Jimquisition: Anita Sarkeesian - The Monster Gamers Created

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 . . . 21 NEXT
 

Revolutionaryloser:

Therumancer:
-snip-

You are wrong. Freedom of speech carries with it responsibility. You may express yourself as long as you do not infringe the constitutional rights of others. Anita Sarkeesian was simply expressing her views, an act encouraged for healthy political discourse. Her attackers were infringing on her rights and endangering her dignity as a human being. There is no argument. One is legal, one is illegal.

We have priorities. We deal with criminal activities first, that is a central pillar of our society. Crime will always be punished, if not penally, socially. Other inadequate behaviour will be punished in due time.

As long as there are those who persist in mocking our social order, society will punish their misdemeanors. You may think it is possible to ignore these punishments. As we speak people are being educated in civic responsibility and gradually those who defend disorder and hate speech are losing their allies and their voice. Those who cannot act as a part of our society, will be treated as enemies of our society. Resistance is completely futile. The verdict has already passed and the sentence will be carried out.

I could argue a lot of this with you, but in the end we're going to have to agree to disagree. Simply put our big point of contension is that you believe Anita was engaging in reasonable and healthy political discourse, I think she was a troll who was asking for it, the best (or worst) trolls are those who use the veneer of seeming reasonable when they are just after attention and spreading chaos. There has been enough information released about Anita during, and after, the meat of this incident that should make her motives rather apparent.

In the end you believe a person who was innocent of any wrongdoing was attacked. I believe a person who was causing trouble got trouble in return given a lack of any other way to try and shut her down. Either way it wound up backfiring and getting her a lot of attention, which was Jim's point.

If I agreed Anita was actually motivated by reasonable political discourse, and had a meaningful statement to make appropriatly, I might agree with you, I do not however feel this was the case. Her intention was to use non-existant gender issues to drive a wedge into gaming so she could feast on attention and E-fame. It's doubtful she even really believe the message she's trying to argue given the bits and pieces people have put up about her, which as others in this thread will point out kind of show her to be the worst kind of person.

Moonlight Butterfly:
A: ITS NOT A MALE SPACE gaming does not belong to the male sex by some divine right and yeah I'm a single person and as we all know YOU ARE NEVER THE ONLY ONE. how many people are there out there that are exactly like me. Am I some sort of unique fucking unicorn.

Of course it's not a male space. Men's space is not considered a thing worth having in western societies, for the most part. Compared to women's space which is inviolable and sacrosanct. I could name off places and organizations that would explicitly exclude me and in some cases be cheered for doing so because I have a penis and they are women's space. I bet you can't do the same for places from which you would be explicitly excluded for having a vagina (note that there is a difference between "doesn't cater to me" or even "makes me uncomfortable" and "explicitly excludes me" -- for example, if you say had a niece in the Girl Guides, you could be involved in many ways that a brother of yours could not. Heck for an example within gamer culture, there's a women-only party thrown before each PAX (East and Prime); yet if one were to start, say, a men-only LAN party there would be people lining up to declare how horrible and misogynist such a thing would be).

Moonlight Butterfly:
B: I'm not interested in your misogynistic propaganda video. Hypoagency doesn't exist AT ALL because gender roles are bullshit. By your logic voting would have been a 'solely male space that women are unfairly trying to push into' as well right? How about books hmm? Before a certain time the only people who had books in England were monks so by your logic no one else should be allowed books ever, just monks yeah?

I find it interesting that you don't see a difference in how men and women move into spaces that are previously dominated by the other gender. You typically see men working around the existing space (or giving up and going home), and women demanding the existing space be changed to better accomodate her. The former for fear of being branded all sorts of unpleasant things, the latter because she can expect the environment to bend at least a little to accomodate her. There's a distinction between this and voting -- were the women pushing to be allowed to vote also expecting the political process to change itself to better accomodate them, or merely that they not be explicitly excluded from it?

Tippy:
No shit? Women's life and safety has always been prioritized over men's life and safety. They are the most valued part of human race by the very virtue of being female lol.

Violence against women will always be cried out 10x louder than violence against men. "Think of the women and children!" people always say. Guess why?

I find that last bit particularly inetresting since some comparatively recent studies suggest that most partner violence is reciprocal, and that which isn't is a lot closer of a split than has been suggested in the past, yet we'll still frame intimate partner violence in the male as perpetrator/female as victim framing, to the point that services for such things specifically build themselves around serving women but not men. The 2011 Senate version VAWA reauth bill actually had language that forbade discrimination except along gender lines while retaining the language that required anything receiving funding to serve women -- if we're discriminating by gender but necessarily serving women, who are we saying right in the law that it's OK to discriminate against? Men are 80% of all suicides (unsurprising given that men both tend to pick more certain suicide methods, have weaker social support networks [itself a symptom of the social script that pushes men to work longer harder hours than women, which also account for a chunk of the gender pay gap], and are overwhelmingly harder hit by certain types of personal problems than women are), yet we target suicide prevention overwhelmingly at women. Prostate and breast cancers have similar rates of occurrence and similar prognoses, yet there is overwhelmingly more funding for reasearch and prevention of breast cancer, why is that again?

