Jimquisition: Anita Sarkeesian - The Monster Gamers Created

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 21 NEXT
 

Revolutionaryloser:

ccdohl:
Wait, so why does the debate become about disliking women or Sarkeesian herself just because some other people said some awful things? I understand that she was trolled and used the trolls to get people on her side.

But since I didn't troll her, and Jim Sterling didn't troll her, why would our opinions be invalid just because of the trolling? That doesn't follow for me. I say, criticize and discuss away. It don't think that it aligns you with the trolls in anyone's mind.

You don't even have to bring up the trolls. Just make your own arguments and observations. Check over them to make sure you omitted any rape threats and voila, you have a criticism that is unaffected by the antics of trolls!

That's nice and all but I think you are forgetting your opinion is insignificant in the broader scale of things.

Why do posters on the escapist always have to get so existential?

I didn't say that it will matter, just that the responses and criticisms are completely separate from the trolling that Jim said has defined the debate now.

Bara_no_Hime:

gamingqueen:
How's not including women is sexism? Are you familiar with the term tokenism? Just being there I mean? A game not including a certain gender or race or religion or insert any group here does not make it hateful or offensive in the least and vice versa.

First off, I didn't say hateful - I said sexist. Hateful would be misogynistic. Too many people confuse those words. Sexism is treating one sex differently than another. Non-inclusion of one sex is an example of sexes being treated differently.

Secondly, most modern military forces have female soldiers. Games that take place modern day or in the future should reflect that. Not just token females - there should be a significant presence of female soldiers, because to not include them is not realistic and is sexist.

By not including women in the military in setting where they should be present, these games imply that women aren't capable of being soldiers. That is at least casually misogynistic. Worse, it subtly gives players the impression that that is the way the military should be. Maybe the creators didn't mean to imply that, but they did, and they keep doing so with subsequent games (except in cases, such as Halo, where later games corrected the imbalance, as I was told above).

So yes, teaching a generation that women can't be soldiers is something that upsets me more than giggle physics.

I don't think we agree on the definition of sexism here. Sexism is not allowing women to take part in different aspects of life. Also, I'm not aware realism is a goal in games nowadays. Maybe photo-realism but definitely not realism. Not including women is not sexist. If they serve no purpose to the plot or game then why should they be included? Don't play the devil's advocate please it's annoying. And what you said is called tokenism again. -_-

daibakuha:

I'm not defending her. I haven't even posited an opinion on her, her videos or anything to do with this subject.

I simply wanted proof for an accusation made by someone, he posted youtube videos, which aren't cited, discussing information not prevelant to what I asked, and therefor not valid.

Wanting accurate sources of information is not an appeal to authority fallacy, which by the way, doesn't work under these circumstances because this is not a subject of opinion, it's a discussion of facts, having trustworthy sources of information is part of that (and no, The Escapist doesn't count either).

Although I do love how you completely jump the gun to paid for reviews. That's nice, not pertinent to the discussion at all, but it's nice.

You got points for actually thinking for once, the video was just to be sure you are not one of the MANY people that needed to be retold once again that the Journalist arent a infalible source of information (specially in this site).

But here is my question before i find more about this: if i find "evidence" of her posting on 4chan, what would you do? How would YOU know if it is trustworthy evidence to begin with? the only way is for you to know it is true is to do it on your own, because why the fuck let a complete stranger do it?

Define trustworthy so everyone here can see it.

Also, for full disclosure, i remind you that the Kickstarter video in Youtube was the ONLY one with the comments without the control (approval) of the poster, and sure enough after being posted, the hate came like a high pressure gas escaping trough a leak. And conveniently enough, the statistics of the video are not available.

Mick Golden Blood:
**snip**

Everything I have heard and read lately about the US military says you're 5-10 years out of date.

Yes, you are quoting policy. However, as of the recent war(s), due to lack of people, women have been placed more and more on the front, in combat positions. Yes, they may be there as "support staff" but they carry assault rifles and storm enemy positions just the same.

Squad medic is a popular one. A five man squad with a female medic will go in to a hostile area on a mission. The medic is supposedly not "front line" but it's not like there's anywhere else, so she gets to go in with her gun like the rest. She's just as likely to shoot enemy soldiers, get blown up by a mine, or ambushed, or whatever as the rest of them.

And that only applies to the US military. Look at Israel. I have a female friend who served on the front lines in the Israel military. I'm sure there are other nations that do the same.

And that is only discussing present-day military shooters. As soon as you have sci-fi going on, there's no reason at all to not have female front line soldiers.

gamingqueen:
Not including women is not sexist. If they serve no purpose to the plot or game then why should they be included? Don't play the devil's advocate please it's annoying. And what you said is called tokenism again. -_-

So a woman should only be included if her presence serves the plot? But a man can be included just cause, to fill an empty spot? That's like saying that you shouldn't have a black character or a Hispanic character unless there's a specific plot purpose for it - but a white guy is fine.

