Jimquisition: Anita Sarkeesian - The Monster Gamers Created

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT
 

matthew_lane:

maximara:
I wouldn't go as far as saying it is intellectual dishonesty (ie intentional) but a combination of not doing any actual research and only seeing what you want to see.

Yep, she gets objective things wrong like 90% of the time, so one is led to believe that she is either ignorant on her prefered topic, or knows all about the topics she speaks on & are deliberately misrepresenting them: Ignorant or Liar, there is no third option.

Actually as shown by Horace Miner's bitingly satirical 1956 "Body Ritual Among the Nacirema" article there IS a third option--the theory driving the data rather than data driving theories. Miner showed that if you went in with the mindset of 'Oh these are primitive savages who still believe in magic who we are SO much better then' that *any* culture could be viewed in that light--even that of then modern 1950s United States.

matthew_lane:

maximara:
Reed and Sue Richards is about the only major married comic book couple I can think of where the couple has not been promptly dumped into comic book limbo not to be heard again for years, the partners have not separated or divorced, the partner hasn't been killed off for good, or the marriage hasn't been rectonned as never existing.

Personally i never thought much of there marriage, but to be fair i've always found the fantastic four astoundingly boring. Reeds obsession with working in his lab, Sue's dutiful wife & the homoerotic posturing between the Human Torch & The Thing (not that there is anything wrong with that), left me bored.

But you raise another point. For the brief time Superman and Lois were married was there anything really there about their relationship?

matthew_lane:

maximara:
We got a good taste of this in Earth-2 where after being introduced to Alan Scott's boyfriend we find out next issue that yep he's dead.

Less said about the reboot the better: Its been a balls up before even issue 1 of Justice LEague came out. DC seems to have jumped off the writing deep end & seemingly have forgotten how to write a solid narrative. Not that Marvel is any better with its Marvel Now project: Same disintering marvel shit, in a brand new disinteresting marvel wrapper.

I'm a huge comic book fan, but my comic pull list has been sitting at zero comics for a few months now.

I agree through for different reasons. DC's reboot seems to take all the mess of the Post-Crisis reboot and revel in it. You even have the titles that didn't really reboot only this time instead of Legion of Superheroes it is Green Lantern and Batman. Does DC really expect this not to end badly?

As for Marvel...well Marvel's excuse for continuity give me more of a headache then tryign to make head or tales out of the pre-Zero Hour Hawkman and LSH continuity.

Bara_no_Hime:

maximara:
There are formulas that people generally don't think twice about using but they come with a lot of baggage.

**blinks**

What the hell did that have to do with anything I said in my previous post?

I explained that in the part you happily did NOT quote. Here it is again:

IMHO the term "Misogyny" is thrown around way too much; what we really have is much the same thing as with race that the Overthinker pointed out in _Mississippi Pwing 2_ (E23).

A good example of this for fascism can be found in _The Iron Dream_ (1972) by Norman Spinrad. The novel shows the dark side of Joseph Campbell's _Hero with a Thousand Faces_ and much of science fiction and fantasy literature. Here is a tried and true formula that when you really sit down and look at it has some REALLY dark undercurrents.

For example look at _Triple Detente_ (1974) by Piers Anthony where "undesirables" and "unproductive members of society" are exterminated wholesale. Even Star Trek's "The needs of the many (ie the State) out way the needs of the few (ie minorities) or the one (ie you)" has a dark undercurrent when seen through the _The Iron Dream_ prism. In TNG the Prime Directive took a disturbingly dark tone to the point it could be argued it was turned into an Darwinist abomination--'Didn't invent space travel and you are all dying? Well sucks to be you. Next planet.'

But as Sigmund Freud said "a cigar is sometimes just a cigar" and you can overdue it.

For example, using the _The Iron Dream_ prism you can argue that Sailor Moon is pro-Nazi. Think about it: you have a *blond blue eyed* girl coming into possession of a artifact from a long gone civilization (read Atlantis) who fights enemies that drain the vitality from people. Later one it is revealed that she will become Queen of the entire world having *ruled it for a thousand years* and using her power via the long gone civilization to "Cleanse" people of their evil (ie destroy their free will) and anyone who resists this "Cleansing" is sent to the tenth planet of the solar system Nemesis (ie Concentration camp). Furthermore as Neo Queen Serenity Sailor Moon never has anyone keep tabs on the exiles sent to Nemesis which doesn't make sense...unless one assumes there would be no exiles to keep track of (Nemesis now takes on the air of a Extermination camp).

Did Takeuchi Naoko intend these kind of messages? Highly unlikely but you can pull them out none the less but is that the fault of the author or a formula that has "built-in" messages?

DracoSuave:

Andre Rapp:

DracoSuave:

So what?

So what?

Now you're spreading bullshit.

This is fucking 4chan. You know who has the most motivation to spam 4chan and do dumb shit like this? 4channers. I mean seriously, it's troll central. And you believe, in all honesty, that the most likely person to do any sort of trolling on 4chan is NOT a 4channer? Really?

Oh, and it gets blamed on this woman by naive people? And that's ALSO not intended by these same trolls? Really?!

If you were any more naive I'd ask to see your birth certificate to see if you were born yesterday.

Either that or you think everyone else is that naive and frankly, that's insulting.

Present some, please.

so the defense for the arguments i just refuted are "so what?"
now you're embarrassing yourself. nobody outside her little circle-jerk knew who she was or cared before the spamming on /v/, and continuing to confirm you're total ignorance of the subject is not helping your argument.

When your argument is 'She probably has the technical skills to do it' and 'people on /v/ will react if they think it's her whether she did it or not', yeah 'So what' is the appropriate response, cause the first isn't evidence, just a statement of capability, and the second isn't evidence, it's an admission that /v/ doesn't care about evidence.

So far you have 'Some anonymous troll made it look like her' which when you're dealing with 4chan must be taken with a grain of salt.