PlatonicRapist:
Wow Jim, you make Anita out to be Queen Troll. She has literally flamed the trolls and used their rage to launch her career and surfed to victory on it. I think there is a lesson in this for all of us.

It's not a new lesson, though she did perform a masterful execution of it. I just wish I were in an appropriate demographic to make use of this approach.

PlatonicRapist:
I don't think women make a valid contribution to gaming, at least they haven't much yet, and for the most part I find their opinions to be lightweight, counterproductive and snore-worthy.

Here's where I have to disagree with you. There are quite a few women in the industry, and they've certainly done they're share as far as they're numbers go. Also Rear Admiral Grace Hopper -- practically invented compilers as a concept, and accordingly dramatically increased the complexity of software that could reasonably be developed. Without her work, there would be no high-level programming languages, and our wonderful hobby would be a good 20 years behind where it is. Also had a destroyer named after her, and coined the term "debugging" for removing errors from software, in reference to one case being an actual literal bug caught in the hardware.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Well it's kind of hard to argue a point when you are trying to debate with someone who believes in non existent words. That's what the misogynist idea of hypoagency is at least that's what a reasonable, logical person sees it as, still doesn't mean it's a valid theory.

Hypoagency. Hypo is a standard prefix, and I think we can both agree agency is a word. The whole "not a word" argument is kinda bullshit, though the theory it describes may or may not be, I haven't really read much into it.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Women have as much right to influence games as men, to suggest otherwise is sexism pure and simple. Games do not belong to the male sex any more than books do.

So, were there long demands in which women tried to compel authors to write about women differently, or did they merely do a combination of voting with their wallets and actually writing some books themselves to show how it could be done better? Should we throw out the works of, say, H.P. Lovecraft for their rather prevalent racism (with an especial distaste for multiracial people or as he put it, those of "horribly mixed race" or "mongrels") and only slightly less explicit sexism? Or at least bar them (if not legally, then by pressuring publishers [a tactic that seems to work well for feminism -- getting a large enough group of people who mostly weren't customers anyways to stir shit until the target relents and does what they want]) from being rehashed or reprinted?

00slash00:
um...false. i consider myself a feminist and i dont want women to be superior. i have plenty of friends who consider themselves feminists who also want gender equality and dont want female superiority.

Now we're on the edge of something intersting. Define "equality."

Do you mean equal rights? Name a right women do not have that men do, aside from access to certain military roles (which I fully agree is wrong, and that any woman who can meet the same standards as the men should have every right to fight alonside them). Also, nothing that requires a specifically skewed framing for it to work, while another equally valid way of framing the issue removes the inequality or even renders men the ones who lack rights.

Do you mean equal opportunities? Name an opportunity than women lack that men have, and I'll have counterexamples that "gender equality" doesn't seem to consider as important because they slant the wrong way (hint, even when problems are similar in magnitude and severity, we have a habit of having "gendered" programs to fix it which almost always stack in favor of benefiting women).

Do you mean equal outcomes? I'm just going to disagree with you here. So long as opportunities are equal, why should we stack the results if some of those opportunities aren't taken advantage of as well?

00slash00:
if i were to go by the vocal majority, then i could conclude that all gamers are immature, racist, and sexist assholes. but thats not true and it would be extremely ignorant to assume that the views of an entire group are determined by those who talk the loudest

...bravo? No, really, this is something that does need said more often.

Rabidkitten:
There are almost 500 replies to this video.... SOO my point will get lost in the fray.

None the less, I just wanted to point out to Jim that does the same thing as the people he is addressing this video. He calls out EA, and bemoans big publishers on this very show week after week. He rambles on about how horrible big publishers all while showing off footage of their games, and dropping their name over and over and over again. EA blah blah blah (footage of cool game) EA blah blah blah (footage of cool game), and you wonder why the industry is in the state its in. STOP GIVING HUGE PUBLISHERS FREE ADVERTISING!! You hypocrite.

He never said people shouldn't complain about Anita, he said that they shouldn't be sending her hateful messages and threats as that just further proves her point and gives her ammunition for her arguments.

The equivalent would be Jim complaining about what a rip off Day One DLC is, and how it is a cancer upon gaming then going out and buying it. He'd be claiming that it was an issue, while giving them a justifiable reason to make it, i.e. it sells.

Therumancer:
-snip-

Regardless of whether Sarkeesian's actions were morally objectionable, the attacks were criminal. Criminal acts are unacceptable. You cannot compare something merely immoral with something clearly illegal. It is complete nonsense.

To imply that Sarkeesian's actions were reason enough for those attacks, would be to imply that the attackers lacked critical thought. If you believe the attackers are not fit to function freely in our society, they must be dealt with. This is much more important than the banal opinions of one person.

