Flash Game Makes Players Beat Up "Tropes vs. Women" Creator

[Crazycat690]

snips

Ok, I just have to say, in that post you complained about your girlfriend saying "All men are pigs and disgusting liars! Blagh!"
And then said "I don't know if I can trust a girl again".
You sort of did the exact same thing she did there...

Now since I don't know exactly what you're quoting I'll be doing some guessing in this reply. I never said that my girlfriand said "all men are pigs and disgusting liars!", my girlfriend cheated on me, not only that she said to her lover that I paid her to act as if we were a couple. However, there was another girl who said how men are pigs because her boyfriend looked at other women, that is what I said.

The girl I assume you're talking about said that she had endured being physically abused, which while I feel sympathy for her, I do not think it's the same thing to be cheated on and actually abused.

To quote Deus Ex: HR: "The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient."

 

[General Twinkletoes]

snips

Ok, I just have to say, in that post you complained about your girlfriend saying "All men are pigs and disgusting liars! Blagh!"
And then said "I don't know if I can trust a girl again".
You sort of did the exact same thing she did there...

Now since I don't know exactly what you're quoting I'll be doing some guessing in this reply. I never said that my girlfriand said "all men are pigs and disgusting liars!", my girlfriend cheated on me, not only that she said to her lover that I paid her to act as if we were a couple. However, there was another girl who said how men are pigs because her boyfriend looked at other women, that is what I said.

The girl I assume you're talking about said that she had endured being physically abused, which while I feel sympathy for her, I do not think it's the same thing to be cheated on and actually abused.

To quote Deus Ex: HR: "The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient."

You can click on your name in that post and it'll take you to it BTW.

Oops, turns out I did misread a bit, (Tired) but I think my point still remains.
"SERIOUSLY? Couldn't believe anyone would want to be her boyfriend, she constantly talked about how men are pigs and whatnot."
That's you talking about your female friend saying how all males are pigs, which you call her out on.


And then you say.
"I don't know if I'll ever be able to trust a girl again"
That sort of indicates that you have negative feelings towards women in general, which is the same as what she feels towards men. The statement "Men are all pigs" implies that they'll try and get everything they possibly can, which would usually involve lying and cheating.

Basically, things that cause distrust. That phrase shows general distrust towards guys, which you get annoyed about, then say flat out that you might never trust a woman again. Seems a bit backwards to me.

 

[Treblaine]

snip

I'm almost certain women wear heels for their own enjoyment. I don't know any men who get anything out of whether a woman is in high heels or not but I can understand the appeal, it's like walking around on miniature stilts. Kinda fun. Impractical but fun.

I'm not coming down on heels in an office setting, for a night out, etc. Ask any female soldier if she wears heels in the heat of battle or would want to and I can't imagine any would say yes because of the whole lack of mobility therefore incresed likelihood of death thing. I could easily believe Ashley Williams likes to wear heels in certain circumstances, but why the hell is she wearing them in the middle of a battle? There's no point to it other than to make the character more sexually appealing and in that particular context it's out of place and therefore gratuitous. They're nto as bad as say Miranda Lawson's, but still.

Call me weird, but a woman in heels or not is completely trivial to her sexuality. I don't see what part of male heterosexual attraction men are drawn to with a woman having miniature stilts under her heels?

It's a "style" thing, not a sex thing.

Marcus Fenix by all rights should wear a ballistic helmet considering it is the only part of his body that he sticks out of cover, but he doesn't. Then you can see his wonderfully chiselled features. That's style.

What, you've never heard the term F me pumps? It is a style thing, but a style woman generally wear to display at least a hint of there sexuality, or at least to appear distinctly feminine, it being a piece of woman's shoe wear. I'm not saying a woman in heels wants to get fucked, I'm saying she's trying to make herself feel more physically attractive, for the most part for her own benefit, not so much for men though it should be noted men generally respond to it, or even if heels aren't there thing they get the message that particular shoe is getting at (e.g I am a hot sexy woman, hear me roar!).

