The best that men can get..

[Ifreann]

Oh, that's easy. Because she thinks critically about video games instead of just yelling slurs having heated gaming moments.

She doesn't think critically about games, She's a feminist. You aren't thinking critically if you're reading a scripture and reciting it verbatim.

Uhuh, her videos are just her reading the Feminist Bible.

---

I would just like to point out that I don't watch tv. If it hadn't been for people getting all hot and bothered by this advert then it's very likely I would never have known it existed.

Exactly Gillette's plan. Get people mad, they post about your brand, more people are thinking about your brand than would be otherwise.

[Des-Bal]

Uhuh, her videos are just her reading the Feminist Bible.

Do you have an example of her doing a good review?

[Shofercia]

She doesn't think critically about games, She's a feminist. You aren't thinking critically if you're reading a scripture and reciting it verbatim.

Uhuh, her videos are just her reading the Feminist Bible.

Care to link a single one of her "critical gaming analysis" videos that don't pander to the Feminist Bible like a little bitch? (Equating the video a little bitch, which can be male, female, and/or other identity)

[Esternial]

It's far too strong from my perspective, and I don't see it bringing a lot of advantages.

There's a lot of reactionary antagonism going on, which I don't see as very useful. If anything, it just reinforces the rising prevalence of misandry by "proving their point" that men are X, Y, Z.

"Inner city riots just prove our point about Black People." Said Esternial.

If you're determined to ignore over half the critics and focus on the traditionalist backlash and say "This proves our point" then that's your decision, and it's one we'll criticize too.

How does men objecting to being vilified and singled out in this manner "Prove their point"?
This is incoherent nonsense you just spouted, and I think it's due to you being unable or unwilling to critically examine the notion that opposition to feminism is itself proof of misogyny. So you think "Well it just proves our point".

No, it doesn't. You're just caught in an insular, circular, and toxic ideological framework. Why not address this point?

Suppose the media was wall to wall coverage of how black people need to get a grip and stop being criminal and how they need to get with the times and be more like this "Modern" black guy who conforms to white peoples expectations of what a black person should be like with attributes emphasized based on how useful that black person could be to white people.

What would you say about the people who shrugged and said "Well, criminality is a problem, I don't see why you're so angry.", even in the context of them being singled out for this treatment.

You'd say they were racists right?

"Well it just proves our point about black people that they get angry about this. Angry black folk, blah blah blah."

Dude, I used quotes. Can you please re-read it after reading what I'm writing below?

I clearly didn't elaborate enough, which seemed to have triggered you. When I used the quotes, I was referring to the extreme narrative among some feminists that men reacting so harshly to their "criticism" (quotes used sarcastically) essentially "proves their point" (quotes used to quote this extreme feminist narrative).

Don't shoot pls.

I completely agree that it's nonsensical, but it's still what will be utter and used against you, same as with black people.

Do you get my point?

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

She thinks critically about video games?

You are more likely to achieve positive results when you analyze possible scenarios and statistics from a video game. I thought that much would be obvious. Critically thinking about the concept also gives you a deeper understanding and teaches you a few interesting things. Have you ever studied the art of looking deeper and thinking hard about things that shouldn’t really matter? Don’t tell me you play a game and all you think about is winning by trying over and over again. F O O L. (Take this as a joke and nothing more)

[Shofercia]

Forbes on Gillette: they made a mistake

https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesrta ... -is-toxic/

Part of the Gillette’s motive for running the ad may be that there is recent research suggesting that millennials give more credit to brands using corporate social responsibility appeals (See Hoffman 2014 and Neilsen 2017). While there appears to be something to this generalization about millennials and CSR appeals, much more needs to be learned about the nuances of what works and what does not. In this case, it appears Gillette will learn a lesson about what not to do as pertains to corporate responsibility efforts.

Reaction to "We Believe in the Best in Men" has been overwhelmingly negative, with comments on its own Youtube channel running negative by an astonishing ten to one margin. There are those who really like the ad really like the campaign a lot and argue that it is simply trying to reinforce positive behavior. However, the much larger group who dislikes it includes many men who are saying the ad is insulting to men and full of stereotypes. What is perhaps most dangerous for Gillette, however, is the large number of posters who are threatening to never buy the product again.

