Cool story, she's still just another Anita Sarkeesian, but with an ounce more tact. She's still pushing the same tired topics. She's still a feminist. She's still a grifter. She was less "neutral" and more "tactful", trying to lure flies with honey rather than turds.
Yep. While she set herself as an opponent of Sarkeesian, she always softballed her. Which gave me the impression that Liana was always controlled opposition, or at least reluctant to attack her fellow female feminists.
Liana also portrays herself as pro-sex, but she would always echo the "anti-sex" feminists whenever the subject of The Witcher came up. For whatever reason, she just really had it out for that IP. And really, it seems like the only thing Liana truly differed on from the other feminists was the subject of big boobs. She doesn't really oppose their arguments or rhetoric; if anything, she's in full agreement with their rampant misandry. She just feels like they're also attacking her being she's buxom.
Which gave me the impression that Liana was always controlled opposition, or at least reluctant to attack her fellow female feminists.
That wasn't it. It's that Sarkeesian was Liana's competition. Liana was competing for an audience, and Liana was happy to align herself with another audience where she might be able to gain even a modicum of traction for her views. And frankly, it somewhat worked. A lot of early GG people, especially outside of the KiA2 splinter, are still very leftist in nature. She found an audience and many fell for it. Same with CHS. They were all still pushing from the same book. It was just about the amount of push. While Sarkeesian was trying to use wrecking balls, Liana and CHS were using hand hammers. By comparison, they're tame, but they're still after the same goal at the end of the day. They're still playing from the same SocJus playbook.
I've said since back in 2014 on the original KiA -- Liana is good cop to Anita's bad cop. They're both after the same thing, they're just playing you in different ways.
Oh hey, I remember that name. I remember her video where she went on at length about the importance of Minsc to her developing a healthy understanding of the positive nature of the masculine role as protector.
I'd go so far as to say he's even a good example. The dude is dumb as a box of rocks and extremely violent, but you love him to death and are happy to have him around. He adds levity, he's compassionate and will throw himself into danger to protect those who can't protect themselves. For the misguided hordes out there who think men are scary he ends up being a fairly good case study in how all the things they fear about men can actually be virtues and reasons to appreciate men.
Thanks for the suggestion. I had reached out to him very early on in the project, but didn't hear back. I can try to follow up, he may have just missed the message.
I'm glad she's still on the right side of this then. I've seen some crazy things on her Twitter, and assumed she went the way of the MundaneMatts of the world, whose hatred of Trump was such that they sold out all their principles.
OP, you are also anti-Trump, correct (no hate, I'm tolerant of political disagreement)?
I do believe that Donald Trump has very openly demonstrated many authoritarian inclinations and that his attempts to overturn the last election in order to remain in power were dangerous for our democratic system.
Remember, going through official channels of bureaucracy is clearly a sign of being an authoritarian!
Geez, I'm not the biggest fan of Trump, but the vast majority of criticism is just utterly fucking unhinged. I'm glad OP is intent on documenting GG, but I couldn't imagine a more "head in sand" response than what he gave. Literally repeating the establishment mantra about Trump. Utterly insane.
Don't underestimate the power of propaganda. The establishment would not be the establishment if it was not able to persuade people of even what we view as the most illogical things. So I advise tolerance when people disagree. Rather than "how dare someone disagree with me on Trump?", I think "hey, we even have anti-Trump people supporting GG! Awesome!"
There can be good reasons to be critical of Trump, and not just criticisms 'from the right'. I just never hear those. Most of them focus on chasing the shiny new thing. They barely mention something like Trump University, which is in my view the worst thing he did.
Rather than "how dare someone disagree with me on Trump?"
Do you think that's what I said, even a little? You really gonna be THAT disingenuous? Because being that kind of disingenuous would really undermine your entire point.
Not you, or anyone. I'm just illustrated two different ways, two extremes, of how one can react to differing views. Fill in any other view and the point still stands.
Cool story, she's still just another Anita Sarkeesian, but with an ounce more tact. She's still pushing the same tired topics. She's still a feminist. She's still a grifter. She was less "neutral" and more "tactful", trying to lure flies with honey rather than turds.