Wearing a ballistic helmet or not doesn't sexualize Marcus Fenix, plus it's a piece of clothing that makes sense on a battlefield. I get the point your trying to make, so it's immaterial that I don't find Marcus attractive and generally thought he wasn't thought of as such. Anyways, I disagree, heels generally do sexualize and therefore come across as excessive on a battle field.

Yeah, I heave heard of "fuck me pumps" and I never really got it. If I had the rate a woman on sexual attractiveness, heels wouldn't be a factor. But rating a woman on style, heels would factor. Physically attractive, not related to sexual attractiveness.

"Wearing a ballistic helmet or not doesn't sexualize Marcus Fenix"

I don't think masculinity can come from sexuality, it comes from things like not wearing a helmet when you should. Showing off his extremely boxy masculine head, with a mechanic that contrasts his body hugging behind a wall turning his body towards the camera, the classic Hollywood pose. Real soldiers use cover always facing the cover.

I find Fenix admirable but not sexually, but in a male bonding sense (that isn't sexual). I am is awe of a man with such hyper machismo.

 

[Treblaine]

Yes, a writer writes everything he/she writes.........a well written story pulls you in. A poorly written story does not....

You are still trying to take the writer out of the picture.... only BAD authors write themselves into corners where there is only one ,or a limited, course of action. The writer has total control, and thus responsibility, over everything that happens. If Luke throwing down his weapon at that time was the only thing that could happen....then that is an example of bad writing...the only reason why it works is there are other actions that could be taken. This is what makes for a compelling narrative, not knowing exactly what is going to happen.

Funny thing is none of this matters, it does not matter if a character has well or poorly defined reasons for what they wear or do. The creator of content is NOT absolved of criticism or blame if these actions or clothes cause offense just by saying "the character decided to wear this or do this"......There is no escaping this fact.

"The point is to be without prejudice,..." Yes it is...but you are blaming everyone but the one responsible for the "offending" content. Real people dress themselves...fictional people do not...simple...there is really no easier way to put it.

"If the writer "forced the fictional character to wear that" isn't he also guilty of slavery.."......Are you you really going there? Really?

"You know what it is amazing what a double standard you can have. In the fictional world women can't dress themselves but male characters can have their own logical motivations. Stop and think about what you are saying."
Never once have I said this......

If a story is poorly written, it is poorly written... not sexist.

"only BAD authors write themselves into corners"

That's just your opinion that conveniently support your argument.

Yes, Luke could throw down his weapon in front of the Emperor, or try to attack him, or join him. But the point is he did whatever he did FOR A REASON, not just because the writer said so:

"I'll never join you... because... the writer says so. Neuuuuugh!"

So Lara could wear a tank top or a Burka. She wore a tank top... for a reason.

The creator deserves no "blame" for writing a character who does something as benign as deciding to wear a tank top. You have NO BLOODY CASE to be offended by Lara Croft wearing a Tank top. What is offensive about this?!?!? NOTHING!!! You have no right to be offended about something that DOES NOT AFFECT YOU NOR ANYONE!!!!

It is not so simple, you are objecting to ANY fictional characters being written, because someone else dressed them. It is a problem when you dress a REAL person for how it goes against a REAL person's will.

You did in fact denigrate all female characters by complaining how a person who DOES NOT EXIST cannot decide how to dress themselves as if this is a bad thing.

What you don't get, is if you have a problem with how a writer "dresses" a fictional character then it doesn't matter WHAT they wear, the problem is them being dressed by someone else and having no will of their own. Of coruse they don't they don't have a will of their own, they are not real. It doesn't matter if she wore a bikini or a burka, the problem is them having no choice to wear what they like. Your concern over FICTIONAL characters not actually deciding for themselves is farcical.

 

[Treblaine]

Fuck, did you ever take a literature or cinema class? Characters make decisions WITHIN the fiction, but that fiction, the choices (the character makes in movies/books or are available to you in games) and the characters are all created by someone who orders all of this. Nothing is created in a vacuum, brought to existence in a puff of smoke. Keeping this in mind when analyzing any piece of media is not breaking the fourth wall, it IS the ability to distinguish between reality and fiction since the later is ENTIRELY CONSTRUCTED. To think that character's decisions are theirs alone and that you should in no way consider who crafted said fiction is totally insane!

