Dissecting Smite #1: Oversexualization, Stereotyping, Double-Standards, and Other Misogyny in Smite

Sub.

Is asking people to ignore someone's arguments the best way to win people's respect?

You've lost the respect that I have for your arguments.

Rawr, HATE SUB, Rawr!

You guys do realize that I'm not JUST asking you guys to ignore him? That I'm giving an actual reason as to why?

As in, he actually said that PHDs were a detriment to having a good source?


What got in your bonnet? When have I been illogical? When have I made blatant falsehoods, like saying that internalized prejudice wasn't a thing, or a stupid theory that wasn't true?

Seriously, I find this insulting.

Quote please.

I never said that. Sub, seriously, please stop lying about me. This is getting abit ridiculous now. I think it would be better if from now on, if before you make a claim that I said something, you quoted me actually saying it. That way you'd know exactly what I have and haven't said. Just a thought.

Look at this post.

Also, Feminism is about Gender Equality because Gender Inequality is biased against women, for the most part. Seriously, how is this a hard question? Why is this so hard to understand. LOOK AT NEX'S ****ING POSTS INSTEAD OF BASHING MINE FFS.

As for the quote:



Note that the sources weren't written by PHD students, but people who actually got their PHDs.

Then what is a good source?

You say that Wikipedia (arguably not true) and the news (which is true) is not a good source, only something official and academic is a good source.

So they show you an academic essay, written by a doctor. Its not a good source because the person who wrote it is bias?

Do we need to find a source that is written by a doctor that has no political opinion, has no gender, no sexual preference, no race and not a part of any country for you to deem it a non bias source? Because last time i checked such a person doesn't exist!

All of Zanestorm's posts are biased, and their PHDs and stuff are also biased, and the dudes who wrote them were also clearly biased, which makes his sources better than ours for no reason other than him saying they're biased.

But people are never going to ignore Zanestorm because I am a ******** Hate Sink for most of this site and any opinion that goes against mine is instantly going to get +10 rep and a **** ton of support.

Just a quick summary of what each side is doing wrong and something hopefully you guys keep in mind:

Sub's side: Not actually concentrating on the original topic which is oversexualization in Smite. I know it got a little bit diverted when replying to Zanestorm and one event led to another, but eventually you have to get back on track.

Zane's side: Not enough sources man. People keep asking you for sources, and if you don't give them sources, it's not gonna matter how well-crafted your argument is, it's gonna sound subjective.

I know that these have been said before, but hopefully hearing them from a third party will make you realize these

So you misquoted him. Does he say that the PHD is a DETRIMENT? No. He says that just because it was written by someone with a PHD does not mean it's automatically correct.

You wonder why people don't agree with you? That's why. Because you accuse him of things he did not even say.

A good source states if it has bias immediately in the introduction, and works to mitigate their bias by discussing all sides of the issue.

They will cite sources accurately. These sources will be cited to the page - with a relevant quote supplied or idea summarized linked to that page. They will not generally cite entire articles, that is reserved for the bibliography. They must be specific. Page 2. Page 15. Not pages 111-123 maybe somewhere.

They will cite up-to-date sources when discussing any topic with modern contention [like society and culture] as both can experience rapid change, so citing sources from 20-30 years ago is misrepresenting the present.

They will pull sources from a variety of locations with no obvious ideological bias, or when the bias is obvious, explicitly state it. Moreover they will pull sources that contend their points, to open up points for discussion and prove they're well-read on the subject and have made attempts to understand opponents POV.

There's obviously more to academic convention than that, but with regards to sources that's the gist of it.

Wikipedia has edit wars and numerous ideological groups editing articles favourably. A good example is wiki-project feminism, which is becoming notorious for edit wars. I believe a recent one was messing with a notable feminists page. I think her name was the Factual Feminist? Something like that. I think they also did it to another Feminist - Wendy Mcelroy. It's sadly common, as most people can edit the wiki [who don't know about academic convention or sources] it makes it far less reliable.

The person who wrote that source cites authors who, as I went over, don't substantiate their own claims with evidence. They're all dated authors for a modern topic like this, and all of them can be linked to ideological bias. The author didn't make any obvious attempt to cite non-feminist articles that I saw, nor did the articles that the author used that I saw and went over.

You're absolutely right - everyone has a bias! But academics work hard to mitigate that bias in many ways, from providing counter-arguments to pulling sources from different authors with different stances, to ensure they're presenting as much of the picture as they can within reason. Sadly, the author cited did not do that that I saw, neither did the authors citations either. Moreover the author(s) made some incredible claims with no citations at all to back it up, and the original author didn't provide any direct citations. It all adds up.

Ideally you'd provide numerous Academic sources with different points of view, that discuss different points of view, that all come together to support the claims made in the OP with hard evidence. That hasn't happened.