Cash

I got my gift from theshaggyfreak last week, but forgot to post! He got me a nice handcrafted finger piano, thanks theshaggyfreak! Much appreciated!

Since it's Christmas already... Tables, next time you log in to Steam, accept a friend request from me (it's either CashandChange or coldsithmaster) so I can buy you your gifts! Sorry I didn't buy you something earlier, but I've been sick the past few weeks. I didn't forget!

I've been sick the past couple weeks, so sadly I didn't get a chance to finish my mix.

I've been sick recently, and still recovering now, so I haven't had a chance to do Secret Santa. My recipient should be getting their gift before Christmas, but there's a slight chance it could be after.

I listened to the entire Age of Empires II soundtrack last night, some really great tracks in there.

I played this game for many, many hours when I was younger, definitely making something for this. I never knew this song was called Shamburger, I like the bass.

That's a pretty sweet collection wildfire, I think my favorite one there is the slime with the slime hat!

I'm actually not really sure what point I was trying to make, it made sense when I wrote it. Now that I read it again, it's confusing, so nevermind.

I was responding to your statement that she didn't cite her sources. I'm not claiming there's a smoking gun, nor am I claiming Anita perfectly represented the availible evidence. I should point out though that 6 out of the 12 links are studies, and 2 of the links (in addition to the 6) are articles about other studies. There is in fact only one opinion piece. (edit: forgot the other stuff I had written here before) In any case, maybe she shouldn't have used the word "profound", or any words that imply more certitude than is warranted given the evidence. You can certainly make an argument that she overstated the evidence. However, this does not invalidate her points, and I don't think it should cause her arguments to be dismissed outright (which I don't think you're doing, just a general point).

As I said in a previous post (maybe you missed it), she did cite the evidence. On the page you linked, the links and resources section, at the top.

I think the misunderstanding may have been here: Native Jovian: djp response I can see how your response can be interpreted as believing that the definition of objectification is depicting people in works of art. In response to Native Jovian's use of the word objectifification, you express surprise that he thought depicting people in art is bigoted. You use examples of artistic depictions of the human form in reference to the use of the word objectification. This statement in particular: "Objectification can certainly be paired with bigotry, and potentially exacerbate it, but it is not inherently bigoted... appreciating the pure aesthetics of the human form has been a classical & modern tradition in art for centuries" I can see how this statement, coupled with the above statements, could be seen as implying that the definition of objectification is depicting people in art (which is what I concluded at first glance). In the same sentence, you use the word objectification and appear to define it as "appreciating the pure aesthetics of the human form". Perhaps that was not your intent, but it doesn't seem like a stretch to conclude that you were defining objectification as depicting people in art. Perhaps you thought Native Jovian was using was "depictions of people in art" as the definition of objectification? Maybe you took Native Jovian's use of the word "object" to mean an image or likeness of a person; a depiction of the human form. Native Jovian's response explaining what he meant by objectification seemed to makes sense to me perhaps you felt differently. Native Jovian Perhaps this statement threw you off: "Yes, you're creating an object that depicts that person, but you're not reducing that person to an object." I can see how this statement could viewed as unclear. Maybe it would have been clearer had he said "Yes, you're creating an object that depicts that person, but you're not reducing that person to a thing that you can use to fulfill your desires", as he said below. I can see how the conversation could be thrown off if you were unclear/mistaken as to what Native Jovian meant by "object". This is all speculation on my part and I could be completely wrong, but this is how I interpreted the discussion. I hope none of this comes across as condescending, I just thought another perspective might help clear up the miscommunication.

She linked (on the page you linked) to quite a few studies that back up her arguments, that suggests to me that Anita didn't just get on camera and start ranting without any evidence. Maybe the research she linked isn't reliable, but that seems difficult to determine without actually reading those studies. This wasn't "Anita Sarkeesian decrees", but rather research, which was cited, shows. She's not just making shit up. Believe or not, people have actually researched what she is talking about. I'm not saying one way or another whether her argument is sound or not, only that research exits to support it. I am in agreement that art does not cause people to act a certain way. However, in my mind, the idea that art has zero impact on society is as equally absurd as saying video games cause people to carry out certain behavoirs. By the way, I would say "profoundly impacts" and "caused by" are two different things. Claiming games and other media influence/reinforce already existing attitudes in a society is not the same thing as claiming that these media cause certain behavoirs.

There seems to a lot more people this year (thanks The Damned! ), definitely excited. It's great to see some new faces (new to me at least, I've done this for the last 2 years)!

Yes, they were victims, no, this wasn't about profit. According to you and others' false narrative, gaming doesn't have a problem with harrassment of women and protrayal of women. It's all overblown by scheming, manipulative, money-grubbing liars, who are "professional victims". I doubt anything I say or link would change you mind from believing it. And you obviously believe I'm the one who believes a false narrative. There's no point in me continuing, and I've already said what I wanted to say anyway. Nor do I have the time to keep posting. Feminist Frequency is legally a 501©3 non-profit charity, unless you think the website is also lying?