'Hey I'm Anita blah blah blah' Bitch please. It's 4chan. What's more likely... she said some feminist stuff to her peer group and some anon trolled 4chan pretended to be her and successfully trolled some butthurt channers into going after her...

...or she made a dedicated attack against 4chan instead of going after a target that, in the grand scheme of things, actually matters?

Naive.

no, your argument was "she does not have the knowledge" and "the reaction was not what would be expected" i refuted both of those and the response was "so what?"
if you don't see the flaw in that then i really can't help you.
as for the "what is more likely" argument. it is more likely that she did do it, because it was a persistent effort over a long period of time. now i can only assume you have never even seen the site, let alone know who actually posts there, but some random person posting spam all day to put hate on somebody is not something that happens. what "other target" is there? 4chan has the perfect reputation and its so easy to post all she needed was a proxy to avoid a ban. she could have gone to any other site and would just get banned after the first few spam posts, and would need to make a new account. /v/ has the traffic, and the ease of posting to make it the perfect spot to fish for some controversy.

I just also realized on other thing. She yells out about the video game community but is never specific about the offending party. Her own argument about how the video game community is "sexist" is in itself a strawman because she isn't willing to actually name names of clans, guilds that have actually demonstrated that they are a community.

EDIT: Also aren't you guys all glad we are having this conversation now?

maximara:
I explained that in the part you happily did NOT quote. Here it is again.

I didn't quote it because it had NOTHING TO DO with what we were talking about.

Lovely, you think the term misogyny is overused. It probably is. However, it is not overused or misused in Twilight.

You then went on to give a bunch of very irrelevant examples.

You could accused Naoko of being a Nazi... but only by looking at the most surface details of her work. An critical analysis of her work shows it to be pro-feminist - clumsly feminist, but still feminist. She casts women in the classic hero roles and uses items of female power (jewelry, mirrors (ala Venus), etc) as weapons rather than phalluses (swords, etc). She screws up her own metaphors as often as not, hence the clumsy comment.

You have to work VERY hard to make it about Nazis. You also have the miss the point so badly you're shooting in the opposite direction.

So yes, it is possible to over-interpret.

So what?

Are you accusing me of over interpreting? If so, then say so, stop beating around the bush.

If not, then what was the point? You felt like pointing out that over interpreting is possible? Congrats - irrelevant point achieved.

This is why you're beginning to frustrate me - you keep stating true things that have nothing to do with what we're talking about. If they are connected, you are failing to connect them.

If you were in one of my argumentative writing classes, I would tell you the same, while giving you a C+ - you have some good arguments, but they are not connected to any central thesis (or if they are, you haven't explained those connections to your reader).

Tenmar:
I just also realized on other thing. She yells out about the video game community but is never specific about the offending party. Her own argument about how the video game community is "sexist" is in itself a strawman because she isn't willing to actually name names of clans, guilds that have actually demonstrated that they are a community.

EDIT: Also aren't you guys all glad we are having this conversation now?

You could have bothered looking up community in a dictionary before posting.

Once again Jim tells it like it is. *thumbs up*

Y'know I've never really cared much about gender issues in games, except when some truly egregious examples come along. I shall continue to enjoy my games and not to really care about them.

As for Anita, good work Girl, she makes some good points and as of now in terms of high moral ground is standing on Everest with Hillary and Tensing looking down at the Sea of Outraged Trolls.

http://i.imgur.com/e4RgW.jpg

Here is a link to the infamous Backer's forum page where a lot of this new controversy stem's. Note the post of Michael (the man who is responsible for the Wacky Sarkeesian forum post here on this site). He fully admits to trolling and engineering the negative backlash she is getting now. However you feel about the content of Tropes Vs. Women I want you to be aware that this person has been trying to fool and manipulate you. The gaming public, the backers of this Kickstarter, and Sarkeesian deserve better.

Bara_no_Hime:

maximara:
I explained that in the part you happily did NOT quote. Here it is again.

I didn't quote it because it had NOTHING TO DO with what we were talking about.

Lovely, you think the term misogyny is overused. It probably is. However, it is not overused or misused in Twilight.

It has EVERYTHING to do with what WE are talking about.

"Misogyny: (noun [mass noun] the hatred of women" (Oxford online Dictionary)

I hardly think Stephenie Meyer has self hatred which is what you get if you apply the term to her books.

As I said before, IMHO what we really have is much the same thing as with race that the Overthinker pointed out in _Mississippi Pwing 2_ (E23). Misogyny like racism is a product *of the conscious mind* but what is going on in Stephenie Meyer's books is NOT Misogyny anymore than what was going on in the Resident Evil 5 games was racism---it is something far deeper and therefor far WORSE.

maximara:
It has EVERYTHIGN to do with what WE are talking about and here it is again:

Mindlessly repeating a post I've read twice before is both insulting to me and spam in the thread. You have derailed this conversation - I am done with you.

Reported and Ignored.

Bara_no_Hime:

maximara:
It has EVERYTHIGN to do with what WE are talking about and here it is again:

Mindlessly repeating a post I've read twice before is both insulting to me and spam in the thread. You have derailed this conversation - I am done with you.

Reported and Ignored.

The old I can't really argue the actual point so I throw up nonsense ploy; Sorry i just got through with that nonsense over on Randi's forum and am not in the mood for it here.

"Misogyny: (noun [mass noun] the hatred of women" (Oxford online Dictionary)

Stephenie Meyer is a woman and yet you claim Twilight is Misogynist. So Stephenie Meyer has self hatred?!? Uhhh, how does *that* work?!?

As I tried to point out with the Overthinker _Mississippi Pwing 2_ (E23) and Norman Spinrad's _Iron Dream_ examples what you *really* have with Stephenie Meyer (and by analogy gaming) is NOT misogyny but as the Overthinker pointed out regarding racism symptomatic of something far far WORSE and therefore far harder to correct.

Norman Spinrad's _Iron Dream_ explored not only the inherent fascist tone in Joseph Campbell's _Hero with a Thousand Faces_ but the "misogynist" tone there too. As Ursula K. Le Guin pointed out in a review of the book there are no women in it at all. In fact by the end the need of women even as a means of reproduction is eliminated as humanity is turned into a clone race.

