Forum:Serious issues to address on feminism

< Index | Site-related discussion

I'm sure this is going to end up attracting a lot of hate but I have to say this. I by no means hate feminists, nor do I hate the idea of feminism, it however should be noted that there is a radical fringe to the movement which must be called out. Please note I'm not a member of this men's rights movement I have been hearing about, but the bottom line is the labels feminism and men's rights both should be phased out because the true goal we are seeking last I checked is Secular Humanism, where ALL people are treated with the respect they deserve, not just one gender or another, or whatever.

I fully support equal rights for women but the actions made by certain feminists in recent years only give ammunition to conservatives who seek to take their rights away or to otherwise marginalize them. I bring this up after seeing a badly handled article on Anita Sarkeesian here on Rational Wiki.

I agree the issue of threats of rape and murder are uncalled for, not to mention the insults an all else Sarkeesian was plagued with, but this does not mean there is no legitamate criticism of her and of her tactics, and of the fringe feminists I am discussing here.

I shall link a number of sources here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2KPeMcYsuc&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PLhZOzU5WE3iHiR-4XYE58HQxtwpAfrnyX

A video by the amazing atheist (which includes links to the original videos he comments on here) which shows the fringe feminists in question infringing on people's right to free speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D33wNdawlc

A video by Mr. Repzion who discusses fringe feminists demanding Britain's royal baby to be killed because it is a male instead of a female.

Those are but two examples. One can brows social media and find many more examples of this. This fringe side of the feminist movement is small but it is gaining steam, and I find that sad given how we are trying to make things better for everyone and then we have selfish self-proclaimed feminists trying to use the feminist movement to further a rather shady agenda comparable to conservatives and libertarians.

As for the matter of Anita Sarkeesian, I don't blame her for wanting to address issues with game characters in stereotyped roles. the problem is she went about it all wrong. Many companies paid her to come up with the critique of the products they make, and instead she made results comparable to propaganda pieces. These videos ave been debunked in their entirety by many gamers, even ones that agree with her views.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCsfXkbzRI4

The above video by Mr. Repzion more than demonstrates Anita's dishonesty as Anita never even played the games she had critiqued, otherwise she'd understand what the deal was with some of the themes within them.

These next two videos likewise show Anita didn't do her Tropes VS Women series to try and bring equality between the sexes or anything but shows Anita did it just for the money.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2h4vITidvo&feature=c4-overview&list=UUhi4TtLzwVnMQ5xHwaxWD-g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPWUwnXqJ_Y&feature=c4-overview&list=UUhi4TtLzwVnMQ5xHwaxWD-g

Now I know what a lot of you are thinking, random youtube videos prove nothing. Yes, that's true, but is it so hard to ask that the full story be known? Anita Sarkeesian shouldn't be threatened with anything or told to "go back to the kitchen" or whatever, however her work should be showed for what it is; a fraud.

I wont blame anyone for deciding to flame this thread, this is a touchy subject to many, but isn't the point of feminism supposed to be equality? Things like what the fringe feminists who called for the death of the royal baby for being a boy and Anita taking advantage of feminism to make a buck is something that goes against the entire premise if you ask me. ^{— Unsigned, by: NUTCASE71733 / talk / contribs}

That's a pretty long post you got there. I will address the issues about Anita Sarkeesian as soon as I can get through your post, but first, let me post this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MxANWWhpMs

