The Big Picture: Tropes vs. MovieBob

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 . . . 29 NEXT
 

jmarquiso:
Apparently part of the issue was due to time and time does equal money.

I'm sorry but if you want to analyze pieces of entertainment but do not take the time to properly research whatever you're trying to analyze then you have no business trying to do so in the first place. Besides, time and money had absolutely nothing to do with her Bayonetta blunder. She literally didn't even bother reading about the plot. There's no excuse for that and in fact there's no excuse for presenting yourself as someone who is capable and willing to talk about sexism in video games when in fact you're neither capable nor willing.

jmarquiso:
On spam. People need publicity and spam their blogs/vlogs/kickstarters all of the time.

That doesn't excuse the behaviour. Either way, she chose 4chan to supposedly spam her kickstarter. That in by itself should raise a couple of flags.

jmarquiso:
There is an appropriate place to discuss disagreement with her past and current work. Within that context. I disagree with X. Not - She was wrong in this video here, therefore she must be a scam artist.

She made a video analyzing a game that she had never played and left it up on her channel. Then, after she made her Kickstarter and people pointed out that she is in no way qualified to analyze video games because she was either lazy or purposefully disingenuous she took down said videos in hopes that the bad publicity wouldn't affect her fundraiser. This has nothing to do with disagreeing with what she said. Objectively speaking, she is literally not qualified, on the basis of her previous videos, to analyse video games in any way, shape or form.

Sexual Harassment Panda:

If you don't know that "winning" is more important than making any kind of sense, then you clearly haven't been on these forums long. This place should come with warnings every 20 minutes like on Nintendo wii, reminding you to take breaks so that you can keep your sanity intact.

Yours is a very good post that will likely be ignored in favour of more of what this has devolved into. I'd say it was a shame, but I'm actually quite enjoying the mess. One of my favourite recurring line is "Why are you only talking about Sarkeesian? There are other examples..." That might be true, but this thread has never been about any of 'em.

Now touch gloves and come out swinging.

Ohh I've been here a while just haven't been active in the forums for a long time. Last time I was here I was quite active in the religion and politics section of the forum.

But I would just like to say a personal thank you for your comment and I will admit it is sometimes just fun to sit back and watch the mess occur.

If there is anything to learn when conversations like this fall apart I feel that most of the time it is people just making the assumption to the extreme. As in when people make a forum post due to the lack of verbal tone of face to face conversation it is easier to objectify the person they are talking to as if they were some opponent or antagonist. Chances are however that they are just responding in kind and probably having mixed feelings on the issue and their dissent or praise isn't 100% but more like 60%.

Sure it may take more time to make the post but hey, rather have that then someone make an assumption that I was some "enemy".

TAdamson:
Are you subjected to the wandering eyes that pass up your legs to the curvature of you buttocks? As if they would run their hands up your inner thigh just to touch the skin between your crevice and your private parts, then to get a good hard grope?

They don't mind.

TAdamson:
Does the government ever claim that they have the right to deny you the ability to control your own biology?

Babies have rights you know.

TAdamson:
Does your employer ever discriminate against you because you are of the weaker sex?

Women are totally down with the physical labour. That's why they're so eager to join the draft.

TAdamson:
Does religion ever insist that you be subordinate to men?

Yep.

TAdamson:
Does circumcision mean anything to you apart from perhaps a decrease in sensation?

Physical abnormalities, infections, cardiac arrest, neurogenic shock, death etc.

TAdamson:
But I guess you must be right. Misandry is indeed equal in quantity and magnitude to misogyny in our society.

It is actually.

DrVornoff:
Yeah, you quoted one sentence out of a larger paragraph, said some shit regardless of the argument that followed, and declared yourself the winner.

Try again.

DrVornoff:
Just to point out that most of whiners are full of shit.

So, we criticize her because we donated money and expected a blowjob? Ride on.

PercyBoleyn:
Besides, time and money had absolutely nothing to do with her Bayonetta blunder.

My dear Percy while it is nice to have you to breakfast how does her opinion on Bayonetta affect you in any way?

I thought her opinion about Bayonetta was in regards to Tokyo subways and their advertising of the aformentioned video game.

Regardless, I think a feminist is well within her rights to complain about Bayonetta.

Not that I agree. I do love a good wench clothed only in a bikini made of her own hair. Hmm.

That doesn't excuse the behaviour. Either way, she chose 4chan to supposedly spam her kickstarter. That in by itself should raise a couple of flags.

I think you may have this a bit back-to-front boy. While she may have spammed 4-chan she made her target well before any controversy. Indeed she made $24,000 before the animalistic hoard descended upon her (Figuratively I mean.)

If the sexist comments of a few enabled her to leverage another $125,000, well what the bleeding hell did they expect? Sexist attacks on a feminist web-saavy blogger kickstarter? Gold!

She made a video analyzing a game that she had never played and left it up on her channel. Then, after she made her Kickstarter and people pointed out that she is in no way qualified to analyze video games because she was either lazy or purposefully disingenuous she took down said videos in hopes that the bad publicity wouldn't affect her fundraiser. This has nothing to do with disagreeing with what she said. Objectively speaking, she is literally not qualified, on the basis of her previous videos, to analyse video games in any way, shape or form.

I'm sorry? A person can be not qualified to have an opinion on a videogame? That is breathtakingly enlightening Percy.

It's been wonderful having you to breakfast.

It is said, Percy, that civilised man seeks out good and intelligent company, so that, through learned discourse, he may rise above the savage and closer to God.

Wait! There's an opening for Kratos? Maybe my degree in Murderonomy will finally pay off.

OT: I personally have no problems with the whole kick-starter thing. It seems that the videos will be nothing more interesting than I can find for free elsewhere in the webspace. Not saying that her videos will be bad...but it would have to be pretty earth-shaking to beat free sources of similar information.

Personally, I like games with exaggerated models (see also Warhammer 40k, where everything is made of grimdark). Not necessarily because I get some sort of sexual satisfaction out of it(no matter how far graphics go, they can't get animated people to appear sexy to me). I like exaggerated models because it helps separate game from reality. Although there are large sections of the gamer community that like realism, I usually find myself either bored or frustrated by realism in games. When I want reality, I go outside and interact with real people. When I want games, I want to be immersed in a world that plays by its own rules, not necessarily those of our current society.

On the other hand, games that reinforce negative stereotypes are ones I don't tend to play either. Why? Because I get enough of that stuff in reality, too. Like it or not, a lot of these tropes exist because they work directly in correlation with what we are being programmed with everyday. They play on characters we've seen from other places to immediately give the viewer a sense of what that person's about without having to expend the writing/design effort in creating a meaningful character. A game with good writers will tend to have good female characters, main protagonist or not.

I guess the summation of my point is that I believe that this is an issue to be addressed, but I think the battle is better fought by depriving those who perpetuate the stereotypes of my hard earned cash (in other words, not buying shitty games). I'm not entirely sure that giving money to someone with the same viewpoint to produce a document that will probably only catch the attention of the people who gave money to it and/or the people who flame it will change anything in the long run. If this discussion thread is any indication, it simply serves to entrench people in their current viewpoints.

Personally, however, I like to start the day with a total dickhead to remind me I'm best.

