The Great Debate

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Grey Carter:

You're missing the point there; deliberately I expect. Peer reviews require people from the same field with a reputation to uphold.

So only people who make shitty youtube videos are qualified to comment on her videos is what you are saying? Or is it women? Or women and white knights? Or what is her peer group that is allowed to be peer review her videos?

Because she claims to be a gamer, that makes gamers her peers.

Yuuki:
I see nobody has managed to answer my question yet lol, so I'll ask again:

I see why Anita turned off comments, she wanted to avoid a huge sea of trolls and hurtful comments.

But then why did she turn off ratings?? EXPLAIN THAT.

There is no room for trolls or hurtful comments in ratings, you will only get an idea of how many people agree or disagree - nothing more. So there is no excuse (but please, do explain if you can come up with one).

As I said before, Anita is well-known for only speaking/presenting (or "preaching" as I prefer to call it) in events where feedback or debate isn't allowed. She does this with almost all her content to avoid getting criticism and I'm sick of people defending her bullshit. Her MESSAGE may not be bullshit, but her her PRACTICES certainly are bullshit.

Stop defending her poor practices Cory Rydell and Grey Carter (assuming both of you are responsible for this comic). Maybe I don't feel like uploading a whole fucking video because Anita's work is just not WORTH that much time/effort! Maybe I just want to drop in a rating after I've watched it. Writing some random article somewhere or posting in random forums doesn't have anywhere near the same amount of impact as leaving some form of feedback (if not comments then at least RATINGS) on the video itself.

I heartily disagree with the message in this comic and recommend the editors at least think for a minute before they post stuff like this. I'm not against opinions and stances, but I am against irrational opinions and teaspoon-narrow perspectives - especially coming from the more influential people on sites like these.

Have you ever heard of review bombing, flagging campaigns or heck, even band wagoning? When you have a substantial part of a wider community with an agenda against you as a person, not just the subject you are discussing, expecting to be fairly judged is ludicrously naive.

Look up any video of say, someone criticising Pewdiepie or heck, even satirising him. Now look at their channel and check out some of their videos that are not pewdiepie related. What would you expect to see? There is a proportional similar amount of dislikes across the board on all their videos, regardless of content. Why? Because a community had an agenda to basically rage at them as hard they can.

Normally, when ratings are being made by viewers, the average viewer is not inclined to vote either way unless they feel REALLY strongly about the content. However, doing something controversial will automatically irk some folk simply for existing in opposition to their viewpoint. More often then not, this person won't even acknowledge the content and simply vote in the negative.

Meanwhile, the average viewer who may or may not agree with her, will not vote at all. Because they don't feel compelled to do so.

Ratings on youtube over controversial issues are not representative of the quality or integrity of that video. There is a clear and present "enemy" to anita, who care not for what she has to say, but that she simply has something to say... and that is enough to set them off.

Not to mention there are people who WANT to see her videos flop, because it would reaffirm everything they were preaching before the videos ever existed.

Just as a point of reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DQuVSL8BYQ

I find this guys videos boring, but I stumbled on this one under youtube recommendations. After watching a few minutes I switched off and moved on, not rating either way due to indifference. This is the average users reaction to something they don't actually like. Only fandoms and rage mobs make significant pushes and pulls in ratings.

Anyway, I had enough time to notice the 10,000+ dislikes compared to the 1000+ likes. Clearly the video is just so awful right? Well, no... 100,000+ views. There are 89,000~ unaccounted for opinions.

Ratings offer noting other then to have a button for ragers to press and feel satisfied or for fans to ritualistically click to show their support.

Thinking they represent something more is ludicrous.

Desert Punk:

Grey Carter:

You're missing the point there; deliberately I expect. Peer reviews require people from the same field with a reputation to uphold.

So only people who make shitty youtube videos are qualified to comment on her videos is what you are saying? Or is it women? Or women and white knights? Or what is her peer group that is allowed to be peer review her videos?

Because she claims to be a gamer, that makes gamers her peers.

Sure it does. Now let's see some step forward, present their own educational backgrounds and argue under their real names. I'm all for it.

Grey Carter:

Desert Punk:

Grey Carter:

You're missing the point there; deliberately I expect. Peer reviews require people from the same field with a reputation to uphold.

So only people who make shitty youtube videos are qualified to comment on her videos is what you are saying? Or is it women? Or women and white knights? Or what is her peer group that is allowed to be peer review her videos?

Because she claims to be a gamer, that makes gamers her peers.

Sure it does. Now let's see some step forward, present their own educational backgrounds and argue under their real names. I'm all for it.

Could make for an interesting option on youtube "Allow all comments, Allow all comments and force real name to be shown, disallow comments."

Desert Punk:

Grey Carter:

Desert Punk:

So only people who make shitty youtube videos are qualified to comment on her videos is what you are saying? Or is it women? Or women and white knights? Or what is her peer group that is allowed to be peer review her videos?

