Controversial Tropes vs. Women in Video Games Series Comes to an End

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

loa:

She runs on pity, needs the victimhood.
How can anyone not notice at this point?
She's not there to solve problems, she's there to push buttons.

All I see is someone applying feminist-themed critique to games. If that "pushes buttons," then some people need to take a long, hard look at themselves.

FalloutJack:
I'm sorry, this was a thing? I tuned out like it was Gamergate again, because none of it mattered. Everybody else got into big discussions...and I played video games.

I win.

You are my hero, Jack. :)

Hawki:

loa:

She runs on pity, needs the victimhood.
How can anyone not notice at this point?
She's not there to solve problems, she's there to push buttons.

All I see is someone applying feminist-themed critique to games. If that "pushes buttons," then some people need to take a long, hard look at themselves.

Have you missed the part where she calls elizabeth from bioshock infinite a "sexualized slotmachine" because she tosses coins at the player?
How much more blatant and non-sensical does it have to become for you to get the memo?
It's a bunch of buzzwords.

News about actual video games come out and there's barely two pages of comments in days, unless it's some highly anticipated game like TES or Zelda etc. Yet we're already at page 3 discussing this hack and scam artist. And it's not like it's the first or 101st time. You want to know what's wrong with gaming culture? It's the fact that gamers care a lot more about meaningless drivel like this series of videos than they care about actual game news. Every time there's some shitty SJW video it gets more attention than gaming stuff that matters.

I read the first 40-ish replies to this thread this morning and then left for work feeling that maybe I should continue to not visit these forums because really.

Came back because I thought I could post something useful and I'm quite glad to see some others already did. Well, a couple more than the one or two up to that point. Phew. Cheers Smithnikov, Hawki, Darth Rosenberg and Gethsemani.

So let me be one more to wonder at all the shit Anita Sarkeesian has received. What's the bottom line, here? Why are people saying she shouldn't make or have made those videos? The only logical possibilites I could come up with are:
. EITHER they affirm that there is in fact _no_ sexism in videogames (nor in pop culture, media or in society in general);
. OR they affirm that there _is_ sexism in videogames, BUT that it should not be discussed at all ever, for reasons that have remained unclear at best;
. OR they affirm that there _is_ sexism in videogames, AND that it _should_ be discussed, BUT CERTAINLY NOT LIKE THAT, and then fail to provide any solid justification for this or any concrete alternative that would show how to do it properly.

So yeah. It's kiiiiinda hard to take that side against her.

Oh, and for those mentioning the cordial, well-thought and rational responses to her videos: I'm sure they exist (although I haven't seen one - but that's probably on me), and they definitely _should_ exist. But the sheer quantity of violence she has received reaches a point where it becomes irrelevant whether those attacking her are a majority or a minority: they become, in actual objective fact, a very real and _significant_ problem.

loa:

Have you missed the part where she calls elizabeth from bioshock infinite a "sexualized slotmachine" because she tosses coins at the player?
How much more blatant and non-sensical does it have to become for you to get the memo?
It's a bunch of buzzwords.

"Buzzwords" and "non-sensical" claims are things I, and others, come across every day. Claims that, like the slot machine idea, I disagree with.

Doesn't mean I have to act like an abusive lunatic as a result.

...I guess I was never really interested in what she had to say. I watched a few episodes near the beginning (or I think I did- did she do a series just prior to this?), and then tuned out.

A proud ending to gaming's own version of a landmark on the history of the comic book medium, with a whooping 5 hours' worth of content over 5 years.

Well done.

Adam Jensen:
News about actual video games come out and there's barely two pages of comments in days, unless it's some highly anticipated game like TES or Zelda etc. Yet we're already at page 3 discussing this hack and scam artist. And it's not like it's the first or 101st time. You want to know what's wrong with gaming culture? It's the fact that gamers care a lot more about meaningless drivel like this series of videos than they care about actual game news. Every time there's some shitty SJW video it gets more attention than gaming stuff that matters.

Dead on true.
Although there isn't easy way out of it. It's more less hostage situation. Until con-artists and social activists switch out to better source of income and controversy the whole situation is likely to be perpetuated. Until whole community gets savy about these actions and speak pretty much in one voice to reject them (stop falling for pretense and emotions and follows cold logic) or gaming becomes fringe again to the point of not providing sufficient sustenance for such parasitic action.