Rabidkitten:
There are almost 500 replies to this video.... SOO my point will get lost in the fray.

None the less, I just wanted to point out to Jim that does the same thing as the people he is addressing this video. He calls out EA, and bemoans big publishers on this very show week after week. He rambles on about how horrible big publishers all while showing off footage of their games, and dropping their name over and over and over again. EA blah blah blah (footage of cool game) EA blah blah blah (footage of cool game), and you wonder why the industry is in the state its in. STOP GIVING HUGE PUBLISHERS FREE ADVERTISING!! You hypocrite.

The difference between repeatedly critisizing a company for bad practices and threatening a human being with violence, rape and death is beyond words.

Revolutionaryloser:

Therumancer:
-snip-

Regardless of whether Sarkeesian's actions were morally objectionable, the attacks were criminal. Criminal acts are unacceptable. You cannot compare something merely immoral with something clearly illegal. It is complete nonsense.

To imply that Sarkeesian's actions were reason enough for those attacks, would be to imply that the attackers lacked critical thought. If you believe the attackers are not fit to function freely in our society, they must be dealt with. This is much more important than the banal opinions of one person.

I disagree in cases where the system does not present a viable recourse. In this case there isn't some kind of overreaching "Cyber Police" organization that's going to shut her down for trolling. There is no overreaching authority to which to appeal. When something like The Internet operates like "The Wild West" what you see is "Wild West Justice". Whether that's good or bad compared to an omnipresent big brother on the internet that stops things like this is a debate that goes well beyond the context of this discussion.

At the very most you can make an arguement that some authority should exist to stop her. After all if your going to argue that the trolls who went after her was wrong, she was equally wrong in inspiring them to do so. If your going to say one behavior was criminal, then so should the other one have been.... but again, your perspective is largely tainted by the idea that she did nothing wrong, which she did.

In real life Vigilantism is not as exciting as it is in movies and comic books, and typically involves petty things, but it DOES point out flaws within a system. After a point you have to decide whether you want big brother, or people to effectively police themselves, which can be a huge debate. Another aspect of it of course is when groups like Occupy Wall Street, or Anonymous go up against big businesses where laws might exist, but do so in such a way that they are impractical to use against the groups they are intended to police by their victims, in that case these actions draw attention to flaws within the system.

In a pefect world we wouldn't be having a discussion like this, but well... but in actual reality "Perfect World" only exists as an asian pay to play MMO company. :)

Therumancer:
-snip-

Your beliefs are outdated and naive. Thanks to the attacks, Sarkeesian now posseses more power than you could have possibly imagined. You reap what you sow, as we say.

Whatever you might want to believe, vigilantism as you put it is morally reprehensible and highly illegal. This is not a superhero comic. This is the real world and in the real world we deal with our problems as responsible adults, not as masked fascist bullies.

Jim Sterling is completely correct in his assesment. Had people that were against Sarkeesian just ignored her ignorant statements, her opinion would be worthless and she could have done no harm. If people had engaged with her in a rational and civilized manner, at the very worst bystanders would have taken from the conversation what they thought was of value, educating everyone involved.

You waste your time defending despicable acts that cannot be justified. This reflects poorly on you. You should look at yourself and fix your lack of moral fibre and dignity.

Tippy:

NightowlM:

Crono1973:
Here is something I have observed over my lifetime. Women complain about everything and the world changes to suit them, for good or for bad. I laugh when I see grown men allowing their priorities to be altered because TODAY women decided to scream about video games or movies or whatever. Politicians pander to women too because women complain about everything. The squeaky wheel gets the oil I guess.

Yeah. Women sure do COMPLAIN ABOUT EVERYTHING, and they get EVERYTHING they want to because people are pandering to them all the time. That's why almost everyone agrees that WOMEN ARE ON TOP, while the men never have things their way. TOTALLY BRO.

No shit? Women's life and safety has always been prioritized over men's life and safety. They are the most valued part of human race by the very virtue of being female lol.

Violence against women will always be cried out 10x louder than violence against men. "Think of the women and children!" people always say. Guess why?

I'm sorry what? I mean I'm assuming you saw that I was being insanely sarcastic there because if you couldn't then I guess I should have made it more obvious.

What kind of situation are you in where you always hear people shouting "think of the women and children?" I mean it's obvious why the safety of children is highly valued, at least I hope that that doesn't need a extensive explanation. But where are you getting that women's lives and safety is valued more than men's? Are you constantly taking cruises on ships and seeing people say "women and children first?" Because that's about the only case I can think of where women's lives and safety are prioritized over a man's.

If you're talking about the military, then you might have a tiny inkling of a point. The military is a highly sexist institution when women are not allowed to have the same roles as men and when there are such a high number of cases of sexual abuse against female members of the military. These roles (women stay home, men fight) have been with us for a while and are part of a patriarchal system that hurts both sexes. It's not like there's a conspiracy of women trying to get out of risking their lives for their country.