My point is we could have been having so many interesting and civil discussions or we could have had complete peace, if all the fuckheads would stop calling names and raging. That is my main issue with this whole circus. I'll get to the rest of your post sometime later. Nullahnung (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Innocent Bystander (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No, fuck you! ;) I'm going to feed him, troll or not. I already promised. Nullahnung (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that from what evidence shows, Anita is calling actual constructive criticism as harassment and using troll comments to paint all her critics as being malicious-minded monsters. That's more similar to creationist tactics to me than someone interested in equality. Besides that, this is being used by the anti-video game lobby to try to legislate the kind of crap Jack Thompson tried to push forth years ago. --NUTCASE71733 (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any of your evidence pointing to Sarkeesian calling "actual constructive criticism" harassment. I think it's ironic that you say that "using troll comments to paint all her critics as being malicious-minded monsters," is a bad thing when you lead off your comment by pointing to people who pull fire alarms and call for gender-selective abortion as indicative of feminists. In other words, . Hipo^crite 12:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to have discussions about such things when you mostly just post links to YouTube videos, rather than stating things in your own words. What is your argument and reason for suggesting that Sarkeesian's criticism was unreasonable and her motivation impure, and how does she reflect on the feminist movement?--^talk 12:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm still working on my own response to his post, but w/e. There are accusations that Sarkeesian took Let's Play videos from other Youtube channels without giving credit and just used that instead of playing the games herself, which is something she was supposed to be doing with her money (what has she actually done with her money?): http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html. Now, that's all under fair use, but it is highly frowned upon generally to not give credit when you're taking somebody's Let's Play footage.

Also, there's usual guff about her censoring the comments, but that one's understandable due to all the hate she gets, so IMO she's entitled to a bit of kneejerk reactions. Nullahnung (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: the Repzion video: He seems really confused by what feminism might actually be, yet the same criticism can be launched against almost any ideology... what is true socialism? What is true libertarianism? What is true Christianity? Virtually every ideology that has been blessed with more than a few central theorists will have a continuous and healthy disagreement over the exactly defining nature of that ideology and which ideas are most central or valid.
Also, I am a bit contemptuous of any criticism of a movement - even the fringe of a movement, and even extreme movements like white supremacy - that is based off of a critic's own selected examples of commentary from the Internet.--^talk 12:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel exactly the same way... Part of the reason I hate Youtube vlog culture. Nullahnung (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: TheAmazingAtheist video: First of all, in his first few sentences about the feminists he finds objectionable, he actually calls them "mindless cackling cunts." That is repellent. Indeed, almost the whole of this video revolves around that sort of commentary... his criticism of the red-haired spokesperson for the group who is trying to shout over hecklers and read her statement is based on how pleasant he finds her, rather than the content of her statement. He actually even creates an imaginary scenario where he makes her a sandwich and he imagines her throwing it at him angrily, and he puts words in the mouth of her completely appropriate body language, interpreting her leaning forward for emphasis as the crude "Get it dumbass?!" And then he criticizes her for those things he made up - for her appearance and presentation! - rather than what she actually said.
Seriously, the video goes like this: (1) Valid argument that the fire alarm should not have been pulled, and the MRA meeting should have been allowed to go on; (2) Attacks on appearance and presentation of feminist spokesperson, without discussing her ideas or words; (3) Sympathetic reading of the MRA group's manifesto, without presentation of the feminist group's actual criticisms; (4) Selections of video clips of feminists being marginally unreasonable or appearing aggressive; (5) Name-calling.
This is a really terrible video, an outright misogynistic one that attacks feminists for their appearance and attitude and spends literally not a whit of time on anything they actually say, and probably not a good argument for your cause.--^talk 12:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I tend to view a lot of issues in terms of a Gaussian distribution. The ultimate aim is to get the "mean" to move, and to do that you also move the extremes. Sometimes outrageous ideas are needed to spark debate and people will say that while they would never, ever be prepared to go to those extremes but they will in fact move away from the status quo. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A useful view with truth behind it. Certainly, however badly researched and put together Sarkeesian's videos were, they made some valid points and sparked interesting and productive discussion (along with a whole lot of unspeakable things). However, faults still need to be pointed out when they appear. Nullahnung (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

wp:Overton window.--^talk 12:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know the specific name for it but yes, in essence there's a tug-of-war between the extremists of both sides which moves the window of public opinion. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