Tenmar:

Sexual Harassment Panda:

If you don't know that "winning" is more important than making any kind of sense, then you clearly haven't been on these forums long. This place should come with warnings every 20 minutes like on Nintendo wii, reminding you to take breaks so that you can keep your sanity intact.

Yours is a very good post that will likely be ignored in favour of more of what this has devolved into. I'd say it was a shame, but I'm actually quite enjoying the mess. One of my favourite recurring line is "Why are you only talking about Sarkeesian? There are other examples..." That might be true, but this thread has never been about any of 'em.

Now touch gloves and come out swinging.

Ohh I've been here a while just haven't been active in the forums for a long time. Last time I was here I was quite active in the religion and politics section of the forum.

But I would just like to say a personal thank you for your comment and I will admit it is sometimes just fun to sit back and watch the mess occur.

If there is anything to learn when conversations like this fall apart I feel that most of the time it is people just making the assumption to the extreme. As in when people make a forum post due to the lack of verbal tone of face to face conversation it is easier to objectify the person they are talking to as if they were some opponent or antagonist. Chances are however that they are just responding in kind and probably having mixed feelings on the issue and their dissent or praise isn't 100% but more like 60%.

Sure it may take more time to make the post but hey, rather have that then someone make an assumption that I was some "enemy".

People do always seem to assume the worst of eachother, and then assign those people extra values so it's easier to attack them... Before you know it you're battling robo-Hitler on a message board(at least inside your own head). It would probably be embarassing for some of these people to meet IRL and learn that alot of the assumptions made simply aren't true.

I think Percy is looking fairly dejected at this point. That's not me awarding his detractors any kind of victory, it only really serves as a testiment to how you can wear a person down by outnumbering them and bombarding them.

I am realising I am talking about this like it's a spectator-sport. We're heading into over-time here, it's a race to the finish!...because that's a good place to end.

TAdamson:

Darkmantle:

I played devils advocate by basically responding with "well she should just go make a game then, because devs could say the same thing to her (go make a game with "good female representation yourself, instead of telling me what to do), if we accept that as a valid argument".

I wasn't so much making an argument as negating another. I don't think the devs or other people should use that argument, but I am also saying she (and her defenders) can't use that argument either.

make a bit more sense?

"make a bit more sense?"

The argument appeared to be that she should make a game.

I can see how this argument could be whimsical but that still boils down to: "Ha if you're so smart why don't you make a game that isn't sexist?"

Anita Sarkeesian has no ability to make a game. Her expertise is in sociology so whether you agree with her view or not:

She's not a programmer, she's not a game designer.

But that does not disqualify her from being game reviewer nor commentator.

There are many commentators in the industry and in other mediums that have no technical expertise in the medium that that discuss. The fact that they have experienced the medium is enough.

The fact that she has a Postgraduate degree in Social Thought should give her a unique perspective on the subject and gamers should be honoured to have someone of that calibre display an academic interest in video games.

Honoured I say. Disagree with her? Absolutely! Do it civilly and you earn the mark of maturity.

Welcome women's studies into videogames. Welcome race studies into videogames. Welcome sociology into videogames.

Do these things and you welcome maturity into videogames.

All I'm saying is that just because I'm not making a video series about gender issues, doesn't mean I can't criticize her video series about gender issues or any aspect of it.

We are in agreement about the fundamentals but you seem to think it only applies in her defence. If she can criticize game Dev when she doesn't make games (which is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE btw) then I can criticize her even though I don't make videos about gender issues.

the guy I quoted was trying to make the case that, because WE (the commenters),have no ability/want to make serious youtube videos , we have no right to criticize/review her videos or plans for videos.I refuted that notion by applying his logic to the game devs (which apparently you agree would be a ridiculous notion) she is criticizing. I have zero issue with whatever you are rambling about, and your time would be better spent arguing with someone who does.

Just take a step back, and read my posts in context again if you don't believe me. I am not arguing with you. I'm just saying that if she can criticize people, people should be able to criticize her.

Free speech/freedom of expression and all that jazz. The hate mail she got was still unacceptable though, that falls beyond the purview of simple criticism

PercyBoleyn:
So, we criticize her because we donated money and expected a blowjob? Ride on.

Two things.

1. I didn't say it was you personally. A little sensitive there, I think.
2. This is the source of a lot of misogyny. Unless you have a better theory.

I never said they wanted to bone Sarkeesian specifically. Just that they have issues with women because they believe women have too much power. Unfortunately, these guys' helplessness is self-inflicted.

Do you have actual proof that I'm wrong? Or a better theory?

jmarquiso:
Okay, maturity time.

Tenmar, you are absolutely correct here, and I will only speak for myself. I saw what the conversation was turning into, and couldn't help but participate in what it became. Thank you for attempting to have a conversation here.

Second -

On spam. People need publicity and spam their blogs/vlogs/kickstarters all of the time. It happens all the time on reddit, and in my case Linkedin and professional communities that I'm a part of. People spam their projects all the time. I've even done it. Some people get annoyed. Some people applaud it. Rules are made, mods discuss it. People deal with it in appropriate ways. SOMETIMES they handle it in inappropriate ways, but sometimes they do handle it well.

4Chan - as you say - is a highly frequented message board. Its popularity demands is part of the reason it's targeted for marketing. It is not a GOOD choice, by any means but it is one. You realize that it's here where the argument is, "but she was asking for it."

If she wasn't asking for it, she got a lot of undeserved criticism and it managed to garner sympathy.

If she WAS asking for it, well then they fell for the bait and should fee bad for themselves.

Guess what? They still sent death and rape threats, defaced her wikipedia, etc. It still happened, and there's no justification for it. What people here are doing are "well, actually, this brings to light that I disagree with her." The criticism goes to journalists who are somehow "white knighting" her, and not to the anonymous assholes who's behavior so many people "disagree with". The facts are that a) the harassment happened, and b) instead of people being angry with the harassment, they're angry with the Kickstarter. A Kickstarter for a project they could ignore, and not donate to. Only action that was needed to express disapproval was inaction.

And finally -

There is an appropriate place to discuss disagreement with her past and current work. Within that context. I disagree with X. Not - She was wrong in this video here, therefore she must be a scam artist.

I do agree that it doesn't represent gamers as a whole. The disagreement on this very board proves that.

P.S. As for proof that she spammed 4Chan or not, as shown above I don't think it's a big deal. I didn't actually see the imgur link, only heard that it's apparently been proven already. Again, don't think it's that was as important as the behavior it apparently provoked.

Once again thank you for the personal message and hope you get a good night sleep but when you wake up you can read this.

Personally I'm not into the whole conspiracy theory approach. Usually things have a cause and effect and a motivation for such. Saying she did it to get money is certainly conspiracy but saying she did it to get that attention and run with it is certainly something I can agree with. I doubt that even she would think she would get that much money by getting so much attention.

As for the death threats? No one is going to excuse that and considering playing online games I am told to kill myself pretty much on a daily basis that it isn't exactly fun. But it is important to keep a level head and really judge the threat and its legitimacy. Heck I got some death threats before and I know to judge the serious of the threat by learning from my mother who is a paralegal and my father who is a police officer. Most of that stuff isn't as big of a threat but it is certainly her right as a citizen to report such behavior to her local police if she deems it a legitimate threat. Our government has the tools there for a reason as well as the private sector where youtube can address the issue as well.