The only other thing I could think of is you're possibly thinking that men are pressured to put their lives and safety on the line to protect "the weaker sex." But really, I can't see a case in our current society where a man HAS to do this. People are expected to look after each other to at least a minimum degree, and there are always men and women who will step up in an emergency to save lives.

If none of that is what you were getting at, I just have to ask you one question. How can you say that women's safety is valued above men's when there is an active part of conservatives in this country who value the safety of the fetus(something that's not technically human or alive yet) over the safety of a mother who is very definitely alive and whose life should take priority if we in the US value human life at all.

Therumancer:

Therumancer:
--snip

You still don't understand? Rape threats when someone is complaining about sexism DOES NOT WORK.

Any, if you believe that wild west bullshit. you should congratulate for using 4chan's stupidity against it. Or possibly change your beliefs.

Oh and Occupy Wall Street was an epic fail because of the lack of thought and planning that went into it.

And Lulzsec, which started as a wannabe group of internet robin hoods, then they tried to destroy this forum because some people said they were idiots. Did it prove them wrong, or did it speed up the fbi catching them and having the leader sell his friends out?

You can't bully everyone into submission, sometimes you can get your way with it, but you'll never win the moral highground that way, and it should be obvious now.

If instead of having a bunch of cyber thugs rush her, 4chan had sent a horde of people to intelligently point out what she was doing wrong, you might have achieved something.

Do you wonder why Encylopedia Dramtica crumbled then came back in a small, weakened form that barely anyone cares about? Its because you can't really sustain a community with thuggery, and deep down most people don't want to support that kind of thing.

If you do believe the internet can be a perfect world, or closer to being a perfect world than our own, then your going to have to believe reason, not brutishness will win the day.

Edit: To further clarify, have you seen those forums and chartrooms where a small group takes control of it via the standard 4chan/ed troll methods? Even when it works, what do find tends to happen to such places? Do they become lively and interesting or do they wither away into next to nothing?

Schadrach:
SNIP

I have never heard of a con where men aren't welcome. So that point is kind of moot.

Again you are acting like gaming is a male space, it isn't so stop thinking that it is.

ITS NO MORE A MALE SPACE THAN BOOKS ARE and btw it used to be in about the 1800's that if a women wanted to publish a book then we had to publish it as a guy. That's right we had to 'unfairly push' into that 'male space' (HAHAHAHAHAHA. NO.) too right? That's what you think.

How can you not even know your history.

/facepalm.

I can't believe guys believe this bullshit seriously it's astonishing.

WOMEN ARE NOT A HIVEMIND WE DON'T ALL THINK TOGETHER LIKE A SWARM OF BEES.

It's like talking to creationists.

gardian06:
4chan

If she did she knows how to create publicity. If you're looking to get stung, what better way than to walk into a hornet's nest.

gardian06:
before anyone says it. just because she "supposedly" went to 4chan, or maybe someone who knee jerked at her video did (more likely).

doesn't mean that she deserved the stupidity that resulted.

it was the only video that she didn't block rating and screen all comments, then she spent an entire day botspaming 4chan. you cannot debate with her, because she just blocks you. there is no respectful dialog, because she will not hear it. she is the only reason we can only see hate and filth in the argument, because she blocks anyone who brings a reasonable argument, while picking the dumbest of the angry people to let pass, just so she can say "see? they are all like this!"

Moonlight Butterfly:
I can't believe guys believe this bullshit seriously it's astonishing.

WOMEN ARE NOT A HIVEMIND WE DON'T ALL THINK TOGETHER LIKE A SWARM OF BEES.

No, but women have been shown to have same group preference. i'm not backing up anything the above person said, but i think it is important to recognise that women do have a genetically hardwire predisposition for same group preference, in all things.

Revolutionaryloser:

matthew_lane:
-snip-

There is a document called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No matter what country you claim to be from, these basic rights and obligations apply to you. I am merely quoting facts.

/facepalm. Really, just quoting facts huh? Then you should have no problem quoting me the facts that show

A. Talking complete & utter bullshit is against the law.
B. Got exactly the reaction to set out to inspire from 4chan is against the law.
C. Is intellectually dishonest, by blocking anyone not singing her praises is against the law.

If not, you are still talking bullshit but categorising any one who is in opposition to her stance as breaking the law. Actually you know what, do me one better & actually quote the part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that you think people are breaking.

Because lets be honest, you've jumped across to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because i hosed your previous statement. So do it, quote the requisite information mate.

matthew_lane:

Moonlight Butterfly:
I can't believe guys believe this bullshit seriously it's astonishing.

WOMEN ARE NOT A HIVEMIND WE DON'T ALL THINK TOGETHER LIKE A SWARM OF BEES.

No, but women have been shown to have same group preference. i'm not backing up anything the above person said, but i think it is important to recognise that women do have a genetically hardwire predisposition for same group preference, in all things.

