PATREON COULD DISSAPPEAR

[Jemini]

Now for one final hot take since I really need to get back to writing: the prequel trilogy is the only good SW trilogy. Original trilogy and new trilogy are both bad. The prequel movies are unironically better.

Interesting hot take, but it's going to need justification before I take it seriously in any way. For now, I'll just regard it the same as if it were never said because it's an assertion without evidence and therefore nothing to be responded to in the first place.

(Honestly, to make an assertion like that without backing it up, I feel like you're just trying to stir up trouble or something. Besides that though, it's also off topic and a tangent based off of something I used as an example.)

 

[Jemini]

Hey just noticed this, thats funny where do you find the stats for that claim because GenderHQ why o is explicitly against the idea of transitioning youth unless its a last resort doesn't present stats like that because the don't believe that enough studies have been conducted on the subject.

WILL REGRET RATES & DETRANSITION INCREASE WITH INCREASING NUMBERS OF TRANSGENDER YOUTH? — Gender Health Query

Recorded regret rates post-surgery in the trans population is historically very low. But now child, teens, & young adults are transitioning. Transgender regret appears to be increasing.

www.genderhq.org

This is the only thing you said that's worth responding to. The rest was just snark and bad attitude.

The Controversial Research on 'Desistance' in Transgender Youth | KQED

For decades, follow-up studies of transgender kids have shown that a substantial majority eventually ceased to identify as transgender. But some gender researchers say that research is faulty.

www.kqed.org

There you go, results of a quick google search with numbers 65 to 90% cited as the desestance rates. This article actually takes a negative view on the numbers and spends the entire article arguing against the interpretation that it should be interpreted to mean that children who claim to be transgender should not be treated as such, and argues that instead they should go through social transitioning without physical trasitioning. However, you will note that it does NOT actually argue against the numbers themselves (or rather, what arguments there ARE on the numbers still has the average above 50%,) and it also does not try to justify puberty blockers or actual physical transitioning. Thus, while this article may seem like it's arguing against the concept in tone, in actuality it is very much cautioning against physical transition.

BTW: A lot of the loudest (and least informed) trans activists who are the exact same crowd who will rile up the "woke" crowd to go censoring people actually ARE arguing for physical transitions for pre-pubescent children. That's something that's actually against all medical data among trans researchers, and should be actively argued against for how disasterously harmful it could be and there is no actual trans researcher who backs this harmful policy being pushed by these dangerous "woke" trans activists who give the real more reasoned trans activists a bad name to the point of harming the cause. However, these psychopaths will gladly censor anyone who brings up the reasoned data from actual trans researchers that disagrees with them.

 

[thorbjorn42gbf]

However, you will note that it does NOT actually argue against the numbers themselves

It does though, did we read the same article? One of the large arguments pressent in the article is basically that the numbers are based on a much wider group than what is defined as a trans person today. Its like if you have a study that show that 10% of bears are aggressive but people keep trying to apply it to a specific group of bears, the numbers are still true but not applicable to grizzly's for example.

Which is why you will probably not find it on GenderHQ because that would be aplying a much wider meaning to the term trans

The rest was just snark and bad attitude.

Sorry, I went into looking into the guy expecting to find one of those "They where both assholes" situations instead I found a very sexist dude who believe women shouldn't be in politics and jokes about how he could probably be convinced to rape her, that doesn't fit at all with the picture you presented as "if it makes you feel better, I would not rape you. So, great. Now can we talk about actual rape victims here rather than politicians who are uncomfortable? Because this is a really important discussion, and I want to see it solved." the entire order of events actually doesn't mesh with that presentation at all and the context you presented doesn't seem to be present even in Benjamins own explanation of the event, or attitude or later 'I could probably be convinced to rape her' """Joke"""

Having to listen to a guy talk about how getting sexually assaulted is their own fault and women should have stayed out of politics and been an influence in the home instead didn't improve my mood.

---

Other than that I find it interesting that the whole cancel culture is apparently entirely the fault of woke people and not just a less vicious expression of what make all the anti-woke peoples followers send death and rape threats to women and flood people message boxes with suggestions to kill yourself.