Also, are you seriously saying what you are saying about women in the summer? Beyond the fact that not all of them dress like this, these people get to choose what to wear without you being a judgmental asshole about how they dress because they have fucking AGENCY, something a virtual character literally cannot have! I mean either you are A) seriously disingenuous or B) have serious issues with women.

Finally, olympic athletes dress like this because it is pretty hard to run in jeans and sweater in the summer. They wear this because it is practical, unlike high heels when fighting or armors exposing half of your body. Do you know why? Because characters dressed like this did not choose unpractical clothing, they were designed that way to appeal to the male gaze!

Funnily enough, No. I have not taken a film of literature class.

But you don't need to, to know something as Basic and Fundamental as that works of fiction depict fictional characters that have their own history, prejudice, preference and will.

Yes, but Moonlight doesn't want to analyse the characters, Moonlight ignores EVERYTHING about what the characters might think, want or intend and PURELY focuses on this from the perspective of a director just ordering actors of polygons to move around and only wants to consider how the actor might dress for the director... who does not EXIST in that character's universe.

The point is you cannot make sense of what Solid Snake does by thinking Solid Snake is SELF AWARE that he is in a story and is trying to please Hideo Kojima.

Yes, I am serious. I am not saying all women dress like this but many do and not just in summer. They wear it even when it is quite chilly. I've seen what are celled "hen nights" a group of women who go out drinking to socialise with each other, not to pick up any partners, wearing a super short skirt with strappy shoulders. This is in temperatures around 10 degrees C (50 Fahrenheit).

And I am not judging them at all.

When did I ever judge them?

I only brought it up when MOONLIGHT judged a fictional woman for dressing such a way, [EDIT]acting like no real woman would dress like that.

"they have fucking AGENCY, something a virtual character literally cannot have"

If no virtual character has agency then it doesn't matter WHAT ANY character does, why are we not discussing how every male action hero is an example of slavery? As apparently because they are fictional they can't have any agency.

A fictional character CAN have agency WITHIN a work of fiction.

Yes, women wear little clothing in hot weather when active it is practical. Just like what Lara Croft does.

So what's the issue?

"they were designed that way to appeal to the male gaze!"

Not for the reasons you are thinking. You are making sexist stereotypical assumptions about men.

 

[LHZA]

snip

I'm almost certain women wear heels for their own enjoyment. I don't know any men who get anything out of whether a woman is in high heels or not but I can understand the appeal, it's like walking around on miniature stilts. Kinda fun. Impractical but fun.

I'm not coming down on heels in an office setting, for a night out, etc. Ask any female soldier if she wears heels in the heat of battle or would want to and I can't imagine any would say yes because of the whole lack of mobility therefore incresed likelihood of death thing. I could easily believe Ashley Williams likes to wear heels in certain circumstances, but why the hell is she wearing them in the middle of a battle? There's no point to it other than to make the character more sexually appealing and in that particular context it's out of place and therefore gratuitous. They're nto as bad as say Miranda Lawson's, but still.

Call me weird, but a woman in heels or not is completely trivial to her sexuality. I don't see what part of male heterosexual attraction men are drawn to with a woman having miniature stilts under her heels?

It's a "style" thing, not a sex thing.

Marcus Fenix by all rights should wear a ballistic helmet considering it is the only part of his body that he sticks out of cover, but he doesn't. Then you can see his wonderfully chiselled features. That's style.

What, you've never heard the term F me pumps? It is a style thing, but a style woman generally wear to display at least a hint of there sexuality, or at least to appear distinctly feminine, it being a piece of woman's shoe wear. I'm not saying a woman in heels wants to get fucked, I'm saying she's trying to make herself feel more physically attractive, for the most part for her own benefit, not so much for men though it should be noted men generally respond to it, or even if heels aren't there thing they get the message that particular shoe is getting at (e.g I am a hot sexy woman, hear me roar!).

Wearing a ballistic helmet or not doesn't sexualize Marcus Fenix, plus it's a piece of clothing that makes sense on a battlefield. I get the point your trying to make, so it's immaterial that I don't find Marcus attractive and generally thought he wasn't thought of as such. Anyways, I disagree, heels generally do sexualize and therefore come across as excessive on a battle field.