If you can't see the inherent sexism in that... then nothing I say is going to make any difference to you anyway.

Edit: Oh, and I looked up tokenism. I don't think it means what you think it means. Either that or your aren't understanding what I mean. I'm not suggesting shoving in a single "token female" - I'm saying that women should be a presence. Not one - many. A percent. If you are playing an online modern military shooter, and playing as a nation that has women in its military (like the US army), then you should have a female character option. If you are fighting an army that includes women, then a percent of the enemy character models should be female. If you see your own forces, and you are in an army that includes women, then you should see female character models in amongst the men.

That isn't token, not by any means, and not by the definition of tokenism (which I looked up before making this edit). That acknowledges that women are in the military, giving their lives for their nation.

Shocked no one put this up yet.

http://archive.foolz.us/v/thread/139813364/

Also take note that it is against the rules of 4chan to solicit funds of any kind. Even some of the members said to report her and move on.

GloatingSwine:

This doesn't even make sense. Like as English. Could you tidy up your argument so that there appears to be one?

If we stop now, the disscusion will start ALL OVER AGAIN and the Trolls (that she enraged to begin with) will win. Because, as you know, you dont argue with them, there is no point on focusing any intelectual debate on THEM, they are there for the fun, regardless of what the discucion is about. Saying that the efforts of ALL the people who wanted to prove peacefully that Anita is a hack are USELESS just because a bunch of nobodies screamed loud enough, is quite silly.

Can you provide evidence of this? Not just a screencap of 4chan, but evidence that it was Anita Sarkeesian that posted about her kickstarter on it. 4chan is, remember, famously lax about user identity. Of course you fucking can't, but you're going to throw accusations anyway, aren't you?

Give me a week and lets see what hard evidence i can find. Kinda tired of doing the work of eveyone.

In retrospect, if i cant find anything, at least i will be happy to know that i could do something like she did and attract all the rage to my videos on Youtube and use that as "proof" that i am just an innocent victim in this noble crusade :D

I wonder how many others have done this and got away with it.

Did you catch the part of Jim's video where he pointed out that witout rape and death threats made there would be nothing for journalists to report on. And frankly the scale and nature of the response is a legitemate news story, of such hate campaigns are shitty laws made after all. Journalists didn't make this monster, they just pointed out that gamers are a bunch of colossal fuckwits to the vast surprise of absolutely no-one with an attention span.

The Trolls are after Anita, not the gamers. Trolls kinda do that for a living, gamers are busy gaming. And even then, the Journalist still fucked up by not going in full detail of why such thing existed in the first place and omited some key words.

But who cares, all gamers are trolls and vice versa, right bra? Wait what? they are not the same? are you saying that the article lied? naaaaaaaaaaaaah

I just want to point out a small thing. the 4chan incident, not indicative of gamers not entirely anyway. here I shall explain.

4chan by reputation prides itself on trolling. an example was when mountain dews makers held a contest to name the next three flavors of mountain dew. 4chan got wind of this and started spamming the website.

Among the top winners for mountain dew names(they had to cancel the competition! yay 4chan!) were fapple,Gushing granney, and at no.1 "hitler did nothing wrong" That last one makes me laugh!

now when looking at that incident no one says that 4chan or by extension gamers hate mountain dew. But with 4chan attacking anita, all these gamer dudes hate women playing videogames? see the problem?

Now im not at all saying that sexism is not within certain parts of certain people who play games. just look at the hepler incident, destructoid editor calling out felicia day, that fighting game incident whos name I cant remember. This is important in analyzing the true problem at its source.

But I am saying that as a "Culture." Those of us from jim to the escapist to yahtzee to ign and even gamespot well who knows about gamespot but all of us do really want chicks playing games or at least dont give two shits either way. The people who spammed anita are not indicative of gamer culture or gamers but the larger problem that comes from online anonymity.

Also all of that applys to youtube as well.

(Ie: anyone who watches youtube is a racist sexist, monster.... get where im coming from now?)

Bara_no_Hime:

gamingqueen:
Not including women is not sexist. If they serve no purpose to the plot or game then why should they be included? Don't play the devil's advocate please it's annoying. And what you said is called tokenism again. -_-

So a woman should only be included if her presence serves the plot? But a man can be included just cause, to fill an empty spot? That's like saying that you shouldn't have a black character or a Hispanic character unless there's a specific plot purpose for it - but a white guy is fine.

If you can't see the inherent sexism in that... then nothing I say is going to make any difference to you anyway.

Edit: Oh, and I looked up tokenism. I don't think it means what you think it means. Either that or your aren't understanding what I mean. I'm not suggesting shoving in a single "token female" - I'm saying that women should be a presence. Not one - many. A percent. If you are playing an online modern military shooter, and playing as a nation that has women in its military (like the US army), then you should have a female character option. If you are fighting an army that includes women, then a percent of the enemy character models should be female. If you see your own forces, and you are in an army that includes women, then you should see female character models in amongst the men.