 

[Jemini]

It does though, did we read the same article? One of the large arguments pressent in the article is basically that the numbers are based on a much wider group than what is defined as a trans person today. Its like if you have a study that show that 10% of bears are aggressive but people keep trying to apply it to a specific group of bears, the numbers are still true but not applicable to grizzly's for example.

Which is why you will probably not find it on GenderHQ because that would be aplying a much wider meaning to the term trans

Sorry, I went into looking into the guy expecting to find one of those "They where both assholes" situations instead I found a very sexist dude who believe women shouldn't be in politics and jokes about how he could probably be convinced to rape her, that doesn't fit at all with the picture you presented as "if it makes you feel better, I would not rape you. So, great. Now can we talk about actual rape victims here rather than politicians who are uncomfortable? Because this is a really important discussion, and I want to see it solved." the entire order of events actually doesn't mesh with that presentation at all and the context you presented doesn't seem to be present even in Benjamins own explanation of the event, or attitude or later 'I could probably be convinced to rape her' """Joke"""

Having to listen to a guy talk about how getting sexually assaulted is their own fault and women should have stayed out of politics and been an influence in the home instead didn't improve my mood.

---

Other than that I find it interesting that the whole cancel culture is apparently entirely the fault of woke people and not just a less vicious expression of what make all the anti-woke peoples followers send death and rape threats to women and flood people message boxes with suggestions to kill yourself.

Cute how you cut out the follow up that essentially explained in shorter words that, while it does mention the numbers, the arguments leave the rate at above 50%.

Also, the point here is not the professional's definition of what a transgender person is, it's what the activist's definition is. And, the activists are pushing for the OLD definition that this article states is flawed. They are literally pushing for any child who expresses opposite gender tendencies, things that might have gotten them seen as potentially gay or metrosexual in the past, to be considered transgender and fed information that would encourage them to transition. They are also pushing for puberty blockers to be made available for such children. All things the article I linked would be very much against.

As for Benjamin, I never said he was the nicest guy, but I notice you never actually disputed my characterization of the incident. Being a brash person sometimes is the kind of thing you need to effectively handle the kind of really nasty person this politician who successfully shut down a discussion on male rape victims was, and that's the context surrounding the barb you made.

Besides that, it all gets off topic. The topic at hand is that Patreon has been cancelling accounts in a manner that was against their own TOS and very disturbing to members in the nature of their approach regardless of the types of people they are cancelling and people should be right to be disturbed due to the kinds of tactics they are using. And, the fact that activists bregaded an innocent company to get their payment processors shut down (A point that @Ace_Arriande has very kindly backed me up on by doing the leg work I was too tired to do myself,) just because one person decided to use the platform.

There are 2 topics of discussion here. 1. Whether or not Patreon is on shaky legs, and 2. Whether or not cencorious "woke" types are a thing. I think that, on the 2nd point at least, the example of SubscribeStar is more than enough evidence to answer that one in the affirmative.

 

[jabathehut]

Hmmm.... how about... 1. They tried making their own chat site, it got smeared by the woke crowd and then banned by google and other such sites. They tried making their own video hosting site, same thing happened.



I would like to bring up the fact that the Jewish community of Skokie Illonois advocated for the free speech of the KKK. They did so BECAUSE they experienced the Hollocaust and knew the steps that lead to it involved the suppression of speech. Allowing the KKK to speak freely was part of the actual steps you have to take for preventing another actual Hitler from rising to power. That's how important free speech is.

Good, they don't deserve to have a site. I'm glad that our companies are not as addle minded as you.

 

[GeorgeHaufman]

Once again, the issue with Patreon is that they banned without notice, which went driectly against their own TOS, and they also banned for activities off the platform when the TOS said that they will only ban for activities on platform. Fairly innocuous activities at that, such as calling a white supremicist a "white N-word" (actually using the word) in order to make a point about their hypocrisy.

Watch the video in the OP, this is all covered there. Plus, the fact the judge shot Patreon's motion down because they changed their TOS specifically in response and after the fact that the lawsuits were filed in such a way to make it look like there was nothing to complain about, and then arguing they can apply their new TOS retroactively. The people filing those lawsuits never agreed to the TOS in question, so you are frankly talking out your ass right now without knowing the actual situation.