The wiki page? Well honestly, people really shouldn't care about that. It's on wikipedia and considering what is done there can just as quickly be undone that is certainly a mountain out of a molehill. Yeah it may suck but nothing to get worked over about unless an actual person who works at Wikipedia kept it that way.

But the bigger issue I personally have when is the question "who exactly gets to represent the ""Gaming community""?

I'll be honest, I don't consider anyone here who posts on these forums myself included as an actual legitimate part of the "Gaming community". Why? Cause we lack any serious recognition from our peers as such in the form of a leadership position where what they say be it destructive or constructive will go. It is all too easy and honestly lazy for journalists to lumpsum comments and put down that flag as saying "youtube comments are the ""Gaming community"". I don't consider 4chan whose entire base is basically anonymous(not that anonymous...well probably as some) as representative of the gaming community. I don't consider youtube comments as part of the "gaming community" either cause anyone with an account can post a hateful comment and they don't need any sort of leadership to do such a thing.

What do I consider being a representative of the gaming community? Developers, CEOs, Producers who work in the video game industry. Clans like PMS where you can look them up and point and see a leader. Political groups that fight for our rights as gamers such as the Entertainment Consumers Association. All these people stick their necks out personally and can be held accountable for their success and failures that happen in the video game industry. Even then they are leaders of their own groups and there is only so far when you can actually hold accountability. It would be very hard to say cause of all the hate comments here it would be the fault of Steve Butts or Susan Ardnt(SP?). It is honestly that uncomfortable when a journalist or people point at moments like this and say "AHA! The video game community are nothing more than sexist pigs" when there are no names named and if there are names what exactly legitimizes them as part of the video game community? It's the same problem I have with her calling herself a "gamer". Sure I play video games as a hobby but I don't go around town saying to people that I'm a "gamer" cause it is all relative to what games you like. I'm not going to say she isn't a "gamer" cause she clearly didn't play Bayonetta, that's proof of her not doing due diligence in her research. Heck she might like playing games like League of Legends or Final Fantasy where games like Bayonetta isn't exactly her real house if you know what I mean.

My problem with the journalists(note journalists not op-ed piecers ala Jim Sterling) is that their sources were 100% based on Feministfrequency's website. That's a huge problem when actually doing a news story. The news demonstrated zero investigation of what actually happened or the circumstances but instead ran a fluff piece that tugged at the hearts of their own readerbase for which they should feel terrible about when it comes to their integrity as a games journalist. I want raw facts and details when it comes to the news and HOW these situations came about. Cause while the death threats certainly are newsworthy it would also be critical to mention that the trouble she caused was done either by herself or one of her fans to which the person writing the article could of easily e-mailed her or contacted her and ask for validation. You certainly would get a completely different and balanced story compared to the piece The Escapist published here. There is a time for opinion and a time for facts. News requires looking at the big picture and finding the facts before you publish cause this easily could of been a much better subject to write about asking her "Did you and if you did why did you spam 4chan?".

As for your final point on being a scam artist, yeah I would agree that she isn't a scam artist and I certainly think she truly believes in her opinions. Which is why I say she finds problems where there are none. But while one can believe in their opinions it is important to do the research needed and actually understand not only the work but also the people involved. However I would strongly call her unqualified for the project she has been funded for. The method she also took to get the attention for better or for worse was either her own doing or find out if a fan did do this. I would be comforted all the more knowing if the spam was intentional or not. Not cause I want people to come out feel righteous but because she should of had a lot more confidence in her work than to stoop what I consider a VERY low blow in order to reach her original goal of 6k which ended up to be 150k. Cause if it was intentional then she certainly then did abuse the hearts and minds of a lot of people and their compassion for her own personal gain.

Cause when it comes to her work she has demonstrated that she can be well spoken, has the equipment and has the following that is usually more than what most people can ever muster on youtube. What she needed to do was to actually keep at it and find organizations that would support her, she needed to network and get involved with other bigger youtube partners. She needs to aim up not hit low. She could of easily seen if she could get involved with the Vlogbrothers convention called Vidcon.

EDIT: On the paragraph for the "conspiracy theory" comment I should add in retrospect that I also doubt she expected this much publicity from video game websites. I would simply say she probably only expected that reaffirmation to her original video description in her video(to which has been edited) and simply roll with those hate comments and post them on her website to shock her existing fanbase and get them energized to take action. Everything else was just gravy, delicious brown gravy...yeah I need to go eat.

TAdamson:
I think you may have this a bit back-to-front boy. While she may have spammed 4-chan she made her target well before any controversy. Indeed she made $24,000 before the animalistic hoard descended upon her (Figuratively I mean.)

If the sexist comments of a few enabled her to leverage another $125,000, well what the bleeding hell did they expect? Sexist attacks on a feminist web-saavy blogger kickstarter? Gold!

How do you not see something wrong with goading a group of known internet misogynists so that she could stir up controversy and play the victim?

DrVornoff:
1. I didn't say it was you personally, so quit being so bloody hostile.

I said we, not I.

DrVornoff:
2. This is the source of a lot of misogyny. Unless you have a better theory.

You honestly believe the reason people criticise her is because they donated and expected sexual favours in return and became frustrated when that never happened? I looked up to you once, never again.

DrVornoff:
I never said they wanted to bone Sarkeesian specifically. Just that they have issues with women because they believe women have too much power.

Whenever I saw you reply to a thread in R&P I was like "Hey, it's Vornoff! Another reasonable person who combats the forces of the libertarian conservative zombie horde!". What happened to you? You were never this illogical.

DrVornoff:
Do you have actual proof that I'm wrong? Or a better theory?

The burden of proof is on you bud.

Darkmantle:

TAdamson:

Darkmantle:

I played devils advocate by basically responding with "well she should just go make a game then, because devs could say the same thing to her (go make a game with "good female representation yourself, instead of telling me what to do), if we accept that as a valid argument".

I wasn't so much making an argument as negating another. I don't think the devs or other people should use that argument, but I am also saying she (and her defenders) can't use that argument either.

make a bit more sense?

"make a bit more sense?"

The argument appeared to be that she should make a game.

I can see how this argument could be whimsical but that still boils down to: "Ha if you're so smart why don't you make a game that isn't sexist?"

Anita Sarkeesian has no ability to make a game. Her expertise is in sociology so whether you agree with her view or not:

She's not a programmer, she's not a game designer.

But that does not disqualify her from being game reviewer nor commentator.

There are many commentators in the industry and in other mediums that have no technical expertise in the medium that that discuss. The fact that they have experienced the medium is enough.

The fact that she has a Postgraduate degree in Social Thought should give her a unique perspective on the subject and gamers should be honoured to have someone of that calibre display an academic interest in video games.

Honoured I say. Disagree with her? Absolutely! Do it civilly and you earn the mark of maturity.

Welcome women's studies into videogames. Welcome race studies into videogames. Welcome sociology into videogames.

Do these things and you welcome maturity into videogames.

All I'm saying is that just because I'm not making a video series about gender issues, doesn't mean I can't criticize her video series about gender issues or any aspect of it.

