You literally have no counter argument ot this.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
You literally have no counter argument ot this.
You literally have no counter argument ot this.
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
I prefer the elaborate bullshit excuses to put women and minorities in rather than acting like it was historical fact
I just don’t watch any historical movies that have Black folk in them or women in positions they wouldn’t have in reality
I prefer the fact of white genocide being a necessity.
I've been reliably informed that white genocide doesn't exist and only schizos believe otherwise.
>elric
we REALLY need more twinkish fantasy hero: muscle men à la Conan are so passé...
Who the frick has ever argued that bikini armor is realistic or a legitimate battle tactic?
Ill pay more for tauren in it tho
no one, it's just some triggered Black person or danger hair sjw making a strawman
It's like ninja wearing fishnets. It shows she is so tough it doesn't matter if she gets hit. Or so agile she can't be hit. You have to be really tough to go out fighting in fishnets or chainmail bikini
Isn't the fishnet looking fabric supposed to be some kind of chainmail?
I don't know in the context of Naruto but it's been a common element of ninja costume design for theater and movies for decades to just wear fishnet or a fabric with a similar pattern underneath everything.
The fishnets in naruto are made of metal. The point is they're lightweight but still protective.
No one. Leftists are literally incapable of arguing in good faith about anything.
I've seen it from weebs.
name one
I knew it was a female artist before looking up the name. Men don't think like that.
Some homosexuals and cucked men do think like that.
Plenty of you homosexuals have never called foul when a woman is wearing bikini armor. That's their point.
because its kino
Everybody knows the rule of cool stuff is fake
Diversity pretends to be real where it wasn't, If you must be inaccurate in a choice between goonfuel and random american minorities everybody but self hating whitetards pick goonfuel every time
name 5 female characters who wear bikini armor
i would but i dont speak korean
also
>calling someone a homosexual for liking scantily-clad women
>not calling out something you don't give a shit about is the same as actively defending it
How?
If what you're saying isn't total horseshit the comic would look like this
The difference is one is pushing a political agenda while the other is just catering to the player base.
>Hmm should we be an artistic product with comfy diversity and multiculturalism OR be mindless porn for autistic incel freaks
>comfy diversity and multiculturalism
Nice B8 M8 I R8 it 8/8
So we agree. You morons never called foul as long as made your little dick move. The point is they don't care about that anymore since you homosexuals pirate anyway.
>booba make me horny
>YOU gayS
uhhhh
This is the correct answer. The motive is what matters here gents.
No, one is attempting to be "realistic" and pretending as if female knights were a common sight and not such a rare novelty that their names were passed down throughout history. The other is putting a woman in thong armor where she's probably fighting goblins, demons, and magic-casting warlocks, so obviously not realistic.
It was a major point of contention on Cinemaphile over ten years ago when anita came to take away the booba
Its realistic for barbarians. Celts literally fought the Romans naked and covered in blue paint.
What is unrealistic is women fighting in wars at all.
correct
what is greek mythology
If you're referring to the Amazons, let me guess you think Cerberus and Medusa are real
No homosexual, but it's not like it's not something you would see in film or tv or in a book before everything got woke. Is that too many steps of deduction for your vaxxed tiktok addled zoom zoom noggin?
Wow, its almost like works of fiction can show things that aren't realistic and getting mad about that would be weird
If the women in the "historically accurate" movies had their breasts out I wouldn't give a shit
I don't get it
Give me one, real life example, of this happening.
Because the bottom one doesn't happen. It is understood that it's entirely there for entertainment. The desire to see ass, breasts and tummy supersedes the need for realism
Ban this idiot. Anyone who uses the word "tummy" out of choice is either four or has the mind of a child. Either way, you don't belong here
What do you want me to call it? 'Abdomen'? Too autistic and cold
gut
These arguments arent mutually exclusive tho.
