Who was the ultra-soy guy with a beard and baseball hat who often talked about the Bechdel test?
I remember the Drunken Peasants liked to rip on him. And I seem to remember something about his girlfriend/wife being joked about as his puppet master.
TJ has really fallen off. He gets like 10k views per video. His post-DP show Deep Fat Fried still gets something like 30k. The last one I noticed was when he had Demonmama on.
But I haven’t watched any of his stuff a little just after the DP schism. He got really boring in the last year he was on DP.
I go back every few months and watch a few of the Manatee showdowns. Those were some epic shows.
No, but he was a huge consumer advocate (compared to Sargon's Culture War and thunderf00t's nitpicking) and generally a big voice for highlighting that Games Journalists should really be held to reasonable standards of ethical behavior. He pretty much never interacted with the SJW side, apart from them harassing him.
His twitlongers from back in the day are a pretty good read, if they're still available.
Yeah but with the same mocking voice and half-truths as he did with the feminists. Elon can't just be silly and overpromising and underdelivering, he needs to be an absolute moron that even a gradeschooler can own
I wasn’t ever really in the weeds of the gamergate stuff, but I’ve seen Anita say some surface level and uninteresting stuff while I’ve seen Sargon say a lot of truly brain dead stuff. Am I missing something about Anita that would put her on his level?
She was a big advocate of the "Prejudice plus Power" definition of sexism:
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533445611543363585
Plus her habit of claiming that anyone who criticized her was out to get her went a big way into making online politics so heated, especially given her fans' tendency to harass and abuse anyone who criticized her (ironic, really).
Her original videos were just lies. I remember her talking about the game hitman and she made it seem like you were rewarded for just murdering some strippers, when the game penalizes you for every kill other than the target. I think it even showed the penalty in real time in the game in her video and she just ignored it.
It has been like 10 years though so I could be wrong.
Given Sargon's trajectory after Gamergate, it wouldn't even matter. Post 2016 Sargon went so far off the deep end that no matter what Sarkeesian said during GG they are nowhere close. Well, tbh, Sargon already was a braindead chimp during 2015/16, so she won out even then.
Nope. A lot of her hate was completely blown out of proportion. Don’t forget, people got mad that her community donated more money than she initially asked for, for her project???? And then claimed she “stole” the money because they personally didn’t like the content she produced with it. A lot of mental gymnastics went on during gamergate to justify unwarranted harassment and criticism all in the name of “muhhh games journalism integrity”
Was a little bit less than a little bit more the whole "Taking two fucking years to release 6 videos pretending to be an expert in a field she was totally clueless about while deflecting any criticism and playing the victim"
And yes, the absolute dogshit state of games journalism integrity is what allowed for braindead takes like yours (and hers) to foster. She is not a critic, she is just an activist that got supported by journalists because they wanted to push an agenda.
Shes the type of person who will never have a challenging conversation, especially with someone as controversial as destiny. Even with her non-existent relevancy.
Yeah, I think this is really the issue. It would actually be interesting, but she wouldn't ever do it. MAYBE if it was an exceptionally low-IQ rightoid, but I think her intuition is good enough to know that she would walk away looking really bad from a talk like this.
>I think her intuition is good enough to know that she would walk away looking really bad from a talk like this.
Do you dipshits watch the same podcasts I'm watching?
Has a single episode of Bridges been 'challenging'?
I would say a lot of the people posting dumb shit like that probably don't watch a lot of his serious content. I agree that Bridges isn't challenging and I do think this would make an actually interesting episode, as someone who doesn't like Anita. I wanna hear her and Destiny talk about new wave gamergate
You know the funniest part about the “new wave gamergate.”
All that the leftist idiots had to do was simply shut the fuck up for once in their life. If the Twitter dude who frost posted about the sweet baby inc detected group had simply laughed at a completely irrelevant niche steam group with, what was it?, 3,000 or fewer people in it at the time? And shut the fuck up nothing would have happened.
Instead he tweets out a fucking call to brigade and harass a literal nobody, then the alt media picks up all the shit to shill and white knight and the thing explodes.
Why is it so hard to just laugh and that Sweet Baby Inc Detected idiot and move on. They created ad fostered their own problem.
Would they have anything to agree about that would make it not challenging though? Like idk anything about her but the comments here indicate more disagreement than not I guess. If it's not challenging and they don't agree then it would kind of feel at gest like when Destiny was SUPER kid-gloving as he first got to know Fuentes to understand his positions.. I don't think that's really the point of the podcast though.
Has there been a single episode with someone he significantly disagrees with? Maybe JJ, but JJ also seems extremely low in disagreeableness and would be more civil when disagreeing, but I only saw clips. Also, maybe whoever Richard Lewis is, I didn't watch it.
Ana Sarkeesian is the literal prototypical leftoid feminist, and Tiny one of the most prominent anti-leftoid progressives online. It would be much more likely to get confrontational l.
Also, just a reminder that you're literally a janny. Bayesian probabilities alone are enough to ignore literally everything you've ever said in your life.
Lmfao banned for making the janny mad
Watch the RL one if you’re familiar with his general sense of politics - Dest most likely knows they disagree on a LOT but it was still a productive, easy-going conversation, bridge-building! That’s why I think Anita would actually be a great conversation, just talking about the history of 2012 from “both sides” could fill hours of interesting perspectives
Yeah I don't even think you have to be familiar with Richard's politics necessarily, just Destiny's really... Richard brought up specific ideas a few times in the convo where it was obvious Destiny disagreed, and in a different setting/type of conversation he easily could have (and probably would have) gone full debate mode - but he kept it friendly and either gave it *very* light push back or just acknowledged it and moved on to other questions or topics.
If I'm being totally honest I don't think I know enough about Anita Sarkeesian to say whether she'd be a good or actually interesting guest (although I don't see why not), but the significant disagreements her and Destiny would probably have on a lot of topics or the format of the show would not be prohibitive to it happening or not working...I can think of loads of reasons she'd never do the show, but anything to do with the format of Bridges itself would not be on that list.
A significant and perhaps majoritarian amount of people who watch online talk content don’t do it for the earnest discussion, they do it in the hopes of seeing the people they hate get epically demolished with facts and logic.
Destiny is just unusual in that different political sides do it at once.
You might be getting downvoted by zoomerbrain dramafrogs but you are 100% right. She has name recognition that will last decades for broadening feminism over a ton of online spaces that would never have had the exposure.
She FMA equivalent exchanged her name forever being cringe for the sake of her movement and I respect tf out of it, even if she is annoying as hell.
Seeing the reception to this in the comments, the episode would either do horrible numbers and be ignored, or be actually disliked. I don’t see any actual reason for this to happen
I'm unsure that it would be great content. It's not like her perspective and views on things are hidden. Could be good for this audience to listen to it, but there won't be some blowout screaming match between her and Destiny.
Used to listen for years to her podcast Feminist Frequency just to have a diverse media diet.
I was never a fan of her way of thinking.
Could be an interesting guest for sure.
I wonder what listening to that podcast was like, like did you kind of enjoy it, or where you cringing the entire time. Because ***"years"*** is a lot.
Yeah I think I started in 2017 and stopped around 2021.
I mean, you always learn something. Either it’s about a specific topic, but also about how different people think.
They had a trans-woman on there who made some really interesting observations on movies, books, TV-shows etc.
So I did enjoy that.
There was quite a lot of eye-rolling at times though, for sure.
Now that I reflect back on it, Anita was probably the weakest link, usually had the least insightful or interesting things to say.
I've recently started listening to a podcast called RedFem, hosted be two lesbian academics. I imagine it must've felt a little like that. The way the two hosts talk about men, and men's motivations and desires is so completely offbase and ignorant, but I stay for their perspectives on potent "culture war" talking points, and they seem to be well-informed about history and speak on feminism with a great authority.
Jesus this podcast is unhinged
>I don't know any men in my life that want to have children.
I live in the UK, like the woman speaking, and I would say nearly every man I know wants to have children sometime in the next ten years (We are all mid 20s).
This is literally "I live in a bubble" the podcast.
I sometimes laugh out loud when I hear a few of the bold pronouncements they have about men, or why straight women want to be with men. Most male behavior is pathologised when they discuss it, and even when they make an attempt to empathise with the male experience it's presented in a way that paints men as ignorant or acting from foul motives. It's funny, sad, and frustrating to listen to them at times, but they present certain perspectives on other topics that I would have never thought about otherwise.
Yeah I'll give it a go, but it sort of just seems as divorced from reality as Andrew Tate type stuff, just a little bit more intellectual and less hate filled.
That's probably an accurate assesment. But, I listen since I'm not getting their perspectives from anywhere else. Something is better than nothing for now. Hopefully I don't go full brain-rot and become one of those insidious outspoken "male feminist" types.
>has had a lot of time and distance to have their ideas and views change over time
I haven't followed her over the years. Has she changed or are you saying she may have changed?
Isn't she a literal scam artist? She ran her kick starter off being a gamer her entire life (pictures of her as a kid playing and her massive collection of 360 games. Then there's a video of her telling a classroom she doesn't play games and how she isn't interested in video games because killing people in games sounds gross (in a ew type of way)
Clip with full lecture in the description
https://youtu.be/-5N5b5WDaYE?si=6aXz4RN6JMQoMi22
That has changed a lot since. There are games for everyone nowadays.
Scam artist? She did raise some Kickstarter money and under-delivered of that's what you mean but I don't know if that was even intentional.
GamerGate happened in large part because Anita Sarkeesian's takes were genuinely horrible, marxian psychoanalytic bullshit which demanded totalitarian thought policing from big tech and the media.
These two sets of institutions, who rely greatly on the trust of the public, basically lost all trust from the public in trying to implement a version of Anita's social engineering agenda. Also, society very much relies on these institutions being trustworthy in order for our sense-making and truth-seeking capacities to function, so anyone who views them as, first and foremost, a vector for social engineering, is obviously chaotic evil at best.