Because she claims to be a gamer, that makes gamers her peers.

Sure it does. Now let's see some step forward, present their own educational backgrounds and argue under their real names. I'm all for it.

Could make for an interesting option on youtube "Allow all comments, Allow all comments and force real name to be shown, disallow comments."

That would actually be a really cool system, though Facebook using real names hasn't stopped people from saying some enormously stupid shit. Though at least sometimes they're held accountable for it.

Grey Carter:

That would actually be a really cool system, though Facebook using real names hasn't stopped people from saying some enormously stupid shit. Though at least sometimes they're held accountable for it.

Which is why I don't comment through facebook. I don't really want horde of fan boys spamming my employer to get me sacked because I didn't quite agree with something their favourite company did.

"Second, it implies YouTube comments contain anything that could remotely be called criticism, they do not."

I call bullshit. If you're not willing to go through more that the top most upvoted comments or at most the first page of what is I would imagine is a thought-provoking topic, given the absolutely massive amounts of discussion gender politics generate, then I can't imagine your comment as it were is anything other than dishonest. Is the 500-character space you're allowed to fill the best way of doing it and if it isn't, is that reason enough to discredit everything that is ever said is those boxes? I very much doubt it is.

I have no problem with disabling comments on the youtube video, in fact I'd say it's a good diea considering the circumstances.

Youtube has a small character limit for replies. Criticism in the form of comments has to be heavily condensed, often not allowing for good criticism when you have to remove most of your words to fit it in a post. I can't even leave criticism on a TotalBiscuit video without having to cut my point down!

Finding valid criticism in a sea of troll comments and people commenting who have already made up their mind before even watching the video is a wasted endeavour.

Not giving viewers full freedoms on a video is not evil. The aforementioned TotalBiscuit is probably pretty popular. He doesn't allow voting up or down of comments on his videos.

As has been stated earlier by others, television/film doesn't have a comments section. Games don't come with a comment section. And yet this site has Moviebob and Yahtzee. If their videos/articles were limited to 500 characters (or whatever the limit is) then next to no one would watch them, even though they'd have the same opinions and criticisms on a movie/game regardless.

What I'm saying in brief is that Youtube doesn't give you the space to actually give constructive criticisms, at least not in the public comments section. The character limit is too restrictive, and leads to "This is good, I agree, lol." or "This sucks, you're an idiot. LOL!" This is a YouTube comments section, not some internet bill like SOPA.

Desert Punk:

Grey Carter:

You're missing the point there; deliberately I expect. Peer reviews require people from the same field with a reputation to uphold.

So only people who make shitty youtube videos are qualified to comment on her videos is what you are saying? Or is it women? Or women and white knights? Or what is her peer group that is allowed to be peer review her videos?

Because she claims to be a gamer, that makes gamers her peers.

How about other academics who are also gamers? You know, hit both nails on the head.

I will be here for 30 seconds and then I will leave. I am just going to drop a reading list here, then go and buy more Ramen.

I needed to redownload some of my readings anyway.

Stuart Hall
Judith Butler
Michael Bilig
Benedict Anderson.
Lawler
Goffman

Hell, if you want I could forward you some of my old essays from my first year.

By disabling the comments she did nothing whatsoever. It could be argued that she did people like yourself a favour. If the comment section was live it would be filled the the brim with crap. Like every other Youtube comment section. Anyone with anything to say says it better on other websites. Nothing of value has been lost.

Honestly, I do not think she should have released them through Youtube. At all. Its not the right media for what she is producing. However, she wanted to spread her ideas far and wide so that is the media she chose. Fair enough. But, considering she is trying to come across as a professional (Which she is), doing so would be significantly more difficult with a torrent of abuse beneath every single video.

Same with it being liked or not. It would just get bombed, it serves no purpose on her videos. Neither the comments, nor the like/dislike button, matter whatsoever.

If you have anything to say, say it somewhere other then Youtube. Because if its in the YT comment section, it will just get ignored.

Are you in a position to judge what she has made? No. Not really, No. Are you her "Equal"? No. Are you my equal, with regards to sociology or identity? No. Do you have my understanding of Race/Identity, have you written essays on the subjects. Of course you do not. Most people do not. The average Jo on youtube is just some 14 year old fuckwit.

Out of interest, do you regularly post on Youtube? Out of all the people here, who REGULARLY posts on youtube? Who here actually gives a damn about Youtube?

Hmmm, when I get back from shopping I think I will make a poll/thread about just that.

Daystar Clarion:

Eleuthera:

Daystar Clarion:

Because that's what the English do.

We feed booze to models of extinct species.

Also robots.

All the English? Or just Ashleys?

Maybe it's just us Ashleys...

I might have to revisit this topic.

I suspect he's just smashed, killing the pain of his parents calling him Ashley.

TheRightToArmBears:

Daystar Clarion:

Eleuthera:

All the English? Or just Ashleys?