That isn't token, not by any means, and not by the definition of tokenism (which I looked up before making this edit). That acknowledges that women are in the military, giving their lives for their nation.

But if you include a black guy for no good reason you get accused of sexism. including a white straight male well no one says anything so yeah thats about right.

Is it right? no but it is the way it is no one calls me racist when I make white jokes or joke about cutting a mans penis off. just the black jokes and the ones about women in the kitchen. You know double standards, I didnt make it that way but others sure do.

rbstewart7263:
Is it right? no but it is the way it is no one calls me racist when I make white jokes or joke about cutting a mans penis off. just the black jokes and the ones about women in the kitchen. You know double standards, I didnt make it that way but others sure do.

And that's my point - it is wrong, and it is wrong in an insidious and influential way.

And, since you're late to this quote party, I was saying that this is why I dislike the sexism in many "modern military shooters" (and Gears of War or similar sci-fi shooters that don't include female characters) more than Dead or Alive beach volleyball.

Everyone knows that DoA is sexist - it's giggle physics. It's a joke of a game that no one takes seriously.

Modern military shooters - those are played by huge numbers of people, and the sexism is subtle, hard to define, but it gets into people heads. A lot of people take those games seriously (even if they shouldn't).

Tenmar:
Shocked no one put this up yet.

http://archive.foolz.us/v/thread/139813364/

Also take note that it is against the rules of 4chan to solicit funds of any kind. Even some of the members said to report her and move on.

Taken from a site that bathes in anonymity. How do we know that it was actually her?

daibakuha:
I'm not defending her. I haven't even posited an opinion on her, her videos or anything to do with this subject.

I simply wanted proof for an accusation made by someone, he posted youtube videos, which aren't cited, discussing information not prevelant to what I asked, and therefor not valid.

Wanting accurate sources of information is not an appeal to authority fallacy, which by the way, doesn't work under these circumstances because this is not a subject of opinion, it's a discussion of facts, having trustworthy sources of information is part of that (and no, The Escapist doesn't count either).

Although I do love how you completely jump the gun to paid for reviews. That's nice, not pertinent to the discussion at all, but it's nice.

Why aren't you asking for Anita's sources, then? Oh, that's right, because like I said, you are upset because it's YOUR bullshit that was called out, not ours.

Sorry, but we are not actually dealing with facts here. We are dealing with people's perceptions. Like I said before, a lot of what Anita says are opinionated, not factual. The investigative journalism videos makes their own observation on what she is doing, and saying they are simply youtube videos does not actually discredit them, no matter how much you want to. It says more about you that you would so easily dismiss what someone says because of how they put it out there than it does about the ones who put their arguments on youtube.

If there is something wrong with them, then I will ask you once again. Enlighten us why. Just saying so doesn't mean anything. It just shows that you are full of crap.

Today I agree with Jim... to a point.

I think that Anita Sarkeesian would have gone and done her little piece and the majority of people would never have heard of her or seen her videos regarding gaming. Now that's changed.

And I actually watched several of her Youtube videos and realized a few things.

1. Some of what she says has merit and makes sense. It's an interesting thing to see some of the patterns that she and others have noticed in certain articles of fiction.

2. Some of her arguments are rather weak as she draws incorrect conclusions based on specific facts that she chooses to look at. By this, I mean that she has picked one particular aspect of an entire work of fiction and put it under the microscope. It's there that she claims that it falls into the pattern without any regard for the rest of the material. What I'm trying to say is that she takes stuff out of context.

As a side note, I feel bad for people who look at fiction to this level of detail because it involves detaching yourself from just enjoying it.

Bara_no_Hime:

rbstewart7263:
Is it right? no but it is the way it is no one calls me racist when I make white jokes or joke about cutting a mans penis off. just the black jokes and the ones about women in the kitchen. You know double standards, I didnt make it that way but others sure do.

And that's my point - it is wrong, and it is wrong in an insidious and influential way.

And, since you're late to this quote party, I was saying that this is why I dislike the sexism in many "modern military shooters" (and Gears of War or similar sci-fi shooters that don't include female characters) more than Dead or Alive beach volleyball.

Everyone knows that DoA is sexist - it's giggle physics. It's a joke of a game that no one takes seriously.

Modern military shooters - those are played by huge numbers of people, and the sexism is subtle, hard to define, but it gets into people heads. A lot of people take those games seriously (even if they shouldn't).

I agree there should be more tits I mean women in military games.:P lol That said I dont think only having men in your character roster does much to influence you.

I never was on the whole. This media subconciously affects you" bandwagon. Most people just are not that stupid.