_Hero with a Thousand Faces_ is a good go to for games but it comes with some really nasty baggage.

Andre Rapp:
some random person posting spam all day to put hate on somebody is not something that happens

This, about 4chan.

It's fucking 4chan! The asshole of the internet. Spamming all day to put hate on somebody is what they do. That's how they earned their reputation.

tyriless:
http://i.imgur.com/e4RgW.jpg

Here is a link to the infamous Backer's forum page where a lot of this new controversy stem's. Note the post of Michael (the man who is responsible for the Wacky Sarkeesian forum post here on this site). He fully admits to trolling and engineering the negative backlash she is getting now. However you feel about the content of Tropes Vs. Women I want you to be aware that this person has been trying to fool and manipulate you. The gaming public, the backers of this Kickstarter, and Sarkeesian deserve better.

As I pointed out before in "The Big Picture: Tropes vs. MovieBob thread" thread those that belief there is a problem in gaming regarding the depiction of women in games deserve better then Sarkeesian.

As I said way back then

Yes there is a problem but this is not the person you want to bring up the issue because you _know_ the research is going to be so bad-one sided that everybody with sense will dismiss it as "feminist strawmen argument BS" and it will do the same amount of damage to the movement as the extremists who wanted 'policeman' turned into 'policeperson' and other totally off the wall nonsense.

Regarding the whole Other M Samus fiasco as it is now often cited of what is wrong with women portray in games, Extra Credit did a good video as to what most likely went wrong there.

In a nutshell it was Too Many Cooks meets Bad Writing 101 topped off with Samus' lines being delivered by what Yahtzee described as "a voice actress who has undergone several amateur lobotomies." I think only Link got worst treatment and that was in an animated show. (Excuse me, Princess. Ugh.)

Before the whole 'but I agree with some of her points' issue is raised let me grace you with a quote:

"We have faith in the rights of our people, the rights which have existed time out of mind. We protest against the view that every other nation should have rights - and we have none. We must learn to make our own this blind faith in the rights of our people, in the necessity of devoting ourselves to the service of these rights; we must make our own the faith that gradually victory must be granted us if only we are fanatical enough. And from this love and from this faith there emerges for us the idea of hope."

Those sound like ideas that a lot of modern people would agree with, yes?

Now here is the sting in the tail as it were--those words were spoken in Munich on May 1, 1923 by none other than Adolf Hitler!

Here the messenger is a important as the message--the message may be good but take a careful look at the messenger giving you that message. Is the *entire package* good or are the good parts used to couch something you don't agree with and if made separately you would violent disagree with?

I have this nagging suspicion that this publicity will backfire not on the gaming community but on those who want change because if Sarkeesian holds true to form her future videos will have the same poor research to the point did she do research feeling her previous ones have had and then they will be ripped to shreds.

There really should be a mathematical formula that describes the degradation of threads wherein people discuss their opinions into rant-filled back and forth skullfuckery.
If only I didn't fail so hard at mathematics.

Trilligan:

Andre Rapp:
some random person posting spam all day to put hate on somebody is not something that happens

This, about 4chan.

It's fucking 4chan! The asshole of the internet. Spamming all day to put hate on somebody is what they do. That's how they earned their reputation.

I thought that was the reputation of X-box Live (grins).

maximara:

I thought that was the reputation of X-box Live (grins).

Nah, that's where they go when they've been kicked out of 4chan. :P

maximara:
[quote="tyriless" post="6.387779.15542955"]http://i.imgur.com/e4RgW.jpg

"We have faith in the rights of our people, the rights which have existed time out of mind. We protest against the view that every other nation should have rights - and we have none. We must learn to make our own this blind faith in the rights of our people, in the necessity of devoting ourselves to the service of these rights; we must make our own the faith that gradually victory must be granted us if only we are fanatical enough. And from this love and from this faith there emerges for us the idea of hope."

Those sound like ideas that a lot of modern people would agree with, yes?

Now here is the sting in the tail as it were--those words were spoken in Munich on May 1, 1923 by none other than Adolf Hitler!

Here the messenger is a important as the message--the message may be good but take a careful look at the messenger giving you that message. Is the *entire package* good or are the good parts used to couch something you don't agree with and if made separately you would violent disagree with?

I'm not sure if your post being a reply to my post was a mistake or not, but I will responds anyways.

You are actually using Adolf Hitler, to make your point. Really? The guy who put in effect the massacre of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and tried to grind the entire world under his boot. The man who made the terrible word "holocaust" part of our modern vocabulary. This is a low I rarely see in my daily trip through the internet.

You couldn't site somebody else that uses grains of truths to further their own agenda? If you did you wouldn't of made your entire post one of the most ridiculous things I read on a forum full of trolls.

maximara:
Actually as shown by Horace Miner's bitingly satirical 1956 "Body Ritual Among the Nacirema" article there IS a third option--the theory driving the data rather than data driving theories. Miner showed that if you went in with the mindset of 'Oh these are primitive savages who still believe in magic who we are SO much better then' that *any* culture could be viewed in that light--even that of then modern 1950s United States.

Thats just a nicer way of saying ignorance, so i stand by my previous statement. If i were to get a creationist to come along & tell us that evolution is wrong because there is no such thing as a crocoduck, that doesn't indicate knowledge, it indicates willfull, directed ignorance on the topic of evolution: Same holds true here

tyriless:

maximara:
[quote="tyriless" post="6.387779.15542955"]http://i.imgur.com/e4RgW.jpg

"We have faith in the rights of our people, the rights which have existed time out of mind. We protest against the view that every other nation should have rights - and we have none. We must learn to make our own this blind faith in the rights of our people, in the necessity of devoting ourselves to the service of these rights; we must make our own the faith that gradually victory must be granted us if only we are fanatical enough. And from this love and from this faith there emerges for us the idea of hope."

Those sound like ideas that a lot of modern people would agree with, yes?