We are in agreement about the fundamentals but you seem to think it only applies in her defence. If she can criticize game Dev when she doesn't make games (which is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE btw) then I can criticize her even though I don't make videos about gender issues.

the guy I quoted was trying to make the case that, because WE (the commenters),have no ability/want to make serious youtube videos , we have no right to criticize/review her videos or plans for videos.I refuted that notion by applying his logic to the game devs (which apparently you agree would be a ridiculous notion) she is criticizing. I have zero issue with whatever you are rambling about, and your time would be better spent arguing with someone who does.

Just take a step back, and read my posts in context again if you don't believe me. I am not arguing with you. I'm just saying that if she can criticize people, people should be able to criticize her.

Free speech/freedom of expression and all that jazz. The hate mail she got was still unacceptable though, that falls beyond the purview of simple criticism

Darkmantle:

TAdamson:

Darkmantle:

I played devils advocate by basically responding with "well she should just go make a game then, because devs could say the same thing to her (go make a game with "good female representation yourself, instead of telling me what to do), if we accept that as a valid argument".

I wasn't so much making an argument as negating another. I don't think the devs or other people should use that argument, but I am also saying she (and her defenders) can't use that argument either.

make a bit more sense?

The argument appeared to be that she should make a game.

I can see how this argument could be whimsical but that still boils down to: "Ha if you're so smart why don't you make a game that isn't sexist?"

Anita Sarkeesian has no ability to make a game. Her expertise is in sociology so whether you agree with her view or not:

She's not a programmer, she's not a game designer.

But that does not disqualify her from being game reviewer nor commentator.

There are many commentators in the industry and in other mediums that have no technical expertise in the medium that that discuss. The fact that they have experienced the medium is enough.

The fact that she has a Postgraduate degree in Social Thought should give her a unique perspective on the subject and gamers should be honoured to have someone of that calibre display an academic interest in video games.

Honoured I say. Disagree with her? Absolutely! Do it civilly and you earn the mark of maturity.

Welcome women's studies into videogames. Welcome race studies into videogames. Welcome sociology into videogames.

Do these things and you welcome maturity into videogames.

All I'm saying is that just because I'm not making a video series about gender issues, doesn't mean I can't criticize her video series about gender issues or any aspect of it.

We are in agreement about the fundamentals but you seem to think it only applies in her defence. If she can criticize game Dev when she doesn't make games (which is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE btw) then I can criticize her even though I don't make videos about gender issues.

the guy I quoted was trying to make the case that, because WE (the commenters),have no ability/want to make serious youtube videos , we have no right to criticize/review her videos or plans for videos.I refuted that notion by applying his logic to the game devs (which apparently you agree would be a ridiculous notion) she is criticizing. I have zero issue with whatever you are rambling about, and your time would be better spent arguing with someone who does.

Just take a step back, and read my posts in context again if you don't believe me. I am not arguing with you. I'm just saying that if she can criticize people, people should be able to criticize her.

Free speech/freedom of expression and all that jazz. The hate mail she got was still unacceptable though, that falls beyond the purview of simple criticism

I think I agree with all your points. Excuse me if I seem rude I have a habit of attacking only what a person said last (Usually because it's the only thing I can be bothered reading.)
or using what they said as a leaping off point.

I was in this post pointing out that you seemed to be claiming that she had no right to critise something she could not herself make.

It's obvious that we both agree that's ridiculous so I retract the accusation.

It's also obvious that we both agree the the abuse directed towards Sarkeesian was disgusting.

Any just criticism of Sarkeesian is valid but one must be careful.

Much of the criticism I have seen directed towards her is not about the substance of her opinions but directed to the quality of those supporting her.

Or they dream up fail-worthy claims of society's misandry to counter her claims of misogyny. When guys try to claim that they have it just as bad or worse than women it's embarrassing to be of the same gender as them.

Then there are the outright claims that she has no right to have the opinions that she has.

In a free society that is truly awful.

Beardly:

TAdamson:
I think you may have this a bit back-to-front boy. While she may have spammed 4-chan she made her target well before any controversy. Indeed she made $24,000 before the animalistic hoard descended upon her (Figuratively I mean.)

If the sexist comments of a few enabled her to leverage another $125,000, well what the bleeding hell did they expect? Sexist attacks on a feminist web-saavy blogger kickstarter? Gold!

How do you not see something wrong with goading a group of known internet misogynists so that she could stir up controversy and play the victim?

How could you not see something wrong with a known group of internet misogynists?

TAdamson:

Beardly:

TAdamson:
I think you may have this a bit back-to-front boy. While she may have spammed 4-chan she made her target well before any controversy. Indeed she made $24,000 before the animalistic hoard descended upon her (Figuratively I mean.)

If the sexist comments of a few enabled her to leverage another $125,000, well what the bleeding hell did they expect? Sexist attacks on a feminist web-saavy blogger kickstarter? Gold!

How do you not see something wrong with goading a group of known internet misogynists so that she could stir up controversy and play the victim?

How could you not see something wrong with a known group of internet misogynists?

Don't imply that I don't. I'm just pointing out that what she did is equivalent to throwing a rock at a bees' nest so that people will feel bad about you getting stung by bees.

TAdamson:

How could you not see something wrong with a known group of internet misogynists?

I have to ask the question here. Who is exactly a "known group of internet misogynists"? Who is exactly accountable in terms of a leadership position that said group is willing to follow? Cause you are now getting to a specific here yet still not specific enough to actually spark a conversation on the topic of said group.

Also could you please prove that said group is organized, has a leader and has demonstrated that they are organized to commit enough acts that they are misogynists?

PercyBoleyn:
I said we, not I.

If you do not count yourself among the people I described, then the correct pronoun would have been "they." So why did you choose to include yourself with "we?"

You honestly believe the reason people criticise her is because they donated and expected sexual favours in return and became frustrated when that never happened? I looked up to you once, never again.

Bull. Fucking. Shit. That is not what I said, and you know it. Why are you lying?

I'm referring to the misogynists who never contributed to her, they just attacked her. Used sexist insults and slurs, attempted to have her channel flagged as terrorism. If you've got woman issues, what I described is a common source of it. I've seen it a million times. It's angry little boys with entitlement complexes blaming women for problems they created for themselves. Can I make it any clearer for you? Or do you want to continue accusing me of saying things that I never did?

Whenever I saw you reply to a thread in R&P I was like "Hey, it's Vornoff! Another reasonable person who combats the forces of the libertarian conservative zombie horde!". What happened to you? You were never this illogical.

I could say the same about you. You've been nothing but an utter child for the last several pages. I thought you were better than this bullshit. I thought you were wise enough not to take things personally when it was pretty obvious I wasn't accusing you of anything.

Oh well. You only know somebody until you don't.

The burden of proof is on you bud.

I presented my argument, and you posed no counterargument. What exactly am I supposed to do?

Kargathia:

malestrithe:
Well, I agree withe the sentiment, and I'm glad this was placed before the backlash. Now, I'll get to see this rise to absurd numbers when the teenage white male demographic comes a knocking.

You might have the wrong forum for that.

It's at close to 900 posts in less than 60 hours since it was first posted. I was not wrong.

Such a hard topic to not just say STFU EVERYONE christ almighty. no one is right in this argument so why keep having it? women are unrealistic, well so are men. but the men's is there for guys to feel good about themselves, why can't women take the same approach? women can't get a job because they don't look like lara croft? PLeaSE, men and women can't get jobs by virtue of there being none.