Maybe it's just us Ashleys...

I might have to revisit this topic.

I suspect he's just smashed, killing the pain of his parents calling him Ashley.

Please, it's the manliest of all names.

Just ask my good friend Ashley.

image

Boom stick indeed.

Yuuki:

maninahat:

Yuuki:

But then why did she turn off ratings?? EXPLAIN THAT.

Because it is fairly obvious what would happen. The gazillions of trolls and arseholes who have targeted Anita, and devoted their time and efforts to damage her and her project, would simply downvote her video into oblivion. Reasonable person who are not familiar with Sarkeesian and who happen to stumble across the video, will immediately see the massive amount of downvotes, assume the video must be shit, and quit the video before Anita has even finished her introduction. So yes, the voting system can be abused as much as the comment section, and can be easily used to damage further reception of her video.

Secondly, in all her Tropes vs Women introduction videos (brief summaries of all the tropes), I clearly recall only ~50-60% of the votes being dislikes across all videos. This was before she disabled ratings and comments on almost every video in her entire channel, but I remember the proportions.

So your "downvoted into oblivion by determined trolls" is exaggerating things a lot, 50-60% dislikes isn't all that terrible. Just a hint that the video(s) may contain a lot of biased one-sided bullshit and/or twisted cherry-picked "research" filtered through a narrow black & white perspective...which is fairly accurate if you think about it!

Bear in mind that she didn't get into the practise of removing ratings days after Sarkeesian Season was called on her kickstarter project, so the ratings that previously existed on her other videos didn't quite represent the extent of the troll wraith. What with the sheer amount of animosity towards her videos, I wouldn't expect anything near a 50-60% ratio now.

I can tell you this - almost every Youtube video that has a solid sample-size of views (say, at least 10k+) has a corresponding rating that neatly encapsulates the quality of the video's content and/or people's general agreement/disagreement. That pretty much DEFINES what a rating is supposed to do.
I can see the issue with "comment trolls" but you're seriously exaggerating the "rating trolls", rating continues to be a fairly accurate indicator.

That's not necessarily true. The ratings are highly dependent on the subject and the kind of people the video attracts. If it is a mainstream pop song or celeb personality, the ratings will almost invariably be highly positive, because only fans bother to watch the video in the first place to vote. That's why though many people hate people like Justin Bieber, Pewdiepie or The Amazing Atheist, they'll still have fairly high ratings, just because the "haters" don't bother watching (and down voting) all their videos in the first place. Contrariwise, if there is bad press attached to a specific person or video, then their video ratings will plummet as angry members of the community pop in to express their distaste through the down vote button (often regardless of the actual content of the video). Videos on certain discussions, like feminism, are different in that they attract both fans and detractors, so the ratings tend to be more varied. Sarkeesian is something of a special case, in terms of just how many people were willing to go to the effort to shit all over her work, so yes, I wouldn't put it past the trolls to go out of their way to push her ratings deep into the red, had they been given the chance.

Yuuki:

maninahat:

Yuuki:

But then why did she turn off ratings?? EXPLAIN THAT.

Because it is fairly obvious what would happen. The gazillions of trolls and arseholes who have targeted Anita, and devoted their time and efforts to damage her and her project, would simply downvote her video into oblivion. Reasonable person who are not familiar with Sarkeesian and who happen to stumble across the video, will immediately see the massive amount of downvotes, assume the video must be shit, and quit the video before Anita has even finished her introduction. So yes, the voting system can be abused as much as the comment section, and can be easily used to damage further reception of her video.

Secondly, in all her Tropes vs Women introduction videos (brief summaries of all the tropes), I clearly recall only ~50-60% of the votes being dislikes across all videos. This was before she disabled ratings and comments on almost every video in her entire channel, but I remember the proportions.

So your "downvoted into oblivion by determined trolls" is exaggerating things a lot, 50-60% dislikes isn't all that terrible. Just a hint that the video(s) may contain a lot of biased one-sided bullshit and/or twisted cherry-picked "research" filtered through a narrow black & white perspective...which is fairly accurate if you think about it!

Bear in mind that she didn't get into the practise of removing ratings days after Sarkeesian Season was called on her kickstarter project, so the ratings that previously existed on her other videos didn't quite represent the extent of the troll wraith. What with the sheer amount of animosity towards her videos, I wouldn't expect anything near a 50-60% ratio now.

I can tell you this - almost every Youtube video that has a solid sample-size of views (say, at least 10k+) has a corresponding rating that neatly encapsulates the quality of the video's content and/or people's general agreement/disagreement. That pretty much DEFINES what a rating is supposed to do.
I can see the issue with "comment trolls" but you're seriously exaggerating the "rating trolls", rating continues to be a fairly accurate indicator.