Come to think of it it does look a lot like parasite-host dillema. Probably it is easier to just starve out and force parasite to switch to more promising host. But lets be frank, long term, it's better to destroy parasite lest you risk it coming back.

srpilha:
I read the first 40-ish replies to this thread this morning and then left for work feeling that maybe I should continue to not visit these forums because really.

Came back because I thought I could post something useful and I'm quite glad to see some others already did. Well, a couple more than the one or two up to that point. Phew. Cheers Smithnikov, Hawki, Darth Rosenberg and Gethsemani.

So let me be one more to wonder at all the shit Anita Sarkeesian has received. What's the bottom line, here? Why are people saying she shouldn't make or have made those videos? The only logical possibilites I could come up with are:
. EITHER they affirm that there is in fact _no_ sexism in videogames (nor in pop culture, media or in society in general);
. OR they affirm that there _is_ sexism in videogames, BUT that it should not be discussed at all ever, for reasons that have remained unclear at best;
. OR they affirm that there _is_ sexism in videogames, AND that it _should_ be discussed, BUT CERTAINLY NOT LIKE THAT, and then fail to provide any solid justification for this or any concrete alternative that would show how to do it properly.

So yeah. It's kiiiiinda hard to take that side against her.

Oh, and for those mentioning the cordial, well-thought and rational responses to her videos: I'm sure they exist (although I haven't seen one - but that's probably on me), and they definitely _should_ exist. But the sheer quantity of violence she has received reaches a point where it becomes irrelevant whether those attacking her are a majority or a minority: they become, in actual objective fact, a very real and _significant_ problem.

I don't see how this is more useful than other responses here, but I guess that depends on what use one is going for.

In any case, the videos achieve none of the things you list, or any other such things. I don't think there's any reason she shouldn't have made them though because fundamentally people are free to make any videos they like and I believe in personal liberty. When I see her mention logical fallacies or just flat out wrong facts I will treat it as it deserves, it's not something uniquely applied here.

Basically, she gets to make idiotic points, and we get to call them idiotic. It's how freedom works. As for the needlessly rude words she has received, obviously that sucks and it doesn't absolve her of her misdeeds. I am a gamer before being a social rights activist so people making stuff up or presenting lies as facts for the sake of their personal gain at the cost of gaming's image is not going to be accepted without resistance.

Jamcie Kerbizz:

Adam Jensen:
News about actual video games come out and there's barely two pages of comments in days, unless it's some highly anticipated game like TES or Zelda etc. Yet we're already at page 3 discussing this hack and scam artist. And it's not like it's the first or 101st time. You want to know what's wrong with gaming culture? It's the fact that gamers care a lot more about meaningless drivel like this series of videos than they care about actual game news. Every time there's some shitty SJW video it gets more attention than gaming stuff that matters.

Dead on true.
Although there isn't easy way out of it. It's more less hostage situation. Until con-artists and social activists switch out to better source of income and controversy the whole situation is likely to be perpetuated. Until whole community gets savy about these actions and speak pretty much in one voice to reject them (stop falling for pretense and emotions and follows cold logic) or gaming becomes fringe again to the point of not providing sufficient sustenance for such parasitic action.

Come to think of it it does look a lot like parasite-host dillema. Probably it is easier to just starve out and force parasite to switch to more promising host. But lets be frank, long term, it's better to destroy parasite lest you risk it coming back.

I think this is because there's a lot of niches so everyone is only gonna be excited for some things and you won't have this many people care for smaller releases. This topic however affects literally everyone so it's equivalent to a game everyone is a fan of being discussed. Only less fun and more existential in nature.

Regarding the actual episode: same reaction from me as always. Shallow reading, bringing to light rather obvious points. I also thought the amount of examples provided was rather small. I also was surprised that she called the Bioshock Infinite storyline garbage, but then again it put the actions of racially disadvantaged rebels on similar footing as those of the people imposing a race-based society. Honestly, the article "The dadification of videogames" gave much more insight, in particular since she kept to rather recent examples.

altnameJag:
Well, hopefully her next project involves a less reactionary fan base. Seriously, as far as gaming blasphemy goes, the fucking Game Theory guys are an order of magnitude worse.

Really? What have they done that was blasphemous in this context?

