The fact you don't understand what burden of proof entails is not rectified by you constantly asserting you do whilst showing you don't. The fact you didn't quote him to provide an example in support of your accusation that he's doing what Anita Sarkeesian did should also help clear out who's making bogus claims.
Nah, both are 2 peas in a pod.
When Anita sarkeesian first came out with those YouTube videos talking about someone shirt halfway tucked in
MUST mean an agenda or the alt right or some guy who's completely fictional in video game killing 100 people is because of a right-wing agenda or because Chris Redfield has muscles there must be some sort of agenda was beyond fucking stupid. She offered no real evidence of this conspiracy.
Why are you surprised that I don't see any of the points on here any different than hers?
They all offer zero evidence and I wouldn't take that whole " burden of proof " non-answer from Sarkeesian either bud.
Be like "Chris Redfield muscles are too big, it MUST be a alt right agendaz"
Do you have any proof Anita?
Anita "you don't understand what burden of proof entails"
Ok..do you once again have any evidence of this?
Anita "his shirt be tucked it, it means alt right agenda clearly"
Any proof at all? Anything.
Anita "ummmmmm u don't understand what burden of proof is and who actually has it "