>movies and TV shows are comparable to videogames
And so the argument becomes invalid
unironically better and even works to the original artists's point (in a way)
Hahahaha. The left can't meme for sh
it
makes the meme 10x funnier
how can the left not meme lmao
It works instantly like this, why do they have the ich to always put walls of text
Leaving room for interpretation might let people think for themselves and form the "wrong" opinion. Walls of text ensure the author's intent is inescapable.
it's THAT easy
why do they ruin their own shitty art with words
less is more
good edit
Breddy gud
amazing
I look like that but I don't say that
yeah this is me
>I will now play your game.
even the word "fight" is redundant
Absolutely brilliant.
>remove word salad
>instantly becomes right-wing meme
lol their weapons are useless against us.
Yeah, because the right can't read.
>Yeah, because the right can't read.
Now I get it, thanks
Unironically saved. This was all the author had to do.
>LESS WORDS MORE FUNNY
Humanities degrees are functionally incapable of teaching this one elementary concept.
Holy fricking based, how will the original artist ever recover??
Really you could apply any woke shit vs. pre-woke kino to it.
Rare brevity w
Please understand, leftshits can’t convey ideas without a wall of text
Good lad.
Rule of cool goes for both.
Yes.
Top: gives the impression of historical verisimilitude then ruins it with nogs and female warriors
Bottom: a complete fantasy that has only the barest of resemblance to actual history
Bottom also does the same.
and i thought i was the only one with a dual remote control/keyboard + mouse setup on my rig
>implying the woman in a bikini isn't an Abjuration Wizard and can't just wear whatever she wants without being hurt
Name three games in historic settings (no fantasy) that include bikini armor.
Name three games in a historical setting that are not fantasy.
Hard mode: No strategy games.
Kingdom Come: Deliverance
Mount and Blade
Assassin's Creed
>Assassin's Creed
Anon I don't think you can categorise a game where you lie in a machine reliving the memories of a dead ancestor so an evil corporation can unearth a glowing ball that gives the final boss magic powers as "not fantasy".
If you are that familiar with the premise of AC then you are being a dishonest pussy rejecting it as an example.
light scifi is fantasy
an endless shitload of war shooters
Did you play Pentiment? That was pretty cool.
ugly feminists and Blacks still dont understand why we like cute women and we dislike ugly mutts with an attitude.
They understand that. They just enjoy pointing out your hypocrisy and your desperate flailing attempts to hide your inhumanity.
>They just enjoy pointing out your hypocrisy and your desperate flailing attempts to hide your inhumanity.
If I had a button that allowes me to kill all humanity and live myself alone and happy for the rest of my life I would push it right now.
you can keep your precious sistem to you and your queer Black boyfriends.
what hypocrisy is there in saying "i know what is attractive and it isn't feminist or black?"
You're replying to a troll, moron.
I say the top thing but I don't say the bottom thing.
>AAAAH I'M COOMING I'M COOOMIIIIIING AAAAH GOONIIIIING AAAAH NO NOOOOOO AAAAH IT'S EVERYWHEREEEEEE!!!
>Hot half naked women make fantasy more entertaining
>Random blacks and masculine girlbosses do not
Depends on your fetishes, I guess. Personally, I'm willing to meet halfway, I wouldn't mind a hot black chick in bikini armor.
But that would give white males something to take pleasure in
>MY DICK!!! MYYYYYYYYYY DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICK!!!
I notice this is how liberals, and lefties react.
You know a lot of them, do you? You should probably go back.
What a horrible attempt at deflection.
based and same and literally me and this should be taught in film school and vidya design school
I'm racist and a man, nuff said
t. mexican guy
I'm against anything westoid gynoids want.
>You literally have no counter argument ot this.
Correct, his logic is completely sound.
cute & would wife
I don't like the top example, because it's implausible, and doesn't attribute anything positive to the setting that those people would be in those positions in Medieval times.
I like the bottom example, because it's impossible. It attributes to the story which is blatantly more fantastical, and hence fantastical elements like sexy barbarian ladies is based.
If you made a TV show about sexy barbarian ladies fighting dragons and shit, I'd call that based too.