ToastyMozart:
Wow, she actually managed to finish it (4 years and extra funding drives later, but still)

This is the first I've heard of this. What extra funding drives?

Silentpony:
Oh good, the scam artist is finally shutting up.

This is most certainly not the first time I've heard this. How is she a scam artist?

Jamcie Kerbizz:

maninahat:
I'll give it a watch. I was wondering when she would be dialling these things down.

A lot of people have argued that if there wasn't such a shit storm around her videos, she would have faded into obscurity. I argue the Lewis Law in that its these shit storms that demonstrate their relevance in the first place.

You can't use fallacy as an argument in dicussion, so called Lewis Law is an example of poorly thought out circular logic,thus irrelevant in determining something being 0/1.

I'm curious how you think Lewis' Law is circular logic? Anita Sarkeesian is aware of sexism, makes videos about sexism, and people respond to them with sexism. Anyone witnessing these sexist responses can agree with Sarkeesian that the sexism is a problem.

srpilha:
I read the first 40-ish replies to this thread this morning and then left for work feeling that maybe I should continue to not visit these forums because really.

Came back because I thought I could post something useful and I'm quite glad to see some others already did. Well, a couple more than the one or two up to that point. Phew. Cheers Smithnikov, Hawki, Darth Rosenberg and Gethsemani.

So let me be one more to wonder at all the shit Anita Sarkeesian has received. What's the bottom line, here? Why are people saying she shouldn't make or have made those videos? The only logical possibilites I could come up with are:
. EITHER they affirm that there is in fact _no_ sexism in videogames (nor in pop culture, media or in society in general);
. OR they affirm that there _is_ sexism in videogames, BUT that it should not be discussed at all ever, for reasons that have remained unclear at best;
. OR they affirm that there _is_ sexism in videogames, AND that it _should_ be discussed, BUT CERTAINLY NOT LIKE THAT, and then fail to provide any solid justification for this or any concrete alternative that would show how to do it properly.

So yeah. It's kiiiiinda hard to take that side against her.

Oh, and for those mentioning the cordial, well-thought and rational responses to her videos: I'm sure they exist (although I haven't seen one - but that's probably on me), and they definitely _should_ exist. But the sheer quantity of violence she has received reaches a point where it becomes irrelevant whether those attacking her are a majority or a minority: they become, in actual objective fact, a very real and _significant_ problem.

Just watch Troy https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLrOm_M6dSSmCun7ijgg9Dw (game developer's) videos if you didn't see one.

It's one of the more recent ones I believe one of the very few worth watching at all (if for anything I'd thank Anita that people like Troy became vocal).

Problem with this 'situation' from start was that Anita was not engaging such people (she still doesn't) as they were destroying her narrative and exposing true intent.
She was engaging people who just either aggresively and mindlessly attacked her or aggresively and mindlessly supported nonsense she perpetuated. Fanning the flames, fabricating non existent threat to herself and exposing existing cases of wackos that set their sights on her etc.

As sad as it is people who took apart her videos and confronted them with facts are bland. BORIIIING.
They aren't attractive to either side. With their calm argumentation and 'colluding with the enemy!' way of engaging the topic they don't get traction with people who are interested in fighting it out. Nor they of course have any appeal to people who traded critical thinking, individualism and logic for social media friends/groups fads, collectivism and identity politics.

maninahat:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

maninahat:
I'll give it a watch. I was wondering when she would be dialling these things down.

A lot of people have argued that if there wasn't such a shit storm around her videos, she would have faded into obscurity. I argue the Lewis Law in that its these shit storms that demonstrate their relevance in the first place.

You can't use fallacy as an argument in dicussion, so called Lewis Law is an example of poorly thought out circular logic,thus irrelevant in determining something being 0/1.

I'm curious how you think Lewis' Law is circular logic? Anita Sarkeesian is aware of sexism, makes videos about sexism, and people respond to them with sexism. Anyone witnessing these sexist responses can agree with Sarkeesian that the sexism is a problem.

That's easy. If you think that it isn't circular logic (because you attack the fact it is circular logic, knowing it is circular logic) you actively prove that it is circular logic. Thus I am right and Lewi's Law is circular logic.

Got it?

EDIT:
Should I add a few more layers of Lewi's Law to it for you or that will suffice?

lmao.

I forgot it was a thing.

