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?