Stop pulling pseudo science out of thin air. None of that is true and you know it, I know it and the entire scientific community knows it.

Most of my friend are guys I have no close female friends :| EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT.

Just, no.

matthew_lane:

Moonlight Butterfly:
I can't believe guys believe this bullshit seriously it's astonishing.

WOMEN ARE NOT A HIVEMIND WE DON'T ALL THINK TOGETHER LIKE A SWARM OF BEES.

No, but women have been shown to have same group preference. i'm not backing up anything the above person said, but i think it is important to recognise that women do have a genetically hardwire predisposition for same group preference, in all things.

Here's a hint: using pseudo-science you heard second hand from the men's rights subreddit to back up your misogyny does not absolve you of being a bigot. Even if women were "genetically predisposed" to have a group preference any more so than men, for which there is no evidence, they are sentient beings with free will living in an advanced civilization and are more than capable of resisting their animalistic instincts. I cannot stress enough how terrible this thing you just said is. Fix this about yourself as soon as possible before you open your mouth in public and offend somebody you need on your good side.

[/quote]

Wandering_Hero:

You can't bully everyone into submission, sometimes you can get your way with it, but you'll never win the moral highground that way, and it should be obvious now.

Can't bully people? Moral highground! HA! I laugh at your comical naivete.

Morality is a pointless waste.

Andre Rapp:

gardian06:
before anyone says it. just because she "supposedly" went to 4chan, or maybe someone who knee jerked at her video did (more likely).

doesn't mean that she deserved the stupidity that resulted.

it was the only video that she didn't block rating and screen all comments, then she spent an entire day botspaming 4chan. you cannot debate with her, because she just blocks you. there is no respectful dialog, because she will not hear it. she is the only reason we can only see hate and filth in the argument, because she blocks anyone who brings a reasonable argument, while picking the dumbest of the angry people to let pass, just so she can say "see? they are all like this!"

the thing is because it was 4chan it is not even provable that she even did it. either it was her, someone claiming to be her, or just someone who was drawing attention to the thing, and then it just blew up.

here is a possible story: someone just passing through youtube saw a new video, and was "interested" in the title. that person watch said video, or a portion there of, and went to 4chan posting a few comments about it. that person claiming to be her (not even provable, and even then highly speculative considering how 4chan treats screen names) started spamming about it. result nerd rage at her

realistically this logic holds more merit then the whole she herself did it. for a few reasons:
1) she says she plays video games, so automatically she knows how to bot spam sounds like speculation beyond what many of the comments even claim.
2) harassing 4chan, flame posts are no where near what you should expect. if I did it I would more expect to be put on a terrorist watch list, or have my real identity stolen, or a lot worse shit then just "I am going to poke anonymous to get hate spam; cause that's the worst that will happen"
3) like I have said already identities cannot be proven on 4chan, and if someone claims to have X name does not mean that it is that person, and unless you can prove that her IP address was recorded, and completely traced to her static location that no one else could be using. then the argument is speculation at best, and must be deemed irreverent because it has no factual basis.

realistically even my argument must be thrown out on the same reason, and all we are left with is similar to what both Jim, and Bob have talked about 'an over the top knee jerk reaction that snowballed'

Bara_no_Hime:

maximara:
But look at the genre Halo was in--the military shooter. The only character that most people know from from that genre that is female is Samus Aran--whose treatment in Metroid over M has been picked over and flamed to the point it looks like the freaking Ghost Rider.

This is the problem when people quote my replies to other people - everything is long since out of context.

Yes, my original post way back up the thread was that I found DoA less upsetting than military shooters like Halo, Gears of War, CoD, etc. This person pointed out that Halo, at least, added in female soldiers later down the line, so I was conceding that Halo apparently corrected the problem after game 1 - making Halos 2+ less sexist than the average military shooter. Now if only they'd give me the ability to carry 8 guns at a time again... **misses Timesplitters**

Also, I have no idea what your point here is. Are you agreeing with me, saying that the military shooter genre has a sexism problem due to lack of female characters, or are you disagreeing with me and saying that "all military shooters are that way so it's okay"

It is funny that you mention context because THAT was my point. It is like all the people who want to ban classics like Huckleberry Finn because of its portray of blacks--they forget the time period it was written and set in.

Pick up any of the classic adventure stories of the late 19th and early 20th century and note how few women are in them and what few do exist are in very minor support roles. The Weena in the actual _Time Machine_ novel is VERY different from the one we have seen in movies--the Traveler regards her apparent death as one would a *pet* not a human being. Now when was the last time anyone called Wells' work misogynist, hmmm?

The original Starship Troopers had similar problems (Dizzy Flores was changed from male to female for the movie).

Another example of this insanity is with the whole Leprosy scene in 'The Pirates! Band Of Misfits'. As a general rule of thumb (barring clear evidence to the contrary ala Captain Harlock) pirate stories are set in a kind of idealized version of the Golden Age of Piracy (c1650-c1740) so any comments the game had to make about Leprosy should have been taken IN THAT CONTEXT.