I don't even know what the point is. are you trying to say tomb raider would have been better if lara was fat or flat chested? if the goal was gender equality for the world then yeah fine do it, but i think it's gender equality for video games which is ridiculous. i don't really care if my main character is male or female, i just want to have some fun.

Hearing another chick whine about digital boobs doesn't sound like a good investment to me in my time or money. the games industry already has it's head far enough up it's ass not to listen to male gamers, do you really think their going to blink at female ones? anyways the industry is already Slowly changing with gender selects and create you own character. it's just not moving fast enough apparently.

PercyBoleyn:

DrVornoff:
1. I didn't say it was you personally, so quit being so bloody hostile.

I said we, not I.

DrVornoff:
2. This is the source of a lot of misogyny. Unless you have a better theory.

You honestly believe the reason people criticise her is because they donated and expected sexual favours in return and became frustrated when that never happened? I looked up to you once, never again.

DrVornoff:
I never said they wanted to bone Sarkeesian specifically. Just that they have issues with women because they believe women have too much power.

Whenever I saw you reply to a thread in R&P I was like "Hey, it's Vornoff! Another reasonable person who combats the forces of the libertarian conservative zombie horde!". What happened to you? You were never this illogical.

DrVornoff:
Do you have actual proof that I'm wrong? Or a better theory?

The burden of proof is on you bud.

(sigh) Alright, let's see if we can salvage this.

First of all, let's start from square one. What are you here to talk about? Out of all the parties involved in this whole goatfuck, who do you have the biggest problem with and why?

A bunch of people just paid for a feminist hipster who already can afford to do these videos in which she never whines about anything that actually maters to the feminist cause, just makes everything seem like its sexist. She once went off about Legos being sexist. She just got a $150K shopping spree on you. Way to go. Couldn't perhaps feed the homeless or donate that to kids who need medical treatment. Didn't even want to spend that on something like a game or a prize for games made to combat this particular issue. No you just gave her enough money to make her video, with enough money left over to buy a house btw and a car, and she's going to sell the video for profit. Thank you internet. You have proven that our generation not only wastes more money than any other before it, but that we are willing to in fact do so in the name of a good cause instead of finding an actual good cause to go for.

Bmagada:
You have proven that our generation not only wastes more money than any other before it, but that we are willing to in fact do so in the name of a good cause instead of finding an actual good cause to go for.

If that's the argument you want to make, then it's only fair that I ask you how you spend your money. What causes do you support that you gave money to recently? Any Kickstarters?

Gladly. I have donated a month's salary (around $2000) to disaster relief in Japan. I was in the army and I didn't have to pay room and board thanks to living in the barracks and just getting back from deployment, so that wasn't hard. After Katrina happened I went down to Louisiana with a group from Ohio University and volunteered to help build houses for low income families who lost almost everything. Here recently I've been trying to find IAVA events to volunteer at but they are mostly out of state so it's been kinda hard with time constraints and gas being the way it is. Seeing as a lot of the unemployed population are military vets, that seems like a way better cause than this. Lol I don't think I'd be searching Kickstarter for good causes, besides there are way more things you can do that mostly don't require you to give money, 95% of which I will say are better causes than hers, though that is a matter of opinion. Not to mention I don't think anyone will be pocketing most of the donations. Just putting that out there. I do believe in equality for the sexes, but not blind ignorant feminism. There's a line between fighting for equality and just nagging about it and calling everyone with a counter point sexist.

Tenmar:

CaptOfSerenity:

Yeah, she spent a lot of money on that shit. It could be that she needs to get it back. Could be she used loan money from a bank or a friend or something.

Also, my other reasons still apply

I gotta say you are really missing the point and going so far to make yourself in the right. First off she's been making 720P videos since 2009 and also been using picture in picture video editing software for the same time.

I'd also estimate that for at least two years she's had a room that has been sound proofed and also improved her audio quality with a dedicated microphone setup and not relying on the microphone built into the camcorder.

You really going to say that she needs to recoup money she spent on equipment she has clearly owned for three years? Cause if that logic applies hey start me up on a kickstarter cause I need to get my money back as well.

That is how much of a stretch you are making here and it honestly is pathetic. Heck I'm not even arguing with you, just telling you that she doesn't need the money for equipment cause she already owns the equipment. That's it. Anything else you are reading into this is honestly just you thinking this is some adversarial post and you have to be correct. Christ, no wonder I don't post here anymore. People aren't willing to ask a question for clarity anymore.

How do you know she's been working on videos since 2009?
Your "estimates" aren't facts.

She didn't ask for money for equipment; she asked for money to make the fucking thing. That includes everything she is going to give to people, like the DVDs.
You don't know everything about her, stop writing like you do.

She didn't ask for $150,000. She asked for $6000. She didn't demand it from you. Why are you so mad about her getting money that isn't yours for a project that will cost money?

From the page:

Your support will go towards production costs, equipment, games and downloadable content.

She has to buy a lot of shit for research (playing games for research, isn't that a deceptive dream?), so, yes, she needs money.

But my confusion rests on one point: why do you care? Why shouldn't she make these videos? Do you really think it's okay for her to be viciously attacked online by a bunch of horrible men?

Why the fuck?

CaptOfSerenity:

How do you know she's been working on videos since 2009?
Your "estimates" aren't facts.

She didn't ask for money for equipment; she asked for money to make the fucking thing. That includes everything she is going to give to people, like the DVDs.
You don't know everything about her, stop writing like you do.

She didn't ask for $150,000. She asked for $6000. She didn't demand it from you. Why are you so mad about her getting money that isn't yours for a project that will cost money?

From the page:

Your support will go towards production costs, equipment, games and downloadable content.

She has to buy a lot of shit for research (playing games for research, isn't that a deceptive dream?), so, yes, she needs money.

But my confusion rests on one point: why do you care? Why shouldn't she make these videos? Do you really think it's okay for her to be viciously attacked online by a bunch of horrible men?

Why the fuck?

Well of course my estimate isn't a fact, that's why they are called estimates :P. The only facts I can say is that she does have top of the line equipment in all areas of production. I really don't see how that money can improve that compared to her existing equipment. I mean hell not even Will of DC has a soundproofed room for his videos and from it looks like it this youtuber I would estimate got a professional soundproofed room for a much longer period of time compared to willofDC who just a couple years ago was still doing the entire show in his bedroom.

But I really don't see how you can be confused and yes it is going to be sorta lazy of me but...have you really sat down and read my posts on this very topic? I do care cause I do believe she is not qualified to actually do this project as she has proven in her previous projects to be destructive instead of constructive as well as she cares more about her bias than the actual subject matter to which she doesn't perform the due diligence to research the subject matter from the actual pop culture product to all the people involved from the director, producer and for the video game simply sitting down and playing through the game. She really just runs with the glossed over fan concept of the subject matter instead of doing the research. You can read my previous post on page 23 and I think on another page that will go into much more detail.