>If you made a TV show about sexy barbarian ladies fighting dragons and shit, I'd call that based too.
Why don't you just play Baldur's Gate 3? You can have the women fight near nude if that's what you want.
I did, it was fun until it shit the bed in act 3
A fantasy video game is not the same as historical fiction.
I hate coomer shit like this in vidya anyway
Name three movies now like the bottom left(so I can go watch them)
Gor
Deathstalker
Deathstalker II
>Gor
I meant current movies but this is fine too, later gays I got some kino-watching to do
>I meant current movies
You know there are no such 'current movies', and just say modern movies, don't act like an ESL
The joke would have landed better without the text
I consider it petty to assume someone else is stupid, I try to look for other explanations. I used to think they meant well but were overemotional and couldn't think straight, mistaking our criticism for hostility, or maybe they know they are full of shit and this is some kind of humiliation ritual.
However more and more it seems they literally do not understand our arguments or why they are wrong, it is just "words words words" to them. This is the only explanation as to why they spout the same tired worn out arguments over and over and over, not just for a short time as a meme they'll eventually get bored of, but near continually, for years.
The horrifying thing is we are stuck with these people for the rest of our lives and their vote is equal to ours, it is not just vidya and kino, it is our government, our society, our economy. They go right ahead and violate our rights, deny us jobs and education and government services, because apparently we are "privileged", I am to blame for their low grades while the KKK will pay my college debt, apparently. They believe this shit and will eternally try to drag us down and tell themselves they are virtuous for doing so.
>words words words
The Right can't meme
>no u
His post wasn’t a meme. If you are referring to the pic he posted, that was one sentence. You will never be a woman.
that shit will never work for you liberal morons
>However more and more it seems they literally do not understand our arguments or why they are wrong
It's been proven time and time again that leftists literally don't undertstand opposing arguments. A leftist literally cannot understand why I disagree on a certain point, what my argument is, or why I disagree.
one them is art that should represent reality and the other is for manchildren
>one them is art that should represent reality
That means everyone would be White, with no female knights.
Sure I do, bottom right is not something I say, and is not comparable to top right.
Female knights are fine.
Black knights are not.
Simple as. Armor can be sexy or realistic, IDC.
having black knights is more realistic than female knights, landed aristocratic heavy cavalry existed outside of europe
No, it isn't, since Joan of Arc, Matilda of Tuscany, Caterina Sforza, Lagertha, and Jeanne Hachette all existed.
>Joan of Arcadia
Not a knight.
>Matilda of Tuscany
Not a knight.
>Caterina Sforza
Not a knight.
>Lagertha
No evidence she even existed.
>Hachette
Not a knight.
>Joan of Arc
Road into battle and led armies and assisted in combat in full mounted gear. She's a knight.
>Matilda of Tuscany
Rode into battle at the head of her army in full mounted military gear. A knight.
>Caterina Sforza
Trained in fighting, horseback riding, and took part in the battle of Forlì, and also planned and led the entire operation. A knight.
>Lagertha
Only one you technically got right, since she was a warrior shield-maiden, but that's still in Europe, and she was also a mounted warrior at times, so in all practical cases, a knight.
>Jeanne Hachette
I'll give you that one.
If you're referring to the practice of "being knighted" and "knighthood" as an honorary title, then you would be correct. Would you have preferred I referenced women such as Judy Dench and Julie Andrews as examples of female knights? Or could we drop the bullshit pretense of ritual "knighthood" and acknowledge the real fact, since the Teutonic Knights were also NOT knights, in the "Traditional" sense that you are referring to?
That being said, I will forever allow women to carry on the concept of being knighted over an invading Moorish Black person, and I could care less what any historical homosexual thinks.
By this definition Elizabeth I was a knight. That's ridiculous. A woman sitting on a horse in parade armor doesn't make her a knight.
>A woman sitting on a horse in parade armor doesn't make her a knight.
Then neither was every single king who ever existed since they were never knighted. Eat shit.
Well duh, they were kings, not knights
>since they were never knighted.