Now here is the sting in the tail as it were--those words were spoken in Munich on May 1, 1923 by none other than Adolf Hitler!

Here the messenger is a important as the message--the message may be good but take a careful look at the messenger giving you that message. Is the *entire package* good or are the good parts used to couch something you don't agree with and if made separately you would violent disagree with?

I'm not sure if your post being a reply to my post was a mistake or not, but I will responds anyways.

You are actually using Adolf Hitler, to make your point. Really? The guy who put in effect the massacre of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and tried to grind the entire world under his boot. The man who made the terrible word "holocaust" part of our modern vocabulary. This is a low I rarely see in my daily trip through the internet.

You couldn't site somebody else that uses grains of truths to further their own agenda? If you did you wouldn't of made your entire post one of the most ridiculous things I read on a forum full of trolls.

Why site Hitler? Because most of the other go tos he was the most "successful" (if that is the right word to use) with plenty of easily findable quotes.

Joseph McCarthy? A joke in terms of quotes.

Father Charles Edward Coughlin? Like who other then historians even remembers him?

Also as demonstrated by Norman Spinrad's _The Iron Dream_ Hitler was tapping into something primal. It is frightening how well Hitler's ideology fits into Joseph Campbell's _The Hero with a Thousand Faces_ or into much of science fiction-fantasy (including games).

Take the whole "Metroid II: Return of Samus" plot for example--we are talking attempted xenocide here, people. Ironically there was a book about xenocide some five years earlier called _Ender's Game_ and IMHO it handled the issue more tastefully--at least Ender Wiggins has enough sense not the turn the Queen that survived over to the scientific guys to play with as Samus does with her Metroid hatchling.

matthew_lane:

maximara:
Actually as shown by Horace Miner's bitingly satirical 1956 "Body Ritual Among the Nacirema" article there IS a third option--the theory driving the data rather than data driving theories. Miner showed that if you went in with the mindset of 'Oh these are primitive savages who still believe in magic who we are SO much better then' that *any* culture could be viewed in that light--even that of then modern 1950s United States.

Thats just a nicer way of saying ignorance, so i stand by my previous statement. If i were to get a creationist to come along & tell us that evolution is wrong because there is no such thing as a crocoduck, that doesn't indicate knowledge, it indicates willfull, directed ignorance on the topic of evolution: Same holds true here

Actually Horace Miner's bitingly satirical 1956 "Body Ritual Among the Nacirema" article was an example of having such strong views you cannot see the evidence.

James Burke does a better job explaining this in the "Worlds Without End" episode of _The Day the Universe Changed_. One of the reasons the Piltdown Hoax lasted as long as it did was it so well fit the accepted model of the time--even though in 1923 scientist Franz Weidenreich spotted the hoax.

Some other examples:

Continental drift - proposed by Abraham Ortelius in 1596; accepted in 1958. In fact Scheidigger (1953), "Examination of the physics of theories of orogenesis", GSA Bulletin 64: 127-150 was the last formal rejection of the theory. In Carey, S. W. (1958), "The tectonic approach to continental drift", in Carey, S. W., Continental Drift-A symposium, Univ. of Tasmania, pp. 177-355 the scientific community finally got with the program.

The existence of Troy - proved by Schliemann who was a total amateur in archaeology Later professionals have complained about the quality of his work equating it more to treasure hunting then true archaeology.

Heliocentrism - proposed by Philolaus (d. c390 BCE); accepted as a "mathematical convenience" by the Catholic Church during the Council of Trent (1545-1563) but when Galileo Galilei proved it in 1600 things promptly went pear shaped and the Catholic Church didn't accept heliocentrism as a reality until 1835.

The Norse colonization of the Americas - known nearly from the beginning through the "Eirik the Red's Saga" and the "Saga of the Greenlanders" both written about three centuries after the events happened. Dismissed largely because the experts saw it as harkening to the Imperial Synthesis Era of the 19th century. Finally accepted in the 1970s.

Big Bang theory; suggested or implied by John Philoponus (6th century), Abu Yūsuf Yaʻqūb ibn ʼIsḥāq aṣ-Ṣabbāḥ al-Kindī (9th century); Saʻadiah ben Yosef Gaon (9th to 10th century) Abū Ḥāmed Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī (11th to 12th century) and Immanuel Kant (19th century); dismissed as crackpot as late as 1963!

As Carl Sagan said in the "Blues for a Red Planet" episode of _Cosmos_ "There is no doubt that the Mars canals of Percival Lowell were of intelligent origin. The only question is which side of the telescope the intelligence was on. Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves."

Nope, Sarkeesian and her gang have been making money off their feminism drive for ages gaming just became the new horse to beat, much like it did with Fox News a few years ago.

maximara:
snip

You are using far too many words. I can boil the entirety of your argument down to 3.

"Consider the source."

The source, in this case, is a casual gamer girl who has a background in feminist theory and gender studies. We all know this.

So what are you trying to say with all these comparisons to Hitler and references of old books few people on this forum will have read? Why do you feel the need to aggrandize Sarkeesian's known feminist background in such a way? Do you feel it makes her a more believable villain or something? What does your argument profit from all this obfuscation?

Trilligan:

You don't see the problem with the proliferation of media that is meant to entertain one group of the population through the degradation, dehumanization, objectification or mockery of another group within that population?

Are you okay with 'blackface,' for instance? The caricature of African Americans or native African cultures as sub-human and inferior to white people?

What you describe relates to a lot of comedy. I have seen blackface used both played straight and as subverted in comedy. So long as no group is protected from it, I don't find as much fault as others would just in the use in and of itself. That is not to say I enjoy that or would pay for the media, merely I wouldn't refuse the creation of it. In a less drastic example of the mindset, even if I find the tropes of "hero rescues princess" a little tiring, I wouldn't say it should be done less just for the sake of doing it less. There are many reasons and motivations behind choices of tropes and the like, I dislike the idea of limiting the options because of the proximity some options have to assholes with more vile intent

Trilligan:

I find the weight of assholes in this particular debate use misogynistic terms and attack women who have an opinion, rather than the other way around.