The only type of person I see being influenced like that is probably not all there. most people dont even notice till someone points it out.

edit: oh and thanks for inviting me to the quote party wheres the beer? whats that? only water and tylenol!!! DAMNIT!!!

gamingqueen:

Bara_no_Hime:

gamingqueen:
How's not including women is sexism? Are you familiar with the term tokenism? Just being there I mean? A game not including a certain gender or race or religion or insert any group here does not make it hateful or offensive in the least and vice versa.

First off, I didn't say hateful - I said sexist. Hateful would be misogynistic. Too many people confuse those words. Sexism is treating one sex differently than another. Non-inclusion of one sex is an example of sexes being treated differently.

Secondly, most modern military forces have female soldiers. Games that take place modern day or in the future should reflect that. Not just token females - there should be a significant presence of female soldiers, because to not include them is not realistic and is sexist.

By not including women in the military in setting where they should be present, these games imply that women aren't capable of being soldiers. That is at least casually misogynistic. Worse, it subtly gives players the impression that that is the way the military should be. Maybe the creators didn't mean to imply that, but they did, and they keep doing so with subsequent games (except in cases, such as Halo, where later games corrected the imbalance, as I was told above).

So yes, teaching a generation that women can't be soldiers is something that upsets me more than giggle physics.

I don't think we agree on the definition of sexism here. Sexism is not allowing women to take part in different aspects of life. Also, I'm not aware realism is a goal in games nowadays. Maybe photo-realism but definitely not realism. Not including women is not sexist. If they serve no purpose to the plot or game then why should they be included? Don't play the devil's advocate please it's annoying. And what you said is called tokenism again. -_-

Love your avatar that was the first final fantasy I played.

Also to stay on topic....Thank god for jim!

daibakuha:

If you call this investigative journalism, I'd hate to see what you would call actual journalism

Clearly, this article that started it all ISNT journalism:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117848-Kickstarter-Video-Project-Attracts-Misogynist-Horde

oh Jim Jim Jim: You've got the wrong end of the stick here mate, so i'm going to do you a solid & fill you in.

A.S is a calculating troll: She devised her project after her successful yet incredibly intellectual dishonest feminist frequency videos became less successful. She then went & created a kickstarter, made a video demonising men (not games), closed down all discussion on her other videos & then went to 4/chan & trolled the b/tards.

She then took the resulting backlash from the 4/chan followers & reported on it on here own web page & then went to the gaming media (people like you Jim) & cried for help (oh help me, i'm being attacked by the big bad menz). At this point the gaming media (that would be you Jim) went on about how A.S was being attacked.

No actual research went into the articles written, which is why 90% of all the given articles about these attacks have the same exact quotes from these supposed attackers all taken from her own website.

The very day her kickstarter came to an end, she re-opened up her comments, except on the video demonising men, which was set to "confirmation."

So if you want to know who made this monster, its not gamers, its half assed gamer journalism, by people who are willing to jump on the band wagon of white knighting rather then asking "what is the story here."

You want to know who made this monster Jim? Look in the mirror.

An frankly there is a reason why we are all still talking about her openly bigoted opinions: Because demonstrably wrong opinions don't go away if you ignore them. Take Gail Simones "women in refridgerators" trope/web site. Its been 11 year since that first came out & even though its been completely debunked as having any legitimate value, the fact that it was mostly ignored for years has resulted in a whole generation of comic book readers who mistake any negative consequence to a female character in comics as "fridging," rather then "a consequence of being a character in serialised fiction format."

CAPTCHA: "You good?" no captcha, i certainly am not.

DioWallachia:

daibakuha:

If you call this investigative journalism, I'd hate to see what you would call actual journalism

Clearly, this article that started it all ISNT journalism:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117848-Kickstarter-Video-Project-Attracts-Misogynist-Horde

I LOVE how the SOURCE for the article is her own website. So in other words there really wasn't any actual investigation. Just reporting taking everything at face value without any sort of validation or questioning.

Jimothy Sterling:
Anita Sarkeesian - The Monster Gamers Created

Angry gamers have been to Anita Sarkeesian (and gaming feminism in general) what DRM has been to piracy. Attempts to kill a thing have only made it stronger.

Watch Video

Well honestly, I'd rather people ignore you always baiting for clicks and make you go away, but that ain't happening either, is it?

The fact is that she planned for this shit.

She started her campaign on May 17: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/05/help-fund-tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/ and weeks in it looked rather meagre.

So what did she do? She put the video up on YouTube full 2 weeks after teh campaign started on June 4 and baited in all the right places: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8I0Wy58adM
Then 3 days later she made that Blog Post on June 7: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/ and got out the word to all of the Gaming Press that were already on some sort of crusade, and such skilled Gaming Journalists as yourself or that John Walker fellow over at RPS took it at face value and got everyone all riled up making them waste their money.

