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

I find this to be really funny. Zane literally said that pretty much an study is biased and can't be taken into account, still not having actually read my study. Which if he did, would realize there are ****ing 3 pages of sources/references. That it's just a ****ing survey of popular video games. That there can literally not be too much bias in it.

Then he comes back with no sources and no proof. Claiming that all he needs is his word. While all other forms of actual cited sources are ********. That's not how a debate works. He claimed things on me, that had he taken the time to read, would find out weren't even true.

Zane, you are being arrogant and ignorant. If you need, I can even source the definitions of those. Assuming that the dictionary isn't a biased source. Which it clearly is right? The definition of every word is actually only known by you.

ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY KNOWLEDGE LORD ZANESTORM!!!!! We must bow to his presence....

P.S.
I like how you completely avoided everything I said that was part of an intellectual debate. Simply to reply to people who just started bashing him. This is why this site is toxic. It isn't sub, it's the people that can't seem to look past a reasonable insult(which sub's were, considering this guy seems to be the almighty god in his eyes) and decide to keep fueling the **** storm.....

I'm literally done with this ****ing topic.... It's not even enjoyable... This guy takes it to the point where he can't even back up his own words. He can't take one minute to find sources to backup his argument........

By the way. I didn't read your source, but it's flawed and biased. So it's invalid. I win, I'm the all knowing.


Doesn't make much sense does it....

Normally, a random person on the internet is okay.

But that's a random guy versus another random guy.

You, as a random guy, are trying to discredit someone with a ****ing PHD. This is a random guy versus a certified doctor.

I'm not stupid enough to take your pedantic arguments at face value.

FYI, ad hominem applies to whatever you're attacking, not just the main subject of the conversation. If you attack the author of a source, that's ad hominem, just as attacking me, like you've done, is ad hominem. Or anyone else. As long as they're making a point, and you try to discredit them or attack them instead of their argument, it's ad hominem.

Your entire point of criticizing my thread is how it's improperly sourced, and you say that because my sources aren't good enough.

You're trying to deflect attention from the real subject, and that's how you can't find sources to prove your claim of Internalization not being a thing, and that there is no connection between video games and the real world, among many other ludicrous claims. I have quotes, haha.

You can't find any sources because there is no one on earth who would back up your words. A counter-source would be a google search away, and it would instantly give you credibility and make a point.

But not you. Apparently, you expect us to think you're a master debater and academic, too. To use another's words: I'm sure you break tables with your twelve-inch *****, too.

Oh, and he also expects us to take his opinion as valid, that our sources are invalid, at face value. And he says I'm illogical.

*rolls eyes* And look at this piece of absolute brilliance.



If this statement were true, then no one would be able to trust anyone at all. The entire point of having a PHD is qualification. To show people that you're trustworthy. That is why the sane response is to trust people with PHDs, and to NOT trust random people on the internet who call them untrustworthy.

Yeah, a guy from a PHD doesn't escape every bit of criticism, but you're just a random guy on the internet who keeps talking about how PHDs are wrong. You don't just walk up to Obama and tell him he's running his country wrong unless you're on his level. You aren't on anyone's level.

Oh, and once again, you keep establishing claims that Internalization isn't a thing, and instead of disproving it like a REAL academic, you just go back to screaming "BIAS! BIAS!" By the inverse of your logic, I can say that my sources from less-than-official places are just as valid as PHDs, and I'd be just like you: a random person on the internet screaming about his source and its validity, with no real proof on the issue.

Again, your words don't hide how in the end, you're yet another random person on the internet saying how an actual person with a PHD is wrong and irrelevant and unacademic.

I'd like to point out how Zanestorm keeps repeating himself, while avoiding the real problem: How he's a random guy who say's he so awesome and qualified and that he's somehow allowed to question a PHD'd source.

I'd also like to quote the article that Zanestorm provided, because I'm fairly certain I'm the only one on the forums to have actually read it. One of the key points it mentioned was:


"Actively search for counter-evidence."


Specifically, when talking about criticizing published articles. Like the source I and others presented. Or in other words, the one single thing that Zanestorm has been desperately avoiding.

Guys. The very article about scientific rigorousness emphasizes the importance of presenting counterevidence, ESPECIALLY when trying to disprove something. Now, examine Zanestorm in light of this new knowledge.

...fail.

Also, I'd like to point out a crucial flaw in Zane's argument, not just for the sake of this thread, but for future threads, too. Oh, and I also don't say "logical fallacy" because it sounds smart and matches "ad hominem."

Zane is questioning my sources.

The entire point of a source is to assume it's valid.

Zane is screaming at us to prove that our sources are valid or to provide a valid source. But that is literally impossible.

If we provide another source, he'll just list another random, unknown reason off of his mysterious list of principles and say it's invalid, because ZANESTORM IS GOD. What, find a list of academic principles and cross-examine them with our source? THE LIST IS BIASED AND NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

If we try to prove our sources are valid...we literally can't. It's impossible.

Firstly because we can't actually go and prove it ourselves. It's not like we have an year to a decade to take evidence, get our paper reviewed, have it published, etc.

Second because if a PHD isn't good enough, what on earth do you think we can do that is good enough for Zanestorm?

Third because we're random people on the internet. You can say that we're not qualified to prove it and you won't be wrong.

So in other words, Zanestorm is trying to back us off into a cliff of anti-logic. Don't fall into to trap, and see it for what it really is: a trick. By asking us to do the impossible, he can discredit us when we inevitably fail. And not just us, but every other discussion in the future.

I got to that part in the article and peed a little, because he proved our argument for us with his own source. In other words, to uphold his title of the all knowing. Well, he would have to agree with his own source, but at the same time, it contradicts his whole argument.

Caught with his tail between his legs, but I'm sure he'll find a great reason that this makes no sense.

I gave you a rep because I'm biased in favor of you, and that's because you can actually see how Zane's been avoiding the real problem, while I actually take on his ******** head-on and deconstruct it piece-by-filthy-piece.

I wonder how much rep was generated by this thread. I was at 93 rep when I posted.

Just reply to me in Pm, so we don't flood the rest of the thread with off topic discussion. :) But thanks :D

Sorry if it's already got a lot of off topic discussion. :c

A lot of people on this site are pretty damn toxic, to be honest. I'm guilty of that too. That's why I haven't been as active as I used to be.

On Wikipedia:

Yes, this source can be unreliable. Yes, it's information isn't always correct.

But speaking from experience, when you see something on wikipedia, it's correct 99% of the time. If the site wasn't reliable, it wouldn't exist.

But that's just about factoids.

Generally, Wikipedia is correct about the topics of its articles existing. The Beatles exist, despite being a wikipedia article. Pepsi exists, despite many of us not wanting it to.

So, in short, when a guy pulls out an article on Blank to prove that Blank exists, IT ****ING EXISTS.