Kings/queens found and inherit membership of chivalric orders, dumbass
>and queens
Then by your own admission they were knights, dumbass.
You have the reading comprehension of a toddler.
I comprehended exactly what you wrote. Perhaps you shouldn't write like a inarticulate fricking moronic Black person so people can better understand what you mean?
1. I didn't write it
2. You didn't comprehend it
Oh. Then you're the one that needs better reading comprehension. I've scored within the 95th upper percentile of reading comprehension in my entire state. This is the part where you cope and make another excuse for not understanding anon's post?
Kings are not Knights you stupid Black person. Same as Queens. Knights serve the former.
Don't get mad at me, I'm not the moron that said Queens inherit the membership of Chivalric orders.
It's King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, not King Arthur, Who Is Also a Knight of the Round Table.
I'm not the guy you were responding to, and I now see that I have misunderstood what your previous post was getting at. My mistake
>Has full military dress
>participated in battles
>led armies with campaign strategies and battle tactics
>became/was already an aristocrat
>but some pompous homosexual born into privilege didn't tap you on the shoulder with a sword so you're not a knight
none of the people you mentioned actually participated in the fighting
Matilda of Tuscany and Caterina Sforza literally did. Read a history book you illiterate.
what battles?
In 1488, Caterina Sforza defended the fortress of Forlì against an attack by the forces of Pope Innocent VIII.
Matilda of Tuscany:
Battle of Volta Mantovana (1084): Matilda, as a supporter of Pope Gregory VII, clashed with the forces of the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV at Volta Mantovana. This battle was part of the broader Investiture Controversy and marked one of the confrontations between the papal and imperial factions.
Battle of Canossa (1092): Matilda's forces clashed with those of the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV near her stronghold of Canossa. While the battle itself may not have been extensive, it was part of the ongoing struggle between Matilda and the emperor for control over northern Italy.
Battle of Sorbara (1111): Matilda's forces, led by her loyal general Guido da Castello, faced off against imperial troops near Sorbara. The battle was part of Henry V's campaign to assert imperial authority over Matilda's territories.
Battle of Borgo San Donnino (1135): Following Matilda's death, her successor, Ranulf II of Chester, led an army against the forces of the Holy Roman Emperor Lothair III near Borgo San Donnino (now Fidenza). This battle was part of the ongoing struggles over Matilda's inheritance and control of her territories.
You literally have no idea what a knight is.
>Only one you technically got right
There's no "technically" about it. The b***h simply didn't exist.
Most of the people we colloquially call "knights" were technically not knights at all, just men at arms.
Correct, and if I see one of them is black in a European setting, my immersion is completely ruined, unironically. Black people were not a thing, even in Spain...No, wait, sorry, they WERE a thing in Spain, but mostly relegated to being statues of being beheaded, as seen here.
>3 women in history put on armor and parade in the rear lines on top a horse
>omggg women were warriors too we need 50% female knights in movies
it's like when they one nobleman's daughter buried with an ornamental sword and invent an entire mythology of woman warrior bullshit.
>equating women who were historically recorded as leading and commanding troops or even in some instances participating
>equating it to your moronic strawman about finding a grave with an ornamental sword
The absolute level of cope, yikes.
you reddit spaced therefore you're wrong
you're monolingual therefore you're wrong
Matilda of Tuscany was a powerful lord who owned many castles and had armies loyal to her, but in what way was she a knight?
>landed aristocratic heavy cavalry existed outside of europe
Cool, that doesn't make you a knight. Knights refers specifically to mounted European warriors. Of which there are many numerous examples of females being.
>Knights refers specifically to mounted European warriors.
Being European, having a horse, and fighting in a war with it doesn't make you a knight. Knights were aristocratic heavy cavalry who had sworn military service to their liege lord and devoted themselves to being ready to fight, usually by having independent wealth through being a lord in their own right. That was not a uniquely European situation.
>Of which there are many numerous examples of females being
There aren't actually.
They don't even make a flimsy excuse though.