And I find it just wrong to discuss the issue as one of "sides" like this where people would rather win petty worthless moral facades then actually talk about the issues. I can be guilty of it myself, sorto f human nature, but still, we have to stop it where we see it. If I was the only man on this side of the deabte being civil and the rest were a pack of monkeys, it would not reduce the value or strength of my opinion. Just like how superior numbers do not mean a better argument, so to does decreased numbers not mean a weaker on. Given everyone in this thread has been relatively civil in the discussion, I think it is safe to say it is possible to have the discussion. Just because one side has a more prominent vocal minority of assholes, or hell, maybe even a majority, it doesn't give a damn shred of justification in trying to use that against the arguments of individuals being civil in the discussion.
Hell, I would go one step beyond even. If the argument was coming from zombie Hitler himself, it would not matter who the hell he was if he made arguments that were sound and valid. So long as the premise is true and the rationality sound, it should not matter who is making the argument. Probably the strongest support for anonymity is within its ability to enforce that better then face to face discussions.

Trilligan:

A certain amount of 'lumping together' is going to occur when your argument borrows rhetoric from the assholes. Rhetoric that calls Sarkeesian a troll, for instance, simply because she has the gall to be critical about sexist portrayals of women.

Yes, and you will have both some murderers and rapists agreeing that evolution isn't real alongside the most saintly creationist. It simply does not matter to the discussion the morality of people who happen to share the same opinions, even if you could actually demonstrate it was those opinions motivating their actions in the first place. I've called her a troll myself and I spent several paragraphs explaining why. You do not get to dismiss my arguments because some jack-off happened to say the same thing and you disliked how he acted. That is logical fallacy.

Trilligan:

Again, when you borrow your argument from the worst your side of the debate has to offer you're going to be doing harm to your own position.

No. I did not "borrow" my argument, I came to it myself. You can't present this like some great war where whoever agrees with me is an ally who I am to be judged by. That is bullshit. This is why I specifically mentioned I don't hold all feminist accountable for the behaviors of the nutters, because it is just wrong.
Trying to paint my argument in a broad brush based on their actions though, yeah, that really will do harm to your argument as it undercuts any logic within it. In a discussion, every person is a little different, no one should be judged by the actions of those who share some of their opinions. We don't allow that when christian nutters go off on shooting sprees, for much the same reason. It is judging the group by the actions of a portion and it is just dishonest to present the most unfavorable portion as though they represent anyone else besides themselves.

Also, when did I single you out as having any particular opinion at all? I don't recall quoting you.

You didn't, but you did use a generalization that scoped me and a lot of others in when you mentioned those who criticized Anita (of which I am). Problem is, you are combining the trait of criticizing her with the trait of being a trolly douche-bag, but they are not mutually exclusive or even fairly correlative.

Trilligan:

Telling someone you disagree with that their argument is worthless is not at all conducive to any form of constructive debate.

It is when you take the time to tear it apart and show exactly how it is worthless. Kinda like what a lot of people do in criticizing her. I'm sorry, some arguments ARE worthless, and if you can demonstrate how they are a series of logical fallacies and fabrications, then you can make a compelling case of the utter worthlessness of that argument.

Trilligan:

Calling me a troll isn't conducive to any form of constructive debate, either. I need no justifications to have an opinion, nor should I feel the need for justification to call attention to people when they forego debate and instead turn a discussion into a lot of pointless, nonsensical bickering.

If you aren't doing that, then I must not be talking about you. Why presume I am?

Again, if an argument can be shown to be lacking in any logical merit or factuality, dismissing it is not out of the question. And as I have posted, much of what you said is based in logical flaw. You don't need justification for opinion, but your arguments to support that opinion still have to follow the rules. If you just want to say it is your opinion, fine. But that wont mean anything if you can't support it.
As for why I presume, being that you made a statement concerning those who criticize Anita, and I fall into that category. And possibly anti-feminists, which, depending the definition of feminism someone wants to use, I have fallen into as a category as well. You present it as though those that criticism her "occupy an indefensible position" of which I do feel is just outright false statement, and that in turn leads to them having to try to "defend it by being belligerent and turning the debate into an ad hominem slugfest", something my pages after pages of calm rationed discussion and debate takes umbrage with.
Though even if it was not directed at me in any way or shape, and could not relate to me at all, I would STILL call it out for being logically lacking and damn near dishonest in its emotional appeal tied in an argument from morality.

Andre Rapp:
no, your argument was "she does not have the knowledge" and "the reaction was not what would be expected" i refuted both of those and the response was "so what?"
if you don't see the flaw in that then i really can't help you.

You should play closer attention to who you were rebutting and who you're responding to now.

runic knight:
I dislike the idea of limiting the options because of the proximity some options have to assholes with more vile intent

It's not about 'proximity' it's about proliferation. Its reinforcement and perpetuation of the attitudes that inform and reinforce those assholes' vile intent. Every depiction of a black person as ignorant, uneducated and inferior to a white person subtly reaffirms the racism of a racist, just as every depiction of a woman as a vapid sex object who exists only because of or to benefit a man reaffirms the inherent misogyny of a misogynist.

runic knight:

And I find it just wrong to discuss the issue as one of "sides" like this where people would rather win petty worthless moral facades then actually talk about the issues.

And yet somehow painting the entirety of the opposing argument as a 'worthless moral facade' isn't petty?

runic knight:
Just because one side has a more prominent vocal minority of assholes, or hell, maybe even a majority, it doesn't give a damn shred of justification in trying to use that against the arguments of individuals being civil in the discussion.

And please point me to where I criticized anyone who was behaving civilly?

runic knight:
I've called her a troll myself and I spent several paragraphs explaining why.

If you called her a troll then you are either - A) being intellectually dishonest or B) entirely ignorant of what a troll is.