But hey, it's just Forbes, what do they know?

[Ostroeuropa]

"Inner city riots just prove our point about Black People." Said Esternial.

If you're determined to ignore over half the critics and focus on the traditionalist backlash and say "This proves our point" then that's your decision, and it's one we'll criticize too.

How does men objecting to being vilified and singled out in this manner "Prove their point"?
This is incoherent nonsense you just spouted, and I think it's due to you being unable or unwilling to critically examine the notion that opposition to feminism is itself proof of misogyny. So you think "Well it just proves our point".

No, it doesn't. You're just caught in an insular, circular, and toxic ideological framework. Why not address this point?



"Well it just proves our point about black people that they get angry about this. Angry black folk, blah blah blah."

Dude, I used quotes. Can you please re-read it after reading what I'm writing below?

I clearly didn't elaborate enough, which seemed to have triggered you. When I used the quotes, I was referring to the extreme narrative among some feminists that men reacting so harshly to their "criticism" (quotes used sarcastically) essentially "proves their point" (quotes used to quote this extreme feminist narrative).

Don't shoot pls.

I completely agree that it's nonsensical, but it's still what will be utter and used against you, same as with black people.

Do you get my point?

Okay, I can see how you're refering to misandrists here. I'm sorry, I thought you were being facetious in refering to it as misandry. So you accept it is in fact misandrous and its a growing problem? Okay.

In that case, why not oppose the advert rather than merely not support it because it's "too strong" and so on?

[Scomagia]

Forbes on Gillette: they made a mistake

https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesrta ... -is-toxic/

Part of the Gillette’s motive for running the ad may be that there is recent research suggesting that millennials give more credit to brands using corporate social responsibility appeals (See Hoffman 2014 and Neilsen 2017). While there appears to be something to this generalization about millennials and CSR appeals, much more needs to be learned about the nuances of what works and what does not. In this case, it appears Gillette will learn a lesson about what not to do as pertains to corporate responsibility efforts.

Reaction to "We Believe in the Best in Men" has been overwhelmingly negative, with comments on its own Youtube channel running negative by an astonishing ten to one margin. There are those who really like the ad really like the campaign a lot and argue that it is simply trying to reinforce positive behavior. However, the much larger group who dislikes it includes many men who are saying the ad is insulting to men and full of stereotypes. What is perhaps most dangerous for Gillette, however, is the large number of posters who are threatening to never buy the product again.

But hey, it's just Forbes, what do they know?

Clearly that article is just "conservative" propaganda. *nods*

[Ostroeuropa]

Forbes on Gillette: they made a mistake

https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesrta ... -is-toxic/

Part of the Gillette’s motive for running the ad may be that there is recent research suggesting that millennials give more credit to brands using corporate social responsibility appeals (See Hoffman 2014 and Neilsen 2017). While there appears to be something to this generalization about millennials and CSR appeals, much more needs to be learned about the nuances of what works and what does not. In this case, it appears Gillette will learn a lesson about what not to do as pertains to corporate responsibility efforts.

Reaction to "We Believe in the Best in Men" has been overwhelmingly negative, with comments on its own Youtube channel running negative by an astonishing ten to one margin. There are those who really like the ad really like the campaign a lot and argue that it is simply trying to reinforce positive behavior. However, the much larger group who dislikes it includes many men who are saying the ad is insulting to men and full of stereotypes. What is perhaps most dangerous for Gillette, however, is the large number of posters who are threatening to never buy the product again.

But hey, it's just Forbes, what do they know?

It's worse than that. As I poined out in the UK thread, this has meant Gillette has made enemies. The MRM is now doing research on Gillette and digging shit up to make the anti-gillette campaign a hydra.

The "Misandry" point will only effect some people, and we're aware of this. Hence why they're also pushing, in appropriate places;

"Did you know Gillette denies the Armenian Genocide?"
And
"Did you know Gillette employs slaves?"

This is after scarcely 24 hours.

[Ifreann]

Loving that people are still mad at Anita Sarkeesian.