That's not necessarily true. The ratings are highly dependent on the subject and the kind of people the video attracts. If it is a mainstream pop song or celeb personality, the ratings will almost invariably be highly positive, because only fans bother to watch the video in the first place to vote. That's why though many people hate people like Justin Bieber, Pewdiepie or The Amazing Atheist, they'll still have fairly high ratings, just because few "haters" bother to watch (and down vote) all their videos in the first place. Contrariwise, if there is bad press attached to a specific person or video, then their video ratings will plummet as angry members of the community pop in to express their distaste through the down vote button (often regardless of the actual content of the video). Videos on certain discussions, like feminism, are different in that they attract both fans and detractors, so the ratings tend to be far more varied. Sarkeesian is something of a special case, in terms of just how many people were willing to go to the effort to shit all over her work, so yes, I wouldn't put it past the trolls to go out of their way to push her ratings deep into the red, had they been given the chance.

Mr F.:

Desert Punk:

Grey Carter:

You're missing the point there; deliberately I expect. Peer reviews require people from the same field with a reputation to uphold.

So only people who make shitty youtube videos are qualified to comment on her videos is what you are saying? Or is it women? Or women and white knights? Or what is her peer group that is allowed to be peer review her videos?

Because she claims to be a gamer, that makes gamers her peers.

How about other academics who are also gamers? You know, hit both nails on the head.

Are you in a position to judge what she has made? No. Not really, No. Are you her "Equal"? No. Are you my equal, with regards to sociology or identity? No. Do you have my understanding of Race/Identity, have you written essays on the subjects. Of course you do not. Most people do not. The average Jo on youtube is just some 14 year old fuckwit.

First of all, she is not an academic, academics (generally) strive to present unbiased studies and the like. She is about as academic as any of those silly right-wing studies that link being homosexual with any number of bad things.

So by your idea no one is fit to judge anyone else's works as they don't have the same experiences. And as a matter of fact I have written essays for my college years ago on videogame topics. And I do post on youtube, both assholish comments when responding to an idiot and actual debates when the mood strikes me.

Desert Punk:

First of all, she is not an academic, academics (generally) strive to present unbiased studies and the like. She is about as academic as any of those silly right-wing studies that link being homosexual with any number of bad things.

So by your idea no one is fit to judge anyone else's works as they don't have the same experiences. And as a matter of fact I have written essays for my college years ago on videogame topics. And I do post on youtube, both assholish comments when responding to an idiot and actual debates when the mood strikes me.

Anita Sarkeesian is about as academic as anyone's ever gotten with video games. Her analysis is strong, well researched and very articulate. Meanwhile, the bulk of video responses to her seem to have no understanding of what is meant by the term 'trope', as they think if they can find one example of a game that doesn't conform it disproves her entire point.

I've seriously got no idea why people start frothing at the mouth whenever she's mentioned. Based on the vitriol used to describe her I expected a younger version of Judith Butler clutching the S.C.U.M. manifesto in her videos. Instead there was a very reasonable and insightful commentary that was generally book-ended by "This is not how all games are, and using this trope doesn't automatically make the game sexist."

Desert Punk:

Mr F.:

Desert Punk:

So only people who make shitty youtube videos are qualified to comment on her videos is what you are saying? Or is it women? Or women and white knights? Or what is her peer group that is allowed to be peer review her videos?

Because she claims to be a gamer, that makes gamers her peers.

How about other academics who are also gamers? You know, hit both nails on the head.

Are you in a position to judge what she has made? No. Not really, No. Are you her "Equal"? No. Are you my equal, with regards to sociology or identity? No. Do you have my understanding of Race/Identity, have you written essays on the subjects. Of course you do not. Most people do not. The average Jo on youtube is just some 14 year old fuckwit.

First of all, she is not an academic, academics (generally) strive to present unbiased studies and the like. She is about as academic as any of those silly right-wing studies that link being homosexual with any number of bad things.

So by your idea no one is fit to judge anyone else's works as they don't have the same experiences. And as a matter of fact I have written essays for my college years ago on videogame topics. And I do post on youtube, both assholish comments when responding to an idiot and actual debates when the mood strikes me.

I am using the term "Academic" to mean "Someone who has a BA and has taught other humans a subject". Its a very broad definition which would catch people like my sister within it, but it works.

And, on those levels, no you are not equipped to respond. I love it when people state "Bias" and then use utterly asinine examples. But whatever, it is midnight.

Have you read any Butler? Honestly, I think before anyone can have an "Opinion" on this matter they should go and do at least the most basic, entry level reading on the subject.

Grey Carter, thanks for getting a thread going that's inspired me to de-lurk!

Mr. F, while you're right that turning off the comments really didn't cost anyone anything of value, her academic qualifications are basically irrelevant. Ditto those of her critics, actually. Whether she has any sort of degree doesn't really have an impact on the quality of her ideas or criticism. I mean, look at Roger Ebert. He originally studied English, not film, but it was the strength of his writing and thought that turned him into a household name. I disagree with her on a number of things, but at a minimum Sarkeesian is clear, coherent and, as far as I can tell, honest about her biases.

