Video: Anita Sarkeesian is good with money

Good at wasting it. On what?

Giving money to con artists who cry Victim! is like pouring your money into a black hole.
At least burning it would provide some value.

Slag off academia all you want, at least the actual researchers on these questions care about the ideas. You have no idea who they are. These celebrity wannabes, starting Fun Research (er no) and various fake Institutes are basically running a Cult. It’s all about them.

Stupidest app known to man, developed by woman

“As two empathetic, female entrepreneurs in the tech space, we want to spread love and positivity,” Cordray stressed. “We want to operate with thoughtfulness.”

This is why they think we’re dumb.

are you kidding me rn seriously wtf da vincis demons
Thanks. You’ve set other women back.
Apps aren’t tech. She didn’t even code this herself. She is not an entrepreneur.
When people ask, why is STEM overvalued in the stock market, could you give me an example?

This. This should never have got funding.

It’s an invitation to slander, but instead her optimism for human nature is overwhelming the reasonable expectation of a mass lawsuit in the future. You can’t even post the good stuff, so what’s the point?

On top of that, Peeple has outlawed a laundry list of bad behaviors, including profanity, sexism and mention of private health conditions.

But, what if the nature of the complaint is that they’re going round recklessly spreading STDs? [illegal btw]
That would constitute, like, most of the romantic category, right there.

The ratings will always be wrong because the normal people won’t be reviewing, always the extremes.
And what if you have a common name? What if it stops you from getting a job, because you were confused with somebody else?

In fact, as repeat studies of Rate My Professor have shown, ratings typically reflect the biases of the reviewer more than they do the actual skills of the teacher:

But at least student ratings have some logical and economic basis: You paid thousands of dollars to take that class, so you’re justified and qualified to evaluate the transaction. Peeple suggests a model in which everyone is justified in publicly evaluating everyone they encounter, regardless of their exact relationship.

Imagine how the SJWs will use this.
Imagine the lawsuits that will follow.

It’s surveillance.

It’s inherently invasive, even when complimentary. And it’s objectifying and reductive in the manner of all online reviews. One does not have to stretch far to imagine the distress and anxiety that such a system would cause even a slightly self-conscious person; it’s not merely the anxiety of being harassed or maligned on the platform — but of being watched and judged, at all times, by an objectifying gaze to which you did not consent.

Peeple is an app for informers.

In 2013, Lulu promised to empower women by letting them review their dates, and to empower men by letting them see their scores.

Truth hurts.

After a tsunami of criticism — “creepy,” “toxic,” “gender hate in a prettier package” — Lulu added an automated opt-out feature to let men pull their names off the site.

The men were acting like that. That’s why they’re single btw.
And who TF insults women, on a date with a woman?

If beta testers demand an opt-out feature, she’ll delay the launch date and add that in. If users feel uncomfortable rating friends and partners, maybe Peeple will professionalize: think Yelp meets LinkedIn. Right now, it’s Yelp for all parts of your life; that’s at least how Cordray hypes it on YouTube, where she’s publishing a reality Web series about the app’s process.

Then what’s the point of it?
It doesn’t have one, she’s doing it for self-aggrandizement.

“It doesn’t matter how far apart we are in likes or dislikes,” she tells some bro at a bar in episode 10. “All that matters is what people say about us.”

Trust a girl to ‘develop’ an online popularity contest.
What she forgets is: by default, most people aren’t popular.
And popular people are sycophants. They suck.

Dibs on the Sarkeesian entry. I have a story to add.

APA says video games increase aggression, limit to children

I disagreed with the headline (sent it by someone else) but the reason behind it (get the rot away from children, for new games) is quite a noble intention. They aren’t trying to limit them to adults.

Except for the word violent, replace in your mind with ‘competitive’, what the games really teach, and the rabbity reasons behind this become clear. The oestrogen-laden beta males are learning some genuine skills and values.

“No single risk factor consistently leads a person to act aggressively or violently,” the report states. “Rather, it is the accumulation of risk factors that tends to lead to aggressive or violent behavior. The research reviewed here demonstrates that violent video game use is one such risk factor.”

A-types will naturally vent with video games as a hobby, but it doesn’t cause the temperament. Channels it.
Hang on, don’t these people want to give teachers the right to let kids play video games so they don’t have to teach? What’s up with that bullshit, children shouldn’t have broad access to screens like that, everyone knows it’s bad for them. Steve Jobs wouldn’t let his children use iPads. The Silicon Valley types are least likely to allow their children to clock high numbers of hours on technology they made. Is it educational or not?

APA has called on the industry to design video games that include increased parental control over the amount of violence the games contain…..

Fair. If you’re young enough that your parents are buying games they should know what they’re playing.

… In addition, the resolution urges developers to design games that are appropriate to users’ age and psychological development, and voices APA’s support for more research to address gaps in the knowledge about the effects of violent video game use.

This is good. A clear divide between children’s games, teen games (probably mobile) and real/adult gaming as an industry. No excuse for censorship because we’re all adults here.

The task force identified a number of limitations in the research that require further study. These include a general failure to look for any differences in outcomes between boys and girls who play ; a dearth of studies that have examined the effects of violent video game play on children younger than 10; and a lack of research that has examined the games’ effects over the course of children’s development.

Girls might be at fault? Really? Research away. I would love to see Anita explain that, considering little girls show more interpersonal aggression overall.

Children under 10 shouldn’t be playing any video games unsupervised.

How long is a piece of string.

“For example, how do depression or delinquency interact with violent video game use?”

Let the poor things have some outlet or you’ll complain when they actually kill someone because the pressure built up. They don’t usually have a social life, support network or family.

“As with most areas of science, the picture presented by this is more complex than is usually included in news coverage and other information prepared for the general public.”

I feel this was a direct jab at Anita.