In reality, you can go to YouTube and pick any random video, even ones about knitting and make a case for any sorts of themes, from racism, sexism to all sort of isms. Have people even been to YouTube lately?

Tenmar:

I LOVE how the SOURCE for the article is her own website. So in other words there really wasn't any actual investigation. Just reporting taking everything at face value without any sort of validation or questioning.

Never mind how the website the article uses as a source draws directly from the actual Youtube comments

Dexter111:
In reality, you can go to YouTube and pick any random video, even ones about knitting and make a case for any sorts of themes, from racism, sexism to all sort of isms.

I call your bluff!

Blue Ranger:

Why aren't you asking for Anita's sources, then? Oh, that's right, because like I said, you are upset because it's YOUR bullshit that was called out, not ours.

Sorry, but we are not actually dealing with facts here. We are dealing with people's perceptions. Like I said before, a lot of what Anita says are opinionated, not factual. The investigative journalism videos makes their own observation on what she is doing, and saying they are simply youtube videos does not actually discredit them, no matter how much you want to. It says more about you that you would so easily dismiss what someone says because of how they put it out there than it does about the ones who put their arguments on youtube.

If there is something wrong with them, then I will ask you once again. Enlighten us why. Just saying so doesn't mean anything. It just shows that you are full of crap.

Somebody made a claim, I asked him to back that claim up with relevant facts and data. The claim was that she posted her videos to 4chan. I wanted proof of this. I, in no way, am defending her, her videos or their contents. I am simply asking for a credible source of information for a claim.

You appear to be under some sort of delusion that I'm defending her, that I've made some sort of claim that she's correct in her assumptions. I have not.

If you wanna critique her works, go ahead, there's plenty of material to do so, but don't spout off bullshit unless you can back it up.

I dismissed the youtube videos because they are irrelevant to the topic of conversation(I also don't put much stock in youtube videos, as they about as useful as forum posts when it comes to accurate and unbiased information).

DioWallachia:

daibakuha:

If you call this investigative journalism, I'd hate to see what you would call actual journalism

Clearly, this article that started it all ISNT journalism:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117848-Kickstarter-Video-Project-Attracts-Misogynist-Horde

What is it with you misguided people? When have I ever said that The Escapist is a bastion of good journalism?

With this level of reading comprehension it's amazing you guys managed to pass the fourth grade.

I'm more pissed off at the thought that, yes, the same sexist asspie fucknuts that made this Frankenstein's Monster will keep denying that they did anything wrong, and will just keep making Anita's absolutely stupid definition of feminism grow stronger each day, even if indirectly.

Some days I wished every country had a national sport that involves the poaching of humans too stupid to live.

Trilligan:

Tenmar:

I LOVE how the SOURCE for the article is her own website. So in other words there really wasn't any actual investigation. Just reporting taking everything at face value without any sort of validation or questioning.

Never mind how the website the article uses as a source draws directly from the actual Youtube comments

Except that the majority of articles on the topic did not take the quotes from youtube page, but from an article written by A.S herself & posted on her website, which she linked to the gaming press.

No one is saying that b/tards didn't indeed swamp her page, but them swamping her page is exactly what she wanted, so she could play the victim card.

However what investigative reporters (yeah i laugh when i hear that term used to explain gaming journalists as well) should have done some actual research to see if the people opposing her, legitimately had something legitimate grievance. Instead whats happened is that any legitimate dislike, no matter how well written & polite has been immediately dismissed as trolling by misogynists.

The majority of people who have a grievance with this project have a legitimate reason for opposing it: For starters it removes real context, inserts a new context & then makes appeal to motive on the context A.S herself has just inserted, thereby removing any positive impact this project could have.

Instead of an analytical break down of trends in gaming, this is going to be exactly like every other piece of work A.S has released to the public: Derivative psudeo-intellectual tripe, dressed up to look like legitimate discourse. This is of course why A.S is constantly blocking people who disagree with her... Because her point of view is without credence & is easily refuted with the most basic of scrutiny.

Dexter111:

Jimothy Sterling:
Anita Sarkeesian - The Monster Gamers Created

Angry gamers have been to Anita Sarkeesian (and gaming feminism in general) what DRM has been to piracy. Attempts to kill a thing have only made it stronger.

Watch Video

Well honestly, I'd rather people ignore you always baiting for clicks and make you go away, but that ain't happening either, is it?

The fact is that she planned for this shit.

She started her campaign on May 17: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/05/help-fund-tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/ and weeks in it looked rather meagre, like she wouldn't even make the $6000 goal kind of meagre.

So what did she do? She put the video up on YouTube full 2 weeks after teh campaign started on June 4 and baited in all the right places: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8I0Wy58adM
Then 3 days later she made that Blog Post on June 7: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/ and got out the word to all of the Gaming Press that were already on some sort of crusade, and such skilled Gaming Journalists as yourself or that John Walker fellow over at RPS took it at face value and got everyone all riled up making them waste their money.

