Bleck

everything is bad but polka

all of these musics suck tho

this is fucking incredible

that charizard looks fuckin' awesome though also if Blaziken gets a new form then presumably all the rest of the starters do, too - I'm hoping that Feraligatr's new form is exactly the same except he has boxing gloves and a huge afro and is a Fighting type

we need to go deeper

the adult thing would be to assume you're being unclear, instead of repeatedly implying something insulting but the difficulties I see with adopting this point of view is that it gives people fodder with which to take stances which are contrary to social advancement; for example, there are several people in this thread who are agreeing with what you say but from context it's sort of clear that they're agreeing in different ways e.g 1) yeah I agree with what djp is saying [because I think that biology plays a role in sexism] 2) yeah I agree with what djp is saying [because if that's biologically how people work then sexism isn't a problem] of all of the people who are agreeing with you here - and don't get me wrong, you've got me mostly convinced - how many are doing so because they think it's a reasonable approach to this issue, and how many are doing so because they need to rally in any way that they can against anita sarkeesian and/or the concept of inequality in video games? I mean you're clearly the longest-spoken person in this thread who's taken a stance against her videos, and I think that the stance that you've elucidated can be pretty easily abused to support and sustain some pretty shitty opinions

yeah see I don't see how you can say something like this and seriously think you're not being sexist; what you're saying here is basically that sexist ideals are okay because biology supports it, even though that doesn't really seem to be true you then go on to deny that that's what you're trying to argue but I'm not really understanding how saying that women are biologically coded to act in a way that is offensive is somehow not sexist or offensive yeah but see people's actions aren't really discredited just because they can also verbally claim to have different intentions in a thread about the negative consequence of irrational gender roles in video games, why are people talking about the supposed biological existence of objective gender roles if not to imply that said roles should exist? I keep asking this question and I keep being dismissed, it's almost like people just don't want to admit to being sexist or something acting as though a question is so banal that it isn't even worth answering is what people do in a discussion when they know deep down that the answer says something poor about their position so if you really have to recap the entire thread to prove to me that all this talk about evolutionary psychology and whatnot isn't just closet-sexists trying to probe around to see whether or not they can imply that gender roles are anything but made up bullshit that only benefit men, then by all means do so but if you just hand-wave it away again I'm just gonna go on assuming that the 'biological gender roles' brigade are the same people who were earlier trying to argue that sexism in video games doesn't actually matter

"we're not talking about arbitrary standards of what men and women 'should' do, we're talking about arbitrary standards of what men and women 'should' do" the statement wasn't that there's no proof that gender roles exist, it was that there was no proof that gender roles are the manner through which society should function nah gender roles are more or less the epitome of sexism again, the statement wasn't whether or not there's proof that people have been subject to these things, it was about whether or not people should be and, ethically, whether or not evidence of gender roles being rooted in biology is information that won't be abused because again, when do you ever see this concept brought up in a discussion that isn't a thinly argument about whether or not women should basically be in the kitchen? because seriously - then why do people keep bringing it up? why does the historical existence of gender roles matter in a discussion that's arguably about the negative consequence of gender roles? imagine if people were discussing the pros and cons of war and someone came into the thread and said 'guys, wars happened a lot in the past!' like yeah they sure did good job einstein but why does that fuckin' matter

world of warcraft is a pretty bad game

what you're saying here is that it makes more sense to assume that an archaeological hypothesis that supports sexism is inherently preferable to the (intelligent) assumption that a complete lack of reliable information makes the historical accuracy of sexist ideals irrelevant at best see right here where you're outright admitting that you don't even know that this shit is true but it makes sense because it's sexist? yeah see this is true but the thing is that it doesn't have a biological explanation everybody talks about the 'men work, women care' idea as if it's this big thing that over the past century science has decided was based in genetic or historical fact but when you actually go and look up whether or not that's true it turns out that Science At Large's response is essentially so we have an idea here that has little to no factual basis beyond hypothesis and more importantly is largely irrelevant so the question becomes why do people keep bringing it up? well you're trying to say here that you aren't sexist even though the only reason anyone ever brings up this idea is to generate support for the idea that sexism is biologically coded into people (and is therefore okay); so instead of assuming that you're just sexist I'll ask you straight out why does this matter at all I think you should stop posting not just in this thread just, in general

it's not that I have a problem with people talking about it, it's that I have a problem with a bunch of dudes saying that sexism in video games doesn't matter because they don't feel particularly oppressed, and not having the intellect to perceive how moronic that is I brought up race to illustrate that it's more or less the same as a white person saying that they don't think society is racist - it's incredibly stupid for a white person to say that because racism is an issue that they've rarely if ever had to deal with, it's no longer an issue in any capacity, and as such whether or not it's a problem that is relevant to them is more or less irrelevant that being said my point here is that you're not 'talking' about this, you're repeating in increasingly stupid ways that you basically don't think that a problem that doesn't affect you in any way is therefore not a problem, which is essentially admitting to not caring about the plight of the oppressed opposite sex, which is essentially being sexist and if you don't like being labeled a sexist how about you just stop posting your dumb crap in this thread and come back when you've grown the ability to experience empathy what would be the polite way to disagree, here 'brandon I respect your opinion that everybody who cares about this issue is wrong and wasting time, please tell me more about how sexism doesn't matter because you're not the one being oppressed' I mean I know I've been a huge fuck a lot in the past on these boards and I've been making a big effort to not be such an asshole but sometimes I think posts/opinions might just be idiotic enough that it's impossible to respond to them without something that at the very least resembles condescension so what you're saying here is that sexism is okay as long as there's a biological reason for it to happen? do you possibly know what the word 'ethics' means

my point is that straight white dudes responding to the idea that women (or gays or non-whites) have it pretty shitty by arguing that they also have it pretty shitty is more or less the conversational equivalent of straight up admitting to being selfish and ignorant like if your opinion is really that 'sexism in video games doesn't matter' then by all means you're entitled to have it but people with functioning brains are going to treat you like an idiot (because you're being an idiot) (re: racism, a white guy saying he 'has some black' in his 'lineage' is missing the point so hard that it's like a guy standing in a batting cage just wailing away and not hitting anything and then you realize that nobody even turned the machine on and oh wait this isn't even a batting cage it's a padded cell in an asylum for closet racists [or more pertinently, sexists])

if you think that really matters in this context you're just kind of making my point for me

maybe if you're a straight white guy, yeah yeah see that's not really stereotype that's a cultural attitude two entirely different things

so how does it feel to be a sexist stereotypes don't really count if they're a positive thing you're doing a thing called false equivalence

aw yiss zomboes HALF LIFE 3 WHERE

yeah that's great and all but I don't think you understand what I'm saying maybe if I was a bit more pedantic I'd imply you had poor reading skills

you've spent the past page or so claiming that the thing you said wasn't actually the thing you said and then getting mad that djp had the audacity to maybe direct some of his post to things that people other than you have said I think you might need to take a step back and re-evaluate how you're presenting yourself in this thread

you need to calm down there, bub

so what's the vector through which we determine how common is too common

construction is good, retribution is stupid arguing that it's okay if something happens to a certain group of people after spending so much time arguing that it's not okay that it happens to another completely invalidates ones point

Harvest Moon 64 was the best in the series, which is funny because it's secretly a terrible game I really wish a competent company would buy Harvest Moon from Natsume (or is it Natume? pffftf ahahaha) and make something super great out of it

sidebar etc

what are you even talking about

yeah this basically also frank miller yawn