I also care because as noted on this page that just because she calls herself a "gamer" doesn't actually qualify her to speak as some figurehead of the "gaming community"(you really had to read my previous post to understand why I put gamer and gaming community in quotation marks). Having her rise to some status of authority with her current set of bias and beliefs does more harm than good as well as noted that she does truly believe that playing video games /interacting with video game ads encourages people to be misogynistic. That is quite literally the same logical leap the video game industry has been fighting and won here in the states on the logical leap that playing violent video games makes people violent. If her viewpoint is considered correct then the video game industry is going to very quickly lose that free speech we just recently earned from years of going up against lawyers like Jack Thompson and State Senator Leeland Yee and run head long into regulation that will affect every single developer, publisher and artist. I should also note here that she completely ignores more important factors to a person's development that would affect their view of people such as being raised by their parent/parents, social interaction growing up or social ostracization and finally relationships with both genders. Factors I find much more important to a person and their world view when talking about race and gender than how viewing or interacting with an ad is going to make a person molest another person on a train. Once again please read my previous post cause I am REALLY tired and it is explained in much greater detail there.

So yeah that is why I care. She can actually do harm to the video game industry given the lack of quality in her work and her personal embrace of her bias and if she does rise to where her beliefs become the consensus of the video game industry we will lose that free speech.

EDIT: Sorry kinda forgot to do the last question. Like I said REALLY tired and once again I did post about that as well. So once again please read that post for a more detail.

Is it okay for her to be attacked? Well no, but then you have to then ask is it okay for her to spam another website with her work that is most well known for people who love to spend part of their time to be assholes for fun? Like I said she certainly spammed the hell out of 4chan for a reaction to most likely energize her fanbase once the hate remarks came in but something she isn't familiar with the works of groups like anonymous that can paralyze world governments by the time you snap your fingers. The hard truth is that she or one of the most dedicated fans I've ever seen who can post a video link within SECONDS of the video being uploaded brought it upon herself. That's just part of the consequences. I know if I was running a message board or an active member and then all of a sudden my forum explodes with spam of a person I have no idea I'm gonna be pretty miffed as well. I don't want people to shamelessly advertise their videos on my forums, even the Escapist has a forum rule where you can't promote your own youtube videos in forum posts. So by The Escapists own forum rules she would have her account suspended.

Also when it comes to advertising there are so many more positive ways she could of taken. She could of networked with other youtubers like the vlogbrothers and get into vidcon. Get in contact with other youtubers and do specials, she already has some of the highest quality equipment compared to your youtube channel. Her approach was a negative approach, she hit down by spamming 4chan and while it isn't okay for her to get death threats she does have to face the consequences when you do take the time to promote your work without a websites consent.

EDIT 2: Also what makes you think all those people that attacked her were just men?

Well everything seems to check out, but...

Bmagada:
though that is a matter of opinion.

Well, hold on a second. If it comes down to an opinion, then why are you yelling at people for not having yours?

Rebuilding houses sounds like a great idea, but what if you're like me and possess zero carpentry skills? Houses built by people with no training actually tend to suck, so I think I would just be applying a bandaid to a gaping wound.

One of my causes is environmentalism. Say I donated money to fund a documentary about alternative energy. My intentions are good and I want to help spread information about a subject I care about. Sure, it's not the same thing as saving a child from a burning building, but since when are good intentions a dick measuring contest?

My point is, people mean well. People donating to Feminist Frequency believe that a good way to get more equality in media, is to expose the market more. This shit won't get made unless the publishers believe that there is a market for it.

Now, when I complain about how much I hate certain movie cliches, you could challenge me to make my own damn movie. And I could. Because I actually am a filmmaker. But not everyone is. It's not fair to tell them to do something they do not possess the relevant skills for.

You also tell people to buy games that defy the stereotypes they have a problem with or fund the creation of such games. Well, if you can provide some examples, that would be fucking dandy. To my knowledge, there aren't many. Which is kind of why people are complaining. The marketing gurus don't think the market is there and sadly they have pretty bad blinders when it comes to confirmation bias.

And of course, your argument can be extended. Why donate to a Kickstarter for a musician who wants to release an album of electronic music when you could donate that money to a charity for starving children in Africa? Why buy that sandwich for lunch when you could give that money to a charity for tsunami relief in Japan? Where do you draw the line?

That's my problem with the argument. No line is drawn. It frequently comes down to, "They're spending their money I don't personally like, and that pisses me off."

Tenmar:
So yeah that is why I care. She can actually do harm to the video game industry given the lack of quality in her work and her personal embrace of her bias and if she does rise to where her beliefs become the consensus of the video game industry we will lose that free speech.

See, I don't see how you can be that apocalyptic about this. I seriously doubt that she is going to be a threat to your right to buy generic, badly written crap.

I agree with bob. its probably not gonna be the end of the world every time someone brings up this topic,and reacting with venomous ferver probably is overkill.

i don't even think its really to deny the fact that sexism exists. its more like a kneejerk reaction to being accused of wrong doing. is it objectification to look for or enjoy specific qualities? then much of the world's population (including non humans) are guilty.
now obviously we consider ourselves mentally superior to animals, and that such objectifications should be considered beneath us. however little people like it, people who sell it knows attractive figures sell to the masses.

this is a topic that will never end as long as humanity is stretched between morallity and instinct. it will be an ever reoccuring topic that will go back and forth as society shifts. its natural for women, who have had to deal with alot in history, to bring this up now with the movement for "equality" ever raging, and its natural for men who are arguably more easily tied to instinct, to defend it.

basically, "humanity" is always going to be a muddy mess, so strap on your floaters and either ride the current, fight it, or cross as quickly as possible and be done with it.

Tenmar:

EDIT 2: Also what makes you think all those people that attacked her were just men?

I'm just going to say that there isn't much evidence to the contrary, considering the context of the language, and I seriously question the self-esteem of a woman who lashes out with lines like:


But you're right, there might be women attacking her too, but what's saying they have the right of it either? This logic can cycle endlessly and get nowhere. The only thing evident is that the comments, in a particularly vulgar manner, directly attack Anita rather then criticising her goals or the work she has presented.

Personally, if I had people like that on my side of an argument, I would rapidly try to shut them up before I continue with my own analyses. These people are detrimental to any argument, regardless of whatever side they take. Can you imagine any scenario where such wanton bigotry and vitriolic language would help a cause or promote awareness to false or skewed opinions?

No, me neither.

Unfortunately, ignorance isn't an excuse. No matter how much you would like to turn your nose up at them, their mere presence degrades the oppositions (to Feminism/Anita) reputability.

Regardless of the success or failure of Anitas relatively small fry contribution, we will be seeing this event pop up regularly in the coming months, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see REAL world ramifications because of it.

DrVornoff:

See, I don't see how you can be that apocalyptic about this. I seriously doubt that she is going to be a threat to your right to buy generic, badly written crap.

Wow panda was right, you guys are just going to ignore my previous posts and just going to assume everything to the extreme instead of the actual middle ground most people are actually on about this whole mess.

DrVornoff:

Machine Man 1992:
Me? A jerk? Surely you jest!

I mean it wasn't like I made an off hand suggestion on how she could further her goal only for some internet voice come out of the woodwork and deny my ability to comment on this by virtue of being male... OH WAIT.

So how's the weather up on that cross you've nailed yourself too?