Why are there Black folks in medival european movies?
You dog I heard you like to strawman arguments so we put a strawman inside your strawman
I literally need no counter- argument to that.
Both are slop
But I think both are stupid?
It's always been weird to me that the period when knights were the most dominant on the battlefield they looked like this.
Pure SOVL!
>It's a Norman world, you're just living in it
Last panel is something no one has argued or said ever. This is moronic bait by the highest order.
I've seen people on Cinemaphile say things similar to it.
Weebs don't count, they think subs are better than dubs because of shit like "it's more emotive" even though they don't speak the language and have no idea which word the VAs are even enunciating on.
Too many wordd
I dont because I agree 100%
>posting the edit
I actually do. I actually do. It's simple, don't include women at all. Let men have their spaces.
No one has ever said anything remotely like that.
Ever.
Top pretends to be realistic and historically accurate unlike bottom.
>words words words
don’t care. need more ass and breasts in my tv
the 3rd and 4th panel don't provide a direct argument against the 1st and 2nd, just that he'd overlook inaccuracies for tiddies
She looks like a barbarian so her armor class increases when she is not wearing armor.
bikini armor is so cool
Top picture make me cringe therefore bad.
Bottom picture make me coom therefore good.
Simple as.
The argument is that bikini armour is hot.
no one has ever in the history of this planet unironically posited the bottom argument.
frick Black folk frick jannies and frick libtards btw
>something ugly and bad
vs
>something sexy and good
how is this hard to get for trannies/the left/whatever?
now ask chatgpt to provide its sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Volta_Mantovana_(1080)
Bernold of Constance, Chronicon in Robinson (ed. & tr.) 11th century Germany Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008, 226
See Hay, David J. The Military Leadership of Matilda da Canossa Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008
When are you going to accept defeat? Do I need a time machine to show you her personally leading the army? kek
>Do I need a time machine to show you her personally leading the army?
Yeah and show me her breasts.
I quickly looked up said battles, there's virtually no evidence that she personally lead troops into battle. Hell, there's little evidence that the battles even took place.
There's evidence posted right there with historical academic sources, so you're wrong. But whatever cope you need to keep your micropenis hard.
>There's evidence posted right there with historical academic sources
"Bernold of Constance, Chronicon in Robinson (ed. & tr.) 11th century Germany Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008, 226
See Hay, David J. The Military Leadership of Matilda da Canossa Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008"
What does this mean, exactly? What exactly does that text claim? The answer is nothing. It's a reference to an argument. Provide the argument itself
>But whatever cope you need to keep your micropenis hard.
What's with the aggressive projection?
Two separate books published by Manchester University in 2008. The 226 is the exact page it can be found that's being referenced in the article.
Again, another reference. Provide the thing that is being referenced, not another reference.
https://www.amazon.com/-/he/David-J-Hay/dp/B01F9G9B9A
Or if you prefer a PDF:
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/13784/1/NQ53814.pdf
There you go. Have at it.
>What's with the aggressive projection?
What's with the defensive deflection?
Anymore brainbusters, underage?
That book only goes up to 198.
I see you don't actually know what you're talking about. I had a feeling.
>What's with the defensive deflection?
What's with the passive-aggressive pissiness?
>only goes up to 198
Again, more red herring semantics. The PDF is right there, shit-for-brains.
The PDF? You mean this one?
Uh huh, right...
Oh, wait, I see, you're a fricking idiot, and you thought I was providing the source written by Bernold of Constance.
I was providing the source of David J Hay.
Lmao, you're a fricking illiterate, holy shit.
Why would I waste my time reading it? You told me to scroll to the page number, and it doesn't exist.
If your argument now is "read the whole text chuddy, uh, no?
I didn't tell you to scroll to any page number, homosexual. Holy shit, cope and seethe more you pedantic homosexual. Lost the argument so now you're going to go on a chud-spree angrily ranting. Get fricked.
>226 is the exact page it can be found that's being referenced in the article.
