Yep as I was saying Anita sarkeesian (Doubt that is her REAL name) Is literally shitting all over games as being too misogynistic I really don't know what her problem is?!? she's attacking Super Mario, Tomb raider, and a few others Sickening I know Poor girl is a bit Mental

Damsel in Distress - Video #1
The Fighting F#@k Toy - Video #2
The Sexy Sidekick - Video #3
The Sexy Villainess - Video #4
Background Decoration - Video #5
Voodoo Priestess/Tribal Sorceress - Video #6
Women as Reward - Video #7
Mrs. Male Character - Video #8
Unattractive Equals Evil - Video #9
Man with Boobs - Video #10
Positive Female Characters! - Video #11
Tropes vs Women in Video Games Classroom Curriculum

Video #12 - Top 10 Most Common Defenses of Sexism in Games. Kickstarter Image

All these ones she's attacking she's just jealous if you ask me!

...Literally? Fucking hell, you'd think she'd just use the toilet like everyone else.

I'm glad I bothered to skim through all the misplaced religious arguments to find a worthy diversion from the thread title! One of my favourite films :D

If you're going to be pedantic, could you at least spend a few moments to make sure you're correct. Literally is used appropriately in the sentence you're criticizing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literally
I think the sequel was better than the original IMHO.

Dude... no sense of humor, huh? First of all, "literally" would actually mean that the woman is taking a crap on games - "literally" is often used as an itensifier but it doesn't change the word's actual meaning which is "without metaphor or allegory". Secondly, it's popular to make fun of that use of "literally", just like Weird Al Yankovic did in this "interview". You really need to relax.

You know, "atheism" has been used as a multipurpose word for all things un-Christian or bad for decades. It should be an accepted meaning by now :p

To call taking the piss out of a single forum post "bullying" is kind of insulting to people who've actually been bullied at one time or another.

I'll have to look into that, I haven't seen Atheist used in that sense. Certainly not in common use like literally being used as the previous poster used it.

I can't recall ever having seen it put like that.

But yes, ultimately, if it's been used for quite some time in common use, then it would be a legitimate definition. Regardless of whether it makes any sense or not.

Actually, this film is quite violently criticized in visual anthropology, as culturally patronizing and pepretuating the myth of noble savages, pure and untouched in their glorious child-like naivety. A representation that is almost as damaging as its opposite equivalent (the fierce savage). That film is regularly referred to in a very derogative way. I liked it as a kid, but kinda lost that innocence since.

By that logic, I should be able to call random people's mother a whore and not be a bully. Or, perhaps I could take it in turns with a few buddies, because clearly if it's just one comment, that's harmless. Nobody gets harmed until they've heard a comment X times.

Linguistic profiling is a very serious issue and one which people ought to take more seriously. Some differences are given more attention than others are, but at the end of the day, unless you were asked to give a correction, you shouldn't be doing it.

Well then, I suppose if Mr fr33kSh0w2012 spends tonight crying himself to sleep, we'll know that I'm solely to blame. How very distasteful.

What does that have to do with anything? The point is that making fun of this use of "literally" in some situations is an absolutely common joke that nobody's gonna feel insulted by - it's more likely that the person who used the word originally is gonna laugh because of this than get hurt. And THAT's why you have to relax. You've fooled yourself into believing that there was some sort of aggression and as a consequence introduced aggression yourself. Very smart and noble, really.

It didn't do much for the tribesman they chose to be in the movie either or his tribe from what I read. But, it's not like society as a whole back them was helping them much either.

However.I don't choose to like or not like something because of what critics years later decide are now no longer áppropriate';. I owned a golliwog as a kid, just about everyone I knew did. Nowadays of course they're thought of as 'racist' or ínappropriate'. Yeah. Whatever. As a kid, I never once thought of it as anything more than a cool doll, and certainly didn't put onto it the racist connotations that modern-day idiots do.

Things that were filmed 30 or more years ago often tend to be thought of as ínappropriate' today (I've read all kinds of crap that critics have written about how movies in the 1950s were derogatory to women, never mind that the women in them or watching them didn't look at them that way).

But then again, political correctness is also out of control, so that's to be expected. Most of the time, I just ignore it as it's often even more ignorant than the film, book or TV show they're criticizing.

I disagree with that. The fact that a work is from another era, and was seen as perfectly appropriate then, doesn't invalidate criticisms from our point of view, nor its inappropriateness now that we "know better" and have higher awareness and standards on these matters. We have other, higher, better expectations for what we'd produce today.

Of course criticism of past works is criticism of past societies. They can still be enjoyed while being replaced in their sociocultural contexts (there's a lot of awfully racist, vcolonialist, sexist stuff that I love, and enjoy with detachment, because they've got that charmingly outdated flavor). But better be aware of that distance. And have a crtitical eye, at some level. It's simply about not being, ourselves, the same spectators, or members of the same society, as those of that era. These productions shape our imagination and worldviews (those who watch this film imagine that there are actually tribes of big children stuck in the past, that should be sheltered from the modern world to not get corrupt like, well, like these other, less worthy, hybrids). They create stereotypes that we reproduce later, or that we base opinions upon. It's not without consequences. It gives ideas of what indigenist policies should be, it grounds judgements on what "true" natives are, and who are "betrayers" or "corrupt" or "not real" ones, it encourages some slightly patronizing empathy ("aww, they're so cuuute") or even possible disqualifications ("they're cute but so naive"). There's a lot of tiny issues with inaccurate descriptions of "mythified" human groups.

So, just saying, you can enjoy it, but be aware of its shortcomings, and distancize yourself from some aspects. Just like you can read and enjoy "Tintin in Congo" (with all its endearing naive little child-like africans), but still, roll your eyes, and don't imagine that it's a valid caricature of Africa as much as the readers from the 30s to the 60s imagined it to be.

____
Lost all paragraph separations when editing. Hm. Trying to re-cut it at the right places. Failing.