So by speaking out a radical fringe group I'm a radical fringe guy as well???? Yeah so I guess this entire website by your logic is a radical fringe group even though it's by definition secular. I'm welcoming of people's opinions on this matter but I'm not gonna let nonsense like that go by, sorry.--NUTCASE71733 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Did Genghis call you a radical fringe guy? No, he didn't, all he did was talk about extreme views clashing. The Amazing Atheist has pretty extreme opinions. You, from what I've read above, are pretty moderate compared to TheAmazingAtheist. Nullahnung (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Second Repzion video on Sarkeesian: I suppose it was impolite of her to use clips from people's playing of a video game without attribution, and that's a valid criticism that she should remedy. Naturally, though, it has no bearing even on her own espousal of feminism, much less the movement at large.
As to her research... I don't understand, he wants her to go play through all the games she discusses? That's dozens of games, many of them with hours and hours of gameplay - not to mention all that's been written or said about them previously w/r/t feminism. I am absolutely not bothered by her just grasping the gist of all of these games and their plots, as opposed to playing them through. I mean, honestly, what pivotal points are revealed by the thirteenth hour you spend shooting zombies in Wii Resident Evil 4 that you couldn't have discovered through a plot summary and watching part of a playthrough?
His criticism of the scene of the girl on the tracks stems from the idea that it's not contextual - that it's part of a hilarious and joking game, and that in the game it's part of a parody of the classic cartoon rescue - well, frankly, that's just a downright stupid argument to make. There's not really any other way to say it, because the full scene is exactly represented by that short clip. It's fully the trope of the damsel in distress, with the enormous-breasted women in peril, saved by the two men. It's not being subverted in any way.
The video is an hour long, so I can't watch the whole thing, but these first ten minutes are, again, fairly poor criticisms and don't actually engage with Sarkeesian's discussion at all. Point to any actually decent arguments within the hour.--^talk 12:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have some issues with your post, AD. First of all, yes it is tiring and not altogether very productive sometimes to play through the whole game. However, she makes minor research mistakes and some statements that are too simplistic and sometimes even a bit of a misrepresentation for the game in question as a result, and that could have been avoided. I'm not talking about games like Resident Evil 4, I'm talking about that one Star Fox game and Ico and such. She took her sweet time (months) between videos and proclaimed that she was going through a huge research project involving many many games and calling for funding. What am I supposed to think? I would hope that she would give all the more notable ones that she exhibits a fair enough shake to avoid basic research mistakes and make sure the context fits (which she does sometimes, and she's played some of those games, I will give her credit where it's due).

Also, her overall points are valid. It's just in my pedantic nature to point out that she needs to research better and playing the game is part of that, IMHO.

There are of course much better pedantic deconstructions of her various statements to be found if one looks hard enough, but I'm not going to bore you with yet more Youtube links. Nullahnung (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, we're talking two separate issues, only one of which is even remotely related to feminism.

First of all, should Anita Sarkeesian's backers be upset and feel like they have gotten their money's worth?

That's a question that ultimately strikes at the heart of Kickstarter campaigns themselves, which is that you are, in many cases, making a full purchase well before the actual product is even available. There's a trade-off: you get to help choose which products you want to see come to market, but you also risk that the product will be unsatisfactory. And regardless of your feelings on the matter - and in the case of this product, probably only donors should be the ones who get to say if it was worth their money (since it was their money, after all) - I don't see how the OP can claim this is remotely related to any valid discussion of feminist issues themselves. It's a red herring.

The other issue is whether or not she unfairly represented some games, and, if she did, did her use of those games as evidence hurt her overall point. While I have seen it alleged that she unfairly represented several games, once you get into the actual details, most every such allegation I've seen has fallen apart. That's not to say they all do, and I'm not familiar with the ones you cite, so maybe there are some things she got wrong. But even if there were, does that impact her larger points?

Not so far as I can see.--^talk 23:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with you. That's all fair enough. Nullahnung (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Longer response to OP, which will no doubt lead to a tedious back-and-forth in the foreseeable future... let's hope not

Ok, so one by one:

"bottom line is the labels feminism and men's rights both should be phased out because the true goal we are seeking last I checked is Secular Humanism"

Yes, ultimately the goal is to phase out 'Feminism', because ultimately we want to focus on secular humanism. The time is not right, though. Feminism as a field in academics (not referring to whatever you've seen on Youtube, I'm referring to academics, as in university) investigates valid issues which mostly concern inequality regarding women, because that is the overwhelming majority of where gender inequality comes from even nowadays. After those overwhelming issues are resolved, there will hopefully be a natural process of phasing this stuff out, as it then becomes obsolete.