Yes, in the Constance source. If you could read, you could see that I did not link you to his book. You also never requested his book, as I posted literally two fricking sources.
Enjoy this (You), it's the last one I'm wasting on you.
So just to confirm, you posted a source and claimed that it had that page number, now you're mad that you mixed them up and are trying to cover for it by calling ME moronic for YOUR mixup.
Man you're pathetic.
>Links anon to one thing
>Tells him to scroll to page in completely different thing
>Haha I win
him to scroll to page in completely different thing
>tell him to scroll
Citation needed.
>You literally said page 226
Yes, in response to him asking what "does this mean exactly". I was describing what a source looks to an illiterate. Sorry not sorry he interpreted that as me telling him to scroll to a source.
Next you'll tell me you were just pretending to be moronic.
I thought he was going to tell me he was pretending to be moronic, since he was acting very much how a moron acts, and now how you are acting.
>No u
>Anon asks for source
>You tell him it's this page number
>Then link a pdf
Yeah no, I think you're the moron here.
Illiterate morons can think whatever they want, they're illiterate.
What did you write?
Not arguing anymore. Either engage with the source or frick off troony.
Brah what are writing, I don't understand?!?!!
>If I told you to find a line in Lord of the Rings and I handed you a copy of The Hobbit you wouldn't be pleased either.
Not what he did though, so that's a false equivalence.
>But it didn't. The original claim was Matilda of Tuscany was a knight and the source he provided does not support this.
That's absolutely moronic ass-pulling. I've been watching the argument. The whole argument over the source was her being involved in the battles at all. The other anon gave up the ground of arguing over whether or not she was a knight the very nano-second he typed:
>I quickly looked up said battles, there's virtually no evidence that she personally lead troops into battle.
WHAT DO THESE WEIRD SCRIBBLES MEAN?!!
>That's absolutely moronic ass-pulling
My argument this whole time is entirely to do with a post further up claiming the listed women were knights. I don't give a frick about the position about whether or not she lead armies. I stuck to my original position. That is NOT an asspull.
There, argument over, you lose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Hatchet#:~:text=The%20Order%20of%20the%20Hatchet,%2C%20in%20Catalonia%20(Spain).&text=This%20order%20was%20founded%20during,site%20of%20Tortosa%20against%20Muslims.
>order supposedly founded in 1149
>Matilda date of death: 1115
>Matilda
Who?
>Claims to follow argument
>Is baffled by the name anons have been arguing about for an hour
Is this bait?
That was my first comment in this thread. I skimmed everything else.
>anons butthurt that said anon provided a source, but it wasn't the one they were expecting
>this somehow refutes his argument despite it proving everything he's saying
>but it wasn't the one they were expecting
If I told you to find a line in Lord of the Rings and I handed you a copy of The Hobbit you wouldn't be pleased either.
>despite it proving everything he's saying
But it didn't. The original claim was Matilda of Tuscany was a knight and the source he provided does not support this.
>phoneposter
>Implying I'm going to let the JANNIES dictate what I can and can't post
He has no idea what it means because he didn't spend twenty quid on the reference book it's in. In all likelihood it's a single paragraph saying nothing more than "a fight happened here, the end."
Literally in the first few pages of the main source you laughable pseud-frickwit.
>This is a propaganda piece where we hope to dispell the view of blah blah blah
Wow, great source buddy.
>This is a propaganda post because I can't refute anything you're saying blah blah blah
Wow, great rebuttal, buddy.
>didn't read the source
>even though the author actively refuted other claims that Matilda contributed directly in battle in her early years like some previous authors mentioned
You're literally a brainless zealot, and you don't even know it.
So, your smoking gun for the assertion that Matilda was a knight is some bloke's dissertation about how history is sexist? I think you've completely forgotten what your original argument was.
Knights are mentioned 18 teams. Not one is in reference to Matilda. Many references to "Matilda's knights", and ironically one unnamed woman who "rode armed as a knight" but none being specific to her.
The other anon decided to go down this avenue of argument, requesting sources. I did so.
