GamerAlexa

@IsThisA3DModel Gods that just looks weird. The plane bit is whatever, but the humans interacting with the paper.. it’s like some weird rubber physics mixed with things not properly touching, in a way I’m having trouble describing. Animation having an uncanny valley is just disturbing ><

no and this looks stupid as hell

@blandCinema I still want a Supergirl comic where she wakes up on Earth with a bunch of tats, piercings, a new hairstyle, etc, but minimal memory of the bender she went on that resulted in them, and she’s trying to work out WTF happened while reacting to comments from the capes she works with

In the 90s “how does Supergirl pierce her ears?” would be a funny argument exploring the minutiae of the lore, now it’s just “I don’t know anything about this character, checkmate lib!”

@noln87 @ItbFluffy @onyxicca You’re the one posting pornographic adds as a counter argument to me saying there were actual gaming adds catered to women, yet you call me pseudo intellectual? Gods, it’s like talking to a child. Women have *always* been gamers, right since it was created.

@CreativeNotEvil @ItbFluffy @onyxicca You are the worst type of pseudo intellectual there is. Admit nothing, deflect everything, make counter accusations. 😂 you point out exceptions and claim the rule. Gaming has been male dominated for the majority of its existence. 🤷‍♂️

If gaming was always a male hobby, then what exactly was I doing for the last 30+ years? If a man plays video games, it's a hobby. If a woman plays video games, what is it? A job? Community service? Was I performing unauthorized access to joy? Do you see how goofy you sound?

@ItbFluffy @noln87 @onyxicca Maybe pedophilic is going too far, but still designed to go straight for porn-addicted men who are incapable of rational thought when they see boobs and ass.

@CreativeNotEvil @noln87 @onyxicca Pedophilic men? Good lord. How is the ad aiming towards that?

@noln87 @ItbFluffy @onyxicca No, it’s called you deliberately missing the point. I made a counterpoint to the claim that games have always been made ‘by men, for men’. Somehow you decided that this meant I was saying games were never made for men.

@CreativeNotEvil @ItbFluffy @onyxicca It’s called an illustrative point. The original poster implies that gaming was not a male dominated. You implied males were not the target demographic. You picked a small slice of the past. I did that as well to show the opposite. When you over broaden or over narrow it’s bad.

@noln87 @ItbFluffy @onyxicca Do you have anything relevant to say? Because trotting out borderline pornographic ads designed to sell things to slack jawed boys and pedophilic men isn’t the burn you think it is.

@CreativeNotEvil @ItbFluffy @onyxicca You mean the old sexiest ads that had girls with their tits out?

@ItbFluffy @onyxicca Made for men and sold to men, yep! That’s why gaming console commercials back in the 80s never featured women in them talking about what they wanted in a console. Nup. Never happened.

@onyxicca It's hard to engage with blatant dishonesty. Games can be made for women. Women can enjoy games. But it wad made for men and sold to men. Very few games cater to women. Trying to cater to both has caused this declined.

@WindoLed @JasmineA555 @SwipeWright But you’re too welded to your ideology to see it. This review was done in the same vein as Andrew Wakefield’s Autism ‘study’, it’s just better at hiding its bias.

@WindoLed @JasmineA555 @SwipeWright The fact is that the Cass review was pushed by a transphobe with an agenda, ignored 99% of previous studies on trans affirming care (which there’s decades of studies on) to reach a predetermined conclusion intended to be politically weaponised.

This is a kind of academic fraud. Every major systematic review on "gender-affirming care" has found the evidence of benefit is extremely weak, and the risk of serious harm is large. So activist researchers just *self-identified* their flawed review as a "systematic review."

@JasmineA555 @WindoLed @SwipeWright The Cass review used the GRADE system for categorizing studies, which downgrades studies that are, for example, not fully randomized, something you can’t do with something like HRT. This is why the Cass review studies *themselves* failed ROBIS review due to their own bias.

@CreativeNotEvil @WindoLed @SwipeWright That is nonsense. No studies were rejected or downgraded for not being double-blind. The rating scale used to grade study quality was specifically for non-randomised studies and did not have blinding as a criterion. This is activist disinformation that you are parroting.

@JasmineA555 @WindoLed @SwipeWright And their reason for categorizing studies as “low quality” were deliberately applied to ensure that studies that were counter to Hilary’s ideology weren’t used, such as ignoring studies that weren’t double-blind, even when talking about things that cannot be studied double-blind.

@CreativeNotEvil @WindoLed @SwipeWright Systematic reviews are at top of the evidence-based medicine hierarchy (the highest form of evidence). Expert opinion is at the bottom. All studies were evaluated using the same rating criteria and those rated low quality were not included. You are parroting disinformation.

@WindoLed @SwipeWright Oh please. Hilary Cass is a transphobe who deliberately ignored data or studies that went against her desired “findings”, *and* gave a “conclusion” that in several places went against the data that she *did* keep. Her ‘review’ is just a farce being used as a political weapon.

@CreativeNotEvil @SwipeWright No. The Review done by an independent preeminent paediatric specialist over 4 years whose recommendations were accepted by multiple national governments and all major political parties in the UK. No "transphobes" whatsoever. You are in a war with reality and your own delusion.

@JasmineA555 @WindoLed @SwipeWright Funnily enough, you can make a study’s results say whatever you want them to say when you simply toss out studies and results that disagree with your desired outcome, or use arbitrary and non-scientific reasoning to ignore studies that you do t want included.

@JasmineA555 @WindoLed @SwipeWright That’s an amazing word salad mix you’ve got there, I’m sure it bamboozles a lot of people into believing that it was something scientific. In reality it was largely a meta-study of various other studies, that cherry picked & misrepresented data.

@WindoLed @SwipeWright The Cass review!! 🤣 🤣 The “review” deliberately done by a transphobe to push an agenda, that intentionally skews, ignores, and misinterprets data to try and get the result they want, that is panned by basically every scientifically literate researcher and medical professional?

@CreativeNotEvil @SwipeWright The Cass Review, dude. Cope and seethe.

@AddLegDammit @MartonSimon1 @ThomasWillett9 Transition for six year olds is ‘let them be referred to be a different name/pronouns, and dress how they want to’. Oh no! How terrible! Christ, let kids fucking experiment and be themselves for once, rather than shoving them in boxes!

@MartonSimon1 @ThomasWillett9 So if a 6 yo wants to transition it’s OK? Not a baby.

Julie, the so called “feminist”, is struggling with the concept of consent.

@TheVikingDane Gods the replies here are telling (as is the original post) “To me, a procedure done on a baby and a procedure done on a consenting adult, or extremely rarely, consenting late teen, are the same thing” says some very scary things about how they view age and consent Fucking pedos

Surely banning circumcision for babies is a positive? The baby has absolutely no say in this procedure. Why is this proposal bonkers?

@EX_EV0LUTIONIST @mikaelamagic Lawl. “Christian” coward blocked me for reminding him that he’s being a judgmental prick 🤣

@EX_EV0LUTIONIST @mikaelamagic Jesus sat with those others called sinners, he listened to their lives, understood their situation, showed compassion and empathy, met them where they were, not where others wanted them to be. You? Straight to “You are mentally ill! Change your ways! You are WRONG!”