I hate to break it to some of you boys, but women are not in the position of privilege you think they are. There are a lot of women out there who only have a degree of power over men because those clueless man-children see a pretty girl and immediately become a lovesick puppy in the hopes of getting laid (which they won't).

What is this I don't even.

You sir, are clearly projecting.

Ragsnstitches:

Personally, if I had people like that on my side of an argument, I would rapidly try to shut them up before I continue with my own analyses. These people are detrimental to any argument, regardless of whatever side they take. Can you imagine any scenario where such wanton bigotry and vitriolic language would help a cause or promote awareness to false or skewed opinions?

No, me neither.

Umm you really don't know how powerful going negative or setting up situations where you want bigotry or vitrolic actions to help a cause do you?

Cause I do have to actually disagree with that no and actually say yes. Yes, I know of scenarios where you do have people ask for wonton bigotry and outrage to help a cause to false opinions.

I only need to invoke the world of politics to know this to be true. The crazy shit people do to actually promote their agenda and get their fanatics to really get outraged at causes that honestly are pretty small potatoes.

Now I will say this since I am bringing up politics this is going to obviously cause a lot of flak but it's the only hard evidence examples I know. So let's try and not actually get further into more fanatical camps than people are already in okay? Okay. Disclaimer: I am a republican but have honestly been quite disappointed in both candidates overall in what they failed/achieved and what they would like to do if they were in office. So yeah kinda on the fence here.

Probably one of the best examples is actually the worst example because the activist in question was caught...multiple times. This activist's name goes by the name of James O'Keefe, now James O'Keefe is a right wing activist and his claim to fame is that his actions resulted in the organization ACORN to lose all federal funding and be closed down. ACORN for those that don't know was a social organization that operated to help low income families ranging from health care to affordable housing. So what O'Keefe did was work with a woman named Hannah Giles and went into multiple ACORN officers dressed up as a pimp and a prostitute and used hidden cameras to record the ACORN employees engaging in criminal activities ranging from hiding prostitutes, avoid taxes, and bring in illegal aliens over the border.

Only problem? The videos were heavily edited. The result? ACORN lost all their funding and was forced to shut down their doors due to all the outrage that was generated from the false information that was created.

I also know this same person also tried to convince a CNN reporter that was working on a documentary on young conservatives and O'Keefe used it to try and get the reporter on a boat and seduce her. Needless to say someone warned the CNN reporter in time.

But yeah you should read up on this activists work. Most of his work ends up in him getting caught but usually too late before the damage was already done due to the outrage helping his cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe

EDIT: Also question, what exact event do you mean will keep popping up?

I get where Bob's going with this, but his points don't really stand up under closer scrutiny.

1: "You can't use the 'well men are always depicted as buff He-men, therefore it's ok that the women all look like Pam Anderson" argument because women are more discriminated against for their looks when it comes to jobs."
Sorry, evidence is lacking for this. Do a google search of "effects of physical attractiveness on job hiring". Women are far from immune for being given preferential treatment for looking a certain way. ANYONE who fits the mold of being "more attractive", man or woman, is at an advantage, regardless of the gender of who's hiring them. It's also been found that being good-looking gives you an advantage in getting loans, getting elected to office, and even helps you sway Juries in your favor. So everyone gets treated differently for not looking ideal, not just women.

2: "Society judges the worth of women by their appearance, not their ability".
True, but so do women. Ever notice how on the cover of every Cosmo, Redbook, Glamour, etc. you never, ever see pictures of unattractive women? This is because women don't like to look at unattractive women any more than men do. Once again, going back to the aforementioned studies, human beings naturally tend to have a "beauty is goodness" belief, that attractive people are intrinsically better than unattractive people. Likewise, arguing that video games are somehow a contributor to this ignores the fact that the stereotypical large-breasted, skinny waist "ideal woman" standard has existed for long before video games existed, and existed for long periods of time when sexism was far worse and more rampant.

3: "It's unfair because it's acceptable when a male character is unattractive (ie. Mario) but not acceptable when a female character is unattractive".
Again, reference the Cosmo and Glamour argument above. Likewise, this argument of Bob's falls flat on its face if one is willing to accept the simple fact that men and women are not the same. It wouldn't matter if every pornstar on the planet looked like Channing Tatum, women still wouldn't watch close to the amount of porn men do. Why? Because women are wired differently than men for what they see as attractive. This goes to the next argument:

4: "Women don't generally find buff male characters attractive, therefore it's unfair that there are so few attractive male characters for women."
Going back to the previous argument, women are wired differently than men and generally need their characters to have some level of depth, emotion, and character to find them attractive. So why don't game companies make more male characters like this? For the easiest reason imaginable: because it's hard. It's difficult and takes lots of work and trial and error, where as just cranking out another Marcus Fenix look-alike is easy. In an industry where game companies can live and die on the success or failure of a single game, it's far too risky to invest that much time in effort in something that may fall flat on its face.

People are examining this way too in depth and forgetting what the video game industry is: a multi-billion dollar industry that needs to make money. If a video game company thought it could sell 10 million copies of a game by creating a female character who looks "average" and a good-looking male character who didn't look like Chris Redfield, they would. They don't because they have no faith that a game like that would sell anywhere close to what they'd need to recover the cost, so they go with what works: Ivy Valentine and Chris Redfield. And if the female gamers who take issue with the "business as usual" approach in the industry truly believe that they could make a game like that and sell them like hotcakes, then I challenge you: make the game! If you aren't willing to take the risk and make a change, then you can't expect the games industry to shoulder the risk.

Also sidenote, I thought that this recent mailbox video would quite well describe the attitude that people assume that people have when they are in disagreement with their point of view. Please go straight to 17:35 till 20:22.

I do agree with this one sentiment, beware fandom in all its forms.

Yeah its my opinion. :) isn't it nice. BTW I know that this wasn't directed towards me, but not every game that doesn't try to put sexual stereotypes on an level playing ground is crap. Not that you would take into account that not every story has to have a strong female character in order for it to be compelling or inspirational. Oh and I don't think she'll damage the industry, but she does damage the feminist movement every time she releases one of those completely one sided videos. My line by the way is that of watching her videos and seeing little to no merit. My line is there is effective ways of fighting for a cause and effective ways of paying for someone to just complain about it in a video. My line is that one takes effort and caring enough to devote time to a cause if it's worth it, as to say would actually change things.

Oh and I didn't say to buy any games, I said you could use that money to either make a cheaper game with with a better female narrative, which is a positive step, and the people whose opinions you are trying to change will actually play it, or use it as a prize to promote a contest where people do in fact create indie games to get funding that might further that cause on a bigger version of that game. I also didn't say to make a movie just to make that clear. I know that's why you're on your soap box right now, because you're a "film maker"(seeing as everyone with a webcam can be called that. It's like saying if you finger paint you're a painter and by that standard Kim Kardashian and Ray J are film makers. It's about quality and substance not if you can operate a camera) but I said there are way more worthwhile pursuits if you feel like fighting for a cause then funding a hack who argues for feminism in a way that paints anyone fighting for that cause in a bad light and those pursuits would actually make a difference.