Yeah, I heave heard of "fuck me pumps" and I never really got it. If I had the rate a woman on sexual attractiveness, heels wouldn't be a factor. But rating a woman on style, heels would factor. Physically attractive, not related to sexual attractiveness.

"Wearing a ballistic helmet or not doesn't sexualize Marcus Fenix"

I don't think masculinity can come from sexuality, it comes from things like not wearing a helmet when you should. Showing off his extremely boxy masculine head, with a mechanic that contrasts his body hugging behind a wall turning his body towards the camera, the classic Hollywood pose. Real soldiers use cover always facing the cover.

I find Fenix admirable but not sexually, but in a male bonding sense (that isn't sexual). I am is awe of a man with such hyper machismo.

That last bit made me laugh. Fair enough! Any ways at this point I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree in large part because in an hour or so I'm shedding all modern contrivances and going camping for the next four days. Take care, nice debating with ya.

 

[Treblaine]

Erm sexism and violence aren't the same thing.

With violence you aren't marginalizing and insulting a good section of your audience.

A good comparison would be racism and I'm not talking about as part of the storyline I'm talking about directly racist character stereotypes and situations.

2 random 5 minutes scenes is not the majority of video games.... I have played Saints Row 3 and I like how it portrays women and gender I agree they did a good job there.

Wait, Saints Row The Third you can play as a woman who wears just a thong and tiny flesh coloured nipple covers, essentially topless.

How are you OK with that but have a problem with Lara Croft in Tomb Raider?

Look at all the cutscenes of Tomb Raider 1, 2 and 3:


If you've seen a bit of the gameplay you've seen it all in terms of animations.

Now what part of this is Lara a sex object? She never does sexual poses or acts like a playboy bunnyrabbit to any character.

I think your problem with Tomb Raider is just the stupid promotional wallpapers that any ad agency would insist on under their almost religious mantra of "sex sells". I don't think you'd have a problem with the games themselves.

So nudity or how much the women expose isn't the problem, it's how they ACT!

 

[Treblaine]

From their FAQ:

Q: What can I do if I find an inappropriate movie in any of the Portals?

A: If a movie is racist, excessively pornographic, personally threatening, or generally much more offensive than regular Newgrounds fare, there is a good chance we don't want it here. If a user deems a movie inappropriate for the Portal and the entry is still under judgment, he/she can blow the whistle using the appropriate whistle option. If the entry has passed judgment users should contact us, and be sure to include the submission's URL and a brief description about why they think it is a problem. We will then look into the submission and decide if the movie/game stays or goes.

Personally threatening, which I think we can agree that the submission in question is.

If the US Secret Service are OK with games about beating up two consecutive US Presidents, what case does she have?

I'd say it's wrong to beat up anyone, whether Anita Sarkeesian or George W Bush or Barack Obama. But it is Okay for all of these games, because it is all made up. It's fiction.

What makes Anita Sarkeesian more special than Barack Obama?

 

[Crazycat690]

You can click on your name in that post and it'll take you to it BTW.

Oops, turns out I did misread a bit, (Tired) but I think my point still remains.
"SERIOUSLY? Couldn't believe anyone would want to be her boyfriend, she constantly talked about how men are pigs and whatnot."
That's you talking about your female friend saying how all males are pigs, which you call her out on.


And then you say.
"I don't know if I'll ever be able to trust a girl again"
That sort of indicates that you have negative feelings towards women in general, which is the same as what she feels towards men. The statement "Men are all pigs" implies that they'll try and get everything they possibly can, which would usually involve lying and cheating.

Basically, things that cause distrust. That phrase shows general distrust towards guys, which you get annoyed about, then say flat out that you might never trust a woman again. Seems a bit backwards to me.

Right, well well well.. I mean, while I declare my mistrust agains women at times like this when it have seemed relevant to the subject I complain on the mentioned girl becuase there's been times when she's been posting that crap every day on facebook. My problem isn't that she's mistrusting men per say, it's more that she's very often saying things how women are great while men are untrustworthy pigs. Once again, I wouldn't mind if she'd quietly mistrust the opposite gender like me, nope...