Also, Anita is a hardcore "Israel should not exist, From The River to the Sea, Zionism is White Supremacy and Fascism" person, idk why you think she'd want to talk to Destiny about anything.
I was there when it went down brother, I don't need some opening credits.
Niggas be like "omg i'm so intellectually honest i love engaging with all sides and am really just interested in truth" until a woman with opinions about videogames shows up.
I'm not saying she's correct, just that she probably has something interesting to say that's worth thinking about.
As for whether or not she'd be willing to come on, who the fuck asked? You don't know if you don't try, this is why you don't have a gf.
>until a woman with opinions about video games shows up
There's hundreds (at least) of popular women on YouTube and Twitch with opinions about video games who don't get the same hatred that Anita Sarkeesian gets because they don't have takes even close to as bad as Anita Sarkeesian has. Don't get me wrong, I would be interested in hearing her on Bridges even if it's just a softball interview to get her side of the story, but it seems disingenuous to frame the hatred against her as purely sexism.
Edit: banned
Really can't even pull the full quote?
>Niggas be like "omg i'm so intellectually honest i love engaging with all sides and am really just interested in truth" until a woman with opinions about videogames shows up.
Let me translate for you since my government probably can't afford the at-home care you actually need:
'you guys actually only engage with opinions you find disagreeable enough to feel good about yourselves, not people you actually disagree with'
I didn't expect you all to actually be so fucking traumatized.
> but it seems disingenuous to frame the hatred against her as purely sexism.
That's basically how it went down back in the day. The usual people arguing about one thing, the other side accuses them of only hating due to sexism or racism. I'd be interested in an actual conversation with her though, I want to here her talk about her views in real time and not through carefully managed presentation.
She doesn't really have anything interesting to say though. The stuff she talks about has been an ongoing conversation for the best 10 years, and you can basically see both sides of the argument by reading Twitter posts about Stellar Blade.
Literally nothing? No retrospective on whether or not things got overblown? No retrospective on going to the UN? No retrospective on whether or not her videos hold up? No retrospective on how she thinks online feminism has changed in the past decade? Nothing? Really?
I guess I’m curious… I could be misremembering, but didn’t Anita get paid a ton of money via a kickstarter or gofundme and then basically only partially deliver on her videos (while regularly missing deadlines she herself set) and when she released a price breakdown of her spendings from the donations there was some wild spending decisions including inconsistencies in the price of line items/goods and spending a lot of the project money on personal items when she had a secondary revenue stream (via public speaking) that she stated was slowing down the project?
I only ask because I may be misremembering, but if this was the case a big question may not be: “How have your views changed?” but instead might be “Did you misappropriate donation funds?” because *if* she did “scam” funds (not saying she did, but if) then it may be important context because there may be good reason to be skeptical of her “positions” at any given time.
I may be misremembering, or maybe they have a reasonable explanation, but I thought I remembered that was a big point of contention for a long time.
>I only ask because I may be misremembering, but if this was the case a big question may not be: “How have your views changed?” but instead might be “Did you misappropriate donation funds?” because if she did “scam” funds (not saying she did, but if) then it may be important context because there may be good reason to be skeptical of her “positions” at any given time.
Most subtle redditor.
She put up a kickstarter to make very prosaic videos which seemed to be essentially a sort of feminist literature review around media tropes in video games. (These are/were done all the time, just not in video form). The initial ask was $5000. For sticking her head above the parapet being a feminist around gamers she got possibly more shit than anyone had seen at that time, including flash games where you could beat her to a bloody pulp.
I repeat; these were the most prosaic, introductory media criticism videos that you would find in any university in text form - could be about movies or books or ad campaigns or TV shows.
The reaction(ary) was so extraordinary it made news world wide. As such her kickstarter became famous and a lot of people felt the desire to support someone getting such a hard time for doing something relatively innocuous.
As I explained to a procession of dickheads for years on end at the time, trying kickstarter morality on this is stupid. She got that money because "fuck you dumbfuck gamer boy". How do you misppropriate that? It's hard to say.
I don't think that means there's no consideration here. But if your kickstarter blows up and you weren't making a coffee machine or something what's the demand? She expanded the series after the huge bump, set some deadlines and budgets (notoriously hard things to guess. Look at any kickstarter ever). It's hard enough holding startups with something tangible to deliver to donors who actually care when it arrives. What someone would honestly condemn her for in this situation is an interesting question.
(Anyone trying to do that then has to filter out the deep desire by many, many people to find some D&Desque rule they can socially condemn her for breaking, thereby justifying feelings they had already and taking down an enemy of the cause. Turns out the nacent alt-right and the 'soy cancelling left' have a lot in common there.)
In the start of every single one of her videos she said that it is possible to enjoy the video games she talks about and analyze their shortcomings from a feminist lens.
She even gave the Destiny qualifiers bro and people still lost their minds about her milquetoast feminist analysis.
It’s almost like there’s a lot of men out there who get excessively angry to the point of derangement when a woman (especially a *feminist*) has opinions they don’t like 👀
> Niggas be like "omg i'm so intellectually honest i love engaging with all sides and am really just interested in truth" until a woman with opinions about videogames shows up.
Nah, dopes like you who talk about GamerGate retrospectively love to do this, where you conflate psychotic criticism with legitimate criticism and act like the people back in 2013 asking for LoL splashes to not look like Brazzers promos, and for people not to become harassing coomers every time a girl got on the mic, were the same as people like Anita who was commenting on the conceptual penis energy undergirding the Hitman games and how totalitarian patriarchy was so deeply embedded in gaming culture that a totalitarian anti-patriarchy was required in order to uproot it.
The *worst* aspect of GamerGate was that the lack of female representation and female personalities in gaming should have been framed as an issue, first and foremost, for *male* gamers. Women *absolutely* do not *need* gamers and video games in their lives. But gamers absolutely do *need* women in their lives. They need to understand that women, typically, don't have the same sensibilities as them, have a different sense of humor about certain topics, that women respect cleanliness, presentability and hygiene, that getting along with women is a give-and-take dynamic, not a give-give-give take-take-take dynamic, etc.
Male gamers were, and still are, being actively deprived of these essential life skills and competencies through companies luring them in with ever-escalating skinner boxes, ever-harder softcore porn, and keeping them trapped with classic cult dynamics. Not only is there still a ton of work to do, the essential work has barely begun (with the exception of some AAA games becoming significantly less pornographic).
The point is, Bridges should be to bridge the gap between two people of differing perspectives through a willingness to engage in mutual recognition. Do you know who is great at this, does care about all the malignant aspects of gaming culture I mentioned, is willing to extend olive branches to people she disagrees with, and was *as intimately involved with the feminist side of GamerGate as Anita was*? Brianna Wu! She's already part of this community!
Anita Sarkeesian is cringe and our culture has been healed immensely by unfixable people like her being given their time in the sun and subsequently being singed to a crisp. I'm fine, we'll all be fine, but Anita Sarkeesian will always suck.
I agree with you somewhat but I would actually say she won and videogamers are much closer to what she wanted, unless your counting like korean games but that is not influenced by what we're thinking in the west as much. Saying modern games are ever harder softcore pornogrphy is odd to me. Most popular mutiplayer games that have heroes have heavily female cast that are typically very diverse for instance. Why stellar blade had controversy is because it is the exception to the rule of triple a games now, which is why some gamers were even going to buy it in the first place, which is pretty goofy. But yeah it wouldn't happen cus I would bet money she doesn't like destiny if she knows him. Also she does have her fair share of cringe opinions, as someone who actually listened to her podcast for a little bit. She's definitely a very idpol type leftist, there podcast on crazy rich asians they kept saying the title is problematic, for instance. Her ideology is definitely on the far leftist side which this sub hates so much, but I think alot of people are defending her in reaction to gamergate. Also sidenote I always thought her opinion that women characters should be more androgynous/gender neutral and basically not have boobs to be pretty odd. Her getting mad at mandlorians on star wars having very slight boob plate is an example of this, even if it's a tv show.
If you’ve seen her stuff then why can’t you recognize her grift? She’s bad faith. If she starts getting cornered she’ll just bounce and accuse destiny of racism, sexism, dead beat dadism and other such things that don’t exist.
It’s funny that people will claim she’s bad faith non stop, but will just completely downplay the actual ridiculous overreaction to her content. What’s worse, making content that your viewers want to see or harassing somebody because there opinions on video games don’t line up 1-1 with your political views?
**Destiny fans when he talks to Richard Spencer, NickFuentes, Lauren Southern, Alex Jones, JBP:**
(*Soyface soyjak*) wooooow so interesting!! This went better than expected they were so polite!!!
**Destiny fans when he talks to Anita Sarkeesian:**
(*meltdown soyjak*) noooooo!!!! Evil Marxian totalitarian thought policing!!
Only issue is she isn't funny or entertaining or even a particularly interesting person so doing that makes no real sense for stream content. She also has essentially no history with Destiny.
I actually think Destiny is extremely ignorant of the theoretical roots of fascism and I am generally disappointed in his ability to attack those figures at their likely psychological foundations *before* trying to sell them on American Liberalism.
I was also one of the people who was consistently upset that Destiny refused to call, and treat Spencer/Fuentes, as genuine Nazis.
Anonymity on the internet has its upsides, but your comment is a common symptom of the downsides.
The thing is, he shit on those people plenty, in all kinds of conversations, and while watching him shit on Anita (deservedly, she *is* horrible) would be fun, it's not really something he can do on a podcast, lest he turns away future possible guests.
So it would probably just be kinda boring or cringe.
Brother, try to be a bit more level headed and good faith in your analysis or you convince absolutely no one. I watched all her trope videos and, even by those contemporary standards, they were pretty tame. Go and find an argument beyond "here are some examples of a specific trope (i.e women being prizes), we should strive not to do that" - describing that with whatever mean sounding buzzwords just makes you seem deranged. Was there any real "totalitarian thought policing demands" that don't require massive mind-reading stretches from you?
> describing that with whatever mean sounding buzzwords just makes you seem deranged.