NONONO you're wrong! They are not held to their own TOS. You accept their TOS so even if what you are saying is true that there was no notice given its irrelevant bud. They can ban whoever they want from their platform, so just don't break their TOS. Who cares why they are doing it its just silly to freak out about it unless you too are breaking their TOS and guidelines.

 

[GeorgeHaufman]

NONONO you're wrong! They are not held to their own TOS. You accept their TOS so even if what you are saying is true that there was no notice given its irrelevant bud. They can ban whoever they want from their platform, so just don't break their TOS. Who cares why they are doing it its just silly to freak out about it unless you too are breaking their TOS and guidelines.

here is a nuclear take I'm so happy fascists are getting deplatformed and I hope the anti-sjw crowd also gets deplatformed.

 

[Jemini]

here is a nuclear take I'm so happy fascists are getting deplatformed and I hope the anti-sjw crowd also gets deplatformed.

Here's a question. Do you want a repeat of Hitler? Recall skokie illinois. The Jewish community advocated for the KKK to be allowed to march through their city because they did not want free speech restricted in any way. The reason they did not want free speech restricted was because they knew through experience that even banning the speech people advocating death to their people and SUPPORTING what Hitler did to them was the first steps to Facism.

Right now, YOU are supporting facists, and your mind-set WILL bring about a second coming of Hitler if it's allowed to continue.

EDIT: Make that 8th coming. We've already had Stallin, Castro, China against it's own people, the Arminian Genocide, China against the Fulan Gang worshipers, and finally China against their Muslim population. Yeah, China is currently on it's 3rd repeat of the Hollocaust. And I'm not talking hyperbole here, I'm talking equal or exceeding the actual literal Hollocaust in every gory detail.

Yeah, we've had 6 Hollocaust equivalents since the original, and what you're talking here will create a 7th in the Western world. And, we've learned a lot from watching these things. It always starts with banning speech that everyone can agree is repugnant, but not actually directly causing harm. Once it crosses that line from banning harm-causing speech to banning speech that's just repugnant, that's when you loose control of the encroachment and it leads to some very dark places.

 

[Jemini]

NONONO you're wrong! They are not held to their own TOS. You accept their TOS so even if what you are saying is true that there was no notice given its irrelevant bud. They can ban whoever they want from their platform, so just don't break their TOS. Who cares why they are doing it its just silly to freak out about it unless you too are breaking their TOS and guidelines.

That's the thing. These people DID NOT break Patreon's TOS. They banned people for things they specifically and explicitly said in their TOS that people would not be banned for, they cancelled people's incomes without notice, and they also attempted to nullify lawsuits by attempting to apply a change to their TOS retroactively effectively saying "you can't sue us for this" after they were already being sued. Luckily, the judge threw that out as the bullshit it was.

Patreon is not doing good things with their business practices or their TOS on the face of it, and they have been hemoraging business as a result. The one and only thing that's keeping them going right now is the fact that they have people agresssively going after and keeping down all their competitors to the extent that PayPal refuses to support Patreon's competitors. (That, BTW, is a violation of anti-trust law. Last I heard, a discovery request was going through the FTC about that one. There are outright law-breaking things going on with Patreon here, and that's not even counting the trust-breaking things such as the frequently mentioned banns without notice for absolutely contrived reasons.)

 

[Discount_Blade]

here is a nuclear take I'm so happy fascists are getting deplatformed and I hope the anti-sjw crowd also gets deplatformed.

There's always one of these type of guys. Always. Bet he's a proud boy ain't he?

 

[BenJepheneT]

NONONO you're wrong! They are not held to their own TOS. You accept their TOS so even if what you are saying is true that there was no notice given its irrelevant bud. They can ban whoever they want from their platform, so just don't break their TOS. Who cares why they are doing it its just silly to freak out about it unless you too are breaking their TOS and guidelines.

Right, it's all fun and games until they take "we are subject to change our TOS at any time" to an extreme limit. What if one day Twitter was suddenly bought by the Catholic Church and they announce the collective scrub of everything against their interpretation of the Bible. It's still part of the TOS, even if it's under the new company, isn't it?