Fluffles:
Yeah, obvious. Can't really tell all the morons to stop.
I just want the videos to come out so I can form some opinions on them.
Actually, I'm hoping they'll have some worth and not just be a shitty copy of the other videos she's made. Also, I want to hear real ways to stop it, because lots of it isn't even the consumer or developer's fault. It's the fucking publisher.

As I stated before the Game OverThinker brought this point up way back in "Mississippi Pwning 2" (E23)-the brass tax that encourages these tropes because most gamers are young white males.

The bottom line is like it or not gaming is a BUSINESS so as a rule of thumb *especially in difficult economic times* developer and publisher alike are going to look at what sales and THAT is what gets made.

Now throw in the fact that the "Video Games Come From Japan" problem with all -that- entails and you see why this is a quick trip to nowhere.

So you have the situation of what interests young white males is what sales and so that is what gets made all topped off with said games coming from a culture that to the average US game buyer might as well be on Mars.

The Game OverThinker touched on the two main type of strong female characters that show up in "I Heart Bayonetta" (E32) which he summed up as Chun-Li (little girl in a woman's body) and Cammy (frigid Ice Queen)

matthew_lane:
-snip-

If I wasn't shocked by your disgraceful level of ignorance, I would have found those absurd statements amusing. You should consider actually studying the law. It is your civic duty to do so. Lying is not a crime. Being wrong is not a crime. Ignoring people is not a crime. I am doubtful you understand what the meaning of the word crime is, perhaps you should start there.

All I am saying is that the attacks she sufered are unjustifiable. They are very, very serious crimes in our society. Defending unjustified crimes means confronting society, a very serious decision that carries grave repercussions on yourself and our social order. In comparison to those crimes, Sarkeesian's less than ideal social behaviour is trifling. You need to have a sense of scale.

blalien:
Here's a hint: using pseudo-science you heard second hand from the men's rights subreddit to back up your misogyny does not absolve you of being a bigot.

To be honest Blalien, i've never actually been on reddit, ever. I'm sure its a hive of mysogny like you imply, however female in-group preference, or self group preference has actually been tested & the tests peer reviewed & cited in other academic works.

I would suggest you read "Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men?" Its a great academic piece, that also references a whole heap of other articles, in its methodology.

Actually i'll do you a solid & link you to the abstract of the article at mendeley http://www.mendeley.com/research/gender-differences-automatic-group-bias-women-like-women-more-men-like-men/

An if you want to see other articles that this one references, there is a reference tag on the left... An i suppose if you want to order the entire study to read, you could aways jump onto worldcat to order a copy of it, but it DD is not exactly cheap.

Like i said, i wasn't agreeing with anything else that the person in question said & the idea that women are a hive mind is silly in the extreme, but we must recognise that women as a social group do infact have a hard wired same group interest. Its not on its own a bad thing, but it is a thing we should take into account in a discussion like this one.

Revolutionaryloser:

matthew_lane:
-snip-

If I wasn't shocked by your disgraceful level of ignorance, I would have found those absurd statements amusing. You should consider actually studying the law. It is your civic duty to do so. Lying is not a crime. Being wrong is not a crime. Ignoring people is not a crime. I am doubtful you understand what the meaning of the word crime is, perhaps you should start there.

So in other words, you have no way to justify your previous statements & seeing as how you have been bested, are now hoping to put your opponent on the defensive by making with the insults. Sorry mate, not going to work.

You made a positive assertion that & i quote

She was acting within her constitutional rights. Attempting to interfere with that is a crime.

To which i pointed out that its not constitutional at all, pointing out that:

People pointing out that A.S is
A. Talking complete & utter bullshit is not against the law.
B. Got exactly the reaction to set out to inspire from 4chan is not against the law.
C. Is intellectually dishonest, by blocking anyone not singing her praises is not against the law.

At this point you changed your story from its constitutional to & again i quote

There is a document called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No matter what country you claim to be from, these basic rights and obligations apply to you. I am merely quoting facts.

At which point i asked you to back up your previous statement & show what crimes people oppossing her point of view is, without first insinuating that anyone stopping her from talking shit was somehow committing a crime.

so far, you've failed to refute anything said... Heck at this point you've failed to even ATTEMPT to refute anything said. I can only assume its because you don't know what you are talking about. However, i'll be perfectly happy to have my mind changed if you want to actually supply me with these breaches of the law.

Edit: Qqouted wrong post

Machine Man 1992:

Can't bully people? Moral highground! HA! I laugh at your comical naivete.

Morality is a pointless waste.

Perhaps I am a bit naive, I perfer to think of my self as idealistic, but thing is, morality exists for an actual practical reason that isn't immediately obvious. Communities flourish and thrive when people live by then, and if you've been around the internet I'm sure you've seen what happens to the majority of communities that don't (even IF they survive they often end up becoming dull and stale, being just a bunch of people trying to show off their Epensies and prove how smart they are over the internet).