I think someone is trying a little too hard or is trying so hard to defend a "film maker" because you believe everyone should have respect for someone's art and the value of that art, which sadly you seem to be doing with your comment on games being crappy if they don't meet your standards or your beliefs, which makes you a hypocrite, and to you I say this, good riddance. Trying to call me out on my contributions to causes (which I have made) then immediately after that squeezing an argument out of a statement because you skimmed through what I said in the first place instead of reading it and only seeing the final statement. When you couldn't find an argument, you have now tried to twist a secondary statement to try and make it sound like I said "Fuck everyone for having an opinion, because I'm right and you're wrong". Yeah that's exactly what I said. Now you have the same arguing style as the "film maker" you're so happily defending, which to say is just to keep arguing instead of changing my opinion. Either that or you threw money at kickstarter and now you're angry because I called it stupid. I was actually going to take you seriously for a minute and read out your argument. I responded in a civil way with no malice or ill intentions because I actually read what people post, but now after reading that, it's just not worth it.

Keep on trolling sad troll, keep on trolling...

Tenmar:
Well of course my estimate isn't a fact, that's why they are called estimates :P. The only facts I can say is that she does have top of the line equipment in all areas of production. I really don't see how that money can improve that compared to her existing equipment. I mean hell not even Will of DC has a soundproofed room for his videos and from it looks like it this youtuber I would estimate got a professional soundproofed room for a much longer period of time compared to willofDC who just a couple years ago was still doing the entire show in his bedroom.

You have literally no idea what you're talking about.

Just saying.

She couldn't afford "top of the line" equipment even WITH the $200,000 she's raised. And that "soundproof room" is almost certainly a wall in her house. LRR produces five videos a week professionally, and we have a dinky little office space and some mid-grade equipment. WE don't even have a soundproof room, and the technical quality of her production looks to mirror the the sort of equipment we were using years ago.

Tenmar:
But I really don't see how you can be confused and yes it is going to be sorta lazy of me but...have you really sat down and read my posts on this very topic? I do care cause I do believe she is not qualified to actually do this project as she has proven in her previous projects to be destructive instead of constructive as well as she cares more about her bias than the actual subject matter to which she doesn't perform the due diligence to research the subject matter from the actual pop culture product to all the people involved from the director, producer and for the video game simply sitting down and playing through the game. She really just runs with the glossed over fan concept of the subject matter instead of doing the research. You can read my previous post on page 23 and I think on another page that will go into much more detail.

This paragraph is also dubious. you have no idea whether she played through Bayonetta or not (she doesn't specify in the video) but that much is largely irrelevant, because she spent the majority of the video discussing an advertising campaign used to market the game, rather than the game itself.

Now, you have, on several occasions, taken issue with her claims regarding the effects of that campaign? well, tough. the general sociological and psychological understanding of the effects of imagery of the sort used in that ad tend to agree with her, not you. Furthermore, discussion of that ad with you is going to be basically fruitless, unless you accept the validity of such (fairly well understood and accepted) phenomena as desensitization, reinforcement, priming, and so on. If you DO accept the validity of those phenomena - the reason the content and placement of that ad is problematic becomes obvious. If you do not, well, there's no common ground on which we can even begin a discussion on the validity her claims.

Tenmar:
I also care because as noted on this page that just because she calls herself a "gamer" doesn't actually qualify her to speak as some figurehead of the "gaming community"(you really had to read my previous post to understand why I put gamer and gaming community in quotation marks).

At no point does she ever claim to speak for all gamers. She is simply presenting a a critique of certain aspects of female characterization in video games from a feminist perspective. She makes this bias explicit and apparent in the title card of her videos.

Tenmar:
Having her rise to some status of authority with her current set of bias and beliefs does more harm than good as well as noted that she does truly believe that playing video games /interacting with video game ads encourages people to be misogynistic. That is quite literally the same logical leap the video game industry has been fighting and won here in the states on the logical leap that playing violent video games makes people violent. If her viewpoint is considered correct then the video game industry is going to very quickly lose that free speech we just recently earned from years of going up against lawyers like Jack Thompson and State Senator Leeland Yee and run head long into regulation that will affect every single developer, publisher and artist.

At no point does she advocate for any kind of censorship, banning, or restriction in the creation of video games. In fact, what she is trying to do is draw attention to the fact that games represent women in very narrow and detrimental ways - with the stated goal of encouraging developers to create more games, representing women in a wider variety of more interesting and creative ways, in order to make games appealing to more people and bring them to a wider market. She is straight up advocating for more art, and perhaps, along the way, encouraging developers to consider if they really want to continue to represent women in trite, played out ways in their art.

Maybe some asshat politician makes it his mission to try and restrict gaming based on this premise (though fat chance, considering how much American politicians ALSO seem to hate women) but that's on the politician, not Ms. Sarkeersian. We don't benefit anything but ignorance by keeping our heads buried in the sand on these issues, and as already noted, the easy solution to this issue is not BANNING speech (in the form of games) but actually MAKING MORE OF IT.

Tenmar:
I should also note here that she completely ignores more important factors to a person's development that would affect their view of people such as being raised by their parent/parents, social interaction growing up or social ostracization and finally relationships with both genders. Factors I find much more important to a person and their world view when talking about race and gender than how viewing or interacting with an ad is going to make a person molest another person on a train. Once again please read my previous post cause I am REALLY tired and it is explained in much greater detail there.

Because she is criticizing MEDIA, not PEOPLE.

Tenmar:
So yeah that is why I care. She can actually do harm to the video game industry given the lack of quality in her work and her personal embrace of her bias and if she does rise to where her beliefs become the consensus of the video game industry we will lose that free speech.

No, she really, actually can't, and when Vornoff accused you of being apocalyptic about it, he was 100% right.

Tenmar:
Is it okay for her to be attacked? Well no, but then you have to then ask is it okay for her to spam another website with her work that is most well known for people who love to spend part of their time to be assholes for fun?

No you don't have to ask that. You might consider asking "why would people want to be assholes for fun", or "why do we find the fact that they do acceptable" though.

Tenmar:
Like I said she certainly spammed the hell out of 4chan for a reaction to most likely energize her fanbase once the hate remarks came in but something she isn't familiar with the works of groups like anonymous that can paralyze world governments by the time you snap your fingers. The hard truth is that she or one of the most dedicated fans I've ever seen who can post a video link within SECONDS of the video being uploaded brought it upon herself.

That is not at all certain.

Tenmar:
That's just part of the consequences. I know if I was running a message board or an active member and then all of a sudden my forum explodes with spam of a person I have no idea I'm gonna be pretty miffed as well. I don't want people to shamelessly advertise their videos on my forums, even the Escapist has a forum rule where you can't promote your own youtube videos in forum posts. So by The Escapists own forum rules she would have her account suspended.

Account suspension is not the same as being visciously harassed.

Tenmar:
Also when it comes to advertising there are so many more positive ways she could of taken. She could of networked with other youtubers like the vlogbrothers and get into vidcon. Get in contact with other youtubers and do specials, she already has some of the highest quality equipment compared to your youtube channel.

She did lots of that - I saw numerous major web personalities tweeting about and referring people to her kickstarter long before the shit hit the fan.

Tenmar:
Her approach was a negative approach, she hit down by spamming 4chan and while it isn't okay for her to get death threats she does have to face the consequences when you do take the time to promote your work without a websites consent.

You don't know it was her. She DID engage in positive advertising. Stop apologizing for the assholes.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 . . . 29 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here