You don't want to enforce TOS. You just want to enforce rules that protect and conform to YOUR ideologies. When it's against your ideals, it's no longer TOS but Tyranny, right?

There's always one of these type of guys. Always. Bet he's a proud boy ain't he?

I call them Competitive Virtue Signallers and though they're not as fucking terrible as Nazis they're certainly trying their best to compete in making me grit my teeth in cringe.

 

[BenJepheneT]

Here's a question. Do you want a repeat of Hitler? Recall skokie illinois. The Jewish community advocated for the KKK to be allowed to march through their city because they did not want free speech restricted in any way. The reason they did not want free speech restricted was because they knew through experience that even banning the speech people advocating death to their people and SUPPORTING what Hitler did to them was the first steps to Facism.

Right now, YOU are supporting facists, and your mind-set WILL bring about a second coming of Hitler if it's allowed to continue.

EDIT: Make that 8th coming. We've already had Stallin, Castro, China against it's own people, the Arminian Genocide, China against the Fulan Gang worshipers, and finally China against their Muslim population. Yeah, China is currently on it's 3rd repeat of the Hollocaust. And I'm not talking hyperbole here, I'm talking equal or exceeding the actual literal Hollocaust in every gory detail.

Yeah, we've had 6 Hollocaust equivalents since the original, and what you're talking here will create a 7th in the Western world. And, we've learned a lot from watching these things. It always starts with banning speech that everyone can agree is repugnant, but not actually directly causing harm. Once it crosses that line from banning harm-causing speech to banning speech that's just repugnant, that's when you loose control of the encroachment and it leads to some very dark places.

TL;DR: Never let evil run rampant, but don't push it to a corner either. Nazis/Fascists are already a dying group. Let them perish silently in a few more years. Pushing them further and further is just gonna make them lash out. It's like poking the snarling dog with a stick. Poke it hard and enough and eventually it'll wake up in a fit of rage and bite you hard.

 

[Sabruness]

I used to laugh when people said get woke, go broke due to the leftist crap being pushed. Yes I say crap, eat me. Now after numerous failed hollywood spins with obvious lefty political spins, various failed television pilots pushing leftist ideology, quite a few new comic book failures for the exact same reasons......ummm gee guys......maybe there's something to that?

For some reason, the only area they haven't taken significant losses and actually seem to be gaining a little, not a lot but a little ground, is video gaming. Last of Us 2, people keep saying anyway, will be the first blow against them but idk. I've noticed stupidity comes in all shapes and sizes and it never has a lack of willing support.

I have no faith in humanity so I'm sure morons will leap to save these idiots and think themselves such good people for it too.

Ehh, i think the woke are gaining ground regards sony and playstation (due to sony games world headquarters in in California, a centre of wokeness) but are struggling much more on other platforms.

"In its release weekend, The Last of Us Part II sold over 4 million copies worldwide, becoming the fastest-selling PlayStation 4 exclusive, beating Marvel's Spider-Man's 3.3 million and God of War's 3.1 million in the same period."

Yeah, about that being the first blow against them.... The people who are still trying to claim that TLoU2 is going to hurt them are delusional. It was a massive success and all of the "outrage" only helped it.

I typed like 2.5k words here since I wanted to say just how much you should still be laughing at "get woke go broke" due to it: one, not being true; and two, actually benefiting the right more than the "left" when the media tries to pretend it gives even the slightest shit about people, but I'd rather not get into some major political discussion. All I'm gonna say is that I wish "get woke, go broke" was a legitimate thing because then it would mean that the people having "leftist views" pushed onto them aren't being placated like sheep by companies pretending to give a shit about them. Also, the "woke" Marvel and Star Wars movies made a stupid amount of money that more than makes up for all of the failed attempts at going woke.

Now, to tie this back into the purpose of the thread. Here's Patreon's stats:

View attachment 3351

See that little part I underlined? That was when Patreon first started banning "right-leaning" creators on the platform. That was when everybody was saying how Patreon was going to go broke because of their decision to "play politics" and "get woke" and all that.

Make of that what you will.