In a way, focusing on whether someone has a degree is a trap. If Sarkeesian doesn't, than having that as a prerequisite makes it even easier to dismiss her. If she does, then it's easy to focus on whether she's meeting some nebulous criteria for posting "proper" criticism. That seems to a pretty frequent accusation against her and it does nothing but derail the conversation.

At any rate, disabling comments, likes, and up/down votes is definitely not stifling free speech. As @Ragsnstitches said, it is incredibly easy to game all these things. More importantly, Youtube is an anonymous medium with a low barrier to entry and no meaningful consequences for threatening violence, rape and murder. Somebody disabling feedback in the face of that kind of bullshit is only reacting rationally to the situation.

The idea that anybody should have to wade through an ocean of excrement to find the occasional nugget of potential wisdom is both ludicrous and basically worthless. It's an easy thing to say and carries with it no burden of actually helping that person do any wading...

Still don't understand why she cares what idiots over youtube say. It's like no one hear grew up with a bully or someone who just wanted to treat them badly. People say dumb, vile and ridiculous things when they are anonymous, but at some point you gotta stop caring about what people like that think. Is there really any value lost when someone like that doesn't like you? I mean the last wave of ridiculous internet backlash fueled her kickstarter with sympathizers wanting to support her, so why couldn't that be a response to a dedicated effort to give her videos bad ratings. I don't know. Seems like a logical conclusion or at least a possibility. What better to see your supporters overcome the inane and stupid comments.

I just wonder why you would ever put something in a public forum if you weren't ready to deal with a lot of people who for no good reason treat you like crap. Pretending that doesn't exist or that people don't say these things or think these things doesn't spare you anything. You've deluded yourself if you think that feeling, that hate, goes away just from silencing the forum. All you've lost is legitimate commenting from those who don't have the time to make a video or find another forum your active in. Just learn that you don't have to care or be bothered my idiots or what they think, and stay focused on the intelligent people.

Mr F.:

I am using the term "Academic" to mean "Someone who has a BA and has taught other humans a subject". Its a very broad definition which would catch people like my sister within it, but it works.

And, on those levels, no you are not equipped to respond. I love it when people state "Bias" and then use utterly asinine examples. But whatever, it is midnight.

Have you read any Butler? Honestly, I think before anyone can have an "Opinion" on this matter they should go and do at least the most basic, entry level reading on the subject.

Tell me, do they teach about using statistical inference on these courses to quantify bias and test hypotheses?

You'd have a point if it weren't for the fact that Anita Sarkeesian hadn't disabled the comments' sections on all her videos well before she was the target of any particular internet ire. Not to mention that she also disabled her ratings (can't justify that with your argument.) Also there's the fact that she is under no obligation to pay her comments' section the slightest bit of attention if she's too frail to read mean words.

If "I hope u get raped, lol" sends you into a tizzy then you are much too thin-skinned to be on the internet and I speak that as a person who is a victim of rape.

wizzy555:

Mr F.:

I am using the term "Academic" to mean "Someone who has a BA and has taught other humans a subject". Its a very broad definition which would catch people like my sister within it, but it works.

And, on those levels, no you are not equipped to respond. I love it when people state "Bias" and then use utterly asinine examples. But whatever, it is midnight.

Have you read any Butler? Honestly, I think before anyone can have an "Opinion" on this matter they should go and do at least the most basic, entry level reading on the subject.

Tell me, do they teach about using statistical inference on these courses to quantify bias and test hypotheses?

Yes. They do. I know that was an attack based on the whole "Social sciences are not really sciences" but, where possible, empirical evidence IS used within the social sciences. It is actually rather infuriating, having to wade through statistics and come up with ways that test things that create oodles of quantitative data to appease others because simply talking to people and inferring shit from what they say is frowned upon. However, within the fields of Sociology and Psychology, statistics are used where possible to back up results. Correlation has to be at a level above 99.5% for a statement to be considered vindicated. However, when one is talking about theories such as gender and identity, statistics are much harder to come by because what you are talking about is not quantitative, it is qualitative in nature.

Again I will advise you to read the literature before making a statement. Or at least point out to me at what point she quote statistics or make any ABSOLUTE claims on numbers. Because I am rather sick of the generic complaints that are far more in-substantiated then her own arguments.

Or is your statement now that anything without hard statistical backing is invalid? Any form of philosophy prior to the Empirical movement would like to have a word. Or is it just an attack, thinly veiled, on anyone who chooses to study Sociology, Gender and Womens Studies or similar?

Iron Lightning:
You'd have a point if it weren't for the fact that Anita Sarkeesian hadn't disabled the comments' sections on all her videos well before she was the target of any particular internet ire. Not to mention that she also disabled her ratings (can't justify that with your argument.) Also there's the fact that she is under no obligation to pay her comments' section the slightest bit of attention if she's too frail to read mean words.