In reality, you can go to YouTube and pick any random video, even ones about knitting and make a case for any sorts of themes, from racism, sexism to all sort of isms. Have people even been to YouTube lately?

Honestly I find it a bit laughable that people think of her like shes some kind of evil overmind plotting and scheming in a dark cave somewhere, rubbing her hands together whilst staring at a crystal ball.

Of course the thing with conspiracy theroies is that its basically impossible to disprove them. Im not saying that she hasnt used the situation to her advantage but the idea that she planned it is perhaps a stretch too far.

Quite besides all of that its like youre saying to someone wandering around in "the wrong part of town" alone at night that they are "asking for it" to be mugged or beaten up. Sure the end result might be predictable but does that make it the fault of the guy wandering or the people who do the mugging and beating?

Also everyone knows that youtube comments quite often degenerate into a game of "who can hold their fingers in their ears the longest while saying fuck you over and over again". But theres a difference between that kind of crap and people launching personal attacks of the "I want to kill you and rape your corpse" variety.

Bottom line is that whether or not you like or agree with her, the conversation she has been trying to have has been rebutted by many in the manner of a five year olds tantrum. You can blame her for baiting and for using the vitriol launched at her if you like - but that isnt where the problem truly lies.

matthew_lane:

Trilligan:

Tenmar:

I LOVE how the SOURCE for the article is her own website. So in other words there really wasn't any actual investigation. Just reporting taking everything at face value without any sort of validation or questioning.

Never mind how the website the article uses as a source draws directly from the actual Youtube comments

Except that the majority of articles on the topic did not take the quotes from youtube page, but from an article written by A.S herself & posted on her website, which she linked to the gaming press.

No one is saying that b/tards didn't indeed swamp her page, but them swamping her page is exactly what she wanted, so she could play the victim card.

However what investigative reporters (yeah i laugh when i hear that term used to explain gaming journalists as well) should have done some actual research to see if the people opposing her, legitimately had something legitimate grievance. Instead whats happened is that any legitimate dislike, no matter how well written & polite has been immediately dismissed as trolling by misogynists.

The majority of people who have a grievance with this project have a legitimate reason for opposing it: For starters it removes real context, inserts a new context & then makes appeal to motive on the context A.S herself has just inserted, thereby removing any positive impact this project could have.

Instead of an analytical break down of trends in gaming, this is going to be exactly like every other piece of work A.S has released to the public: Derivative psudeo-intellectual tripe, dressed up to look like legitimate discourse. This is of course why A.S is constantly blocking people who disagree with her... Because her point of view is without credence & is easily refuted with the most basic of scrutiny.

The point is I suppose that just because you dont like her doesnt give you the exuse to try and stop her from saying it. Its too easy to drop the freedom of speech card when you truly dispise someones opinion and you just want them to shut the hell up. As far as im concerned her opinion is of lesser importance than the wish of many to have no sensible, reasonable dialogue about it.

Myabe she did and maybe she didnt plan it - but whatever way the community she spoke to fell into her hands and fitted it like a glove. Maybe or maybe she doesnt manipulate the "evidence" to suit her agenda but she isnt the first and wont be the last - and its certainly not a reason for her opinions to not be aired.

If the gaming community in general wishes to be heard and have their opinions counted then there needs to be intelligent debate. There cant be intelligent debate when you're associated (as we all know the gaming community is thought of as a homogenous whole) with people who make rash and viloent personal threats.

If anything to me this highlights the "troll" problem as being another big one for this reason. It stops intelligent measured thoguht from happening and reduces us all to the level of a twelve year old screaming into a microphone.

Mr_Spanky:
Bottom line is that whether or not you like or agree with her, the conversation she has been trying to have has been rebutted by many in the manner of a five year olds tantrum.

Except that it has never been A.S's intention to have a conversation. A conversation is predicated on two parties, who are not relying entirely on " this guy in a pub told me" style arguments.

Civil Discourse is also made all the harder by the fact that Anita herself blocks anyone who dares to question any part of her methodolgy, no matter how politely they question her: Even the project backers.

Civil discourse has to also be based around the idea of intellectual honesty, not relying on logical fallacies & at the very least being willing to admit you may be wrong, if given sufficient evidence to the contrary of your opinion. None of these are Anita's strong points. Thats why if you ever watch any of Anita's Feminist Frequency videoes you'll note that she'll never make a specific argument about a specific thing... Quite often she'll just say something akin to "this is so disguisting, i'm not even going to show it to you, but take my word for it, its all sexism & misogyny, & cooties, because i say so."