Mad? Nope. I do find her to be rather annoying, so I simply avoid her, which requires no real effort. I didn't even notice she was in the video, until Trumptonium pointed that out. In terms of triggering individuals though, Trump takes the cake, and I find that hilarious. "You're so triggered?! Wait, have I told you what Trump did lately?" Or in your case, I think it'd be Nigel Farage, wouldn't it?

"I'm not mad, you're mad! You're mad at Trump! Or...or...Farage!"

Incidentally, it really goes to show how no one is mad about Anita Sarkeesian that three people have abandoned the topic of the thread to justify not liking Anita Sarkeesian. Very normal stuff, guys.

[Esternial]

Dude, I used quotes. Can you please re-read it after reading what I'm writing below?

I clearly didn't elaborate enough, which seemed to have triggered you. When I used the quotes, I was referring to the extreme narrative among some feminists that men reacting so harshly to their "criticism" (quotes used sarcastically) essentially "proves their point" (quotes used to quote this extreme feminist narrative).

Don't shoot pls.

I completely agree that it's nonsensical, but it's still what will be utter and used against you, same as with black people.

Do you get my point?

Okay, I can see how you're refering to misandrists here. I'm sorry, I thought you were being facetious in refering to it as misandry. So you accept it is in fact misandrous and its a growing problem? Okay.

In that case, why not oppose the advert rather than merely not support it because it's "too strong" and so on?

No need for sorry's, it's an important topic for you, I get it.

I don't see the advert as the problem here. It's the behavior from all sides, and no advert could make the impact as the mere existence of an extreme movements on all sides.

It's cringy and probably annoying to some. I get that being reminded about all this bad shit a few men do can feel really alienating to some folks, but the group of people that really agree that "all men are the problem" is still a minority. A loud and obnoxious one, sure.

How I look at it: let's not make it bigger by allowing them to "validate" their crap and draw in a handful of more people each time.

[Shofercia]

She thinks critically about video games?

You are more likely to achieve positive results when you analyze possible scenarios and statistics from a video game. I thought that much would be obvious. Critically thinking about the concept also gives you a deeper understanding and teaches you a few interesting things. Have you ever studied the art of looking deeper and thinking hard about things that shouldn’t really matter? Don’t tell me you play a game and all you think about is winning by trying over and over again. F O O L. (Take this as a joke and nothing more)

I'm all for critical gaming analysis. However, she doesn't do that. There are plenty of extremely enjoyable analytical videos of gaming, and here's but one example: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... s+of+kotor

However, what she does has very little to do with actual analysis. It's more of a feminist rant about how gaming culture, which, btw, was one of the first cultures to treat men and women as equals, see Crash & Burn, reinforces the stereotype of male dominance.

And it is an issue, because I've been accused of crying crocodile tears of Rey getting to pilot the Millennium Falcon, because I said that the Last Jedi was a piece of shit. I stand by that assessment. However, Rey flies the Millennium Falcon in the Force Awakes, which I thought was a phenomenally awesome movie, but because of idiots like Sarkeesian, anyone who dares to challenge "muh feminism" in video gaming/scyfy culture, is accused of toxic masculinity. I love the actress that played Rose, in the Last Jedi, she's really talented, but the character of Rose, was designed so poorly, that a drunk and high Charlie Sheen would've done a better job.

[Ethel mermania]

Mad? Nope. I do find her to be rather annoying, so I simply avoid her, which requires no real effort. I didn't even notice she was in the video, until Trumptonium pointed that out. In terms of triggering individuals though, Trump takes the cake, and I find that hilarious. "You're so triggered?! Wait, have I told you what Trump did lately?" Or in your case, I think it'd be Nigel Farage, wouldn't it?

"I'm not mad, you're mad! You're mad at Trump! Or...or...Farage!"

Incidentally, it really goes to show how no one is mad about Anita Sarkeesian that three people have abandoned the topic of the thread to justify not liking Anita Sarkeesian. Very normal stuff, guys.

She's kinda cute, if I weren't married I would do her.

[Shofercia]

Mad? Nope. I do find her to be rather annoying, so I simply avoid her, which requires no real effort. I didn't even notice she was in the video, until Trumptonium pointed that out. In terms of triggering individuals though, Trump takes the cake, and I find that hilarious. "You're so triggered?! Wait, have I told you what Trump did lately?" Or in your case, I think it'd be Nigel Farage, wouldn't it?