And like I alluded to, if your trying to make a point on the internet, often ethical methods will serve you much better, as while you can bully and scare some people off the internet, with others they'll be able to use such methods against you, simply by showing others what you did. If 4 chan had simply sent that many people to calmly show what she was doing wrong, you might possibly be rid of her now.

And remember Lulzsec? What did they end up achieving in the end? I think most people here will remember them for trying to destroy this forum after people questioned them, then having the leader of the group rat out his friends. They caused the FBI a minor annoyance, which merely gave the FBI motivation to take them down.

With annomyity and all people like to forget that actions still have consequences and they won't always be desirable for someone, even those who relish getting away with acting in a way that would get them punched in real life.

matthew_lane:
-snip-

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a1

The relevant articles would be numbers 5, 12, 18, 19, 20, 27 and 30.

Revolutionaryloser:

matthew_lane:
-snip-

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a1

The relevant articles would be numbers 5, 12, 18, 19, 20, 27 and 30.

Right so the question was

To which i pointed out that its not constitutional at all, pointing out that:

People pointing out that A.S is
A. Talking complete & utter bullshit is not against the law.
B. Got exactly the reaction to set out to inspire from 4chan is not against the law.
C. Is intellectually dishonest, by blocking anyone not singing her praises is not against the law.

at which point you've replied with the above sections of the universal decleration of human rights, as an answer: so lets take a look at them

NUMBER 5
•No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

NUMBER 12
•No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

NUMBER 18
•Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

NUMBER 19
•Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

NUMBER 20
•(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
•(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

NUMBER 27
•(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
•(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

NUMBER 30
•Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

An these are apparently your best arguments for why anyone pointing out that A.S is talking shit is apparently breaking the law.... Lets not even get into the fact that these "laws" is the U.N wish list & therefore not actually enforcable, pretty much ever. Lets stick with the fact that not one of those say that people disagreeing with Anita, or pointing out her intellectual dishonesty is in breach of any of these pretend laws.

So essentially you are in a pit of noob, with no way out.

matthew_lane:
-snip-

I insist you take back those slanderous accusations against me at once. I am outraged by your demented lies. I at no point demonstrated any objections against those who opposed Anita Sarkeesian's ideas. As a matter of fact, I am personally opposed to Anita Sarkeesian's ideas.

This discussion has at no point concerned whether Sarkeesian is correct or whether her detractors are. This discussion was about the threats of violence, sexual violation and murder Sarkeesian was subjected to. I have never claimed respectful conversation could not be manifested upon the subject of Sarkeesian's actions and opinions. However, comparing Sarkeesian's actions to the crimes commited against her is making a mockery of our moral codes, our social structures and our laws.

If you were mistaken with this absurd pressumption, I sugest you work on your reading comprehension until it is adequate, before you continue making a fool of your self here.

Moonlight Butterfly:

Schadrach:
SNIP

I have never heard of a con where men aren't welcome. So that point is kind of moot.

Again you are acting like gaming is a male space, it isn't so stop thinking that it is.

ITS NO MORE A MALE SPACE THAN BOOKS ARE and btw it used to be in about the 1800's that if a women wanted to publish a book then we had to publish it as a guy. That's right we had to 'unfairly push' into that 'male space' (HAHAHAHAHAHA. NO.) too right? That's what you think.

How can you not even know your history.

/facepalm.

I can't believe guys believe this bullshit seriously it's astonishing.

WOMEN ARE NOT A HIVEMIND WE DON'T ALL THINK TOGETHER LIKE A SWARM OF BEES.

It's like talking to creationists.

How about actually reading what someone says to you? He never said there are cons with no males allowed, he was referring to a convention where they host a certain event at that con that's only for the females.

No, gaming isn't a male space. It shouldn't be a female space either. It just needs to be a space for gamers in general.

You're right, you women aren't a hive mind. It would be nice if women like Anita would realize that instead of acting like she speaks for every woman. She doesn't even speak for every feminist.

maximara:
It is funny that you mention context because THAT was my point. It is like all the people who want to ban classics like Huckleberry Finn because of its portray of blacks--they forget the time period it was written and set in.

Pick up any of the classic adventure stories of the late 19th and early 20th century and note how few women are in them and what few do exist are in very minor support roles. The Weena in the actual _Time Machine_ novel is VERY different from the one we have seen in movies--the Traveler regards her apparent death as one would a *pet* not a human being. Now when was the last time anyone called Wells' work misogynist, hmmm?

The original Starship Troopers had similar problems (Dizzy Flores was changed from male to female for the movie).

Another example of this insanity is with the whole Leprosy scene in 'The Pirates! Band Of Misfits'. As a general rule of thumb (barring clear evidence to the contrary ala Captain Harlock) pirate stories are set in a kind of idealized version of the Golden Age of Piracy (c1650-c1740) so any comments the game had to make about Leprosy should have been taken IN THAT CONTEXT.

