh. Magic
so this is an old video, it says 'she stopped playing a year ago'
Comment has been collapsed.
Well of course she stopped playing a year ago. She needed time to tell everyone about her rapes.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thought this was last year's news?
Article from last August:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11030801/Grand-Theft-Auto-video-game-male-avatars-are-virtually-raping-women.html
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, it apparently is. Oh well. Put it on the pile of evidence that I'm getting old I guess :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Thing is, it seems to have become a thing again today or just this past couple of days. I goggled it to try and confirm that I wasn't going insane and that this did make news last year. Upon doing so a lot of the hits were from today or yesterday. All the comments from the one in your OP look like they were made currently as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I have to expect whichever of the news outlets that chose to run this again (with the widest audience/reach) probably is how it came back up then.
Comment has been collapsed.
The article is pure gold . And is also sad that news care more about virtual rapes to real ones...
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I didn't even read it when posting, (was just looking for it's date), but now that I have you're not wrong!
Clearly the author has never played a game in her life and she and the blogger talking about DayZ appear to be confusing games with reality.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sure that those people will agree that GTA V is a bad influence to people of all age.
Comment has been collapsed.
Probably something about real victims experiencing mental anguish and suffering and not reporting the crime; hence unable to be described by the news...
... whereas internet attention whores don't care about shame and did not experience any real "trauma", and thus easier to "report" such a "crime". :P
Typing that second sentence actually made me a bit sick to my stomach for a moment. Sigh humanity. SMH.
Comment has been collapsed.
She just want more followers, I wouldn't be surprised if everything was faked
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh I have no doubt at all that people have made mods/hacks/exploits for this sort of thing. It's just not tantamount to rape.
Comment has been collapsed.
That girl is idiot. Please don't reproduce, what a waste of Earth's tiny space.
Comment has been collapsed.
If she's really into the whole SJW or tumblr feminism thing, there's probably a less than average chance of her reproducing anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wait... Are You trying to say she's a lesbian and won't reproduce because of that?
Comment has been collapsed.
She couldn't get pregnant as the body has ways of shutting that down if it's a legitimate virtual rape. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I hear Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman are gamer experts too.
Comment has been collapsed.
If not, I'm sure she will with enough time. Also, someone should inform her that coffee is generally hot, ice is generally uncomfortably cold, and contrary to her own personal life experience OTHER human beings actually do produce feces.
Comment has been collapsed.
"The graphics are so good this attack is really realistic"
Wait, what?! It seems like it's taken from the console release, and that's not even close to realistic. Heh, I guess they need some super glasses to see that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with that girl, there are ways to send virtual hugs so there should be ways to send virtual fucks
Comment has been collapsed.
This makes my top dumbest shit I've seen all month list. Idiots like this will live on until they overpopulate the world and everything dies from stupidity.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah... another attempt to demonize video games.. still.. in 2015...
It's R*'s fault when a 6yo plays GTA........Oh wait! That guy found a solution! Just don't give 'em a headset!
Comment has been collapsed.
http://dudecomedy.com/girl-claims-she-was-virtually-raped-in-gta-v/
I'm sure admitting to having laughed at times during this video will get me a few blacklists, but so be it.
TV News: "Here's the newest thing to be scared of everybody! Penises are going to LITERALLY virtually rape you! GET SCARED AND WATCH MORE NEWS!"
Seriously though, if you've had sexual trauma in your life, no one is going to argue that that is not awful. If that is the case though...why would you choose to play GTA5 expecting nothing in it to "trigger" you?
Comment has been collapsed.