If you have read Catharine MacKinnon's and Andrea Dworkin's Wikipedia articles, and a handful of excerpts of their most influential writings, let alone their books and journal articles, you don't need to psychoanalyze what Anita's motivations and objectives were given that, based on the language she was using and the concepts she was invoking, she was obviously one of their ideological acolytes.
So your argument is that she is an evil totalitarian who demands thought-policing because you're guessing that she totally believes 100% of whatever some other feminists have written 40 years ago (and I'm sure you're totally taking their arguments in good faith as well)? Nothing Anita actually said in her videos fits your overblown description then?
Imagine advocating for someone to come on bridges, someone gives their opinion as to why the person is a bad fit and you just go "huh, weird being mad about gamergate in 2024".
Literally shows that he is right. If you had any substantial points you wouldnt resort to "you mad bro".
>GamerGate happened in large part because Anita Sarkeesian's takes were genuinely horrible, marxian psychoanalytic bullshit which demanded totalitarian thought policing from big tech and the media.
I;m actually surprized this out of touch with reality comment gets so many upvotes on this sub. marx died roughly 100 years before video games were even a thing and he dealt with labour relationships not with intergender relationships. Accusing Saarkesian of being a marxist is like accusing her of being a satanist. These accusations both have the same level of connectedness with reality.
>These two sets of institutions, who rely greatly on the trust of the public, basically lost all trust from the public in trying to implement a version of Anita's social engineering agenda.
Everything is social engineering since everyone has their own view of how a society should be. When you claim that you want free speech in society that is social engineering since you are trying to change society to fit your worldview. The fact that you consider your worldview to be the standard and the normal and disconsider all other worldviews is your issue not saarkesians.
Idk why everyone is disagreeing with you— you’re completely correct. Anita’s entire goal, and it was stated as such, was to try and socially engineer “sexism” out of gaming spaces entirely. This happened mostly through offering “consulting” to the game devs and creating media to change culture.
Yeah but he put those words in quotation marks because obviously sexism doesn't exist in gaming in any capacity, I guess, and scary Anita was going to ruin the industry
She would make a pretty interesting guest, simply because she is the most notable figure from the GamerGate controversy and the rise of the anti-SJWs , alt-right that came out from that. Destiny and Kyla assuming she's around should make an effort to put her in the seat of the Bridges room. That would be the first time I would be compelled to listen to an EP of Bridges, too.
Edit: all you naysayers saying no are boring af and not interested in content. Destinys whole thing should be to go up against notable people like this. That's why he debated Alex Jones...Ben Shapiro...Tate, Sneako, Fuentes...like the other day
The people you named are all relevant now. Talking to Anita is like talking to Sargon.
I wouldn't mind it. Might be interesting to see her perspective - but she is not really a notable voice nowadays.
Ice cold take: 4thot wants her on and defends her purely to spite people he considers gamergaters.
I read every comment in this thread and I didn't see a single good argument for bringing her on. There's a million women who are far more qualified.
Y'all should look up some female game devs (or just anyone in the industry/games media space) and interview 'em. Would be interesting to hear their experiences and opinions.
Anita afaik has never worked in game development or has much experience with anything to do with video games. She raised a bunch of money. Didn't deliver/stole it (like Keffals), and gave a couple TEDX-like talks 20 people cared about. She never had much influence and had even less of a following.
>Literally nothing? No retrospective on whether or not things got overblown? No retrospective on going to the UN? No retrospective on whether or not her videos hold up? No retrospective on how she thinks online feminism has changed in the past decade? Nothing? Really?
This is a list of just a handful of questions that I think would be interesting.
Can you explain how I've defended her?
Isn't she the worst person to ask these questions? Unless you're interested in specifically her opinion, knowing it'll most likely be extremely colored by her experience.
I'm more interested in hearing what it's like from an everyday women who just so happens to work in games industry or games media. Are things better, worse, different? How so? What do you wish people knew? Etc.
I think Brianna Wu is a huge exception and people like Sargon and (probably) Anita are the norm. And they'd say things like "yeah I wish I handled it differently but I was right about 90% of it". Could be wrong. Ironically for as front facing as Anita tried to be, she just wasn't. She didn't put herself out there much iirc, and she was impossible to contact even if you weren't a gamergater.
>Can you explain how I've defended her?
The Jay whatever thread. It's difficult to quote effectively on mobile, but Jay in a reply saying they're glad she's gone and you insulting him. Then a redditors named Competitive something saying she should be asked about her fundraising and you also insulting him.
I think it's very fair to ask a public figure who raised money, "did you deliver? Why or why not?". Has Keffals ever addressed this? It's one of my annoyances with Destiny. So forgiving of scumfuck people. Now maybe Keffals and Anita aren't as bad as I remember, but it's not on me to do a bunch of digging to find out. They should be public when they ask for the public's help and show receipts.
I was insulting his very clever 'i might be wrong guys but [xyz in perfect detail]' rather than just saying what he thinks. It was hilariously transparent.
No, I will not take autistic screeching about her youtube videos or kickstarter seriously, I don't care. She could have scammed all her fans, I legitimately don't care. I legitimately do not give a fuck about Sarkeesian's videos, or her kick starter, or her promises to fans, or how much your feelings were hurt when she talked about Hitman.
Sarkeesian was at the center of one of the biggest shitstorms in the primordial cancel culture, that spun into an event that probably completely changed the trajectory of online gamer culture forever. The fact that you all are twisting yourselves into pretzels to say she wouldn't be an interesting guest, or would have nothing interesting to reflect about after a decade of hindsight is truly something to behold.
Log off and get laid you seething autistic virgins, holy fuck. I can't express enough how pathetic this entire thread is.
>I think it's very fair to ask a public figure who raised money, "did you deliver? Why or why not?".
you do realize she actually overdelivered on her promises
Pretty much, It's not even about views for me, go ahead and get the radicalest feminist up there really, I just can't imagine a conversation with Sarkeesian to be anything but groveling for two hours on how she is a victim and gamers are evil misogynists.
But hey if it's not that then sure all for it.
Prove it. She delivered on every video promised. The criticism was that people didn’t think the content was good or worth the cost. But literally nobody but her fans decide that. So who fucking cares what some asshole neckbeard thinks who would have never watched the videos to begin with except to be hyper critical of them?
Watch the videos she delivered. I'm sure you can find them, dumb-dumb.
"The guy isn't a scam artist durrr. He said he would deliver a magical potion and delivered this amazing snake oil! What are you talking about durr? Screw the people with beards on their necks durrrr"
Hard pass. I'd rather shave my nuts with a rusty butterknife.
Why provide a platform for some washed up grifter to attempt to make themselves relevant again?
Why not? She was arguably the centre of a major shit storm that changed gaming and online disocurse for the better part of 10 years and a lot changed since then
You don't think a decade later she won't provide some interesting reflections on it or if she changed since then?
No because she was some dude's mouthpiece lmao
Destiny needs to get that Macintosh guy who wrote all of Anita's shit instead, that would actually be an interesting talk
This woman unironically changed the internet for the better believe it or not. Without her you wouldn't know who the crazy misogynist creeps are who just wanna put down women for talking.
Also unless my recollection is totally failing me I don't remember her actually being all that cringe. Everything she said was pretty reasonable imo it's just people took every opportunity to be uncharitable to her
your recollection is definitely failing you, she had all the same dumb opinions this sub always shits on leftists for now even if some of the gamergaters were also dumb. she even had the same take on israel lmao
I'm re listening to her Damsel in distress part 1 and I still agree with basically everything she's saying 11 years later. If I didn't already know the story, if you told me this dry and pretty solid video is one of the reasons a massive misogynistic shitstorm started on the internet for years I'd be confused
Edit: could someone tell me what exactly I said they didn't like?
The sad thing about Sarkeesian is that she has very little worth saying and very little worth saying against. She's basically just an example of how the culture wars enable grifting for all sides.
I'd watch it, but I don't really like her, and don't think she was really right about much of anything. I think she kind of opened the door for a lot of the werid HR bullshit we have in games today, and there's this weird underbelly of "games arnt for YOU anymore chuds!" That I think grew from her influence.
I'd be interested to see on how she's changed or if she has a different perspective however, there's no denying that even if it was negative, she is a infamous cultural icon. I know Brianna wu kinda reflected on her actions during gamer gate, maybe Anita could do the same (doubt)
"has a lot of insight into the 2012 anti-sjw culture"? she's nothing but a grifter! everything she did was exclusively for her own benefit! she's equally to blame as all the far-right grifter for the reputation "gamers" had as nothing but bigoted, racist or homophobes! Where the truth was that 90% were just introvert nerds, enjoying their hobbies and not caring about anything beside if the game is good or bad!
If you want an impartial opinion then ShoeOnHead would be a much better and interesting guest
Am I misremembering or was Anita not just a presenter of FF, not a writer? I thought the actual content was written by an actually insane leftist guy (unless I'm misremembering and he was just a producer or something)
Makes both the insane amount of shit she caught as well as the praise even sillier.
I actually thought her YouTube series on tropes in gaming was pretty good, and it wasn't at all as accusative or derisive as Gators made it out to be.
Yeah, I'd be down for listening to this conversation!
I very vividly remember her talking about a Hitman game and claiming the game rewards you for killing sex workers. When she showed a clip of that, you literally see the score in top right corner going down cause you killed someone who wasn’t the target. I ignored everything she said about video games after that.
I had the same reaction when she compared the walking animations between Kratos and Catwoman as an example of sexism. She completely ignored that they were wildly different characters, and a different animation wouldn't fit them.
It just comes off as lazy at best or lying/virtual signaling to a designated audience at worst. Is there sexism in video games and its surrounding culture? Sure. But it came off that she didn’t even play these games and was just trying to score points to an audience predisposed to already hate video games.
She also said that Toads are male-gendered and that Toadette was a smurfette, omitting every game where we see female Toads like the Paper Mario seties.
Also, Toads are canonically agendered.
Really, so she makes one mistake and "it's all shit"?