Key to the notion of trolling is the concept of insincerity. A troll is in it for the lulz, after all. There is exactly zero evidence to show that Sarkeesian is anything but totally sincere. Adequate evidence or not, she believes her rhetoric, wholly and completely - and as such, she cannot possibly be a troll.

runic knight:
No. I did not "borrow" my argument, I came to it myself. You can't present this like some great war where whoever agrees with me is an ally who I am to be judged by. That is bullshit. This is why I specifically mentioned I don't hold all feminist accountable for the behaviors of the nutters, because it is just wrong.

Are you trying to say that the concept of 'guilt by association' does not exist? Or are you trying to say that pointing out that 'guilt by association' exists is somehow illogical?

If your argument shares rhetoric with that of trolls and assholes, then you're going to look like a troll and an asshole by association. Maybe that's not fair, but that's how people are. That was the entire point of Jimothy's video, if you recall.

The point of my statement being - watch your language, lest someone mistake you for the real thing.

In general terms, of course. Apparently that bears saying, because you keep confusing the generalized pronoun with its direct counterpart for some reason.

runic knight:

You didn't, but you did use a generalization that scoped me and a lot of others in when you mentioned those who criticized Anita (of which I am). Problem is, you are combining the trait of criticizing her with the trait of being a trolly douche-bag, but they are not mutually exclusive or even fairly correlative.

Well, you'd have a point - except you're criticizing her for a series of videos she hasn't even made yet, constructing an argument about how terrible her points are without having heard a single one of them, nor any of the evidence she's gathered. You're building an entire argument off of random conjecture and passing it off as well reasoned fact - and that strikes me as a little trolly and a little douchebaggy, to be perfectly honest.

runic knight:
It is when you take the time to tear it apart and show exactly how it is worthless. Kinda like what a lot of people do in criticizing her. I'm sorry, some arguments ARE worthless, and if you can demonstrate how they are a series of logical fallacies and fabrications, then you can make a compelling case of the utter worthlessness of that argument.

Except, as I said above - you and those on your side are tearing apart an argument that doesn't exist in the public space yet. You've called her worthless without having heard what she had to say. You're passing off your prejudice as fact and that's logically wrong and intellectually dishonest.

runic knight:
Again, if an argument can be shown to be lacking in any logical merit or factuality, dismissing it is not out of the question.

Oh good. I guess that means I can dismiss your argument. *dismissed*

We're done here.

I realise I did get a bit overly emotional, but tldr version I say I've seen the 4chan methadolgy, and I know its not good for the internet to have people who feel they can act that way and get what they want.

*ranty explanation of the above, skip if you want*
blight and destroy places I like, with the trolls just walking away not caring about the place they have ruined or forced into stagnation, so to see them do something disgusting like casually trying to control someone with rape threats and have it SPECTACULARLY blow in their faces makes me happy. And I've seen trolls justify their bullshit with Darwinist ethics crap, so since Anita beat the trolls at their own game, shouldn't they be happy? Or are the Darwiniist ethics only meant to be applied to other people? No matter how much tough crap they talk, they don't seem to take defeat well.
*End rant*

And the other thing is, if left alone what would she have done? I mean her arguments are overblown, she has a point about several unfortunate and reoccurring tropes, resulting in 1 dimensional female characters. And the thing, she has no power to regulate your games or take away you dead or alive bouncy breast fighter 2011, so what was going to happen anyway? Either she would be ignored or we'd see a handful of games trying to take her ideas on board and making better female characters. I don't see a problem.

If this was about keeping girls out of the hobby or silencing people who disagreed with you, well sucks to be them.

Fappy:
Thank Fucking God for your Jim Sterling. Holy shit. Nailed it so hard with this one.

I've been saying this exact same thing since the whole debacle started. Unfortunately the internet doesn't pick up on things very well.

My case is the same . The cunt that made the topic in the escapist wrote that "It had to be made " . The point is that Anita doesnt really think that ICO is a sexist game , she just spills shite on a beloved masterpiece so idiots can rage about her in forums, and by that means she can gain potential supporters that think she is right .And you cant really blame her , its an east way to get advantage over the weak minded .

Trilligan:

runic knight:
I dislike the idea of limiting the options because of the proximity some options have to assholes with more vile intent

It's not about 'proximity' it's about proliferation. Its reinforcement and perpetuation of the attitudes that inform and reinforce those assholes' vile intent. Every depiction of a black person as ignorant, uneducated and inferior to a white person subtly reaffirms the racism of a racist, just as every depiction of a woman as a vapid sex object who exists only because of or to benefit a man reaffirms the inherent misogyny of a misogynist.

You do realize that some depictions of black people as uneducated or women as vapid are justified in their use, yes? There is a bit of a problem with this ideal, as it presents any negative trait as perpetuating the vile attitudes and in doing so it does two things. First, is it pushes an intent onto a product or art that may not be there at all. Secondly it narrows options of people based on an idea of avoiding perpetuating the idea, to the point it is treating people based on race or gender differently solely because of their race of gender. It is being racist and sexist because of fear of being seen as racist or sexist.

Trilligan:

And yet somehow painting the entirety of the opposing argument as a 'worthless moral facade' isn't petty?

Who is saying I am painting the entirety of the opposing argument as such? Just your argument here, and not even the whole, merely the bits where you intentionally try to use what assholes do as any sort of point in this discussion. They exist, but what does that have to do with me and the discussion I am trying to have? I don't support their behavior, I do what I can to stop it where I see it (report function, etc.), but I guess that being unseen means I should still be assumed to be part of their assholery?

Quick question, do you support guilt by association? Your arguments here seem to suggest it in relations to this debate, but I want an answer. If so, how about applying it to other things, like say religion? Are muslims guilty by association because of extremist? How about race? Are blacks guilty by association because of higher prison rates?
If not, why mention the actions of people acting like assholes in the Sarkeesian comment sections when most here have remained civil (not to be mistaken as not impassioned. I mean no empty insult slinging or utterly devolved discussions)

The notion is sickening wrong. Guilt by association is unjustifiable, both in terms of logic and in terms of morality. It is intellectual laziness.