Captain Marvelous:
Ah, Anita. I remember her talking about Batman's cape managing to cover his butt from the player with it's butt covering powers, as designed by Rocksteady. (A butt that I've managed to see plenty after playing Arkham Knight 3 times. And I'm sure I'll see more during my fourth.) About how male asses are intentionally covered or hidden in some way, because it isn't appealing to the male gamers. She apparently didn't try very hard, or never even managed to play as Nightwing, who has a better ass than Batman anyway. (See my Avatar) And then there's this gem.

The point is, it doesn't seem like Anita ever really tried. She has a valid point, but her examples are piss poor. I do agree with her though. More capable female characters (And more capable A.I. companions period) would be great. And I'd personally love to see more vulnerable male characters. This actually reminds me of the time in Skyrim when Farkas, a werewolf who helped me kill a dragon, refused to proceed through a dungeon because of his fear of spiders. Definitely one of my favorite moments in the game.


Never played Bioshock Infinite or The Last of Us, so I can't comment on the inclusion of Elizabeth or Ellie in the video, but it seems the users on The Mary Sue are a are a bit peeved by the inclusion of the two characters. Hell, the way The Last of Us is described by one of the comments sounds exactly like what Anita wants by the end of the video.

If we're talking about asses, no ass in the video game industry can come even close to Snake's ass. That thing is perfection in a digital form.

image

EDIT: Dunno why it didn't quote the post when I first posted this.

BiH-Kira:
If we're talking about asses, no ass in the video game industry can come even close to Snake's ass. That thing is perfection in a digital form.

Raiden's?

Jamcie Kerbizz:

maninahat:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

You can't use fallacy as an argument in dicussion, so called Lewis Law is an example of poorly thought out circular logic,thus irrelevant in determining something being 0/1.

I'm curious how you think Lewis' Law is circular logic? Anita Sarkeesian is aware of sexism, makes videos about sexism, and people respond to them with sexism. Anyone witnessing these sexist responses can agree with Sarkeesian that the sexism is a problem.

That's easy. If you think that it isn't circular logic (because you attack the fact it is circular logic, knowing it is circular logic) you actively prove that it is circular logic. Thus I am right and Lewi's Law is circular logic.

Got it?

EDIT:
Should I add a few more layers of Lewi's Law to it for you or that will suffice?

You haven't demonstrated how Lewis' law is circular logic, you've instead given an alternative example of circular logic that doesn't represent the meaning of Lewis' law. Lewis was simply pointing out the irony of how criticisms of sexism attract sexist remarks. These sexist remarks simply add to the proof that there is sexism in the first place; if there wasn't any sexism, then people wouldn't leave self-demonstrating sexist remarks.

maninahat:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

maninahat:

I'm curious how you think Lewis' Law is circular logic? Anita Sarkeesian is aware of sexism, makes videos about sexism, and people respond to them with sexism. Anyone witnessing these sexist responses can agree with Sarkeesian that the sexism is a problem.

That's easy. If you think that it isn't circular logic (because you attack the fact it is circular logic, knowing it is circular logic) you actively prove that it is circular logic. Thus I am right and Lewi's Law is circular logic.

Got it?

EDIT:
Should I add a few more layers of Lewi's Law to it for you or that will suffice?

You haven't demonstrated how Lewis' law is circular logic, you've instead given an alternative example of circular logic that doesn't represent the meaning of Lewis' law. Lewis was simply pointing out the irony of how criticisms of sexism attract sexist remarks. These sexist remarks simply add to the proof that there is sexism in the first place; if there wasn't any sexism, then people wouldn't leave self-demonstrating sexist remarks.

You make an assertation which you leave unsubstantiated, what for? I can just reply with, no you're wrong - and it would hold as much merit as what you wrote.
I simply used proof by contradiction. You can't rationaly construct an argument like Lewi's did. Assumption that any opposition to action justifies the action. I'll give you even simplier example:
I take your wallet,
you punch me in the face,
I tell officer that me taking your wallet was justified because... you punched me and your wallet is necessary to take ammends from,
for my bleeding nose.

Do you really expect that officer would go with 'Oh ok then, carry on!'

Punching me in the face may have been overreaction and unjustified, but setting up an argument that it
justifies stealing your wallet is just an attempt at very poor circular logic.

i would just like to remind everyone that she is only a thing because people pay attention to her.

lionsprey:
i would just like to remind everyone that she is only a thing because people pay attention to her.