The facts aren't my issue with the video, it's the conclusions that were drawn. The shit about being a "professional victim" in order to make money is the disgusting part. Non-profits don't exist for the purpose of profit. That's what makes a company a non-profit, any excess revenue has to be put back into the company to support its projects or to save for future expenses. Technically speaking, yes, extra revenue is profit, but not in the same way as a for-profit company. The are some restrictions on how a non-profit can use that extra revenue/profit. One of those restrictions is not being allowed to give that extra money to company owners. Anita is not lining her pockets with money. That 2014 reports supports this. And as you quoted, they paid bare minimum salaries, so I don't think Anita is getting rich off this. If you look at the proposed budget for 2015, it aligns with the revenue made in 2014. As you can see, they plan on using the money that they made to continue the company's work. That extra revenue came in the last quarter of 2014, the first three quarters made less money than the total expeditures. Meaning that the company, up until October, was spending about the same amount as it was taking in. It also wasn't "nearly half a million", the company took in less then 380k when you factor in the expenses. That, by the way, is 20k less than 2015's proposed budget of 400k. In the next paragraph down from the one you quoted: "This unexpected increase in revenue will allow us to dedicate these new resources in 2015 to expanding Feminist Frequency’s writing and support staff as well as our programming." This extra revenue was unexpected, there wasn't some sinister plot behind the scenes. That increase in donations coincides with the extensive harrassment she was recieving. Like I said in my last post, the harrassment caused the extra attention and outpouring of support in the form of donations. It was not due to her being a "professional victim", which is such a disgusting term. No, I don't consider paying staff to be profit, because it's not. Profit is by definition revenue after expenses, salaries are an expense. You and others in this thread are acting like for-profit and non-profit companies are the same thing, they're not. You're trying to find dirt and controversy where there is none. This whole argument that you and others in the thread are making is just grasping at straws. Just more of the same gamergate shit, side stepping the arguments made by these women, and attacking her as a person. Trying and failing to discredit her, and in the end giving here more supporters.

If we're talking about making profit off gamergate (which I thought people were), how is the Tropes vs Women kickstarter, which was funded 2 years before gamergate, relevant? The amount of complete crap in that "professional victims" video is vomit-inducing. The victim blaming in it is disgusting. People are donating to Feminist Frequency, a non-profit company, donations aren't profit. That money goes back into the company (like any non-profit) in order to continue the Tropes vs Women series and other work. She's not just pocketing the money. Maybe a point could be made if Feminist Frequency hadn't made a single video, but that's not the case. That's like claiming donations recieved by OCR are profit. By that logic, OCR's Balance and Ruin kickstarter was all about the profit, and OCR staff pocketed the cash. No, the money goes back into maintaining the site, just as the donations recieved by Feminist Frequency go back into the organization and towards continuing to make content. If your accussations of profit stem from donations recieved by a non-profit organization that continues to produce free content, you're grasping at straws. Is it so inconcievable that people actually support Anita's content and that being the target of endless harassment could lead to an increase in support? People love to paint her as a manipulative mastermind that played the victim card to rake in cash from gullable idiots. Yet it was these types of accussations and a campaign of harrassment (shit like this) that led to a huge increase in support and recognition. This whole gamergate embarassment propeled her into national headlines, not anything that she did. That video lazygecko posted sums it up pretty well.

Gamergate started because the ex-boyfriend of a female game developer, Zoe Quinn, posted an angry rant full of bullshit acusations about her. It then morphed into a campaign of harrassment directed at (mainly) female game developers and activists who dared to speak out about the portrayal of women in video games. Developers and activists such as Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, and others faced constant harrassment across social media and other online platforms (such as YouTube). Complete with numerous death threats, and leaking of personal information, while calling for violence against them. These women are absolutely victims of sustained harrassment. These accussations of profit are completely absurd. None of these women made a profit. People keep talking about profit, yet never provide any evidence. Who made money? How do people know they made money? This idea that these wanted the attention is disgusting. They wanted contant harrassment and continous death threats? They wanted to have their addresses posted online and have people call for and threaten their murder and for the murder of their families? Stop spouting crap. She didn't posted her own info. She absolutely was a victim.

Yeah, I think I'd like that. I watched most talkbacks, but sometimes I didn't bother because I was busy or wanted to do other things at the time. I probably would be more likely to catch a talkback if it were more of a special occassion, like a monthly format. Plus I'd imagine it would be a lot easier to organize and find available remixers.

Been about 6 months since the last talkback, any plans to do more in the future? I'd love to see a comeback at some point!

Cash Flight of the Peacock (Cyber Peacock in Observatory Hall [X]) Go Ahead And Jump (Vanishing Gungaroo in Observatory Hall [X]) Disco is NOT Dead, Disco is a Giant Metal Seahorse (Toxic Seahorse in Observatory Hall [X]) Wily's Rejects

Thought the deadline was 5:30 for some reason, just submitted now.

Cash Probe (Tunnel Rhino in Cyber Maze Core [X5]) Cyberfunk (Splash Warfly in Cyber Maze Core [X5]) This is Illegal, You Know (Blizzard Wolfang in Cyber Maze Core [X5]) Wily's Rejects

Just to add to this, our plan is to have Supercoolmike remix in round 8, and Trism remix in the final round.

Cash Palace Of The Beast (Slash Beast in Sigma Palace [X8]) Chiral (Spiral Pegacion in Sigma Palace [X8]) Requiem for a Reploid (Shield Sheldon in Sigma Palace [X8]) Wily's Rejects

Cash Mind Flip~ (Cyber Peacock in Final Weapon [X4]) Vector Point Engineering Sigma Fortress (Blizzard Buffalo in Final Weapon [X4]) Space Base (Shining Hotaronicus in Final Weapon [X4]) Wily's Rejects