I think that you've misunderstood me more or less, no problem since I too was tired and whatnot while writing the previous posts. To clarify, I disliked her stating that men are specifically untrustworthy pigs after all the personal experience about how it's not that black and white. I hate to be a part of that generalization just for being a man while I know women can be the same if not worse since they can get away with it easier. I'd like to think that I've never made a similar generalization, the difference is that I don't look at women thinking "boy, bet they're all bitches!", I look at women and think "wonder if I can trust them?". Huge difference IMO

Sorry for all the text D:

 

[Epicspoon]

I misread the title and though a bunch of flash game makers beat her up. The thought of an internet celebrity beating somebody up for making a games makes me laugh.

 

[Chives on top of me]

snip

If a story is poorly written, it is poorly written... not sexist.

"only BAD authors write themselves into corners"

That's just your opinion that conveniently support your argument.

Yes, Luke could throw down his weapon in front of the Emperor, or try to attack him, or join him. But the point is he did whatever he did FOR A REASON, not just because the writer said so:

"I'll never join you... because... the writer says so. Neuuuuugh!"

So Lara could wear a tank top or a Burka. She wore a tank top... for a reason.

The creator deserves no "blame" for writing a character who does something as benign as deciding to wear a tank top. You have NO BLOODY CASE to be offended by Lara Croft wearing a Tank top. What is offensive about this?!?!? NOTHING!!! You have no right to be offended about something that DOES NOT AFFECT YOU NOR ANYONE!!!!

It is not so simple, you are objecting to ANY fictional characters being written, because someone else dressed them. It is a problem when you dress a REAL person for how it goes against a REAL person's will.

You did in fact denigrate all female characters by complaining how a person who DOES NOT EXIST cannot decide how to dress themselves as if this is a bad thing.

What you don't get, is if you have a problem with how a writer "dresses" a fictional character then it doesn't matter WHAT they wear, the problem is them being dressed by someone else and having no will of their own. Of coruse they don't they don't have a will of their own, they are not real. It doesn't matter if she wore a bikini or a burka, the problem is them having no choice to wear what they like. Your concern over FICTIONAL characters not actually deciding for themselves is farcical.

Do you actually read anything or do you merely react?

"...only BAD authors write themselves into corners..."
"That's just your opinion that conveniently support your argument."
....so you find this to be a false statement? Because.....?

"But the point is he did whatever he did FOR A REASON, not just because the writer said so:..'
So, is it your assertion that the writer had nothing to do with this? We both know this to be false, and yet you still try to take the writer out of the equation.

"The creator deserves no "blame" for writing a character who does something as benign as deciding to wear a tank top."
The creator is responsible for how his creations are depicted.

"You have NO BLOODY CASE to be offended by Lara Croft wearing a Tank top. What is offensive about this?!?!? NOTHING!!! You have no right to be offended about something that DOES NOT AFFECT YOU NOR ANYONE!!!!'
I will assume that here you are generalizing.....This is your opinion that this is not offensive and does not affect anyone. (which is a very broad statement) People have the right to feel how ever they wish and are not subject to your opinions.

"It is not so simple, you are objecting to ANY fictional characters being written, because someone else dressed them."
I am objecting to nothing. I have been saying, repeatedly, that writers are responsible for everything their creations do........

"You did in fact denigrate all female characters by complaining how a person who DOES NOT EXIST cannot decide how to dress themselves as if this is a bad thing."
den·i·grate/ˈdeniˌgrāt/
Verb:
Criticize unfairly; disparage: "there is a tendency to denigrate the poor". So my statements that writers/designers are responsible for what their characters wear and/or do denigrates all female characters?

"What you don't get, is if you have a problem with how a writer "dresses" a fictional character then it doesn't matter WHAT they wear, the problem is them being dressed by someone else and having no will of their own."
Again I will assume you are generalizing. I'm fairly sure if a person is offended by what a character is wearing, it would be a safe bet that how the character is dressed is what is causing the offense.....