It's true but not accurate. I mean people like her and Jack Thompson aren't the only ever in existance, which tried to prowl on gaming and scam out few bucks. However, only these 2 drummed up sufficient mass media support to make money out of it and garner public attention. Ok maybe there were more but 'computer games are training murderers' and 'computer games are training misogynists' are the 2 largest con campaigns, which mass media funneled as 'worth discussing because theses are such huge problems... and besides... think of the children!' :D

Wintermute:
I'm glad this is finally over. I'm tired of this new trend where every game protagonist is a woman and it's all about women.

Question: what the heck do those two things have to do with each other?

TheScorpion:
Does this mean we can finally stop talking about her?

I don't know about you, but I had long ago. Thanks, Escapist!

CaitSeith:

Wintermute:
I'm glad this is finally over. I'm tired of this new trend where every game protagonist is a woman and it's all about women.

Question: what the heck do those two things have to do with each other?

I don't know. I wasn't being serious.

Wintermute:

CaitSeith:

Wintermute:
I'm glad this is finally over. I'm tired of this new trend where every game protagonist is a woman and it's all about women.

Question: what the heck do those two things have to do with each other?

I don't know. I wasn't being serious.

You probably just played one of thousands murder simulators that hampered your grip on reality! :S

Wintermute:

CaitSeith:

Wintermute:
I'm glad this is finally over. I'm tired of this new trend where every game protagonist is a woman and it's all about women.

Question: what the heck do those two things have to do with each other?

I don't know. I wasn't being serious.

Goddamn it! Poe's Law got me again...

Hawki:
I've never got the hatred for Sarkeesian. If she says things that you disagree with, presenting arguments that you find disingenuous...well, that's fine. But how does that equate to the vitriol and harassment she's experienced? With all the claims of "social justice warriors" "ruining gaming," it seems that the actual snowflakes are the ones who fight against the 'evils' of 'social justice.' Yep. Can't have a feminist commenting on gaming, otherwise it'll be ruined.

I mean, looking at this video, I do disagree with her arguments and conclusions, but so what? I disagree with someone - I disagree with someone every time I come to the Escapist. Doesn't mean I'm about to go on a tirade against them.

But on a related note, I haven't played Infinite, but if Elizabeth can open tears through worlds, why doesn't she just dimension hop to Paris and stay there or something?

This basically. I didn't like what she said so *Shrug* and walk away. It's not like her having an obnoxious opinion was going to change the world...

So we have legit Nazis, Alt Righters, people like Sargon, JonTron, and a whole slew of other hateful racists but everyone is going to make it a point to attack a woman who pointed out sexism exists?

This is why the video game community is a fucking pathetic joke.

Kinitawowi:
And nothing of value was lost.

I dunno. It seems like one of the most successful scams in the history of Kickstarter ended.

kinokohtake:
So we have legit Nazis, Alt Righters, people like Sargon, JonTron, and a whole slew of other hateful racists but everyone is going to make it a point to attack a woman who pointed out sexism exists?

This is why the video game community is a fucking pathetic joke.

Amazing first post! Bravo.

Jamcie Kerbizz:

maninahat:
[snip]
You haven't demonstrated how Lewis' law is circular logic, you've instead given an alternative example of circular logic that doesn't represent the meaning of Lewis' law. Lewis was simply pointing out the irony of how criticisms of sexism attract sexist remarks. These sexist remarks simply add to the proof that there is sexism in the first place; if there wasn't any sexism, then people wouldn't leave self-demonstrating sexist remarks.

You make an assertation which you leave unsubstantiated, what for? I can just reply with, no you're wrong - and it would hold as much merit as what you wrote.
I simply used proof by contradiction. You can't rationaly construct an argument like Lewi's did. Assumption that any opposition to action justifies the action. I'll give you even simplier example:
I take your wallet,
you punch me in the face,
I tell officer that me taking your wallet was justified because... you punched me and your wallet is necessary to take ammends from,
for my bleeding nose.

Do you really expect that officer would go with 'Oh ok then, carry on!'

What you did there is still a distinct thing from what Lewis is saying.

Here's a more accurate comparison:

I complain that people punching others in the face.
Someone hears what I say and punches me in the face.
The fact that I've been punched in the face demonstrates my complaint that people are punching others in the face.