If Patreon goes bankrupt here, and that's a massive if, it's not because they went "woke," it's because they tried fucking around with a legally-binding agreement in the middle of people trying to make use of that legally-binding agreement. If Patreon wouldn't have fucked around with the ToS without informing people then none of this would be a major deal right now and nobody would give a shit. Instead, Patreon went full greed, which is kinda the opposite of going woke, and tried to fuck with actual law.

I actually havent seen many complaints about the "woke" stuff in The Last of Us 2, though i dont know what exactly the woke stuff would even be. Almost all of the many complaints i've seen is that just the developers utterly bodged the story to ridiculously stupid braindead levels to a pants-on-head level. Saw an article that stores in Taiwan are having to resort to giving away copies free to anybody who buys multiple other games in one purchase just to get rid of their stock of TLoU 2. It's just that worthless a stock now. Article also mentioned that second hand websites in Japan are also flooded with listings of people wanting to get rid of their copies. I've even seen plenty on second hand websites here in Aus.

If you'd like my (politically) neutral stance opinion, the reason these efforts fail is because they seem to be under the mistaken impression that getting woke is all they need to do to make their product work and that alone will be enough to carry it. They are just bad artists to start with. (And, usually, they are pretty bad people as well.)

To offer a counter-factual here, Star Trek and Planet of the Apes were two series that by today's standards would be so INCREDIBLY "woke" that it would put modern day examples to shame. However, they had 2 key advantages here. 1. They were the first on the scene. They were treading relatively un-touched ground, and taking a huge risk in doing so. Therefore, they knew they had to reinforce their product, make their best case, and present it as a part of an otherwise phenomenal story that would allow the viewer to accept the message they were working into it. 2. They were both made at a time where these messages actually NEEDED to be heard. Things like anti race-mixing laws were still on the books when Star Trek did the first interracial kiss, the anti-appartide fight was in full swing when Planet of the Apes made it's highly anti-collonial messaging. These series were not just trying to guilt people over past issues, they were dealing with very present CURRENT problems in a rather brilliant way.

There is also a possible 3rd point that is kinda derived from the 1st in that, due to these being the first on the scene for this kind of thing, they were not dealing with an audience who was just sick and tired of the woke messaging. Instead, they were putting it in front of an audience that was shocked by it, and that shock got them paying attention. They were messaging to what they expected to be a hostile audience, and were instead surprised to get a lot of people agreeing that these were indeed very real and present problems.

Now, I'm sure the modern day woke crowd would argue my point 3 is exactly what they are trying to do as well, but let's be serious here. They are not making an otherwise good product, and they are also not dealing with plainly visible problems where there are laws on the legal books and problems that are right in front of your face. If you say the issue is deeper than that, then you have to acnowledge that and educate the audience. That requires you to dig deep in the research and present it in an effective way for the audience. Unfortunately, when you do so, you often find that the convincing evidence simply does not exist, and in fact there's plenty of counter evidence to suggest the issue you're trying to rile people up about actually doesn't exist. So, the efforts to do what would actually make a good product are kinda hazardous to the narrative they're trying to put together.

(Ok, yes, by politically neutral I meant I'm fairly left-wing by 1960s standards, but this modern day woke crowd doesn't know what they're talking about. They're just beating the same dead horse we already killed half a century ago.)

I totally agree with you. Stuff like Star Trek and Planet of the Apes worked focused on actual issues and sold it really damn well. It didnt feel like preaching and haranguing. The modern woke crowd just are clueless in how to do anything. They're focusing on issues that are either non-existant or are extremely exaggerated then cherry pick stuff that suits their narrative. So you're right: the product sucks and the method of selling it is just as bad.
Preaching, posturing, haranguing and forcefully moralizing just does not work unless applied on idiots and sheeple (which tend to make up the base of the woke herd) who dont bother to exercise their grey matter and do some research.

================================

On the topic of 'Get Woke, Go Broke': While i dont believe it solely would be able to fell any company, i do believe that it can help to exacerbate stupidity induced problems that companies may already suffer from. Going woke for a company, unless they're in a rare position where it doesnt actually matter (see: airlines for example), is like doubling down. If you're lucky, then you would gain more than you would lose however that depends on your product, the effects of going woke on it and whether or not the woke crowd is likely to buy your product.