"Your concern over FICTIONAL characters not actually deciding for themselves is farcical."
I will bet this is not a generalization.....that would be silly if it where in any way true...

I you wish to continue this discussion farther please stop making false statements about my opinions.

 

[Treblaine]

snip

Yes, writers are responsible for NOTHING HAPPENING. Understand that fictional worlds... are not real.

No one has any reason to be offended by a woman showing her arms other than a deep seated dysfunctional prejudice against women. REGARDLESS of who is responsible for her arms being exposed.

(Edited)

 

[Chives on top of me]

snip

Yes, writers are responsible for NOTHING HAPPENING. Understand that fictional worlds... are not real.

You have no reason to be offended by a woman showing her arms other than a deep seated dysfunctional prejudice against women. REGARDLESS of who is responsible for her arms being exposed.

I find you to be willfully ignorant.

You stated that a dev deciding how to dress a female character was the same as a woman in the real world deciding what to wear I said this opinion was full of shit...and this is your basis for stating that I have a deep seated dysfunctional prejudice against women.

................

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I could care less either way, but why censor the flash creator? Shes thrusted herself into the public eye so shes fair game to whatever people want to do or say or create about her.

It hasn't been "censored", it's just been voted to be a shit game, and due to NG's rules, it get's removed.

As said before, NG has far worse games, both in quality & content, this game was blammed because of the subject matter.

Even then, NG's rules for submission covers this sort of thing (i.e. Hateful submissions), so we can't single it out there either.

And yet, right now on Newgrounds, you can play a game called "Election Madness" where you "Beat your political opponent to pieces by using kicks, punches, combos, TV's, pianos, and more! Choose between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain in this hilarious knockout!"

From their FAQ:

Q: What can I do if I find an inappropriate movie in any of the Portals?

A: If a movie is racist, excessively pornographic, personally threatening, or generally much more offensive than regular Newgrounds fare, there is a good chance we don't want it here. If a user deems a movie inappropriate for the Portal and the entry is still under judgment, he/she can blow the whistle using the appropriate whistle option. If the entry has passed judgment users should contact us, and be sure to include the submission's URL and a brief description about why they think it is a problem. We will then look into the submission and decide if the movie/game stays or goes.

Personally threatening, which I think we can agree that the submission in question is.

You think Anita herself flagged it, as opposed to her legion of loyal White Knights?

No, and you know I didn't mean that. Don't be obtuse.

From their FAQ:

Q: What can I do if I find an inappropriate movie in any of the Portals?

A: If a movie is racist, excessively pornographic, personally threatening, or generally much more offensive than regular Newgrounds fare, there is a good chance we don't want it here. If a user deems a movie inappropriate for the Portal and the entry is still under judgment, he/she can blow the whistle using the appropriate whistle option. If the entry has passed judgment users should contact us, and be sure to include the submission's URL and a brief description about why they think it is a problem. We will then look into the submission and decide if the movie/game stays or goes.

Personally threatening, which I think we can agree that the submission in question is.

If the US Secret Service are OK with games about beating up two consecutive US Presidents, what case does she have?

The difference here isn't really the subject, but more the tone and reason for the game. One is "lol, politicians" and the other is "I hate this woman and we should punch her in the face".

I'd say it's wrong to beat up anyone, whether Anita Sarkeesian or George W Bush or Barack Obama. But it is Okay for all of these games, because it is all made up. It's fiction.

You don't seem to understand submission rules. At all.

What makes Anita Sarkeesian more special than Barack Obama?

Nothing. It's not to do with being "special", it's the difference between a malicious flash game meant to be hateful towards her, and a joke.

 

[Khazoth]

Newgrounds' Assassin section has had games where you killed Mother Theresa, Gandhi and the Pope. And those have been there for more than a DECADE.

I don't think this deserves the attention it is getting.

Logic isn't welcome here, move along.

Your bringing logic to a thread (I'm not calling it a news article) John Funk created because he's one of those new age feminists that live on moon logic. A world where a joke cannot be made about women because it might hurt them. That's not feminism, its being mysognistic with a pretty guise. A strong woman can handle any joke thrown at her, its the patronizing new feminist movement that wants to destroy any all free speech against women that truely damages the feminist movement. So how about instead of making this piddly little thread about one woman, you make an article about the entire website and its habits if you have such a problem.