This means that Anita either has no idea what she's really talking about on any given subject (an is looking for things to be offended for, even if she has to invent them first), or alternatively she knows exactly what she's talking about, but chooses to not make any detailed discussion on the basis that it'll become apparent that she is misrepresenting the source material at hand... So what it essentially boils down to is "ignorant or liar:" There is no third option.

Of course this wouldn't be so bad, if legitimate civil discourse was in the cards... But with Anita its never in the cards. Anyone pointing out where she went wrong even at an objective level is immediately blocked.

Heck there are quite a few gaming sites that have also taken up this technique recently: Someone points out where A.S has gone wrong, better block them right quick: We'd hate for our sites to be considered sexist by pointing out when an individual female has made an objectively incorrect statement.

So please don't come here & lecture us about civilised discourse, quite a few of us tried that & we've been silenced, without anyone ever addressing any of the legitimate points made.

Mr_Spanky:
The point is I suppose that just because you dont like her doesnt give you the exuse to try and stop her from saying it.

No one is advocating for trying to stop her from speaking: But freedom of speech goes both ways. If i came up and created a video on youtube called "Mr Spanky is gay for hamsters" & then immediately blocked anyone asking for evidence, thats not freedom of speech, thats the absence of freedom of speech: Its me being a collosal douche bag.

Freedom of speech, it goes both ways.

ccdohl:

Revolutionaryloser:

ccdohl:
Wait, so why does the debate become about disliking women or Sarkeesian herself just because some other people said some awful things? I understand that she was trolled and used the trolls to get people on her side.

But since I didn't troll her, and Jim Sterling didn't troll her, why would our opinions be invalid just because of the trolling? That doesn't follow for me. I say, criticize and discuss away. It don't think that it aligns you with the trolls in anyone's mind.

You don't even have to bring up the trolls. Just make your own arguments and observations. Check over them to make sure you omitted any rape threats and voila, you have a criticism that is unaffected by the antics of trolls!

That's nice and all but I think you are forgetting your opinion is insignificant in the broader scale of things.

Why do posters on the escapist always have to get so existential?

I didn't say that it will matter, just that the responses and criticisms are completely separate from the trolling that Jim said has defined the debate now.

That's not what I meant at all. What I'm saying is that your opinion, as reasoned as it may be, will inevitably be drowned out by the insane cries to rape and murder that bitch. Meanwhile, people from the outside will only see a single woman saying women should be given more respect in media taking abuse from every direction from rabid misogyninsts. She wins by default. She's right because you are more wrong. Jim's point is that if the sane rational people in the gaming community had any selfrespect and put the crazy rape mongerers in their place before this blew up into an Internet phenomenon, Anita Sarkeesian would have never been given the giant soapbox she now has and anything she could possibly say is warranted because it's already been established that the gaminng community is just a horde of beasts. In this context, your opinion and mine are worth jack shit.

Mr_Spanky:
Honestly I find it a bit laughable that people think of her like shes some kind of evil overmind plotting and scheming in a dark cave somewhere, rubbing her hands together whilst staring at a crystal ball.

Of course the thing with conspiracy theroies is that its basically impossible to disprove them. Im not saying that she hasnt used the situation to her advantage but the idea that she planned it is perhaps a stretch too far.

Would you kindly point me towards the spot wherein you see a "conspiracy" theory?
Every single gaming project on KickStarter is trying to get publicity any way they can actually, they are giving Interviews, answering question, doing AMAA on Reddit, sending in Previews to sites and are just trying to make as big a splash as possible. Okay, follow me so far?

1) So she was weeks into the campaign and managed to make a few thousand, tried to advertise on several Message boards, forums and other places but didn't exactly get "heard" and none of the big news sites seemed to notice or pick up on it, it wasn't going very well.

2) So what did she do, she tried to get some publicity like everyone else on KickStarter! And how did she do that? Oh boy, if another article about "gamer misoginy" doesn't produce hits! Obviously nobody would spend any money on her KickStarter to insult her there, so she went out to find another outlet and YouTube seemed like a fine target, having past experience with the platform through her other videos and apparently having closed off the comments on almost all of them. (which by the way weren't about videogames, but she apparently still got called out on her crap on a whole number and range of topics, so she had to "close" them)

3) Now instead of closing them off, leave them open and depict malicious and obviously entirely serious YouTube comments as death and rape threats like The Sun, BILD or Daily Mail couldn't do any better, and oh boy did she get that media attention! (although she left some of the very few negative articles out of the summary)
On the ninth, the very first day of the article and first media "reporting" on it she had only 1000 backers: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/posts/242547
Soon after a lot more: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/kickstarter-project-funded-with-6967-backers/

Now please, do tell me how you are pure of heart and wouldn't have done at least the same if not more for $150.000, some people are working 10+ years for that amount.

Quite besides all of that its like youre saying to someone wandering around in "the wrong part of town" alone at night that they are "asking for it" to be mugged or beaten up. Sure the end result might be predictable but does that make it the fault of the guy wandering or the people who do the mugging and beating?