I entirely agree with you about the context of literature in the age it was written. Criticizing works for reflecting the culture they were written in makes no sense - literature is supposed to reflect the current culture (or critique it, or idealize it, etc - but whatever it is, it is always a mirror, distortions and all).

I still have no idea what any of this has to do with modern military shooters.

Modern military shooters are made - well - today. They have to function by our current standards - ie, today's sensibilities regarding gender, race, sexual preference, etc.

Notice I never called out any WW2 games. A lack of women characters is fine with me - that is to be expected in that era. On the other hand, if we were playing a crime game that took place in the US during WW2, then I would expect to see female factory workers - because they actually existed during that time - in the background if nothing else (that classic Rosie the Riveter poster, for instance).

And yes, I am holding video games to the same standards as literature. I expect modern literature and modern video games to reflect modern values.

Revolutionaryloser:
However, comparing Sarkeesian's actions to the crimes commited against her is making a mockery of our moral codes, our social structures and our laws.

No crime has been committed against her, but i'm impressed that you are trying to make her out to be some kind of victim. Trolls 4/chan, makes hundreds of thousands of tax free dollars, in exchange for getting other people to research things for her... I wish i could be so victimised.

matthew_lane:

Revolutionaryloser:
However, comparing Sarkeesian's actions to the crimes commited against her is making a mockery of our moral codes, our social structures and our laws.

No crime has been committed against her, but i'm impressed that you are trying to make her out to be some kind of victim. Trolls 4/chan, makes hundreds of thousands of tax free dollars, in exchange for getting other people to research things for her... I wish i could be so victimised.

In what part of Australia do you live? I need to know so I can just show you the article that states death threats and rape threats are punishable with prison sentence.

Okay I typed up a whole different long-ass thing I may or may not post but for now I just really wanna say:

Anita Sarkeesian was harassed and threatened and that is wrong and even if she did 'deserve it' (Victim shaming by the way nice way to perpetuate rape culture) it was wrong and disgusting and evil and it should never have happened because people are better than that.

EDIT: Whoops! So sorry I accidentally double posted.

This whole issue kinda reminds me of MLP. I bet if it wasn't for all those people having a go at the fans of the show it would have remained just another animation series.

Bara_no_Hime:

maximara:
It is funny that you mention context because THAT was my point. It is like all the people who want to ban classics like Huckleberry Finn because of its portray of blacks--they forget the time period it was written and set in.

Pick up any of the classic adventure stories of the late 19th and early 20th century and note how few women are in them and what few do exist are in very minor support roles. The Weena in the actual _Time Machine_ novel is VERY different from the one we have seen in movies--the Traveler regards her apparent death as one would a *pet* not a human being. Now when was the last time anyone called Wells' work misogynist, hmmm?

The original Starship Troopers had similar problems (Dizzy Flores was changed from male to female for the movie).

Another example of this insanity is with the whole Leprosy scene in 'The Pirates! Band Of Misfits'. As a general rule of thumb (barring clear evidence to the contrary ala Captain Harlock) pirate stories are set in a kind of idealized version of the Golden Age of Piracy (c1650-c1740) so any comments the game had to make about Leprosy should have been taken IN THAT CONTEXT.

I entirely agree with you about the context of literature in the age it was written. Criticizing works for reflecting the culture they were written in makes no sense - literature is supposed to reflect the current culture (or critique it, or idealize it, etc - but whatever it is, it is always a mirror, distortions and all).

I still have no idea what any of this has to do with modern military shooters.

Modern military shooters are made - well - today. They have to function by our current standards - ie, today's sensibilities regarding gender, race, sexual preference, etc.

Notice I never called out any WW2 games. A lack of women characters is fine with me - that is to be expected in that era. On the other hand, if we were playing a crime game that took place in the US during WW2, then I would expect to see female factory workers - because they actually existed during that time - in the background if nothing else (that classic Rosie the Riveter poster, for instance).

And yes, I am holding video games to the same standards as literature. I expect modern literature and modern video games to reflect modern values.

You mean like modern literature like Twilight which when you get right down to it is pulling from modern conservative values that seems to have stopped buying calendars around the time some guy named Jack was carving up women in a place called Whitechapel?
(see "Escape to the Movies: The Twilight Saga: Eclipse" for more on that)

As Moviebob sums up the message of the Twilight books are as follows:

1) Marry as early as possible.
2) Stalking is love
3) Virginity is the only real virtue

A sure formula for creating a whole generation of domestic abuse victims. Is *that* the kind of "modern" literature and "modern" values you are talking about?

The Twilight series started in 2005 and is written by a woman and yet it makes the treatment of Weena by the Traveler in the _Time Machine_ written over a century ago look "modern".

While we are on the issue of "modern" female writers making their female characters effectively manipulative neurotic idiots take a look at Anne McCaffrey's _Dragonflight_ (1968) in general and the character Lessa in particular.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 . . . 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
Register for a free account here