"and of the fringe feminists I am discussing here."

It's not like we are ignoring them. Here's what we consider as fringe feminists: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Radical_feminism

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D33wNdawlc

A video by Mr. Repzion who discusses fringe feminists demanding Britain's royal baby to be killed because it is a male instead of a female."

That video's points are fine. But every "side" has idiots, and this idiocy can barely be classified as feminism for the purposes of RationalWiki. We only cover the more prominent idiots here at RationalWiki.

"A video by the amazing atheist"

That one on the other hand... it's a 7 minute obnoxious vlog rant with dicey activism interspliced into the video. Not very good. (Also, I haven't heard much good about that Amazing Atheist guy. Here, have a read: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/TheAmazingAtheist)

"something about a shady agenda and companies paying Sarkeesian to do subtle propaganda for their products by stirring feminist controversy, therefore it's all a fraud"

Honestly, I don't have time to double check all of that and it all sounds too much like conspiracy theory to me. Can we leave that part out of the discussion for now?

Besides, it's not like the issues she adresses aren't real all by themselves. Would you like to know more about sexism in the video gaming industry? Because I can show it to you, if you ask. I don't think it's harmful to have these issues discussed, as Sarkeesian has promised to do in her ongoing series. I just don't see the harm, is all I'm saying. Nullahnung (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Smerdis' issues

I have issues with some brands of feminism as well. The belief that "gender" roles are social constructions is ultimately inconsistent with the fact that humans are the products of evolution formed by natural and sexual selection. The focus on pop culture trivia strikes me as odd, especially for a movement for political change. It seems odd for such a thing to seek enemies rather than allies, and suggests that all of these arguments are elaborate trolls rather than sincere attempts to change the world. But these are lofty and abstract arguments. Satan made us the alphabet for a reason, so I don't care to be held hostage to an hour long minute YouTube video to understand somebody's political position. That manages to be even more annoying than feminist cant. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on the youtube thing. Whenever I see a post which tells me to "look at this youtube video" I skim right past it. If somebody has a point to make they can spell it out in black and white rather than ask me to endure somebody else's youtube ramblings.--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

What are you even...

Seriously, why are you people responding? I know that we are far too much a band of anarchists to actually remove these loser, but why is it that every time we have some jackass show up, half the fucking wiki has to waste their lives on it. The fuck is the matter with you people?-- Token Conservative ^{Feminist Thought Police} 23:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

EC

You are obviously an MRA concern troll. I know this tactic; some crack/extremist shows up and tries to portray themselves as "totally not one of the bigoted fuckheads" but still in agreement with most of their views, and all they want to do is open a dialog and hope that people won't be bigoted against their position. It's just a foot in the door psychological persuasion tactic. I work on fighting Nazi pseudohistory, and I see the exact same sort of tactics on their webshites. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 02:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

-.- Don't be so destructive. I'm having to discuss these issues patiently as they are rather wide-spread among us gamers and you must understand we don't all have the necessary perspective to give everyone a fair treatment, so that's who I'm trying to become and this guy represents exactly who I'm trying to address. You come barging in and make it look like I'm good cop and you're bad cop, when in fact, none of that cliched police tactic is going on here. Go away, if you have nothing to add to the discussion! Nullahnung (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Jesus christ thanks a lot, I have been labled a crank even though I have no allegience to any sort of group. I only heard about the men's rights activists like last week and I know that's ridiculous all things considered. C'mon I was trying to point out the issues of a fringe group that is being ignored because they aren't a religious group or whatever but like all fringe groups the fringe I'm talking about here should be acknowledged and countered, and it's obvious to a lot of people anita sarkeesian is profiteering off this fringe group on top of it all. You can keep your opinions about the matter at hand, but don't resort to ad hominem, I hadn't done anything of the sort to any of you. --NUTCASE71733 (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This is true and I give you credit for not being insulting. You said you'd understand if people flamed you, though. And then it happened, as expected. Don't take it too harshly, you were going to get flamed a bit anyways.