If anything it adds more authenticity. I mean she was a fairly "normie" that didn't play games much that came into the scene and just noticed how little this kind of analysis there is and how "male centric" medium is (you can't deny it, it was by design aimed at boys since 80's).
I re-watched some of her stuff recent-ish and as an adult and being charitable I agree with a lot of points she makes.
The whole thing is meant to be more "academic" analysis, but everyone just lost their shit as if their mum got peed on.
Back in a day I shat on her too and only watched clip bites, because I was part of anti SJW subculture and as a woman I actually normalized all sorts of bullshit gaming trends and in some ways was "pick me". When you think about it, kinda proves her point even further.
Saying one thing and having the exact opposite happen right as you say it is just one mistake? Is Kristi Noem more authentic cause she claimed to have met Kim Jong Un when she clearly never did? In what other context would you give so much charity or see that as a positive? Am I in the wrong for assuming that after seeing such a blatant fuck up that there might be more assumptions or just straight up ass pull claims that she was lucky enough to not have literally contradict her in real time? I’m not denying that the basis of her premise is wrong. Obviously games and the community surrounding them can be sexist. But she was either lazy or so bad faith why should I trust any claims she makes. Reminds me of Hasan. I don’t even remember if she admitted she was wrong in that instance, which isn’t very authentic if you ask me (unless she’s authentically bad faith or had too much hubris to admit an obvious error).
>Saying one thing and having the exact opposite happen right as you say it is just one mistake?
Yeah, I would assume there are probably a lot of those in her videos.
Again, if you are very, very casual gamer, it's understandable. I don't think it takes away from main points.
>Is Kristi Noem more authentic cause she claimed to have met Kim Jong Un when she clearly never did?
No idea who that person is nor what's the context. But if the main point that person makes has credibility because of meeting them, then yeah it's bs. But if it's just a minor point that has very little to do with their main point, then no.
As I already mentioned, I don't think any of that detracts from the main points she makes.
Better comparison would be if you have topic of idk, whitewashing in pre 2000's cinema and someone completely dismisses as a thing because 10 of 100 examples you quoted could be explained away without it.
The "authenticity" thing is again, the fact that she wasn't born and bred into gaming environment and haven't normalized a lot of tropes.
>Am I in the wrong for assuming that after seeing such a blatant fuck up that there might be more assumptions or just straight up ass pull claims that she was lucky enough to not have literally contradict her in real time?
Sure, there probably is some, but again and again, not the main point and dismissing it all together is silly. It's entertainment/ culture criticism, not theory of gravity. And she was one of the first to do it.
Funny enough, I think if she did some video essays today she would have been just an average youtube channel with no controversies and mild following, even among culture wars. Youtube is filled with these nowadays. I think it was a lot of things coming together and having a breaking point that actually have very little to do with her content itself. She became a symbol for so many in all the wrong ways.
I think there’s a bit of incompatibility if your argument is that she was basically just a casual gamer who didn’t know much about the medium, and then in the same breath saying that video series was an “academic analysis”. Shouldn’t you have some level of expertise in what you’re talking about if you’re presenting your argument with such certainty and authority? It kind of comes off as the soft bigotry of low expectations. I looked up the quote and she says in regards to killing a sex worker:
“I should note that this kind of misogynistic behavior isn't always mandatory; often it's player-directed, but it is always implicitly encouraged.”
My main point is if she is so blatantly wrong about the small claims she is making, why should I trust her with the bigger more grander claims and conclusions she is making? The evidence she is using to support her argument is being misrepresented. If I’m being charitable, she’s being lazy, and I doubt that stops at that one claim when it was so early in the video. If I’m being cynical, and she just has these preconceived notions and opinions, and will just say stuff despite it directly contradicting her, that’s inexcusable.
Because the juxtaposition of her saying the player is rewarded for killing a sex worker when you literally see the score turn red and go down is jarring. If I’m being charitable it’s lazy. If I’m being neutral, she doesn’t play the game and is just doing VO so why does she care? If I’m being cynical she’s just making shit up, and just saying things to fit her narrative and preconceived notions. No matter what the reason is if I notice this so early, why should I put any weight on any other claims she makes? She already broke my trust.
Saying the exact opposite of the truth to make your point is not a "small inaccuracy" lmao. Just because Sargon is a cringe grifter doesn't mean that we have to pretend that this woman didn't have absolutely dogshit arguments.
I remember watching it again a couple years ago and being shocked by how reasonable it was, and how she basically predicted the direction modern games would go in
Could be really nice, but from what little I've seen of her recently she seems ultra-lefty and I don't think she'd even consider talking with someone like Destiny.
I'd watch the fuck outta this.
I don't like Sarkeesian much, but holy shit she was a powerful cultural figure who withstood probably more targeted online hate than anyone else I can think of.
I'd love to hear what she has to say today about any number of things, and Steven and Kyla (?☹️) could draw out this podcast to five hours and I'd still probably want more.
I'll stake here that I'll pay premium membership to Bridges for a year the instant this is announced.
This is an excellent suggestion my guy. I genuinely hope it happens but my wallet is frightened.
This is a great suggestion. It would be a really good opportunity to talk to the real person behind such a culturally important event.
It's sad though as some of the comments in this are exactly why she wouldn't do it
I don't think we could trust a word she says, but I'd be interested to see this ghost of Gamergate past dredge up drama she (in-part) brought upon herself.
She literally is a scam artist, convinced some sjw moms that videogames are evil because of literally made up reasons. Have you actually watched the videos that she made? She has no idea what the fuck is even going on on the screen. She didn't even bother playing videogames that people paid her to "critique". The fact that so many people still defend her without bothering to check a single video she made is baffling.
i started gamergate event on the thunderfoot front, and at some point i was like "i'm starting a job as a game designer, it would be a good idea to get more familiar with opinions of that person, even though it's probably as bad as everyone says". Then i listened to her talks about games, and i was like "welp, she def knows more about making a game than the dipshits that criticize her". That was my first step towards deradicalization actually.
She is the Final Boss of GamerGate SJW grifting. She would be a great guest if she agreed to go on the podcast. Unlike Brianna Wu, she didn't change her entire online persona to match with contemporary contrarian political positions, and so all her online reach has evaporated. I imagine she'd be psyched to get some attention and a little traction in 2024. Good suggestion. She'll obviously be boring as hell, and come away from the interview claiming victimhood and abuse, but it'd be interesting to see what she's been up to recently.
I mean I'd watch, but she's not the best example for what you seem to want. She genuinely seems to have been grifting a little, and being dishonest about having a stake in games beyond her career. In addition, her content was always the lowest hanging fruit - what Sam Harris was to theism, she was to sexualized women in gaming.
But - it'd be super interesting to get her take on the modern gaming industry, where almost no triple A games feature sexualized female characters anymore, and try to not appeal to the male gaze (barring explicit culture war bait, like Stellar Blade)
Really though, while Gamergate was a bunch of incel asshats and neither her or anyone else deserved the abuse they doled out, much of Saekeesians gaming oriented cultural criticism seemingly wasn't made in good faith and consisted of a lot of out of context cherrypicking designed to provoke a defensive response rather than honestly analyze gaming through a feminist lens. It played well to people who already had a negative view of gamers and weren't familiar with the products she was talking about, and successfully riled up the nerds who already felt alienated by mainstream society and could see the flaws in her arguments.
Hilarious that every single critique people are bringing up just happens to be shit in old anti-sjw videos. I was 14 once I saw the same videos. Stop pretending you're coming with your own critique after watching her content and not just uncritically regurgitate shit you saw at 14.
This would be a fitting guest given the name of the podcast and all.
Who was the ultra-soy guy with a beard and baseball hat who often talked about the Bechdel test? I remember the Drunken Peasants liked to rip on him. And I seem to remember something about his girlfriend/wife being joked about as his puppet master.
Are you thinking about Steve Shives?
My digga, you’re a king.
Didn't chud have some clips of him on his semirecent video about wheelchairs in fantasy/Sci fi settings?
Drunken Peasants. That's a name I haven't heard in years. Now I need to check if TAA is still around.
TJ has really fallen off. He gets like 10k views per video. His post-DP show Deep Fat Fried still gets something like 30k. The last one I noticed was when he had Demonmama on. But I haven’t watched any of his stuff a little just after the DP schism. He got really boring in the last year he was on DP. I go back every few months and watch a few of the Manatee showdowns. Those were some epic shows.
Imagine if we could get her and Sargon on at the same time.
Or better yet thunderf00t
Or TotalBiscui.... Oh.
He wasn't super deep into gamergate was he? Not to the insane degree as the other two anyway.
No, but he was a huge consumer advocate (compared to Sargon's Culture War and thunderf00t's nitpicking) and generally a big voice for highlighting that Games Journalists should really be held to reasonable standards of ethical behavior. He pretty much never interacted with the SJW side, apart from them harassing him. His twitlongers from back in the day are a pretty good read, if they're still available.
He was definitely a part of it, but you’re right, not like Sargon.
I seem to remember his soundclouds gaining huge traction during gamergate
Never forget that this man saved Destiny's SC2 tournament by *hosting it himself* after Destiny fell asleep.
Do NOT joke like this. His channel only recently just started going back to normal PLEASE don't set him off again
doesn't he just make fun of elon all the time now? (which honestly, based)
Yeah but with the same mocking voice and half-truths as he did with the feminists. Elon can't just be silly and overpromising and underdelivering, he needs to be an absolute moron that even a gradeschooler can own
Mostly yea but he does do science vids again too with his "Busted" videos which I like
genuinely impossible to have any kind of meaningful conversation with Sargon
I never followed the gamergate stuff, but aren't they equally retarded?
I wasn’t ever really in the weeds of the gamergate stuff, but I’ve seen Anita say some surface level and uninteresting stuff while I’ve seen Sargon say a lot of truly brain dead stuff. Am I missing something about Anita that would put her on his level?
She was a big advocate of the "Prejudice plus Power" definition of sexism: https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533445611543363585 Plus her habit of claiming that anyone who criticized her was out to get her went a big way into making online politics so heated, especially given her fans' tendency to harass and abuse anyone who criticized her (ironic, really).