Because you don't care, you don't care that they made a game about the Virginia Tech Massacre, or games where you beat up other people. No, you only have a problem with this because she's a frail, fragile woman who needs to be protected, and thats why you new age feminists are a /joke/.

Nothing. It's not to do with being "special", it's the difference between a malicious flash game meant to be hateful towards her, and a joke.

This right here? This makes you the most backwards person on this thread, congradulations for completely living off of backwards logic that says beating up one person in a flash game is a horrible, malicious act, and beating another is a joke. Congradulations sir.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I could care less either way, but why censor the flash creator? Shes thrusted herself into the public eye so shes fair game to whatever people want to do or say or create about her.

It hasn't been "censored", it's just been voted to be a shit game, and due to NG's rules, it get's removed.

As said before, NG has far worse games, both in quality & content, this game was blammed because of the subject matter.

Even then, NG's rules for submission covers this sort of thing (i.e. Hateful submissions), so we can't single it out there either.

And yet, right now on Newgrounds, you can play a game called "Election Madness" where you "Beat your political opponent to pieces by using kicks, punches, combos, TV's, pianos, and more! Choose between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain in this hilarious knockout!"

From their FAQ:

Q: What can I do if I find an inappropriate movie in any of the Portals?

A: If a movie is racist, excessively pornographic, personally threatening, or generally much more offensive than regular Newgrounds fare, there is a good chance we don't want it here. If a user deems a movie inappropriate for the Portal and the entry is still under judgment, he/she can blow the whistle using the appropriate whistle option. If the entry has passed judgment users should contact us, and be sure to include the submission's URL and a brief description about why they think it is a problem. We will then look into the submission and decide if the movie/game stays or goes.

Personally threatening, which I think we can agree that the submission in question is.

You think Anita herself flagged it, as opposed to her legion of loyal White Knights?

No, and you know I didn't mean that. Don't be obtuse.

Well, I had trouble figuring out what you meant. Like "politicians aren't people" or "it's three people, so it's not personal".

From their FAQ:

Q: What can I do if I find an inappropriate movie in any of the Portals?

A: If a movie is racist, excessively pornographic, personally threatening, or generally much more offensive than regular Newgrounds fare, there is a good chance we don't want it here. If a user deems a movie inappropriate for the Portal and the entry is still under judgment, he/she can blow the whistle using the appropriate whistle option. If the entry has passed judgment users should contact us, and be sure to include the submission's URL and a brief description about why they think it is a problem. We will then look into the submission and decide if the movie/game stays or goes.

Personally threatening, which I think we can agree that the submission in question is.

If the US Secret Service are OK with games about beating up two consecutive US Presidents, what case does she have?

The difference here isn't really the subject, but more the tone and reason for the game. One is "lol, politicians" and the other is "I hate this woman and we should punch her in the face".

I'd say it's wrong to beat up anyone, whether Anita Sarkeesian or George W Bush or Barack Obama. But it is Okay for all of these games, because it is all made up. It's fiction.

You don't seem to understand submission rules. At all.

What makes Anita Sarkeesian more special than Barack Obama?

Nothing. It's not to do with being "special", it's the difference between a malicious flash game meant to be hateful towards her, and a joke.

Assumption based on facts not in evidence.

Here's another nifty little flash I found:

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/23307

"Mikie gets a beatdown"

It's crappy, but it's based on a real person, and includes the line "You do deserve to get killed, *****."

So here's a "malicious flash game meant to be hateful" and hey, look, it's still there.

Weird how a currently topical game would get more views and thus more people reporting it, huh?

It's not censorship, it's just exposure.

Flashes don't just get randomly deleted when someone reports it. Moderators look at it and see of it breaks the rules. If there's a tonne of people reporting it, it goes further up their queue. If it breaks the rules, then the mods get rid of it. You know what that means? It means that the flash in question broke NG's rules. There's no argument there. Whether or not it got reported because of these so called "white knights" is irrelevant, if they'd reported it and it wasn't against the rules, it'd still be there.