You can try to sift through our arguments and see whether you can understand what we are saying. Nullahnung (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Anita Sarkeesian is a bit of a crack and cherry picking or isn't properly analyzing games, but there are a few good points that she raises. In general I agree with most of the points of general feminism, but the entire men's rights movement is a load of misogynistic shit. It's a bunch of woosies who don't get laid who don't want to man up for anything who blame women for "persecuting" them and "alpha males" for making them inferior by comparison. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 02:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerns

Don't worry I understand what you mean perfectly, there's a ton of complexity in everything around us and there is not one solution for everything. I'm only asking that-as a gamer myself-that not all of us be branded the way the anita sarkeesian article claims. Also one of the earlier videos I put up discussed the issues I mentioned about her using this whole Tropes VS Women series as a front for money is explained pretty effectively in one video I put up before and the second video right after disassembles the "conspiracy theory" argument showing it for what it is. Those videos I think were missed in translation because of the amazing atheist's comments in that one video. I only put that one up because as Is aid before he posted the link to the full video of the event in question, but it probably would have been better if I went straight to the source instead so I apologize for that.

Here's the video that discusses Anita possibly using her series to just make money again;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2h4vITidvo

After this user made this video, Anita slammed it calling it conspiracy theory as you guys did before, which I could understand, but unlike reptilian shapeshifters or the illuminati, the issue in this video is a lot more believable. And unlike most other companies, while video game companies do exist to make profit they also unlike other forms of companies do try to please their consumers in some way, so what I meant about them in particular is that as a gamer I feel anita robbed them blind after she claimed she was trying to help them improve their craft, which instead her work doesn't appear to do anything more than just slam the products these companies make. Constructive criticism is one thing but I didn't see anything constructive in her series, and it seems like she had ripped off the game industry in the long run.

Now as for the second video that got overlooked on the subject I'm reffering to, this second video rebuts the claims of conspiracy by Anita after the first video was put out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPWUwnXqJ_Y&feature=c4-overview&list=UUhi4TtLzwVnMQ5xHwaxWD-g

How this looks to you is up to you guys but I hope you guys can understand effectively why Anita should be looked at a lot more critically. I do agree the death/rape threats are vile, I just doubt that even the majority of them were gamers and even if they were gamers that made those threats that is still a very small percentage of the total number of people who do own and play games, so it's kind of unfair to lump us all together like this. Heck there are women gamers and even other feminists who think Anita has done this all wrong, and while that point may not hold weight of any sort it should be noted at least. --NUTCASE71733 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand you, bro. I consider myself to be a hardcore gamer it really gets to me when people feel ok to label us everything from violent potential school shooting psychopath to misogynist anti-feminist pig.

You must understand that we all have our problems. Some people of the other side are going to see us gamers unfairly, but yes we do have problems. We do have some very serious sexist problems in the gaming community and also in the gaming industry. Check it out: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Sexism_in_Video_Gaming

We need to be able to face these problems, admit that we have these problems and condemn them as such. Only then will we be able to move forward as a medium and as a community and gamers will hopefully start to get more respect.

Before you say anything, I do admit that we are mostly not bad. We the gamers have a lot of girl gamers and we are pretty egalitarian as a whole. But we do have serious sexist problems in our medium, with the corporate suit wearers who think they have us gamers all figured out, and some problems in some certain parts of our community and we can't run away from them, is all I'm saying.