Trilligan:

And please point me to where I criticized anyone who was behaving civilly?

When you were making the sweeping generalizations about anti-feminists. Since the generalization implies a lack of civility from them, yet they are possible of being civil. Hell, I know some who are anti-femists because they feel the movement itself is too insular and has been hijacked by a new wave and it is based in how they feel current feminism is actually anti woman. Yet they remain quite civil in that regard.

Trilligan:

If you called her a troll then you are either - A) being intellectually dishonest or B) entirely ignorant of what a troll is.

Key to the notion of trolling is the concept of insincerity. A troll is in it for the lulz, after all. There is exactly zero evidence to show that Sarkeesian is anything but totally sincere. Adequate evidence or not, she believes her rhetoric, wholly and completely - and as such, she cannot possibly be a troll.

Or using a subjective term and then using rationalized explanations as to why I feel the subjective term is fitting. So, C. none of the above.

As for your definition, since trolls is not as rigidly defined as say the word "cat"....wait, no, it is about the same. Different types, species, description of anything with feline qualities... about the same flexibility in meaning and use as the word "troll" has obtained online. I've heard trolls defined as anyone who actively disrupts discussion, refuses to address what others say, spam their opinion around and general make a stink that is an annoyance to others. Which are points I have argued she does. Intent of being "for the lulz" isn't really part of it. I kinda doubt that is even how it is defined in the rules for this sight. So, no, I don't think her intent being unknown quite frees her up from being declared trolly.

Trilligan:

Are you trying to say that the concept of 'guilt by association' does not exist? Or are you trying to say that pointing out that 'guilt by association' exists is somehow illogical?

It does exist. And it is a horribly illogical thing to use as support for one's stance on any issue. Kinda why I was calling you out for it when I saw it. It is also in fact an aspect racist often use to justify their racism. Black man does crime? it is cause he is black. I am pointing out that using it as a point of argument though is very bad. In fact, it even has its own logical fallacy.

Trilligan:

If your argument shares rhetoric with that of trolls and assholes, then you're going to look like a troll and an asshole by association. Maybe that's not fair, but that's how people are. That was the entire point of Jimothy's video, if you recall.

The point of my statement being - watch your language, lest someone mistake you for the real thing.

In general terms, of course. Apparently that bears saying, because you keep confusing the generalized pronoun with its direct counterpart for some reason.

And your argument shares the rhetoric of man haters and controversy stirers. Yet I don't try to use that as a point to judge or dismiss your argument, do I? I try to stick to logical issues myself.
As for my language, being I don't recall being even vulgar, I have to assume you mean in terms like troll. If someone thinks it is fair to dismiss my case because of similarities, that is their mistake.
Not sure what you are talking about me being confused by pronouns though. Care to elaborate?

Trilligan:
Well, you'd have a point - except you're criticizing her for a series of videos she hasn't even made yet, constructing an argument about how terrible her points are without having heard a single one of them, nor any of the evidence she's gathered. You're building an entire argument off of random conjecture and passing it off as well reasoned fact - and that strikes me as a little trolly and a little douchebaggy, to be perfectly honest.

Except I am criticizing her for the products already released. I will use those as support for my opinion that future products will be of nothing special, true, but my opinion of her is based in the long archive of videos she already released.
So before you ramble off too far down that road, no, I am not just hearing the topic and grabbing a pitchfork over here. My opinion on her stems from things like videos like the "women in refrigerators" and her comments about powerpuff girls. It is formed and fleshed out with the vast amounts of her work out there already. I am curious where I made any argument about her related to stuff she hasn't released yet though. Isn't it a little douchy to make up argument points to attack that aren't really there...?

Trilligan:

Except, as I said above - you and those on your side are tearing apart an argument that doesn't exist in the public space yet. You've called her worthless without having heard what she had to say. You're passing off your prejudice as fact and that's logically wrong and intellectually dishonest.

Except, I am many who criticism her are criticizing STUFF ALREADY RELEASED. There are videos posted here that are nothing but in-depth discussions on her current videos. And yes, from all I have seen, what she has released IS pretty damn worthless. Using her own past actions as a sort of clue, I can then take guesses that future materials will continue the trend. But no, my opinions on her are not colored by what she hasn't released yet (though her revealed intent to cover the topic given the nature of how she covered the topic in her other videos certainly did no favors)But that still doesn't change anything about criticisms of her current stuff, nor does saying people criticizing her are doing it solely based off of the fears of her end result, not when there is a library of criticisms over stuff out there already. By the very act of putting her opinion out there, it is up to be criticized, same as us all. Trying to use a bunch of asshats to shield her from that because you don't seem to want to take the time to look into the arguments or criticisms and instead prefer generalizations is not the way to go about dealing with it though.

Trilligan:

Oh good. I guess that means I can dismiss your argument. *dismissed*
We're done here.

Cute.
Yeah, you know, except for that whole "explain how it has no merit" part. Since you haven't really shown any sort of defining fault in what I said, and neither have you really addressed the criticisms of your arguments beyond flawed rebuttals or attempts to put words in my mouth.
But you go right on ahead, I mean I am just some Sarkeesian critic, must mean I can't defend my arguments at all and this discussion here is just a fancy way to turn the debate into a slugfest.

I wonder if there is some tie about opinions of individual's place and culpability to the groups they are a part of and people's position on this discussion.
-love you. Captcha, I love you too

Trilligan:

maximara:
snip

You are using far too many words. I can boil the entirety of your argument down to 3.

"Consider the source."

The source, in this case, is a casual gamer girl who has a background in feminist theory and gender studies. We all know this.

So what are you trying to say with all these comparisons to Hitler and references of old books few people on this forum will have read? Why do you feel the need to aggrandize Sarkeesian's known feminist background in such a way? Do you feel it makes her a more believable villain or something? What does your argument profit from all this obfuscation?