"I'm not mad, you're mad! You're mad at Trump! Or...or...Farage!"

Incidentally, it really goes to show how no one is mad about Anita Sarkeesian that three people have abandoned the topic of the thread to justify not liking Anita Sarkeesian. Very normal stuff, guys.

So are you going to show us that video that you claimed exists, where she critically analyzes video games without pandering to feminism? I don't like fakes pretending to be gamers for the sole purpose of spreading their feminist propaganda, and when asked to back up your bullshit with actual sources, you heroically ignored those posts. Sounds rather iffy.

[Des-Bal]

"I'm not mad, you're mad! You're mad at Trump! Or...or...Farage!"

Incidentally, it really goes to show how no one is mad about Anita Sarkeesian that three people have abandoned the topic of the thread to justify not liking Anita Sarkeesian. Very normal stuff, guys.

Someone made a comment that didn't seem to match with reality and people responded to it even though it wasn't directly tied to the topic. That is totally normal for NSG, it would be insane if that didn't happen. That's part 1 of my 1 part test to see if the board has been replaced with pod people. You are however correct in saying it's not on topic so here.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=402223&p=35179399#p35179399

[Ostroeuropa]

Okay, I can see how you're refering to misandrists here. I'm sorry, I thought you were being facetious in refering to it as misandry. So you accept it is in fact misandrous and its a growing problem? Okay.

In that case, why not oppose the advert rather than merely not support it because it's "too strong" and so on?

No need for sorry's, it's an important topic for you, I get it.

I don't see the advert as the problem here. It's the behavior from all sides, and no advert could make the impact as the mere existence of an extreme movements on all sides.

It's cringy and probably annoying to some. I get that being reminded about all this bad shit a few men do can feel really alienating to some folks, but the group of people that really agree that "all men are the problem" is still a minority. A loud and obnoxious one, sure.

How I look at it: let's not make it bigger by allowing them to "validate" their crap and draw in a handful of more people each time.

You're missing the point. It's not just the "All men" minority that are the problem. It's the ones who think it's due to masculinity at all that are a problem. Plenty of women rape and abuse men, at comparable rates even, it's not masculinity.

These feminists, even the moderates, are merely articulating their chauvinism and prejudice. It prevents them being of benefit to the conversation, and means they propose ridiculous solutions. It's due to this toxic ideology that male groups and associations are demonized and shut down. It's due to this toxic ideology that we don't view fatherlessness as the root of a lot of this behavior. It's due to the toxic notion that adverts like this one are okay even if you don't think it's "all men" that our society is inundated with negative treatment of men, masculinity, and singling them out.

I don't care about the open and extreme misandrists being "validated.", they will find an excuse to rationalized how they are right no matter what happens.

You're responding to this:

Suppose the media was wall to wall coverage of how black people need to get a grip and stop being criminal and how they need to get with the times and be more like this "Modern" black guy who conforms to white peoples expectations of what a black person should be like with attributes emphasized based on how useful that black person could be to white people.

What would you say about the people who shrugged and said "Well, criminality is a problem, I don't see why you're so angry.", even in the context of them being singled out for this treatment.

You'd say they were racists right?

With;
"But only some of those pundits think it's all black people.".

It doesn't address the problem.

The problem isn't black culture. The problem isn't masculinity.
"Moderate" Racists/sexists who think "It's not all of them, but it's totally their culture/masculinity" are still a problem.

[Shofercia]

"I'm not mad, you're mad! You're mad at Trump! Or...or...Farage!"

Incidentally, it really goes to show how no one is mad about Anita Sarkeesian that three people have abandoned the topic of the thread to justify not liking Anita Sarkeesian. Very normal stuff, guys.