Yep. While she set herself as an opponent of Sarkeesian, she always softballed her. Which gave me the impression that Liana was always controlled opposition, or at least reluctant to attack her fellow female feminists.
Liana also portrays herself as pro-sex, but she would always echo the "anti-sex" feminists whenever the subject of The Witcher came up. For whatever reason, she just really had it out for that IP. And really, it seems like the only thing Liana truly differed on from the other feminists was the subject of big boobs. She doesn't really oppose their arguments or rhetoric; if anything, she's in full agreement with their rampant misandry. She just feels like they're also attacking her being she's buxom.
That wasn't it. It's that Sarkeesian was Liana's competition. Liana was competing for an audience, and Liana was happy to align herself with another audience where she might be able to gain even a modicum of traction for her views. And frankly, it somewhat worked. A lot of early GG people, especially outside of the KiA2 splinter, are still very leftist in nature. She found an audience and many fell for it. Same with CHS. They were all still pushing from the same book. It was just about the amount of push. While Sarkeesian was trying to use wrecking balls, Liana and CHS were using hand hammers. By comparison, they're tame, but they're still after the same goal at the end of the day. They're still playing from the same SocJus playbook.
I've said since back in 2014 on the original KiA -- Liana is good cop to Anita's bad cop. They're both after the same thing, they're just playing you in different ways.
She still makes YouTube content and runs a podcast / radio show.
Oh hey, I remember that name. I remember her video where she went on at length about the importance of Minsc to her developing a healthy understanding of the positive nature of the masculine role as protector.
In modern culture, that actually does not sound implausible - or even bad.
Better Minsc than no one.
I'd go so far as to say he's even a good example. The dude is dumb as a box of rocks and extremely violent, but you love him to death and are happy to have him around. He adds levity, he's compassionate and will throw himself into danger to protect those who can't protect themselves. For the misguided hordes out there who think men are scary he ends up being a fairly good case study in how all the things they fear about men can actually be virtues and reasons to appreciate men.
Probably also helps he's voiced by Winnie the Pooh.
That man has voiced everyone.
Are you planning on talking to Erik Kain? I remember him as being one of the only mainstream journalists to give Gamergate a fair shake.
Thanks for the suggestion. I had reached out to him very early on in the project, but didn't hear back. I can try to follow up, he may have just missed the message.
I'm glad she's still on the right side of this then. I've seen some crazy things on her Twitter, and assumed she went the way of the MundaneMatts of the world, whose hatred of Trump was such that they sold out all their principles.
OP, you are also anti-Trump, correct (no hate, I'm tolerant of political disagreement)?
Eh, that's not exactly a bad thing.
I do believe that Donald Trump has very openly demonstrated many authoritarian inclinations and that his attempts to overturn the last election in order to remain in power were dangerous for our democratic system.
you sound like a wapo npc
What, by filing the paperwork to contest the outcome the same way Al Gore did?
Remember, going through official channels of bureaucracy is clearly a sign of being an authoritarian!
Geez, I'm not the biggest fan of Trump, but the vast majority of criticism is just utterly fucking unhinged. I'm glad OP is intent on documenting GG, but I couldn't imagine a more "head in sand" response than what he gave. Literally repeating the establishment mantra about Trump. Utterly insane.
Don't underestimate the power of propaganda. The establishment would not be the establishment if it was not able to persuade people of even what we view as the most illogical things. So I advise tolerance when people disagree. Rather than "how dare someone disagree with me on Trump?", I think "hey, we even have anti-Trump people supporting GG! Awesome!"
There can be good reasons to be critical of Trump, and not just criticisms 'from the right'. I just never hear those. Most of them focus on chasing the shiny new thing. They barely mention something like Trump University, which is in my view the worst thing he did.
Do you think that's what I said, even a little? You really gonna be THAT disingenuous? Because being that kind of disingenuous would really undermine your entire point.
Not you, or anyone. I'm just illustrated two different ways, two extremes, of how one can react to differing views. Fill in any other view and the point still stands.
As the saying goes: "You are not immune to propaganda."
Thank you for answering.