The only thing she's ''crafting'' is a whiny group of bitches who scream in her name so she can have an easy life.

Calling (mostly mainstream AAA) gaming "geek-culture". Ha.
And yet again seeing himself superior to all of his hive's opposition and more objective without any reason to be found in his "arguments" whatsoever but a lot against it.
I still wonder how anyone can relate "scientific integrity" to An.S. in any way, it just blows my mind.
Well I guess if the narrative fits ones own agenda, many people will declare anything as "scientific" and "objective".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-69xXD734
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afgtd8ZsXzI

It's a girly girl with lots of make-up and trimmed eye brows making money by inventing problems and calling out against sexism (while fitting the classical role model oh so well) at every occasion after having taken a teleseminar, lying and not doing any even remotely objective research.

How sad it is that this silly person is more popular than Ayaan Hirsi Ali (true women's rights activist) for example.

Nice try getting back on topic but as you can see it's mostly ignored and the stream will be brought back to the usual insignificant media figures living from this again and again.

really? and i was s stupid to believe you could drag the bodies in hitman so you could hide them from guards and avoid detection. How could i have come to that retarded idea?

she also presents her theory as fact "it is very clear" "proven" "this is specifically designed "unlike what studies have proven, i believe it is proven this encourages males to abuse and rape, i don't like the counter evidence so it doesn't exist"

"n short, there is no sense in discussing gamergate with the people who start their interpretation with the assumption of Harassment or 'trolling' on the side of the presenter, try to paint criticism as misogynistic rapist hate speech, or make up crude conspiracy theories as to political goals of their fictional enemies.

They don't have the necessary scientific integrity."

summed up is how discussing gamergate with hardline SJW/antis feels.

Interesting how you can use scientific integrity and then try to call Anita's bullshit as a theory...
Someone is not so scientifically literate.
Untested ideas are called hypotheses. Theories are those things that have been proven with fact.
Ironically, in terms of Hitman, since all characters in the game can be killed and dragged around, the hypothesis falls flat.
The evidence suggests just that bodies can be dragged around so that the Hitman can avoid detection. Any suggestion that the developers intentionally intended that those specific bodies be different is just cherry-picking and quite frankly begging the question.

If you truly believe what you say, then you are a stupid brainwashed idiot. Why then are these bodies not present on more than one of the 17 missions if the goal were specifically intended to entice such a reaction?

Quite frankly you are as dishonest in your argumentation as Anita. People become dumber by reading your ridiculous posts. Trolling much?

But once again you just hand wave away the legitimate complaints by Gamergate. Any reasonable person can see that when Anita cherry-picks out one scene in a strip club out of 17 missions in the game and claims that dragging the bodies around was meant to titillate males, that she is full of shit. This is not a theory, it's a debunked hypothesis. The fact you give her credit for something so stupid and wrong just shows how stupid and wrong you are. Else, you are saying it just to troll this thread. Either way, it makes you into an asshole.

As to the silliness of "feminist tropes"...
Damsels in Distress is a perfect example. For generations, some of the most powerful and meaningful stories in the history of the world have been about what two people will do for the love of each other. Romeo and Juliet would rather die than live apart. Partners would go to the end of the Earth to save the ones they love. Yet somehow, in the twisted minds of feminists, this is a bad thing. Retelling the age-old story of love, if its a man doing the sacrifice, is misogynistic (somehow), reinforces male dominance or patriarchy. Its bad because its a man. So who are the one's engaged in gender-hating? Clearly the feminists.

Tropes are just a ridiculous concept, made up fiction solely intended to justify the feminist war against men. Some have argued that there really are only seven basic plots in all of literature. So the fact that there are really only a limited number of ideas, these crazies like Anita use this to their advantage. They claim games are redundant, tell the same stories over and over, but then make the leap that this is because of men. That is the part that is fantasy. That is the made-up bullshit at the core of "Tropes". But hey, all we have to do is let women write all the games, right? They will come up with new ideas...so why then have they not already?

Believing that these feminists really have new ideas is like believing a politician has new ideas...but then again, so many people fall for that trap too.

@Vainamoinen:

You say you believe Anita's claim that dragging around bodies of female NPCs is designed as in purposefully designed by the developer to illicit sexual feelings from the gamer. You are taking something that is a base instinct and using it as justification. AND you don't consider the fact that when moving a body, a player will be panicking about being spotted with it, or trying to desperately find a hiding place or any other emotion that an immersed gamer will feel. There was no emphasis on sexual tension before YOU out it there.In other words, in a situation where a gamer can experience any hundreds of emotions, you fixate on ONE. Who is the one with their mind in the gutter here?

And yet it did not occur to you that non-unconscious / non-dead girls may also illicit the same emotion? But if that happens even without dragging them around; what is the solution? Removal of female NPCs of course! Did you not even realize you were on a train of thought that eventually demands the censorship of the game?

Ugh: http://deepfreeze.it/article.php?a=quickdirty

Fever, you are again just full of shit.