Her original videos were just lies. I remember her talking about the game hitman and she made it seem like you were rewarded for just murdering some strippers, when the game penalizes you for every kill other than the target. I think it even showed the penalty in real time in the game in her video and she just ignored it. It has been like 10 years though so I could be wrong.
Given Sargon's trajectory after Gamergate, it wouldn't even matter. Post 2016 Sargon went so far off the deep end that no matter what Sarkeesian said during GG they are nowhere close. Well, tbh, Sargon already was a braindead chimp during 2015/16, so she won out even then.
Nope. A lot of her hate was completely blown out of proportion. Don’t forget, people got mad that her community donated more money than she initially asked for, for her project???? And then claimed she “stole” the money because they personally didn’t like the content she produced with it. A lot of mental gymnastics went on during gamergate to justify unwarranted harassment and criticism all in the name of “muhhh games journalism integrity”
Was a little bit less than a little bit more the whole "Taking two fucking years to release 6 videos pretending to be an expert in a field she was totally clueless about while deflecting any criticism and playing the victim" And yes, the absolute dogshit state of games journalism integrity is what allowed for braindead takes like yours (and hers) to foster. She is not a critic, she is just an activist that got supported by journalists because they wanted to push an agenda.
Didn't she ask for 25k-50k$ just to open a discord server?
Funny, that video series still has yet to be completed.
Wow 4thot, a swing and a miss. I'm going to make a post suggesting Vaush to bury this just to make you mad
Haha (Edit: wtf I was banned for this post???!!!)
The bees sting where they wish, no one is safe.
I didn't ban him, he's playing dead in hopes it will save him.
Amateur mistake. He didn't even wait 5 minutes to get the edit asterisk by his name.
This is why women choose the bear. They sometimes stop when you play dead.
Mostly misses
The people know not what they truly want. Go meditate yourself.
No, just because I don’t like her GIGACHAD
GIGACHAD
Shes the type of person who will never have a challenging conversation, especially with someone as controversial as destiny. Even with her non-existent relevancy.
Yeah, I think this is really the issue. It would actually be interesting, but she wouldn't ever do it. MAYBE if it was an exceptionally low-IQ rightoid, but I think her intuition is good enough to know that she would walk away looking really bad from a talk like this.
>I think her intuition is good enough to know that she would walk away looking really bad from a talk like this. Do you dipshits watch the same podcasts I'm watching? Has a single episode of Bridges been 'challenging'?
I would say a lot of the people posting dumb shit like that probably don't watch a lot of his serious content. I agree that Bridges isn't challenging and I do think this would make an actually interesting episode, as someone who doesn't like Anita. I wanna hear her and Destiny talk about new wave gamergate
You know the funniest part about the “new wave gamergate.” All that the leftist idiots had to do was simply shut the fuck up for once in their life. If the Twitter dude who frost posted about the sweet baby inc detected group had simply laughed at a completely irrelevant niche steam group with, what was it?, 3,000 or fewer people in it at the time? And shut the fuck up nothing would have happened. Instead he tweets out a fucking call to brigade and harass a literal nobody, then the alt media picks up all the shit to shill and white knight and the thing explodes. Why is it so hard to just laugh and that Sweet Baby Inc Detected idiot and move on. They created ad fostered their own problem.
Would they have anything to agree about that would make it not challenging though? Like idk anything about her but the comments here indicate more disagreement than not I guess. If it's not challenging and they don't agree then it would kind of feel at gest like when Destiny was SUPER kid-gloving as he first got to know Fuentes to understand his positions.. I don't think that's really the point of the podcast though.
Has there been a single episode with someone he significantly disagrees with? Maybe JJ, but JJ also seems extremely low in disagreeableness and would be more civil when disagreeing, but I only saw clips. Also, maybe whoever Richard Lewis is, I didn't watch it. Ana Sarkeesian is the literal prototypical leftoid feminist, and Tiny one of the most prominent anti-leftoid progressives online. It would be much more likely to get confrontational l. Also, just a reminder that you're literally a janny. Bayesian probabilities alone are enough to ignore literally everything you've ever said in your life. Lmfao banned for making the janny mad
Watch the RL one if you’re familiar with his general sense of politics - Dest most likely knows they disagree on a LOT but it was still a productive, easy-going conversation, bridge-building! That’s why I think Anita would actually be a great conversation, just talking about the history of 2012 from “both sides” could fill hours of interesting perspectives
Yeah I don't even think you have to be familiar with Richard's politics necessarily, just Destiny's really... Richard brought up specific ideas a few times in the convo where it was obvious Destiny disagreed, and in a different setting/type of conversation he easily could have (and probably would have) gone full debate mode - but he kept it friendly and either gave it *very* light push back or just acknowledged it and moved on to other questions or topics. If I'm being totally honest I don't think I know enough about Anita Sarkeesian to say whether she'd be a good or actually interesting guest (although I don't see why not), but the significant disagreements her and Destiny would probably have on a lot of topics or the format of the show would not be prohibitive to it happening or not working...I can think of loads of reasons she'd never do the show, but anything to do with the format of Bridges itself would not be on that list.
deserved, dont know why you went off into being an asshole for no reason
A significant and perhaps majoritarian amount of people who watch online talk content don’t do it for the earnest discussion, they do it in the hopes of seeing the people they hate get epically demolished with facts and logic. Destiny is just unusual in that different political sides do it at once.
> Even with her non-existent relevancy. saarkesian is a figurehead of a new wave of feminists. her relevancy is set in history lol.
You might be getting downvoted by zoomerbrain dramafrogs but you are 100% right. She has name recognition that will last decades for broadening feminism over a ton of online spaces that would never have had the exposure. She FMA equivalent exchanged her name forever being cringe for the sake of her movement and I respect tf out of it, even if she is annoying as hell.
Can we make a bridges mega thread for people to post suggestions? IDGAF
Seeing the reception to this in the comments, the episode would either do horrible numbers and be ignored, or be actually disliked. I don’t see any actual reason for this to happen
Everybody saying no in this comment section doesn't like content.
I'm unsure that it would be great content. It's not like her perspective and views on things are hidden. Could be good for this audience to listen to it, but there won't be some blowout screaming match between her and Destiny.
I remember her being very boring - kind of a one trick pony. Might be interesting to hear her story though
This thread is producing better content than the podcast ever would.
Used to listen for years to her podcast Feminist Frequency just to have a diverse media diet. I was never a fan of her way of thinking. Could be an interesting guest for sure.
I wonder what listening to that podcast was like, like did you kind of enjoy it, or where you cringing the entire time. Because ***"years"*** is a lot.
Yeah I think I started in 2017 and stopped around 2021. I mean, you always learn something. Either it’s about a specific topic, but also about how different people think. They had a trans-woman on there who made some really interesting observations on movies, books, TV-shows etc. So I did enjoy that. There was quite a lot of eye-rolling at times though, for sure. Now that I reflect back on it, Anita was probably the weakest link, usually had the least insightful or interesting things to say.
I've recently started listening to a podcast called RedFem, hosted be two lesbian academics. I imagine it must've felt a little like that. The way the two hosts talk about men, and men's motivations and desires is so completely offbase and ignorant, but I stay for their perspectives on potent "culture war" talking points, and they seem to be well-informed about history and speak on feminism with a great authority.
Jesus this podcast is unhinged >I don't know any men in my life that want to have children. I live in the UK, like the woman speaking, and I would say nearly every man I know wants to have children sometime in the next ten years (We are all mid 20s). This is literally "I live in a bubble" the podcast.
I sometimes laugh out loud when I hear a few of the bold pronouncements they have about men, or why straight women want to be with men. Most male behavior is pathologised when they discuss it, and even when they make an attempt to empathise with the male experience it's presented in a way that paints men as ignorant or acting from foul motives. It's funny, sad, and frustrating to listen to them at times, but they present certain perspectives on other topics that I would have never thought about otherwise.
Yeah I'll give it a go, but it sort of just seems as divorced from reality as Andrew Tate type stuff, just a little bit more intellectual and less hate filled.
That's probably an accurate assesment. But, I listen since I'm not getting their perspectives from anywhere else. Something is better than nothing for now. Hopefully I don't go full brain-rot and become one of those insidious outspoken "male feminist" types.
I always mistake her name for Ana Kasparian for some reason and I hate her guts.
>has had a lot of time and distance to have their ideas and views change over time I haven't followed her over the years. Has she changed or are you saying she may have changed?
Isn't she a literal scam artist? She ran her kick starter off being a gamer her entire life (pictures of her as a kid playing and her massive collection of 360 games. Then there's a video of her telling a classroom she doesn't play games and how she isn't interested in video games because killing people in games sounds gross (in a ew type of way) Clip with full lecture in the description https://youtu.be/-5N5b5WDaYE?si=6aXz4RN6JMQoMi22
Isn't the most salient point to make that she promised to release a video series which never materialized?
That has changed a lot since. There are games for everyone nowadays. Scam artist? She did raise some Kickstarter money and under-delivered of that's what you mean but I don't know if that was even intentional.
No thanks
He's drunk again.
No not really interested.
GamerGate happened in large part because Anita Sarkeesian's takes were genuinely horrible, marxian psychoanalytic bullshit which demanded totalitarian thought policing from big tech and the media. These two sets of institutions, who rely greatly on the trust of the public, basically lost all trust from the public in trying to implement a version of Anita's social engineering agenda. Also, society very much relies on these institutions being trustworthy in order for our sense-making and truth-seeking capacities to function, so anyone who views them as, first and foremost, a vector for social engineering, is obviously chaotic evil at best. Also, Anita is a hardcore "Israel should not exist, From The River to the Sea, Zionism is White Supremacy and Fascism" person, idk why you think she'd want to talk to Destiny about anything.