Actually, the source in this case is a casual gamer girl who via earlier videos has demonstrated poor research skills as well as a blind spot that you could fly Star Trek's Doomsday Machine through AND who uses Youtube's approval method to limit the discussion effectively controlling it. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Compare this to how John Armstrong (aka DeistPaladin) handles his videos on a even more hot button topic--the Historicity of Jesus. As far as I can tell the comment there are totally open. Yes you do get a lot of noise along with some good arguments on both sides but that is the price of have a FAIR and OPEN discussion.

Who is this "you" Jim is talking about? I'd say it's actually you the gaming media who focused on the trolls and ignored anything else. It's you who framed the offensive and obnoxious as representatives of anyone who doesn't like Anita's views. You can do this exact same thing to ANY internet personality if you focus on some 4chan kiddies and pretend like that's all that exists. It's the bloody internet, there will always be a loud vile moron in the crowd and nothing anyone can do about it. It's your job not to dump everyone else in the crowd with that moron.

Well done with that plot twist.

Sarkeesian may be overstating her case ever so slightly, but hey, you feel strongly about something, you do that.

The debate could have been interesting, but I think anyone with the intellect and wit to come up with something worthwhile on the subject will also have the intellectual integrity that forces them to refrain from trying to put their thoughts forth loudly enough to be heard in the cacophony that this debating ground has irrevocably become. So all we can really do is bemoan yet more proof that if the pen is mighty, the keyboard is the proverbial equivalent of a fully automatic shotgun, and that the paladins of stupid causes have once more rode forth and shat all over the battlefield so thoroughly that lest we wish to swim in the droppings, we can neither spar with, nor earnestly fight, Anita Sarkeesian. You who wished to shut her up have succeeded in making her the lone voice of this issue, and while I personally think that just MAYBE there's hints of a persecution complex in her previous videos, that was not a good reason to JUSTIFY them prior to this series.

There could have been a good debate. Points could have been made. Things could have improved. Now, things will stay the same, and I for one am tormented by the ghost of progress that will not come to pass.

*sigh*

Trilligan:

Andre Rapp:
some random person posting spam all day to put hate on somebody is not something that happens

This, about 4chan.

It's fucking 4chan! The asshole of the internet. Spamming all day to put hate on somebody is what they do. That's how they earned their reputation.

you have never actually been there, have you?

runic knight:
You do realize that some depictions of black people as uneducated or women as vapid are justified in their use, yes?

Aha. I see. You think racism and misogyny are justifiable.

And you expect me to take a single word you say seriously?

Like I said before, we're done here.

WitherVoice:
Sarkeesian may be overstating her case ever so slightly, but hey, you feel strongly about something, you do that.

The debate could have been interesting, but I think anyone with the intellect and wit to come up with something worthwhile on the subject will also have the intellectual integrity that forces them to refrain from trying to put their thoughts forth loudly enough to be heard in the cacophony that this debating ground has irrevocably become. So all we can really do is bemoan yet more proof that if the pen is mighty, the keyboard is the proverbial equivalent of a fully automatic shotgun, and that the paladins of stupid causes have once more rode forth and shat all over the battlefield so thoroughly that lest we wish to swim in the droppings, we can neither spar with, nor earnestly fight, Anita Sarkeesian. You who wished to shut her up have succeeded in making her the lone voice of this issue, and while I personally think that just MAYBE there's hints of a persecution complex in her previous videos, that was not a good reason to JUSTIFY them prior to this series.

There could have been a good debate. Points could have been made. Things could have improved. Now, things will stay the same, and I for one am tormented by the ghost of progress that will not come to pass.

*sigh*

As I pointed out before Sarkeesian was the WORST person to have do this. Between her poor research and demonstrated bias her project was doomed from the start. Anybody with even BASIC knowledge of her examples knows she is talking nonsense.

Take her "The Smurfette Principle" where she gives a lot of examples...most of which promptly become a joke when you consider when they first game out--Smurfs (1958), Winnie the Pooh (1928), Muppets (1954), and Star Wars (1977 and it's channeling _The Hero with a Thousand Faces_ from 1949 and the movie serials of the 1930s)

One of her "positive" examples is even more of a joke. When Captain Janeway isn't being written as being more insane than Captain Garth, more mentally unstable than Janice Lester, or dumber then John Gill she is a Mary Sue. Captain Pike was written with more depth and he appeared in only three episodes in the entire TOS series.

She then brings up Transformers original series which like so many cartoons of the 1980s was essentially a long running serialized 22 minute toy commercial that in this case WAS AIMED AT BOYS. So of course the number of female characters is going to be in the basement. /facepalm

The rest of her videos more or less fall into this pattern--the moment you do even a minimal amount of research ("Google is your friend" in a sarcastic voice) the point falls part like a cheap suit.

The Straw Feminist video is easily countered with Feminist zealots (sometime called Feminazis). The Women in Refrigerators video is countered by the overall disposable character. It doesn't help that Sarkeesian used the Gail Simone list which even in 1999 had horrible inaccuracies or omitted important facts.

For example Batgirl I while paralyzed was still a major character as Oracle. Batwoman is listed as dead when in fact she had been dropped into comic book limbo in 1964 to be eventually retconned out of existence along with nearly the entire Earth-2 Batman cast via Crisis on Infinite Earths. Carol Ferris--yeh let's forget about her fiancee Hal Jordan went totally nuts, killed who knows how many of his fellow GLs, slaughtered all but one of the Guardians, and then tried to reboot reality killing TRILLIONS in the process. Jarella-Sure she' dead in the main timeline but let's just forget that 1980 What If (Vol 1 #23) story where she lived and the Hulk was actually happily married rather than going through the misery he got in the main timeline. And I could go on but you get the point.

Never mind, that thanks to CoIE and Zero Hour nobody (possibly even the writers) knew *what* was in DC continuity. As for Marvel's continuity...even in 1999 that was such a mammoth clusterFUBAR that I have no idea *what* was going on.

Sarkeesian is going to do more damage then help by turning the point she is arguing into such a strawman that any person with access to Google can show she is talking drivel.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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