>dissertation about how history is sexist
It's actually an assessment of previous sources to analyze and determine how accurate they were and he is extremely critical of authors/historians who were biased TOWARDS Matilda. You've never read it though, so you naturally have no idea what you're talking about.
>Knights are mentioned 18 teams. Not one is in reference to Matilda. Many references to "Matilda's knights", and ironically one unnamed woman who "rode armed as a knight" but none being specific to her.
I'm referring to the colloquial definition of a knight since being physically "knighted" was a political title administered more for social reasons, while we're referring largely to their general representation in media, of which all or most of the women I mentioned could be referred to as knights.
>I'm referring to the colloquial definition of a knight
And with that you've lost. You're a homosexual. And by that I'm referring to the colloquial definition of a homosexual.
Cool beans, dago.
>I'm referring to the colloquial definition of a knight
Well, I'm not. You can make all the arguments in the world about her leading armies and planning battles, which I never denied, but that will never, ever make her a knight.
why do people put blacks in historically/lore inaccurate settings?
why do people design female warriors with skimpy clothing?
Why do femcels and male leftist hate sexuality so much in fantasy/sci fi when hot women love sexy characters?
Femcels are the most likely to be gamers and don't mind hot women in games. It's literally exclusively feminist women.
By femcels I mean 30+ pudgy feminist writers who aren’t getting laid, hate men for not being interested in them, and despise sexually desirable women especially if they are fictional. I don’t mean weirdo 20 something e-girls
>3DPD
How many times do you need to be told that there is no such thing ad a femcel
my argument is that I like one and not the other
Why would you use the Battle of Borgo San Donnino as an example when Matilda had been dead for twenty years at that point? She can't ride into battle if she's fricking dead, anon.
Why are you ignoring this?
Do you just like arguing?
No man complained about Conan being a huge roidhead with exposed body, as no one complained about hot fit b***hes fighting. Germanic (white) people were so akin to animals that they did fight naked.
Conan wasn't Germanic.
Cimmerians were based on Celts, dumbfrick. Who almost certainly fought naked at some point.
Literally nobody on earth is the bottom guy.
I look like that and say that
who gives a shit is fanservice but in a fighting stance you're trying to expose as little of your body as possible anyway and there's historical evidence of people using only a shoulder piece and a gauntlet because armor is expensive and very few people had it and they didn't walk around in it 24/7 like morons in tv shows
I got a headache trying to decipher the ESLbabble in that image
If I play a game based around african culture and history I don't want to see a bunch of white people in it either. wouldn't mind big titty sheboons though.
they conveniently leave out that they constantly bleat about "colonialism" and hate it when whites enter "black spaces"
Uh, fixed?
Yes
theres literally no piece of modern media released in the last 6 years in any game or movie or book that has the bottom panel
haha what's that frog got on his head
a porch or something? lel
there was some Korean game whose name I forget, not sure if it's even out yet
I was about to say Xenoblade 2 but that was 7 years ago
Conan Exiles?
I have never seen anyone say the bottom. Coomers are pretty honest that they just like hot naked women.
fricking shit
do you people not know search engines, why all the shitflinging?
>https://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/wom-kn.htm
there were women knights
there were also women who took part in battle (almost always when defending a sieged city/castle)
were there women who lead troops? yes, most assuredly
were there women who participated in melee?
maybe once in a blue moon, and my guess would be that most of them didn't want to be in such a position
does this mean dressing an actress in full plate and having her go through male fighters like corn and THEN trying to sell this as historical fact would be ok?
no
does the thing i described above happen in movies which sell themselves as historical?
no, not that i know of
maybe vikings but they also have 10th century paris looking like fricking minas tirith so
this really should be a moot point
and the comic in op is still moronic ragebait
>does this mean dressing an actress in full plate and having her go through male fighters like corn and THEN trying to sell this as historical fact would be ok?