Yup, offending YouTube comments are exactly like being mugged or beaten up, no difference there! I am now seeing your point and will proceed to be of your opinion!

Revolutionaryloser:
That's not what I meant at all. What I'm saying is that your opinion, as reasoned as it may be, will inevitably be drowned out by the insane cries to rape and murder that bitch. Meanwhile, people from the outside will only see a single woman saying women should be given more respect in media taking abuse from every direction from rabid misogyninsts

Except it wasn't gamers wh attacked her, ity was b/tards.

btard =/= gaming community

matthew_lane:

Mr_Spanky:
The point is I suppose that just because you dont like her doesnt give you the exuse to try and stop her from saying it.

No one is advocating for trying to stop her from speaking: But freedom of speech goes both ways. If i came up and created a video on youtube called "Mr Spanky is gay for hamsters" & then immediately blocked anyone asking for evidence, thats not freedom of speech, thats the absence of freedom of speech: Its me being a collosal douche bag.

Freedom of speech, it goes both ways.

Sure it does - but sadly taking the moral high ground is never that easy. Im not saying I like the woman or her "methods". But there are plenty of people who like to "infect" their little corner of the world with their crap and not be challenged.

In this world there are LOADS of people who preach at others about what they should think and then some other people come along and say how stupid it is to believe in that and they should believe something else. Whos wrong here? They both are.

In essence what im trying to say is what Jim already said - this wouldnt be an issue if everyone would just chill the fuck out.

Now wheres that damn hamster?

Mr_Spanky:
Sure it does - but sadly taking the moral high ground is never that easy.

Oh, its very simple to take the moral high ground in this discussion: The person who is willing to have an actual discussion without falling back on logical fallacies wins.

The person who tries to insinuate that anyone with an opposing view is a mysognist insta-loses any right to claim any high ground, moral or otherwise. As does someone who blocks any civil discourse.

There is nothing at all tricky about that.

Mr_Spanky:
Im not saying I like the woman or her "methods". But there are plenty of people who like to "infect" their little corner of the world with their crap and not be challenged.

Yep... anita wiould be one of them... Remember Anita? She's that person who went and trolled 4/chan in hopes of recieving a reaction & when she got one cried to the gamer press with the expectancy of White Knights.

Mr_Spanky:

In this world there are LOADS of people who preach at others about what they should think and then some other people come along and say how stupid it is to believe in that and they should believe something else. Whos wrong here? They both are.

No, the person who is objectively wrong is wrong. If i say, don't step out the window of the 60th floor of this building & you say "its okay, i'll float gently to the ground" one of us is right, the other is not. If you say 1+1=Blue monkey & i tell you that no it doesn't it equals 2 & i'll show you why, one of us is right.

We can actually determine who is & who is not right here. Of course to do this, civil discourse is required... Which is why A.S blocks it.

matthew_lane:

Mr_Spanky:
Sure it does - but sadly taking the moral high ground is never that easy.

Oh, its very simple to take the moral high ground in this discussion: The person who is willing to have an actual discussion without falling back on logical fallacies wins.

The person who tries to insinuate that anyone with an opposing view is a mysognist insta-loses any right to claim any high ground, moral or otherwise. As does someone who blocks any civil discourse.

There is nothing at all tricky about that.

Mr_Spanky:
Im not saying I like the woman or her "methods". But there are plenty of people who like to "infect" their little corner of the world with their crap and not be challenged.

Yep... anita wiould be one of them... Remember Anita? She's that person who went and trolled 4/chan in hopes of recieving a reaction & when she got one cried to the gamer press with the expectancy of White Knights.

Mr_Spanky:

In this world there are LOADS of people who preach at others about what they should think and then some other people come along and say how stupid it is to believe in that and they should believe something else. Whos wrong here? They both are.

No, the person who is objectively wrong is wrong. If i say, don't step out the window of the 60th floor of this building & you say "its okay, i'll float gently to the ground" one of us is right, the other is not. If you say 1+1=Blue monkey & i tell you that no it doesn't it equals 2 & i'll show you why, one of us is right.

We can actually determine who is & who is not right here. Of course to do this, civil discourse is required... Which is why A.S blocks it.

This is kind of my point right here though. If youre right and she is prejudiced, manipulative, ignorant, totally bound on her agenda regardless of factual accuracy and utterly disregarding of all other opinions but her own then why bother?

To me its like when the god-squad comes knocking on my door. Im not going to stand there for hours telling them theyre wrong - there isnt any point. You just say "thanks but no thanks" et al and close the door.

Peoples actions and beliefs are not your responsibility. The way you react to them is.

It seems to me like youre coming from the perspective of "everyone should be reasonable enough to discuss these things rationally and sensibly". They should. They arent. Thats life.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 21 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
Registered for a free account here