As to your accusations of Ms. Sarkeesian, that she is dishonest and using everybody, I'm not sure yet. I will try to go through your videos and evidence in time (maybe it will take some days, I tire of this). If after all that I am convinced that she truly displays all this dishonest behaviour, then I will look into whether we can improve our article with some solid references. Nullahnung (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Nullahnung, it's all I ask. However that goes when you make your final decision is ok by me weither it goes in my argument's favor or not, you guys are more enlightened on a lot of subtleties than I am, I only wanted to initiate some dialogue in the hopes that there can be some proper debate. I say this because too many times logical arguments get discounted as being cranks (example being with Thunderf00t speaking out against radical feminism and int he process getting ostracized by freethought.org for questioning P.Z. Meyers to name one example), and I really tried my best to avoid coming off like one, though that amazing atheist video I KNEW was going to end badly on my part and that was a lapse in judgement for me. Even if this doesn't end like I hope I'm glad to have contributed in some way. --NUTCASE71733 (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Btw, mentioning Thunderf00t and his stance on feminism will also end badly for you. Here, have a read: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thunderf00t

Anyways, you have a cool attitude. Peace. Nullahnung (talk) 03:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding dishonesty and Anita Sarkeesian

The videos by jordanowen42 - I will go through the first one first (I didn't go through the things from flickr, because flickr is down or something, I can't access it):

1.) Presents a wide variety of sources about how Anita Sarkeesian has an extensive background and professional training in PR, teleseminars and internet marketing.

2.) Links this to her Kickstarter project, alleging that Sarkeesian is only doing it for the money, not for feminism.

So he proved that Sarkeesian has the professional skills to successfully market her videos and profiteer off of a cause (which, she no doubt profited big time from the Kickstarter project, not least because she brought attention to the cyber-bullying). This gives us reason to suspect that she did have profiteering motives behind her project. However, it is not solid evidence as to the full range of her intentions. Just because she knew how to capitalize on her situation, and then did so, doesn't mean she doesn't have legitimate feminist concerns to posit. In fact, such capitalization brings more attention to her feminist issues and thus helps bring light to the issues feminists see in gaming.

My conclusion is that while there is a good chance that all she had in mind was money, we can't just put that in our article because ultimately we just don't know what the full range of her intentions was.

I will now go through the second video by jordanowen42:

1.) Makes clear that his allegations are based on drawing convincing conclusions from real sources and are therefore not some wishy-washy conspiracy theory. Then goes off on a rant about the broader issue as listed in 2.) -5.) below:

2.) Sarkeesian is a tool for the Anti-video gaming lobby group through the feminist angle now, since the violence angle didn't work.

3.) Feminist demands of equality backfired by getting rid of the gentleman mentality, deal with it.

4.) Bullying and cyber-bullying happens to everyone, not just feminists. Grow a thicker skin, don't become a professional victim, because that would show profiteering motives.

5.) Sarkeesian unnecessarily drives fear mongering, thereby hurting all those affected by such fear of cyber-bullying.

I agree that his conclusions in his previous video weren't just wishy-washy conspiracy and were quite interesting and relevant. However the video is not perfect, because what he went on to say from that under 2.)-5.) shows a misunderstanding of the actual situation surrounding gender inequality and posits that cyber-bullying is somehow ok just because you can grow a thicker skin (which is bullshit, cyber-bullying should be condemned wherever possible). His point that thou shalt not perpetrate professional victimhood is somewhat convincing on moral grounds, but again, that doesn't mean that this represents the full range of her intentions, so we can't really criticise her for that, IMHO. Nullahnung (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I had no intentions of the article having these videos posted as reliable sources, I knew for a fact that wouldn't be valid info, I figured it would at least be a good start for those more savvy at digging up stuff. I have a lot of more important things on my plate currently not sure how I can really do anything in this case beyond just informing the site.

But thanks for keeping what I said in mind, and I will be sure to look more into this kind of stuff to see if I can't get anything more viable. --NUTCASE71733 (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh on another note yeah I agree on the issue of the cyber bullying, that is a matter which should be investigated proper. As someone who was bullied a lot as a kid I find that an insult to my intelligence. The tired old "it's the internet, grow up" doesn't really apply in a lot of cases so I wasn't really fond of how the guy put that argument. It really depends on the circumstance at hand I would think, like if you had idiotic misinformed trolls then that kind of stuff could be ignored but there is a fine line between trolling and harassment to which should be kept in mind on an issue such as this. --NUTCASE71733 (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)