I don't think anyone is saying it should be presented as historical fact, more-so that it's more acceptable to depict that in fantasy than it is some coonskinned frick in an ancient nordic-inspired village absolutely demolishing viking hordes and sexing nordic women.
is it?
i honestly don't know if i would rather have anachronistic/unrealistic armor or ethnicities
it just needs to fit the world and themes when it comes to fantasy
Skyrim belongs to the Nords.
>You literally have no counter argument ot this.
If you give me a silly setting then I'll play along with all sorts of things. If you're trying to make something serious and you put random people from foreign cultures and women warriors in it then you need to give me an explanation for why it makes sense.
didn't she literally get SHITTED in this show
>didn't she literally get SHITTED in this show
I don't remember that. They mostly had her doing softcore lesbo teaser stuff.
Very nice.
it's funny cause it's true
boob armor has been illegal longer than we had vidya gaems with it at this point
You think women are warriors? You think any woman could take on a man in combat? Let's prove it. Let's see if an athletic 6' tall woman can squish my head between her muscular, sweaty thighs while she calls me a weak excuse of a man and forces me to eat her pussy, and until that happens, no I don't think women can be warriors. That's never gonna happen so I rest my case. Women aren't warriors.
bro is fluent in Ohio x_x
>That's never gonna happen so I rest my case.
https://www.evolvedfights.com/
Sorry but I only accept anecdotal evidence so until it happens to me personally I won't believe it.
>watches TV series on computer instead of TV
Why?
I like breasts.
>top: I hate Black folk and don't like seeing ugly girl bosses in media
>bottom: hell yeah dude
Girlbosses? No. Big strong Amazons that can lift me up, slap me, and force me to lick their butthole? Hell yes.
but what I want is for there to not be playable women cuz it pisses off everyone I hate
The main issue is the insertion of diversity quotas in IPs that never had any, with a set cast of established characters. I wouldn't complain about the LotR trilogy released today exactly how it was, except the Hobbits were written to be brown originally. That's sticking to the material. I also wouldn't mind at all if someone wrote something that rivals LotR but there are no white people in it whatsoever, or the main character's a woman. Not one shit would be given on my end. I don't like this rehash but make it worse shit, and they just so happen to be putting diversity in it where it wasn't before. That's the issue. Don't do that. Frick off. I don't care about your gay ass normie bucks, I'd much prefer a new good IP cash cow that's ruined, and then creating a new cash cow. Stop the old rehash garbage. If I want to watch The Lion King I'll watch the goddamn 90s one. Piss off. Make new. Be creative for once.
one is a fantasy setting, the other is supposed to be an historical one.
I for one don't give a shit about Black person hobbits, but I don't want to see brown people in history films set in Europe.
This man does not exist. No one does this
I'm curious how many people would be fine with the opposite, b***hing about how illogical bikini armor is while cheering on all kinds of diversity bullshit no matter how little sense it makes.
It's about the rule of cool. The top panel is likely some half assed Netflix show with poor costume design, millenial writing, DEI insertions, Black folk, homosexuals, and a gay plot about gay shit. The bottom appers to be an irreverent, highly stylised fighting games with sexy Amazonians. Two different things.
Is there really an episode of thenSimpsons where Homer has a cuck fantasy about a beast man fricking Marge?
do you really need to ask?
I tell you Christian, I hate when chuds think this is a recent phenomenon.
older stuff usually explicitly made foreigners foreign tho, traders, moors, sailors, warriors etc from foreign countries, different to shithole nowhere villages being more diverse than new york.
where the frick do people find bikini armor fantasy games? Outside of gachashit (which panders to coomers so no shit) no one designs characters like this anymore.
Yes leftists, diversity is ok when it's hot. That is all anyone asks. If you're gonna have crippled black women in games at least make them frickable.
Trumpgays vote against their own economic interests
this blumpfkin nees to back to ruzzia with putler ork
Fighting games are an extremely niche market and the target audience is over 90% male. Catering to the male gaze is absolutely the right thing to do. Stop trying to erase male spaces bigot.
I hate Black folk why do you have to overcomplicate this