| > It wasn't example of her failing at her research, and it's exactly how Glen Beck would make an argument. Does damsel in distress trope include punching oppressor in the balls in the end as optional element? How does it play into all this objectification and captured woman lacking agency? Never seen Glen Beck but I've seen South Park: Dances with Smurfs and what I get from this is style of commentary that states questions that suggest something that that would be slanderous if it was in form of a statement. Slanderous or just false and stupid, like on History Channel: "Could aliens help build pyramids?". I don't really see parallels to Thunderf00ts style. > he was dead serious, he's also incoherent. As dead serious as stand-up comedian, but I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. >> claims (falsely?) that tropes vs women fails to acknowledge > yes I have an issue with that. I must have missed it in original video. >> proposes that this trope is just using natural instinct of helping loved ones ... > I'm sorry. That argument was such a blatant emotional appeal, I'm really stunned you're backing it. So you think that the trope was put in the story rather to provide pleasure to player by diminishing women, than to provide motivation for male protagonist by playing on basic humane instincts and by proxy providing motivation to the player who identifies with protagonist? Or do you think it was put in the story for some other reason? Or am I posing false trichotomy with those questions? Maybe just because argument is about emotions it makes it invalid? I don't really see it anything similar to "Will somebody please think of children!" which is most obvious emotional appeal I can think of right now. > I stopped watching once the first 3 minutes gave me 2 paragraphs of errors. Oh. Ok, then. I recommend the rest to you. It gets better. I'm always astonished how two intelligent people can see something in completely opposite way if they come from two different ideological backgrounds. |