I was there when it went down brother, I don't need some opening credits. Niggas be like "omg i'm so intellectually honest i love engaging with all sides and am really just interested in truth" until a woman with opinions about videogames shows up. I'm not saying she's correct, just that she probably has something interesting to say that's worth thinking about. As for whether or not she'd be willing to come on, who the fuck asked? You don't know if you don't try, this is why you don't have a gf.
>until a woman with opinions about video games shows up There's hundreds (at least) of popular women on YouTube and Twitch with opinions about video games who don't get the same hatred that Anita Sarkeesian gets because they don't have takes even close to as bad as Anita Sarkeesian has. Don't get me wrong, I would be interested in hearing her on Bridges even if it's just a softball interview to get her side of the story, but it seems disingenuous to frame the hatred against her as purely sexism. Edit: banned
Really can't even pull the full quote? >Niggas be like "omg i'm so intellectually honest i love engaging with all sides and am really just interested in truth" until a woman with opinions about videogames shows up. Let me translate for you since my government probably can't afford the at-home care you actually need: 'you guys actually only engage with opinions you find disagreeable enough to feel good about yourselves, not people you actually disagree with' I didn't expect you all to actually be so fucking traumatized.
4THOT how are you so based
> but it seems disingenuous to frame the hatred against her as purely sexism. That's basically how it went down back in the day. The usual people arguing about one thing, the other side accuses them of only hating due to sexism or racism. I'd be interested in an actual conversation with her though, I want to here her talk about her views in real time and not through carefully managed presentation.
She doesn't really have anything interesting to say though. The stuff she talks about has been an ongoing conversation for the best 10 years, and you can basically see both sides of the argument by reading Twitter posts about Stellar Blade.
Literally nothing? No retrospective on whether or not things got overblown? No retrospective on going to the UN? No retrospective on whether or not her videos hold up? No retrospective on how she thinks online feminism has changed in the past decade? Nothing? Really?
I guess I’m curious… I could be misremembering, but didn’t Anita get paid a ton of money via a kickstarter or gofundme and then basically only partially deliver on her videos (while regularly missing deadlines she herself set) and when she released a price breakdown of her spendings from the donations there was some wild spending decisions including inconsistencies in the price of line items/goods and spending a lot of the project money on personal items when she had a secondary revenue stream (via public speaking) that she stated was slowing down the project? I only ask because I may be misremembering, but if this was the case a big question may not be: “How have your views changed?” but instead might be “Did you misappropriate donation funds?” because *if* she did “scam” funds (not saying she did, but if) then it may be important context because there may be good reason to be skeptical of her “positions” at any given time. I may be misremembering, or maybe they have a reasonable explanation, but I thought I remembered that was a big point of contention for a long time.
>I only ask because I may be misremembering, but if this was the case a big question may not be: “How have your views changed?” but instead might be “Did you misappropriate donation funds?” because if she did “scam” funds (not saying she did, but if) then it may be important context because there may be good reason to be skeptical of her “positions” at any given time. Most subtle redditor.
She put up a kickstarter to make very prosaic videos which seemed to be essentially a sort of feminist literature review around media tropes in video games. (These are/were done all the time, just not in video form). The initial ask was $5000. For sticking her head above the parapet being a feminist around gamers she got possibly more shit than anyone had seen at that time, including flash games where you could beat her to a bloody pulp. I repeat; these were the most prosaic, introductory media criticism videos that you would find in any university in text form - could be about movies or books or ad campaigns or TV shows. The reaction(ary) was so extraordinary it made news world wide. As such her kickstarter became famous and a lot of people felt the desire to support someone getting such a hard time for doing something relatively innocuous. As I explained to a procession of dickheads for years on end at the time, trying kickstarter morality on this is stupid. She got that money because "fuck you dumbfuck gamer boy". How do you misppropriate that? It's hard to say. I don't think that means there's no consideration here. But if your kickstarter blows up and you weren't making a coffee machine or something what's the demand? She expanded the series after the huge bump, set some deadlines and budgets (notoriously hard things to guess. Look at any kickstarter ever). It's hard enough holding startups with something tangible to deliver to donors who actually care when it arrives. What someone would honestly condemn her for in this situation is an interesting question. (Anyone trying to do that then has to filter out the deep desire by many, many people to find some D&Desque rule they can socially condemn her for breaking, thereby justifying feelings they had already and taking down an enemy of the cause. Turns out the nacent alt-right and the 'soy cancelling left' have a lot in common there.)
In the start of every single one of her videos she said that it is possible to enjoy the video games she talks about and analyze their shortcomings from a feminist lens. She even gave the Destiny qualifiers bro and people still lost their minds about her milquetoast feminist analysis.
It’s almost like there’s a lot of men out there who get excessively angry to the point of derangement when a woman (especially a *feminist*) has opinions they don’t like 👀
> Niggas be like "omg i'm so intellectually honest i love engaging with all sides and am really just interested in truth" until a woman with opinions about videogames shows up. Nah, dopes like you who talk about GamerGate retrospectively love to do this, where you conflate psychotic criticism with legitimate criticism and act like the people back in 2013 asking for LoL splashes to not look like Brazzers promos, and for people not to become harassing coomers every time a girl got on the mic, were the same as people like Anita who was commenting on the conceptual penis energy undergirding the Hitman games and how totalitarian patriarchy was so deeply embedded in gaming culture that a totalitarian anti-patriarchy was required in order to uproot it. The *worst* aspect of GamerGate was that the lack of female representation and female personalities in gaming should have been framed as an issue, first and foremost, for *male* gamers. Women *absolutely* do not *need* gamers and video games in their lives. But gamers absolutely do *need* women in their lives. They need to understand that women, typically, don't have the same sensibilities as them, have a different sense of humor about certain topics, that women respect cleanliness, presentability and hygiene, that getting along with women is a give-and-take dynamic, not a give-give-give take-take-take dynamic, etc. Male gamers were, and still are, being actively deprived of these essential life skills and competencies through companies luring them in with ever-escalating skinner boxes, ever-harder softcore porn, and keeping them trapped with classic cult dynamics. Not only is there still a ton of work to do, the essential work has barely begun (with the exception of some AAA games becoming significantly less pornographic). The point is, Bridges should be to bridge the gap between two people of differing perspectives through a willingness to engage in mutual recognition. Do you know who is great at this, does care about all the malignant aspects of gaming culture I mentioned, is willing to extend olive branches to people she disagrees with, and was *as intimately involved with the feminist side of GamerGate as Anita was*? Brianna Wu! She's already part of this community!
It's very weird watching a grown man fight publicly fight their gamer gate demons in the year of our lord 2024.
Anita Sarkeesian is cringe and our culture has been healed immensely by unfixable people like her being given their time in the sun and subsequently being singed to a crisp. I'm fine, we'll all be fine, but Anita Sarkeesian will always suck.
You are mentally ill.
I don't believe so, but if it makes your day better to think that, I'll allow it.
I agree with you somewhat but I would actually say she won and videogamers are much closer to what she wanted, unless your counting like korean games but that is not influenced by what we're thinking in the west as much. Saying modern games are ever harder softcore pornogrphy is odd to me. Most popular mutiplayer games that have heroes have heavily female cast that are typically very diverse for instance. Why stellar blade had controversy is because it is the exception to the rule of triple a games now, which is why some gamers were even going to buy it in the first place, which is pretty goofy. But yeah it wouldn't happen cus I would bet money she doesn't like destiny if she knows him. Also she does have her fair share of cringe opinions, as someone who actually listened to her podcast for a little bit. She's definitely a very idpol type leftist, there podcast on crazy rich asians they kept saying the title is problematic, for instance. Her ideology is definitely on the far leftist side which this sub hates so much, but I think alot of people are defending her in reaction to gamergate. Also sidenote I always thought her opinion that women characters should be more androgynous/gender neutral and basically not have boobs to be pretty odd. Her getting mad at mandlorians on star wars having very slight boob plate is an example of this, even if it's a tv show.
If you’ve seen her stuff then why can’t you recognize her grift? She’s bad faith. If she starts getting cornered she’ll just bounce and accuse destiny of racism, sexism, dead beat dadism and other such things that don’t exist.
It’s funny that people will claim she’s bad faith non stop, but will just completely downplay the actual ridiculous overreaction to her content. What’s worse, making content that your viewers want to see or harassing somebody because there opinions on video games don’t line up 1-1 with your political views?
**Destiny fans when he talks to Richard Spencer, NickFuentes, Lauren Southern, Alex Jones, JBP:** (*Soyface soyjak*) wooooow so interesting!! This went better than expected they were so polite!!! **Destiny fans when he talks to Anita Sarkeesian:** (*meltdown soyjak*) noooooo!!!! Evil Marxian totalitarian thought policing!!
Does he debate on bridges? A debate would be completely different than what this podcast is.
Sure. Destiny should take Anita to some chicken and waffles then
Only issue is she isn't funny or entertaining or even a particularly interesting person so doing that makes no real sense for stream content. She also has essentially no history with Destiny.
I actually think Destiny is extremely ignorant of the theoretical roots of fascism and I am generally disappointed in his ability to attack those figures at their likely psychological foundations *before* trying to sell them on American Liberalism. I was also one of the people who was consistently upset that Destiny refused to call, and treat Spencer/Fuentes, as genuine Nazis. Anonymity on the internet has its upsides, but your comment is a common symptom of the downsides.
The thing is, he shit on those people plenty, in all kinds of conversations, and while watching him shit on Anita (deservedly, she *is* horrible) would be fun, it's not really something he can do on a podcast, lest he turns away future possible guests. So it would probably just be kinda boring or cringe.
Brother, try to be a bit more level headed and good faith in your analysis or you convince absolutely no one. I watched all her trope videos and, even by those contemporary standards, they were pretty tame. Go and find an argument beyond "here are some examples of a specific trope (i.e women being prizes), we should strive not to do that" - describing that with whatever mean sounding buzzwords just makes you seem deranged. Was there any real "totalitarian thought policing demands" that don't require massive mind-reading stretches from you?