There have been posts after posts about journalistic ethics and the problems with gaming journalism, yet you try to hand wave away everything posted and then make the stupid claim that all this is an obfuscation of the real misogynistic agenda.

Who is living in lala land? Who is the one making up bullshit? YOU!

Point by point.
The Bayonetta 2 article. The majority of people who read that review agree that it is clickbait. They agree there is nothing objective about the review. It is a perfect example of what is wrong with gaming journalism today. But somehow, YOU know better, because the man MIGHT be "genuinely disgusted" by it.

Terry Cavenaugh. Had you ever heard of him before? So why is a guy who supports him on Patreon writing, not one, but FOUR articles about his games? How does a no-name indie developer get 4 articles from the same person.

But hey, throw out your stupid insults...there are real issues here, and calling us all anti-woman, anti-indie, pro-AAA and punching down the little guy shows what lengths lying fucking assholes like you will go to to demonize the actual truth.

Everything you post is intended to distort the truth. We discuss ethics time and again. We've shown example after example. Yet people are supposed to believe some fucking idiot like you who provides NOTHING, no evidence, just your lame dumb excuses as to why none of this is a pursuit of ethics.

Who is the one trying to obfuscate the truth? YOU ARE. Any reasonable person can see you are just trolling and being ingenuinely argumentative.

Not that it can't be fun to debate and intellectually stimulating at times, but I sometimes wonder how often people are converted to another line of thinking with meaningful internet debate.

It happens occasionally but only if it's an actual discussion with logic, reason and good will and no fight or game where people just want to be dominant, don't appreciate being corrected and want to have the last word probably because they think it makes them look like the winner when people just gave up talking to a wall.

Actually, I converted to veganism a few years ago after a friendly and informative internet debate in a geek forum (does anyone remember the GP2X handhelds?). I admitted that I was wrong and didn't have enough information, so I changed my stance. Just one example but I hope there are more.

In most cases it's a waste of time though.

I think it depends on the person. Some people seem so set in their ways and its clear the only reason they are here is to poke holes. Frankly, that has been the extent of most of the hecklers of late: Fever, Vain.

I'm not going to put Susurrus in that category yet (although, the first so many posts probably did belong). The last few posts seem to show some actual willingness to discuss things.

I'm willing to hear a good argument, but when some people think calling people names like anti-feminists or MRAs or misogynists is an answer to various discussions, its clear they have no real intent to talk about the issues and are really only here to heckle and harass. Ironically, exactly what they blame all of Gamergate for doing on the grounds a handful of anonymous people made some threats.

Seems to me, much of this debate has so little to do with facts, truth or logic, it's no wonder there has been little meaningful or useful dialog of late.

I already told you how you're begging the question on why SJW are being targeted.

I won't be able to give you such examples of targeting corporate related abuses. I'm pretty sure I read about a couple in that site, but I don't rem their names. Like you, I am much less concerned with gaming than I am with broader societal aspects. I'm far from an expert on GG detail... still I can offer a generalization to explain the disparate impact you see, not related to discrimination based on who is the journalist:

In fact I believe I mentioned it earlier. Corporate PR is usually disclosed, hyperbolic, apolitical. Indie culture tends to be more undisclosed, ideological and selective. There are perfectly valid ethical conceptions where only some of these descriptors are problematic... Anyway, for me to go that deep, connecting anti-capitalist culture to post modern morals, and point how social activism is a radical extension of same, is likely wholly unproductive given how distrustful you are already.

Your point about harassment has always been that the ethics discussion in GG is camouflage. So let me try again: I'll help you translate your concerns to your 'enemies'. I just need you to tell me what your concerns are. That's why I posted the two potential types of harassment, so you could more easily point out which matters to you.

I'm losing rep even though none of my posts are low rated! What gives? Vania please share your secrets on how to cheat the system!

You're missing the point, I'm not trying to defend Terry Cavenaugh or even suggest he shouldn't be on the list, I'm just pointing out that the whole list is Terrry Cavenaughs and not much else - Your agenda is evident by who ISN'T on the list, not who is!

Think of this - imagine if a site popped up with the noble cause of 'Exposing Corruption in US Politics' and then proceeded to make a list of corrupt Democrat politicians without a single Republican in sight - would that site be accused of political bias? Would the validity of the complains against the Democrats listed somehow excuse or refute that bias?

Well then!

There's not much to say about the deepfreeze site. Brasas says they're naturally targeting "SJW ideology" and "SJW demagogues". Which is interesting, as the term doesn't appear on the site. Maybe they've understood how this kind of enemy concept screams fascist propaganda to people with a brain. Doesn't save the site in any way though, it's still the same overbordering witch hunt. In addition to gamergate's trademark crude understanding of journalist ethics, over a hundred journalists (and a heap of non journalists) are getting smeared here only just for appearing on a journalist mailing list.

That constitutes most of the site's catalogue.

I guess they're all "SJW demagogues", eh? Y'all have to put them out of a job real quick. Don't buy from Jews and all that.
And yes, that comparison absolutely applies.