For creative things (games, movies, shows, comic books, etc) the gamble is much bigger because of the costs in creating the product as opposed to something 'simpler' that everyone uses anyway. Comic books, for example... the majority customer base is likely to be those who arent woke and are likely to be irritated about woke tinkering of the product whereas most woke are unlikely to buy the product despite it being made woke. thus the gamble is a failure because the losses would be far higher than any gains from new woke customers. Comic Books, to my vague understanding, had already been suffering a bit of a downturn before the wide scale introduction of wokeness which helped to amplify the problems. The question then is: At what point will Marvel and DC say 'Ok, this blew up in our faces. How do you try to try fix it and maybe regain lost consumers?'

Same thing with video games. Can making video games woke really be successful or would it eventually backfire by amplifying the already tumultuous problems of making a profitable video game?. In this respect, i think Sony is much more at risk of as both a publisher but also a hardware maker to the long term potential downsides of wokeness as they're already heading down that path and receiving blowback and ill-will from gamers.


It all boils down to: At what point will simple economics and reality re-emerge as the important thing when running a business as opposed to likely damaging virtue-signalling?

 

[BenJepheneT]

I actually havent seen many complaints about the "woke" stuff in The Last of Us 2, though i dont know what exactly the woke stuff would even be. Almost all of the many complaints i've seen is that just the developers utterly bodged the story to ridiculously stupid braindead levels to a pants-on-head level. Saw an article that stores in Taiwan are having to resort to giving away copies free to anybody who buys multiple other games in one purchase just to get rid of their stock of TLoU 2. It's just that worthless a stock now. Article also mentioned that second hand websites in Japan are also flooded with listings of people wanting to get rid of their copies. I've even seen plenty on second hand websites here in Aus.

TLOU 2 isn't even woke. It's not even preaching for any political message. What everyone was talking about is the shit pacing and how the story's being hailed as the greatest in video game and, though it isn't god awful, it certainly isn't The Godfather. It's a clumsily done, edgy, 2deep4me series of angst that relied way too much on its theme and ended up splattering their face across the sidewalk that's been threaded on by other games way more successfully.

Even the fucking side plot from GTA IV about Drako Brevic did the theme of revenge better, and it actually let the player choose. I'm not saying TLOU 2 will benefit from player agency, but when a non-consequential choice in a side plot executes its theme better than your linear, hyper-focused story-centric game, you know you've fucked up somewhere and a few times too much.

For all the times the right-skewed people cried wolf about SJWs, it's actually the left-skewed people that's crying wolf this time. I'm not saying that there isn't some sick fucko review bombing the game just because there's Lesbo scenes in there, but the other end of the spectrum is acting like that's what everyone else criticizing the game is calling it out for, and now you can't criticize the game without being stapled with buzzwords on the internet.

 

[Sabruness]

scrolling through and found this awesome point:

I would like to bring up the fact that the Jewish community of Skokie Illonois advocated for the free speech of the KKK. They did so BECAUSE they experienced the Hollocaust and knew the steps that lead to it involved the suppression of speech. Allowing the KKK to speak freely was part of the actual steps you have to take for preventing another actual Hitler from rising to power. That's how important free speech is.

^This. If there's anything to be learnt, it's that the best way to deal with a radical view (like the KKK for example) is to drag it out in the open then properly and reasonably debate the topic so that people can see the inherent.... problems in that ideology. Free speech is the important crucible by which society can develop and enhance it's understanding. The KKK itself is practically non-existent, compared to all the other hate groups (of both sides) out there, only numbering in the few thousands and often in schism between themselves partly because they, over a long period, were dragged into the light and their ideology debated to effective destruction.

It's why the left and the woke are disinclined to truly free speech because in the crucible of reasoned discussion and debate, their ideology would be eviscerated and left impotent just as radical islam (an ideology protected by the left) would be demolished as well.