Someone made a comment that didn't seem to match with reality and people responded to it even though it wasn't directly tied to the topic. That is totally normal for NSG, it would be insane if that didn't happen. That's part 1 of my 1 part test to see if the board has been replaced with pod people. You are however correct in saying it's not on topic so here.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=402223&p=35179399#p35179399

You actually expect Ifreann to provide that source? I love your positive attitude, but it might be a tad too much in this case

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

And it is an issue, because I've been accused of crying crocodile tears of Rey getting to pilot the Millennium Falcon, because I said that the Last Jedi was a piece of shit. I stand by that assessment. However, Rey flies the Millennium Falcon in the Force Awakes, which I thought was a phenomenally awesome movie, but because of idiots like Sarkeesian, anyone who dares to challenge "muh feminism" in video gaming/scyfy culture, is accused of toxic masculinity. I love the actress that played Rose, in the Last Jedi, she's really talented, but the character of Rose, was designed so poorly, that a drunk and high Charlie Sheen would've done a better job.

You liked The Force Awakens? A million years in the Citadel (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Citadel)

[Scomagia]

Making wild comparisons is not discourse, it's just fishing for gotchas.

The video was shit, yes, but the response is over-exaggerated.

Also, odd to use an ad hominem to counter an ad hominem.

Nevermind that a lot of the criticism comes from people who find the source specifically to be the problem since, you know, corporations are starting to get very good at getting free advertising by making the right virtue signals. No, it's all just wild comparisons.

I mean, if it got you to admit to what you were doing then it worked, right?

Just reposting this since Esternial hasn't responded.

[Shofercia]

And it is an issue, because I've been accused of crying crocodile tears of Rey getting to pilot the Millennium Falcon, because I said that the Last Jedi was a piece of shit. I stand by that assessment. However, Rey flies the Millennium Falcon in the Force Awakes, which I thought was a phenomenally awesome movie, but because of idiots like Sarkeesian, anyone who dares to challenge "muh feminism" in video gaming/scyfy culture, is accused of toxic masculinity. I love the actress that played Rose, in the Last Jedi, she's really talented, but the character of Rose, was designed so poorly, that a drunk and high Charlie Sheen would've done a better job.

You liked The Force Awakens? A million years in the Citadel (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Citadel)

Absolutely. I cheered like a little kid for Rey and Finn. (One of the things I didn't like about Last Jedi, is what they did to Finn.) But what's not to like about the Force Awakens? Except for Han dying, but c'mon, that was going to happen.

[Costa Fierro]

From my point of view.. I mean it's honestly a harmless video saying man can be better in some respects but within the current context and environment it's clearly setting people off as yet another attack blaming man for all of societies ills. And I can agree with that view as well and think this was at best ill advised in execution, they could of made the point in a better way.

Let's put it this way: imagine if there was an advert directed at women that told them to not be gold diggers, not to cheat, not to be emotionally manipulative and then have that explained away as celebrating good women. There would be a massive outcry.

I don't see why this should be any different.

What say ye wise denizens of NSG?

They pointed a gun at their foot and pulled the trigger multiple times.

[Vassenor]

So what does Star Wars have to do with the topic at hand, aside from the generic screaming about how evil feminists are?

[Costa Fierro]

I seriously don't get why people get such extreme cases of the vapours over being asked to act like a decent freaking person.

Ignorance is bliss it seems.

[Shofercia]

So what does Star Wars have to do with the topic at hand, aside from the generic screaming about how evil feminists are?

It's rather amusing how hard you work to pretend that every post you disagree with equates to screaming, Vass.

[Ifreann]

"I'm not mad, you're mad! You're mad at Trump! Or...or...Farage!"

Incidentally, it really goes to show how no one is mad about Anita Sarkeesian that three people have abandoned the topic of the thread to justify not liking Anita Sarkeesian. Very normal stuff, guys.

So are you going to show us that video that you claimed exists, where she critically analyzes video games without pandering to feminism? I don't like fakes pretending to be gamers for the sole purpose of spreading their feminist propaganda, and when asked to back up your bullshit with actual sources, you heroically ignored those posts. Sounds rather iffy.

I'm trying to drop the off-topic tangent, so I will try to be brief. Her video series is feminist critical analysis of tropes in video games, as you might guess from the title. They employ, in a pretty basic way, feminist critical theory. If you think that queer critical theory panders to the gays, Marxist critical theory panders to commies, auteur theory panders to artists, and Death of the Author panders to corpses, then sure, her videos all pander to feminists, you win, Sarkeesian defeated at last. We good? We good.