If "I hope u get raped, lol" sends you into a tizzy then you are much too thin-skinned to be on the internet and I speak that as a person who is a victim of rape.

Really? You say that as one who has been raped? Speaking as one who was almost raped and dated a rape victim for 9 months, seeing stuff like that does upset me. It upsets me for many, many reasons and choosing to avoid it is nice. Hell, I am actually behind her disabling the comments sections because it means that if I scroll down whilst bored I will not end up reading it.

I would really, really like to know why it matters so much that she got rid of the comment sections. Very little of value is ever said on YT comments, considering the abuse she gets here (Which is a significantly more moderate community then YT comments usually are), and all the discussion about her videos is taking place in forums or the real world. Nobody who matters, at all, will only say what they have to say on Youtube. As for ratings, the ratings would get bombed. So again, no point.

So to recap:
95%+ of the comments would be sexist crap
99.95%+ of the ratings would be review bombing.
Nothing of value has been lost.
People casually stating that they hope other humans get raped is utterly, utterly foul. Calling for others to have thick skin and soak up abuse for NO REASON other then "You should be able to take more abuse" when they can very, very easily avoid it (What you are currently asking her to do) is foul.

There is absolutely no obligation for her, or anyone else, to allow comments and/or ratings on their YouTube videos. YouTube comments are not in any way a human right, they are a mere bonus, a privilege given by the content creator. Debating whether her disabling is right or wrong is pointless, there's a whole world wide web of easily available fora in which one can pour one's heart out on how wrong or right Anita Sarkeesian might be.

DaRigger420:

Fappy:
Oh God, this is so true! Youtube is likely the largest collection of stupid people on the internet.

I beg to disagree, dumb YouTube commenters are the second largest group on the net. The largest collection of moronic, off topic and just plain stupid comment posters online would have to go to the folks that post on MSNbc.

MSNBC is bad but nothing compared to the Blaze or Fox News comments. OT, there is no reason to make youtube comments available. It's an extra feature that is useless at best, horrifying at worst.

Considering how everyone seems to agree that the Youtube comments are 90% awful crap that doesn't deserve an audience, yet disabling the comments stifles any chance for a meaningful comment to appear...

Would it make the most logical sense to use "Comment Approval" to get the best of both worlds? The video maker remains open to discussion (since a comment has to be read before it can be approved or rejected) and allows the spam, harassment, trolling, and one word "Ur wrong, kill urself" comments to be granted the greatest insult a troll can be given: denied attention.

So having comments require uploader approval is the best logical choice.

Mr F.:

wizzy555:

Mr F.:

I am using the term "Academic" to mean "Someone who has a BA and has taught other humans a subject". Its a very broad definition which would catch people like my sister within it, but it works.

And, on those levels, no you are not equipped to respond. I love it when people state "Bias" and then use utterly asinine examples. But whatever, it is midnight.

Have you read any Butler? Honestly, I think before anyone can have an "Opinion" on this matter they should go and do at least the most basic, entry level reading on the subject.

Tell me, do they teach about using statistical inference on these courses to quantify bias and test hypotheses?

Yes. They do. I know that was an attack based on the whole "Social sciences are not really sciences" but, where possible, empirical evidence IS used within the social sciences. It is actually rather infuriating, having to wade through statistics and come up with ways that test things that create oodles of quantitative data to appease others because simply talking to people and inferring shit from what they say is frowned upon. However, within the fields of Sociology and Psychology, statistics are used where possible to back up results. Correlation has to be at a level above 99.5% for a statement to be considered vindicated. However, when one is talking about theories such as gender and identity, statistics are much harder to come by because what you are talking about is not quantitative, it is qualitative in nature.

Again I will advise you to read the literature before making a statement. Or at least point out to me at what point she quote statistics or make any ABSOLUTE claims on numbers. Because I am rather sick of the generic complaints that are far more in-substantiated then her own arguments.

Or is your statement now that anything without hard statistical backing is invalid? Any form of philosophy prior to the Empirical movement would like to have a word. Or is it just an attack, thinly veiled, on anyone who chooses to study Sociology, Gender and Womens Studies or similar?

It was a question, not an attack. I am aware of the varying epistemological theories and the limitations of quantitative analysis. I would advise you to be less sensitive.

If you want citation where Anita uses stats (or doesn't use stats) then look in her thesis appendix, where she attempts a quantitative analysis and presents a false conclusion. I was trying to ascertain if she hasn't used it because it isn't taught.

wizzy555:

Mr F.:

wizzy555:

Tell me, do they teach about using statistical inference on these courses to quantify bias and test hypotheses?