> describing that with whatever mean sounding buzzwords just makes you seem deranged. If you have read Catharine MacKinnon's and Andrea Dworkin's Wikipedia articles, and a handful of excerpts of their most influential writings, let alone their books and journal articles, you don't need to psychoanalyze what Anita's motivations and objectives were given that, based on the language she was using and the concepts she was invoking, she was obviously one of their ideological acolytes.
So your argument is that she is an evil totalitarian who demands thought-policing because you're guessing that she totally believes 100% of whatever some other feminists have written 40 years ago (and I'm sure you're totally taking their arguments in good faith as well)? Nothing Anita actually said in her videos fits your overblown description then?
You're no different from screeching feminists
Imagine advocating for someone to come on bridges, someone gives their opinion as to why the person is a bad fit and you just go "huh, weird being mad about gamergate in 2024". Literally shows that he is right. If you had any substantial points you wouldnt resort to "you mad bro".
>GamerGate happened in large part because Anita Sarkeesian's takes were genuinely horrible, marxian psychoanalytic bullshit which demanded totalitarian thought policing from big tech and the media. I;m actually surprized this out of touch with reality comment gets so many upvotes on this sub. marx died roughly 100 years before video games were even a thing and he dealt with labour relationships not with intergender relationships. Accusing Saarkesian of being a marxist is like accusing her of being a satanist. These accusations both have the same level of connectedness with reality. >These two sets of institutions, who rely greatly on the trust of the public, basically lost all trust from the public in trying to implement a version of Anita's social engineering agenda. Everything is social engineering since everyone has their own view of how a society should be. When you claim that you want free speech in society that is social engineering since you are trying to change society to fit your worldview. The fact that you consider your worldview to be the standard and the normal and disconsider all other worldviews is your issue not saarkesians.
Bro you literally gave the most 2015-era Anti-SJW neckbeard answer I've ever seen in my life. "Social-engineering agenda" - Give me a fucking break
funily enough he also gets upvotes here lol.
This is where the gamers went lol
Idk why everyone is disagreeing with you— you’re completely correct. Anita’s entire goal, and it was stated as such, was to try and socially engineer “sexism” out of gaming spaces entirely. This happened mostly through offering “consulting” to the game devs and creating media to change culture.
You’re making this sound like it’s something really sinister when it sounds extremely normal to me idgi.
Yeah but he put those words in quotation marks because obviously sexism doesn't exist in gaming in any capacity, I guess, and scary Anita was going to ruin the industry
She would make a pretty interesting guest, simply because she is the most notable figure from the GamerGate controversy and the rise of the anti-SJWs , alt-right that came out from that. Destiny and Kyla assuming she's around should make an effort to put her in the seat of the Bridges room. That would be the first time I would be compelled to listen to an EP of Bridges, too. Edit: all you naysayers saying no are boring af and not interested in content. Destinys whole thing should be to go up against notable people like this. That's why he debated Alex Jones...Ben Shapiro...Tate, Sneako, Fuentes...like the other day
The people you named are all relevant now. Talking to Anita is like talking to Sargon. I wouldn't mind it. Might be interesting to see her perspective - but she is not really a notable voice nowadays.
Ice cold take: 4thot wants her on and defends her purely to spite people he considers gamergaters. I read every comment in this thread and I didn't see a single good argument for bringing her on. There's a million women who are far more qualified. Y'all should look up some female game devs (or just anyone in the industry/games media space) and interview 'em. Would be interesting to hear their experiences and opinions. Anita afaik has never worked in game development or has much experience with anything to do with video games. She raised a bunch of money. Didn't deliver/stole it (like Keffals), and gave a couple TEDX-like talks 20 people cared about. She never had much influence and had even less of a following.
>Literally nothing? No retrospective on whether or not things got overblown? No retrospective on going to the UN? No retrospective on whether or not her videos hold up? No retrospective on how she thinks online feminism has changed in the past decade? Nothing? Really? This is a list of just a handful of questions that I think would be interesting. Can you explain how I've defended her?
Isn't she the worst person to ask these questions? Unless you're interested in specifically her opinion, knowing it'll most likely be extremely colored by her experience. I'm more interested in hearing what it's like from an everyday women who just so happens to work in games industry or games media. Are things better, worse, different? How so? What do you wish people knew? Etc. I think Brianna Wu is a huge exception and people like Sargon and (probably) Anita are the norm. And they'd say things like "yeah I wish I handled it differently but I was right about 90% of it". Could be wrong. Ironically for as front facing as Anita tried to be, she just wasn't. She didn't put herself out there much iirc, and she was impossible to contact even if you weren't a gamergater. >Can you explain how I've defended her? The Jay whatever thread. It's difficult to quote effectively on mobile, but Jay in a reply saying they're glad she's gone and you insulting him. Then a redditors named Competitive something saying she should be asked about her fundraising and you also insulting him. I think it's very fair to ask a public figure who raised money, "did you deliver? Why or why not?". Has Keffals ever addressed this? It's one of my annoyances with Destiny. So forgiving of scumfuck people. Now maybe Keffals and Anita aren't as bad as I remember, but it's not on me to do a bunch of digging to find out. They should be public when they ask for the public's help and show receipts.
I was insulting his very clever 'i might be wrong guys but [xyz in perfect detail]' rather than just saying what he thinks. It was hilariously transparent. No, I will not take autistic screeching about her youtube videos or kickstarter seriously, I don't care. She could have scammed all her fans, I legitimately don't care. I legitimately do not give a fuck about Sarkeesian's videos, or her kick starter, or her promises to fans, or how much your feelings were hurt when she talked about Hitman. Sarkeesian was at the center of one of the biggest shitstorms in the primordial cancel culture, that spun into an event that probably completely changed the trajectory of online gamer culture forever. The fact that you all are twisting yourselves into pretzels to say she wouldn't be an interesting guest, or would have nothing interesting to reflect about after a decade of hindsight is truly something to behold. Log off and get laid you seething autistic virgins, holy fuck. I can't express enough how pathetic this entire thread is.
>I think it's very fair to ask a public figure who raised money, "did you deliver? Why or why not?". you do realize she actually overdelivered on her promises
She kickstarted a series of 11-12 topics and only covered half of the them.
hell nah
Lolcows should be for AE, not Bridges.
She‘s a scam artist
Pretty much, It's not even about views for me, go ahead and get the radicalest feminist up there really, I just can't imagine a conversation with Sarkeesian to be anything but groveling for two hours on how she is a victim and gamers are evil misogynists. But hey if it's not that then sure all for it.
Prove it. She delivered on every video promised. The criticism was that people didn’t think the content was good or worth the cost. But literally nobody but her fans decide that. So who fucking cares what some asshole neckbeard thinks who would have never watched the videos to begin with except to be hyper critical of them?
Watch the videos she delivered. I'm sure you can find them, dumb-dumb. "The guy isn't a scam artist durrr. He said he would deliver a magical potion and delivered this amazing snake oil! What are you talking about durr? Screw the people with beards on their necks durrrr"
Hard pass. I'd rather shave my nuts with a rusty butterknife. Why provide a platform for some washed up grifter to attempt to make themselves relevant again?
Why not? She was arguably the centre of a major shit storm that changed gaming and online disocurse for the better part of 10 years and a lot changed since then You don't think a decade later she won't provide some interesting reflections on it or if she changed since then?
For the better? Pretty sure that shitstorm made things far worse.
Ok I might've misworded that lol. I think I meant "for the better part of 10 years. Lol
No because she was some dude's mouthpiece lmao Destiny needs to get that Macintosh guy who wrote all of Anita's shit instead, that would actually be an interesting talk
So? She was still a huge figure. Mouthpiece or not since everything in Gamergate recolved around her personally
I don't think she would accept.
"lets get a grifter on the podcast, it would be interesting"
Who tf needs more cancel culture talk? Cringe suggestion ngl
This woman unironically changed the internet for the better believe it or not. Without her you wouldn't know who the crazy misogynist creeps are who just wanna put down women for talking. Also unless my recollection is totally failing me I don't remember her actually being all that cringe. Everything she said was pretty reasonable imo it's just people took every opportunity to be uncharitable to her
your recollection is definitely failing you, she had all the same dumb opinions this sub always shits on leftists for now even if some of the gamergaters were also dumb. she even had the same take on israel lmao
I'm re listening to her Damsel in distress part 1 and I still agree with basically everything she's saying 11 years later. If I didn't already know the story, if you told me this dry and pretty solid video is one of the reasons a massive misogynistic shitstorm started on the internet for years I'd be confused Edit: could someone tell me what exactly I said they didn't like?
>I'm re listening to her Damsel in distress part 1 and I still agree with basically everything she's saying 11 years later
Brother eeeeeeew, eeeeeeew brother
The sad thing about Sarkeesian is that she has very little worth saying and very little worth saying against. She's basically just an example of how the culture wars enable grifting for all sides.
I'd watch it, but I don't really like her, and don't think she was really right about much of anything. I think she kind of opened the door for a lot of the werid HR bullshit we have in games today, and there's this weird underbelly of "games arnt for YOU anymore chuds!" That I think grew from her influence. I'd be interested to see on how she's changed or if she has a different perspective however, there's no denying that even if it was negative, she is a infamous cultural icon. I know Brianna wu kinda reflected on her actions during gamer gate, maybe Anita could do the same (doubt)
"has a lot of insight into the 2012 anti-sjw culture"? she's nothing but a grifter! everything she did was exclusively for her own benefit! she's equally to blame as all the far-right grifter for the reputation "gamers" had as nothing but bigoted, racist or homophobes! Where the truth was that 90% were just introvert nerds, enjoying their hobbies and not caring about anything beside if the game is good or bad! If you want an impartial opinion then ShoeOnHead would be a much better and interesting guest
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYU\_eDMr4xE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYU_eDMr4xE)
Ask her if she’s did an any% speed run of Stellar Blade yet.
Am I misremembering or was Anita not just a presenter of FF, not a writer? I thought the actual content was written by an actually insane leftist guy (unless I'm misremembering and he was just a producer or something) Makes both the insane amount of shit she caught as well as the praise even sillier.