 

[Discount_Blade]

TLOU 2 isn't even woke. It's not even preaching for any political message. What everyone was talking about is the shit pacing and how the story's being hailed as the greatest in video game and, though it isn't god awful, it certainly isn't The Godfather. It's a clumsily done, edgy, 2deep4me series of angst that relied way too much on its theme and ended up splattering their face across the sidewalk that's been threaded on by other games way more successfully.

Even the fucking side plot from GTA IV about Drako Brevic did the theme of revenge better, and it actually let the player choose. I'm not saying TLOU 2 will benefit from player agency, but when a non-consequential choice in a side plot executes its theme better than your linear, hyper-focused story-centric game, you know you've fucked up somewhere and a few times too much.

For all the times the right-skewed people cried wolf about SJWs, it's actually the left-skewed people that's crying wolf this time. I'm not saying that there isn't some sick fucko review bombing the game just because there's Lesbo scenes in there, but the other end of the spectrum is acting like that's what everyone else criticizing the game is calling it out for, and now you can't criticize the game without being stapled with buzzwords on the internet.

My only gripe, though its more of a personal opinion than anything political(?), is the fact that Abby was made to look like a straight up dude? Why does every "strong woman character" end up being more of a man than most men? I feel like there is something to discuss in there somewhere but I lack the will and the interest to get into grips with it because I'm not sure how to start with this specific topic in general. I just have noticed its becoming very prominent in movies and other forms of entertainment. And yeah, the story was a complete fucking trainwreck. I hated Abby from the beginning and I got so damn tired of the plot trying to make me feel sympathetic to her. Also, I think her plot ended up being fucking longer than Ellies!!! I didn't give a fuck about Abby. I just wanted the cunt dead. Also....for all the bullshit about revenge she talked, Ellie killed EVERYONE but the killer. Kind of shit is that?

 

[Jamminrabbit]

My only gripe, though its more of a personal opinion than anything political(?), is the fact that Abby was made to look like a straight up dude? Why does every "strong woman character" end up being more of a man than most men?

I mean, humans come in all shapes and sizes. I think most people are associating large, defined muscles as a more masculine trait, and Abby being ripped in addition to having a rather defined jawline makes her appear more masculine. Kind of like Zarya from Overwatch? I remember when people complained about her being strong and not feminine enough, too.

Here's an example of the many different olympic women's body types.

No doubt some of them will appear less feminine than others, doesn't make them any less of a woman, and it doesn't make them want to be anymore of a man to shatter someone's fragile masculinity.

Unless you were Bruce Jenner who, because of gender dysphoria, transitioned to a transgender woman.

 

[Discount_Blade]

I mean, humans come in all shapes and sizes. I think most people are associating large, defined muscles as a more masculine trait, and Abby being ripped in addition to having a rather defined jawline makes her appear more masculine. Kind of like Zarya from Overwatch? I remember when people complained about her being strong and not feminine enough, too.

Here's an example of the many different olympic women's body types.View attachment 3395
No doubt some of them will appear less feminine than others, doesn't make them any less of a woman.

Then let me say it this way. I find women with overly muscular frames like this...extremely unattractive. Borderline disgusting. Some of those in the pic are alright, but the others....like someone put a dude's frame with a woman's face and added just a tiny bit of breast to throw someone off. Oh yeah, kind of like Abby.

 

[Jamminrabbit]

Then let me say it this way. I find women with overly muscular frames like this...extremely unattractive. Borderline disgusting. Some of those in the pic are alright, but the others....like someone put a dude's frame with a woman's face and added just a tiny bit of breast to throw someone off. Oh yeah, kind of like Abby.

I'm not going to shame you for what you find attractive and unattractive, beauty in the eyes of the beholder blah blah blah. I just used the example image to point out that creators are not always creating with a political agenda in mind. I like big dongers, but you won't see me campaigning to eliminate the small dingers of the world.

 

[Discount_Blade]

I'm not going to shame you for what you find attractive and unattractive, beauty in the eyes of the beholder blah blah blah. I just used the example image to point out that creators are not always creating with a political agenda in mind. I like big dongers, but you won't see me campaigning to eliminate the small dingers of the world.

I know it's childish, but I snorted hard and choked on my Mello Yello when you said "I like big dongers" XDDDDD

Yeah I know I'm probably 4 years old mentally.