Yes. They do. I know that was an attack based on the whole "Social sciences are not really sciences" but, where possible, empirical evidence IS used within the social sciences. It is actually rather infuriating, having to wade through statistics and come up with ways that test things that create oodles of quantitative data to appease others because simply talking to people and inferring shit from what they say is frowned upon. However, within the fields of Sociology and Psychology, statistics are used where possible to back up results. Correlation has to be at a level above 99.5% for a statement to be considered vindicated. However, when one is talking about theories such as gender and identity, statistics are much harder to come by because what you are talking about is not quantitative, it is qualitative in nature.

Again I will advise you to read the literature before making a statement. Or at least point out to me at what point she quote statistics or make any ABSOLUTE claims on numbers. Because I am rather sick of the generic complaints that are far more in-substantiated then her own arguments.

Or is your statement now that anything without hard statistical backing is invalid? Any form of philosophy prior to the Empirical movement would like to have a word. Or is it just an attack, thinly veiled, on anyone who chooses to study Sociology, Gender and Womens Studies or similar?

It was a question, not an attack. I am aware of the varying epistemological theories and the limitations of quantitative analysis. I would advise you to be less sensitive.

If you want citation where Anita uses stats (or doesn't use stats) then look in her thesis appendix, where she attempts a quantitative analysis and presents a false conclusion. I was trying to ascertain if she hasn't used it because it isn't taught.

Sorry, I catch a lot of flakk for my degree. Most of my friends are either hard scientists, historians or engineers. And, well, its taught, its used, but its not necessarily necessary. I write 2500+ word essays that do not contain a single statistic or, alternatively, 2500+ word essays that are two thirds statistical analyses. It really depends on the essay. I do wonder why you are bringing it up because at no point in the current series is statistics needed. It seems rather irrelevant. Whether or not she analysed statistics wrong (In your eyes, at least) is rather irrelevant, she obviously analysed them well enough to pass. I do not know how well and I do not know why that matters. That said, perhaps she did a different aspect of sociology, I mean I am going into research to prepare myself for the MA course I want to do in sociological research (As in, becoming a trained researcher) so I bounce off statistics more often then some.

And with regards to her thesis? Again, I ask for the relevance. My siblings MA thesis has very few similarities to their PhD thesis and even fewer with the book she is writing. I hope that after I am done with my thesis I will continue to improve, much like my sibling is improving, and will produce better work.

Lets try and keep this discussion about the video series.

Mr F.:

Sorry, I catch a lot of flakk for my degree. Most of my friends are either hard scientists, historians or engineers. And, well, its taught, its used, but its not necessarily necessary. I write 2500+ word essays that do not contain a single statistic or, alternatively, 2500+ word essays that are two thirds statistical analyses. It really depends on the essay. I do wonder why you are bringing it up because at no point in the current series is statistics needed. It seems rather irrelevant. Whether or not she analysed statistics wrong (In your eyes, at least) is rather irrelevant, she obviously analysed them well enough to pass. I do not know how well and I do not know why that matters. That said, perhaps she did a different aspect of sociology, I mean I am going into research to prepare myself for the MA course I want to do in sociological research (As in, becoming a trained researcher) so I bounce off statistics more often then some.

And with regards to her thesis? Again, I ask for the relevance. My siblings MA thesis has very few similarities to their PhD thesis and even fewer with the book she is writing. I hope that after I am done with my thesis I will continue to improve, much like my sibling is improving, and will produce better work.

Lets try and keep this discussion about the video series.

Well I do get somewhat considered when people are pointing out social trends without statistics, although certainly there are cases when it is not applicable.

In her thesis she attempts to identify racism (and homophobia) in science fiction by comparing the number of female characters that die based on their race, the numbers actually slow a lack of discernable racism but she claims otherwise. This doesn't necessarily prove everything she says is academically invalid (and certainly not the whole field in general), but I do think it does highlight the dangers of self deception in these issues.

Anyway, you asked for a genuine academic criticism of her work and there it is. I'm not qualified to comment on the other aspects.

I wholly expected it to be disabled but she even got rid of the like or dislike. That would have got her featured!

First, it implies that anyone who makes a video is honor-bound to lend their credibility and popularity to the opposing argument, they are not.

How are you lending your credibility and popularity to the opposing argument by enabling youtube comments?

Second, it implies YouTube comments contain anything that could remotely be called criticism, they do not.

You and I both know that that's bullshit. If you have criticism to make there's nothing stopping you from putting it in a youtube comment if you can get it in the character limit.

Sarkesian says she wants to open a dialogue then voluntary closes one avenue of discussion about her work that definitely would've fostered dialogue. Even if there were trolls it's not like she's honor bound to even read the comments section. Although the trolls will probably just private message her anyway.

The only excuse for this is that she's a coward or a hypocrite.

Tara Callie:
Considering how everyone seems to agree that the Youtube comments are 90% awful crap that doesn't deserve an audience, yet disabling the comments stifles any chance for a meaningful comment to appear...

Would it make the most logical sense to use "Comment Approval" to get the best of both worlds? The video maker remains open to discussion (since a comment has to be read before it can be approved or rejected) and allows the spam, harassment, trolling, and one word "Ur wrong, kill urself" comments to be granted the greatest insult a troll can be given: denied attention.