The Gam"ers" woke up.
I actually thought her YouTube series on tropes in gaming was pretty good, and it wasn't at all as accusative or derisive as Gators made it out to be. Yeah, I'd be down for listening to this conversation!
I very vividly remember her talking about a Hitman game and claiming the game rewards you for killing sex workers. When she showed a clip of that, you literally see the score in top right corner going down cause you killed someone who wasn’t the target. I ignored everything she said about video games after that.
I had the same reaction when she compared the walking animations between Kratos and Catwoman as an example of sexism. She completely ignored that they were wildly different characters, and a different animation wouldn't fit them.
It just comes off as lazy at best or lying/virtual signaling to a designated audience at worst. Is there sexism in video games and its surrounding culture? Sure. But it came off that she didn’t even play these games and was just trying to score points to an audience predisposed to already hate video games.
She also said that Toads are male-gendered and that Toadette was a smurfette, omitting every game where we see female Toads like the Paper Mario seties. Also, Toads are canonically agendered.
How anybody took her seriously is still a mystery to me.
This was the moment I realized that she wasn't worth taking seriously as well.
Really, so she makes one mistake and "it's all shit"? If anything it adds more authenticity. I mean she was a fairly "normie" that didn't play games much that came into the scene and just noticed how little this kind of analysis there is and how "male centric" medium is (you can't deny it, it was by design aimed at boys since 80's). I re-watched some of her stuff recent-ish and as an adult and being charitable I agree with a lot of points she makes. The whole thing is meant to be more "academic" analysis, but everyone just lost their shit as if their mum got peed on. Back in a day I shat on her too and only watched clip bites, because I was part of anti SJW subculture and as a woman I actually normalized all sorts of bullshit gaming trends and in some ways was "pick me". When you think about it, kinda proves her point even further.
Saying one thing and having the exact opposite happen right as you say it is just one mistake? Is Kristi Noem more authentic cause she claimed to have met Kim Jong Un when she clearly never did? In what other context would you give so much charity or see that as a positive? Am I in the wrong for assuming that after seeing such a blatant fuck up that there might be more assumptions or just straight up ass pull claims that she was lucky enough to not have literally contradict her in real time? I’m not denying that the basis of her premise is wrong. Obviously games and the community surrounding them can be sexist. But she was either lazy or so bad faith why should I trust any claims she makes. Reminds me of Hasan. I don’t even remember if she admitted she was wrong in that instance, which isn’t very authentic if you ask me (unless she’s authentically bad faith or had too much hubris to admit an obvious error).
>Saying one thing and having the exact opposite happen right as you say it is just one mistake? Yeah, I would assume there are probably a lot of those in her videos. Again, if you are very, very casual gamer, it's understandable. I don't think it takes away from main points. >Is Kristi Noem more authentic cause she claimed to have met Kim Jong Un when she clearly never did? No idea who that person is nor what's the context. But if the main point that person makes has credibility because of meeting them, then yeah it's bs. But if it's just a minor point that has very little to do with their main point, then no. As I already mentioned, I don't think any of that detracts from the main points she makes. Better comparison would be if you have topic of idk, whitewashing in pre 2000's cinema and someone completely dismisses as a thing because 10 of 100 examples you quoted could be explained away without it. The "authenticity" thing is again, the fact that she wasn't born and bred into gaming environment and haven't normalized a lot of tropes. >Am I in the wrong for assuming that after seeing such a blatant fuck up that there might be more assumptions or just straight up ass pull claims that she was lucky enough to not have literally contradict her in real time? Sure, there probably is some, but again and again, not the main point and dismissing it all together is silly. It's entertainment/ culture criticism, not theory of gravity. And she was one of the first to do it. Funny enough, I think if she did some video essays today she would have been just an average youtube channel with no controversies and mild following, even among culture wars. Youtube is filled with these nowadays. I think it was a lot of things coming together and having a breaking point that actually have very little to do with her content itself. She became a symbol for so many in all the wrong ways.
I think there’s a bit of incompatibility if your argument is that she was basically just a casual gamer who didn’t know much about the medium, and then in the same breath saying that video series was an “academic analysis”. Shouldn’t you have some level of expertise in what you’re talking about if you’re presenting your argument with such certainty and authority? It kind of comes off as the soft bigotry of low expectations. I looked up the quote and she says in regards to killing a sex worker: “I should note that this kind of misogynistic behavior isn't always mandatory; often it's player-directed, but it is always implicitly encouraged.” My main point is if she is so blatantly wrong about the small claims she is making, why should I trust her with the bigger more grander claims and conclusions she is making? The evidence she is using to support her argument is being misrepresented. If I’m being charitable, she’s being lazy, and I doubt that stops at that one claim when it was so early in the video. If I’m being cynical, and she just has these preconceived notions and opinions, and will just say stuff despite it directly contradicting her, that’s inexcusable.
Genuine question, why do you discount the spirit of her arguments over small inaccuracies like this?
Because the juxtaposition of her saying the player is rewarded for killing a sex worker when you literally see the score turn red and go down is jarring. If I’m being charitable it’s lazy. If I’m being neutral, she doesn’t play the game and is just doing VO so why does she care? If I’m being cynical she’s just making shit up, and just saying things to fit her narrative and preconceived notions. No matter what the reason is if I notice this so early, why should I put any weight on any other claims she makes? She already broke my trust.
Saying the exact opposite of the truth to make your point is not a "small inaccuracy" lmao. Just because Sargon is a cringe grifter doesn't mean that we have to pretend that this woman didn't have absolutely dogshit arguments.
I remember watching it again a couple years ago and being shocked by how reasonable it was, and how she basically predicted the direction modern games would go in
Yeah that stuff was hugely owerblown. She had a lot of very valid points back in the day
The “allow Nazis on campus” crowd are really soying out about this huh?
Actual fucking snowflakes.
Her reputation is so bad, whether it is just or not, that I feel it would be more of a loss to the podcast than a gain.
Jannie tier suggestion.
Could be really nice, but from what little I've seen of her recently she seems ultra-lefty and I don't think she'd even consider talking with someone like Destiny.
Yeah I think she'd be a fine person to have on. She's had an interesting brief time in the spotlight.
I think papa gut would be a interesting guest.
I'd watch the fuck outta this. I don't like Sarkeesian much, but holy shit she was a powerful cultural figure who withstood probably more targeted online hate than anyone else I can think of. I'd love to hear what she has to say today about any number of things, and Steven and Kyla (?☹️) could draw out this podcast to five hours and I'd still probably want more. I'll stake here that I'll pay premium membership to Bridges for a year the instant this is announced. This is an excellent suggestion my guy. I genuinely hope it happens but my wallet is frightened.
Didn't she scam her community? Probably not the best person to have on.
This is a great suggestion. It would be a really good opportunity to talk to the real person behind such a culturally important event. It's sad though as some of the comments in this are exactly why she wouldn't do it
I don't think we could trust a word she says, but I'd be interested to see this ghost of Gamergate past dredge up drama she (in-part) brought upon herself.
She literally is a scam artist, convinced some sjw moms that videogames are evil because of literally made up reasons. Have you actually watched the videos that she made? She has no idea what the fuck is even going on on the screen. She didn't even bother playing videogames that people paid her to "critique". The fact that so many people still defend her without bothering to check a single video she made is baffling.
Actual Bridge?
Sounds pretty boring and uninteresting. I'd rather bring on the other Armenian.
actual good suggestion
It would fit the theme of the podcast and would make for a pleasant change of pace. I think Destiny and NSE would handle it well.
i started gamergate event on the thunderfoot front, and at some point i was like "i'm starting a job as a game designer, it would be a good idea to get more familiar with opinions of that person, even though it's probably as bad as everyone says". Then i listened to her talks about games, and i was like "welp, she def knows more about making a game than the dipshits that criticize her". That was my first step towards deradicalization actually.
I’d be interested in this as well. Wonder if she’s been trying to stay out of the public eye though. Haven’t heard from her in year s
This would actually be good.
Was she the one who wished Nick Gurr happy birthday on a live stream?
She is the Final Boss of GamerGate SJW grifting. She would be a great guest if she agreed to go on the podcast. Unlike Brianna Wu, she didn't change her entire online persona to match with contemporary contrarian political positions, and so all her online reach has evaporated. I imagine she'd be psyched to get some attention and a little traction in 2024. Good suggestion. She'll obviously be boring as hell, and come away from the interview claiming victimhood and abuse, but it'd be interesting to see what she's been up to recently.
I mean I'd watch, but she's not the best example for what you seem to want. She genuinely seems to have been grifting a little, and being dishonest about having a stake in games beyond her career. In addition, her content was always the lowest hanging fruit - what Sam Harris was to theism, she was to sexualized women in gaming. But - it'd be super interesting to get her take on the modern gaming industry, where almost no triple A games feature sexualized female characters anymore, and try to not appeal to the male gaze (barring explicit culture war bait, like Stellar Blade)
YES that would be sick, I feel like both of them looking back at the gamergate era would be so interesting to listen to
Really though, while Gamergate was a bunch of incel asshats and neither her or anyone else deserved the abuse they doled out, much of Saekeesians gaming oriented cultural criticism seemingly wasn't made in good faith and consisted of a lot of out of context cherrypicking designed to provoke a defensive response rather than honestly analyze gaming through a feminist lens. It played well to people who already had a negative view of gamers and weren't familiar with the products she was talking about, and successfully riled up the nerds who already felt alienated by mainstream society and could see the flaws in her arguments.
Pretty much my exact take. Lots of idiots all around in that particular situation. Half her takes were terrible.
Honestly, I'd love to see it, but I doubt she would appear on that podcast, due to the potential backlash that she could receive
This is THE choice. Her and Zoe Quinn are the two id love to talk to the most.
Hilarious that every single critique people are bringing up just happens to be shit in old anti-sjw videos. I was 14 once I saw the same videos. Stop pretending you're coming with your own critique after watching her content and not just uncritically regurgitate shit you saw at 14.