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

Is chronic biscuit toxicity an actual thing? Can that please be a thing?

EDIT: make it page 23+24 for you two to settle this.

tumblr is that u

@ All4. I'll keep this quick

I know the difference between feminists and Misandrists / Radical Feminists. Thats not to say there isn't cross-over, but they're clearly distinguished. Actual feminists have a narrative to run - that there's massive sexist problems - to ensure they acquire state funding and bolster their movement. Not all feminists, but some certainly are. Feminism is an ideology - bottom line - I do not trust a feminist source to be unbias anymore than I'd trust a Marxist source or a Capitalist source. They each have motivations for representing their own versions of what's occuring.

Sub has fit the criteria for not reading any academic studies before posting the OP, as they only found a single one - that was debunked - 15 pages into the thread. They did not base their argument off academic sources. So as you say - and you're correct to say - we should disregard any rhetoric that is not backed by sound research and hard data.

What you're missing is that NONE of the articles - by very definition of where they're located - are obligated to follow, or do follow, academic standards. This goes for Wikipedia, the huffington post and the feminist blog-y sources alike. They aren't Academic. It's as simple as that. If you make a claim, you back it up with academic evidence, not news posts and wikipedia.

I have no hard proof because I've made no claims, beyond pointing out that Sub lacks evidence and highlighting where it's needed. There is no citation I could possibly present to support that - beyond quoting Sub themselves.

No-one should be trusted because of their title. Period. One should critically assess everything regardless of its source.

Academic Writing: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~engl5vr/guidelines.htm
Academic Source conventions: http://www.harzing.com/download/acref.pdf Is a particularly thorough set of guidelines to follow, in terms of what and how one should reference. It varies by academic institution, but generally these guidelines are sound.

Of particular relevance to the article in question: Do not use empty References (3), Use Reliable Sources (4) Make clear which statement references the support (7), Do not Cite out-of-date References (9), Do not Be Impressed by Top Academic Journals (10) [this one is more for Sub than the original source,] Actively Search for Counter evidence (12).

That's fine. I'd be hopeful we could move on sooner, as its getting pretty tiring if I'm honest.

Nearly fell off my chair. Don't trigger me like that again, Firraria.

I am the embodiment of all that is tumblr. Now if you'll excuse me, I think I just saw a white guy with dreadlocks. I need to go scream about cultural appropriation.

@Zanestorm


Try to refrain from doubleposting. Instead just edit the previous post (to make the edit more obvious you can write "EDIT:" and the additional part). This will make the thread less cluttered and make admins and mods' lives easier.

Will do.

I'm repeating myself one more time.

Zanestorm's "flaws" that he found with my sources are based off the judgements of himself.

He has nothing to support his claims/arguments/statements/whatever except for his own words.

And I actually have sources.

What do you think, guys? I have sources, he has nothing. He does have his words, but so does everyone, so that doesn't count.

He can try to pick holes all he wants: my counterargument for that is that he has no right to make any sort of judgement on them. You can say they're unscientific and unacademic all you want: They have PHDs, while Zanestorm has nothing, not even a counter-source.

What Zanestorm doesn't understand is that you don't counter a source by claiming bias or something along those lines. The entire point of a PHD is to assure others that you made an objective report. The way you counter sources is with counter-sources, not stating that the report or such is biased.

Ultimately, Zanestorm is using yet another form of ad hominem - attacking the speaker instead of his speech. Instead of finding issue with the source's words or content, he says that the source writer is biased, his or her PHD does not mean anything, and that she/he's part of some Sinister Feminist Agenda. If someone says the sky is red, you don't call him a lunatic, you prove that it isn't red, or get someone more qualified to say it. Zanestorm is calling my post/my sources lunacy.

In the end, I have proof for my assertions - both for the original post and for my subsequent arguments; and Zanestorm is a random person on the internet who claims that my sources and their PHDs are irrelevant - also known as worthless. Nothing he says will change that fact.

I can say with a fair amount of confidence that this line of conversation is over.

I think a chill pill is necessary :D!!!!!

No, they're based off commonly held academic principles. Here's an example: http://www.harzing.com/download/acref.pdf Read it through. Past the Guidelines, there's a case study of what happens when academic guidelines are not met.

My claim is that you lack valid evidence. Your OP posts not a single academic source yet makes numerous unsubstantiated claims and implicit conclusions. Infact, you didn't even post an academic source - another user did - on around page 15. And that source does not meet academic guidelines on multiple accounts - see my post to All4 further up. That is the summary of your academic evidence - a single source, 15 pages past your OP, that does not meet academic guidelines. I cannot supply a study showing you why you specifically have not put sources in your OP. That is the point I'm arguing, and it's based on your OP.

If I don't have a right to judge them negatively - which I absolutely do - then neither would you be able to judge them positively. //Logic.

I don't need a counter-source as I haven't made a claim that requires one. Also, I don't need a counter-source to that particular source as I can pick apart the many flaws in the article itself. That does far more to undermine the source then finding an opposing view. If the academic source does not hold to scrutiny, it stands to reason that what the source is arguing for doesn't hold to scrutiny, either. It's a common tactic academics use, because it's efficient.

Objectivity is supposed to be established immediately in the first year of undergraduate study, and it is. It is taught far before PHD level. If a source fails to meet academic guidelines, it does not matter who wrote it. Having a PHD does not exempt you from criticism. Claiming otherwise is an appeal to authority - which is a logical fallacy.

You've failed to apply ad hominem correctly. I'm critiquing the source, not the author. Regardless, the PHD has no relevance to the validity of the work - the content does. I've stated this so many times now. I'm not calling anything lunacy. I'm saying you lack sources, and the single academic source you have does not meet academic standards, neither do the authors the original source cites.

Where is your proof? Wikipedia? A feminist blog? A news paper? A single academic source that does not meet academic standards or guidelines located 15 pages after the OP? Yourself? Third-Wave Feminist theory? You're also a random person on the internet. Your source (not sources, you have one invalid academic source) has a PHD. That is irrelevant to the articles content, which is the thing one looks at in order to assess the validity of the source.

I'm happy to end the conversation on sources here, I feel I've more than aptly proven my points. If you refuse to find valid academic sources, yet equally refuse to amend your unsubstantiated claims, there is nothing I can do beyond what I've already done.