And in the case of Lewis (or Sarkeesian), its just as simple:
She writes an article complaining that there is sexism.
People read her article and leave sexist remarks.
The fact that people have left sexist remarks proves her observation of there being sexism.

Punching me in the face may have been overreaction and unjustified, but setting up an argument that it
justifies stealing your wallet is just an attempt at very poor circular logic.

So to work this back towards Lewis or Sarkeesian, it now sounds like you are arguing that no, even though the sexism feminists are subjected to is bad, it totally doesn't justify them writing about sexism.

Jamcie Kerbizz:

srpilha:
snip

snip

The first video on Troy's channel is 6 months old. Where was he in 2014 when the flames started to engulf the topic?

maninahat:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

maninahat:
[snip]
You haven't demonstrated how Lewis' law is circular logic, you've instead given an alternative example of circular logic that doesn't represent the meaning of Lewis' law. Lewis was simply pointing out the irony of how criticisms of sexism attract sexist remarks. These sexist remarks simply add to the proof that there is sexism in the first place; if there wasn't any sexism, then people wouldn't leave self-demonstrating sexist remarks.

You make an assertation which you leave unsubstantiated, what for? I can just reply with, no you're wrong - and it would hold as much merit as what you wrote.
I simply used proof by contradiction. You can't rationaly construct an argument like Lewi's did. Assumption that any opposition to action justifies the action. I'll give you even simplier example:
I take your wallet,
you punch me in the face,
I tell officer that me taking your wallet was justified because... you punched me and your wallet is necessary to take ammends from,
for my bleeding nose.

Do you really expect that officer would go with 'Oh ok then, carry on!'

What you did there is still a distinct thing from what Lewis is saying.

Here's a more accurate comparison:

I complain that people punching others in the face.
Someone hears what I say and punches me in the face.
The fact that I've been punched in the face demonstrates my complaint that people are punching others in the face.

And in the case of Lewis (or Sarkeesian), its just as simple:
She writes an article complaining that there is sexism.
People read her article and leave sexist remarks.
The fact that people have left sexist remarks proves her observation of there being sexism.

Punching me in the face may have been overreaction and unjustified, but setting up an argument that it
justifies stealing your wallet is just an attempt at very poor circular logic.

So to work this back towards Lewis or Sarkeesian, it now sounds like you are arguing that no, even though the sexism feminists are subjected to is bad, it totally doesn't justify them writing about sexism.

Congratulations on proving yourself wrong with your own example.
Now read it. Wait, something's wrong. Lewis said justifies not demonstrates. Here lets correct it. Oh no, circular logic happens :S

Either way. I am pretty sure that what you 'argue' is what Helen ment. Still she was wrong even on that.
Going by your example, with this little mischevious ;) 'demonstrate' misquote. You can't derrive anything from it either. Only that someone punched you in the face. You COULD be right (people are punching others in the faces and this is one of these people)
BUT
It could also be that this 'someone' just heard you, thought it's a cool idea and punched you. Had you never gave the idea nothing would have happen. At this point both hypothesis are as good. Thus cherry picking one without substance of any proof to back it, is irrational.

Got it now? There isn't logical way to defend Lewis' lapse.

Jamcie Kerbizz:

lionsprey:
i would just like to remind everyone that she is only a thing because people pay attention to her.

It's true but not accurate. I mean people like her and Jack Thompson aren't the only ever in existance, which tried to prowl on gaming and scam out few bucks. However, only these 2 drummed up sufficient mass media support to make money out of it and garner public attention. Ok maybe there were more but 'computer games are training murderers' and 'computer games are training misogynists' are the 2 largest con campaigns, which mass media funneled as 'worth discussing because theses are such huge problems... and besides... think of the children!' :D

In his first lawsuit, Jack Thompson SUED the developers of Doom, Quake, Castle Wolfenstein, Redneck Rampage, Nightmare Creatures, MechWarrior, and Resident Evil, the makers and distributors of Natural Born Killers and The Basketball Diaries, and two porn sites for $33 million. You might as well say she is Hitler reborn as a girl, and it wouldn't be any less hyperbolic.

Nothing draws out the commenters like an Anita topic/article. :^)

On the one hand I'm glad the show is over because it's just one less flame-war bait topic clogging up forums. On the other hand, with her starting up a new series I'm sure it'll just be the same shit, different subject.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.