So having comments require uploader approval is the best logical choice.

She used to do that. Problem is she would only publish the comments that would agree with her, to make it look like there's a consensus.

Grey Carter:
Holy goosefucks

My sentiments exactly. LOOK WHAT YOU'VE STARTED!!!

My mind has seriously been blown by this. I just don't understand how people can care about YouTube comments and it's fucking rating system. Did anybody know that the escapist doesn't have a rating system!?. Gasp! How can I tell Grey that I agree with him with without a green thumb up? Oh wait. I'm doing it right now. Turning a debate into a competition for the most up votes and likes is stupid. It's not a debate anymore, it's a poll. You all know what would have happened if she kept the comments and ratings so why bullshit yourselves.

Also, disabling the comments doesn't only disable the dissenting options but also the options of people who agree with you. It seems like a fair trade to me

Desert Punk:

Grey Carter:

You're missing the point there; deliberately I expect. Peer reviews require people from the same field with a reputation to uphold.

So only people who make shitty youtube videos are qualified to comment on her videos is what you are saying? Or is it women? Or women and white knights? Or what is her peer group that is allowed to be peer review her videos?

Because she claims to be a gamer, that makes gamers her peers.

For the love of Christ. THIS IS WHY EVERY ONE ON THIS THREAD NEEDS TO STOP SAYING PEER REVIEW!!

You can't peer review someone's opinion. To try and call criticism the same thing as a "peer review" is the stupidest thing I've read. It implies you can give or take away legitimacy to an opinion in a purely factual way. She can't be peer reviewed because these peers people keep mentioning don't exist

I think the youtube commenters being idiots thing is blown a bit out of proportion. I find the percentage of idiots to be relatively small.

In Ana's case, she disables comments in ALL her videos... Except for the one that would make her money. In that case she took a few choice AWFUL comments and paraded it around as proof of how everyone hated her for her Kickstarter and managed to make an inordinate amount of money to continue doing exactly what she has always done.

Someone took a picture of said comments. Out of the first two hundred or so comments the grand majority were NOT offensive. Maybe 15% awful, 10% mindless and the rest either agreeing with her or reasonably disagreeing with her.

Overall I find it counter productive. If you aren't trying to start discussion then why are you making the video? I mean, you DO know you don't HAVE to read all the comments right? You could just ignore it and let the people who see it discuss it amongst themselves if reading stupid and awful things truly offends you that much...

Father Time:

Tara Callie:
Considering how everyone seems to agree that the Youtube comments are 90% awful crap that doesn't deserve an audience, yet disabling the comments stifles any chance for a meaningful comment to appear...

Would it make the most logical sense to use "Comment Approval" to get the best of both worlds? The video maker remains open to discussion (since a comment has to be read before it can be approved or rejected) and allows the spam, harassment, trolling, and one word "Ur wrong, kill urself" comments to be granted the greatest insult a troll can be given: denied attention.

So having comments require uploader approval is the best logical choice.

She used to do that. Problem is she would only publish the comments that would agree with her, to make it look like there's a consensus.

You have no way of knowing that.

The idea that people disable comments or use the approval system to avoid "Dissenting opinions" or "criticism" is a reach at best. It's the internet's way of assuming anyone who doesn't full on tank the Internet Hate Machine is just someone who is "butthurt"

Father Time:

First, it implies that anyone who makes a video is honor-bound to lend their credibility and popularity to the opposing argument, they are not.

How are you lending your credibility and popularity to the opposing argument by enabling youtube comments?

Because it can create a false equivalency between the comments and the arguments being made in the video. It's why Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn't debate astrologers or Richard Dawkins doesn't debate creationists: putting some idiot like Ken Hamm on stage with Dawkins makes it seem like Hamm has something of value to contribute to a discussion of evolution. Obviously, he does not. For Anita, regardless of whether you agree with her or not, she's not engaging in the same sort of harassment as some of the people in the Youtube comments. Allowing the comments only enables those trolls to harass a greater a number of people. People with something constructive to say have had no real avenues to speak cut off. Grey pointed many of those out.

Numerous people have said it already, but nobody on Youtube is obliged to allow comments, votes, favorites, or anything else. They can disable those features for whatever reason they choose, and it's not censorship.

But really, let's cut to the chase. She can't win, can she? If she enables comments, then she enables an environment where people can threaten her or others with absolutely no repercussions, and where it's easy to create a mountain of turds that swamp anything of value in the comments. If she doesn't, then she's a "coward or a hypocrite", "weak", or any of that other horsecrap. If there's comment moderation, she can be accused of only allowing the comments that agree with her or whatever ludicrous conspiracy theory fits the bill. But if she enables comments and doesn't read them, then she's not responding to dissent, is she?

There is no situation that allows her to meet the standards people have been talking about in this thread.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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