The Great Debate

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

wizzy555:

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.

Well, would that not be a criticism leveled purely at her thesis? Having not read it, I cannot comment, but I would assume there was a lot more to it then one level of statistical analyses. However, having not read it, I will refrain from commenting.

I just find it incredibly annoying when people with no understanding of the nuances of social sciences, people who have never even heard of Butler (Seriously, somewhat important with regards to this particular topic) who attack her points despite having no grounding from which to do so. It is, honestly, akin to questioning the laws of gravity without ever having read anything to do with the subject. Or, something less tangible, questioning string theory because "The world is not made of strings you are wrong". That is the level to which it is stupid. Someone with absolutely no understanding of the subject claiming some level of understanding.

And now we get to the crux of the matter, the subject which the webcomic addresses. Youtube comments. You are making that statement here, would you make the same statement, and ask the same question, on youtube? What happened when Rebecca Blacks "Friday" started trending because of how bad it was. It became an avalanche of hatred, comments were posted at an incredible rate, 99.5% of which were just pointless abuse. You know (And, apparently, choose to ignore) that this would be the case, that if those comment sections were open it would simply be a tide of people calling for her to die, get raped, hurling abuse, just saying she is wrong, making racist remarks, insulting her, demeaning her, using foul and sexist language... You get the idea. You KNOW this is the case.

I know one of the reasons she gets some abuse from people here is her videos found their way to /v/ and 4chan promptly was what 4chan is (The fact that its acceptable is foul but thats another topic entirely) and people blame her for how they reacted (Which is utterly stupid, but whatever). If her videos had comments open, that would happen again. Not only would every attempt at rational debate be drowned out by the insults and threats, but fuel would be poured onto the fire that people are claiming does not exist. You would be giving her more interesting followers ammunition, and plenty of it. Hell, slippery slope argument here, but what if an actual REAL news provider grabbed onto it?

"Jewish academic abused for pointing out the inherent sexism in some video games", that would be a BRILLIANT headline for us on, say, the Guardian. It would damage the hobby.

People like to talk about her academic credentials (And claim that she has none). I would state that it is academically dishonest for such people to turn around and then state that her removals of the comments and ratings is "Dishonest" and stifling free speech. You all KNOW that it would just be abuse, that any discussion would be drowned out. You mention statistics and how she misused them. I state that you are willfully ignoring statistics if you claim anything rational would appear from the youtube comments.

The fact of the matter is she is trying to start a discussion about these topics. But she knows it is a discussion better taken to places other then Youtube. If nothing of any value has been lost I fail to see what the issue is.

Iridium Dawn:
People with something constructive to say have had no real avenues to speak cut off.

And people who feel the need to say something awful and pointless and useless ALSO have had no real avenue to do so cut off.

The thing, by turning off the comment section, you are splitting the discussion. Some people talk about it here, some there, some over there... But differing opinions is what makes discussion valuable. The split diminishes the discussion. And discussion is, theoretically, the whole point OF the video...

Mr F.:
You all KNOW that it would just be abuse, that any discussion would be drowned out.

Except for the one time she did allow comments. That time it wasn't ALL abuse. Hell, it wasn't even MOSTLY abuse. It was actually most "Yay, this is awesome." and actual discussion.

I pretty much completely agree with Grey and Cory on this one.

Nobody is obligated to enable comments on youtube. Using that as the main thrust of your argument speaks very poorly of your capacity for rational argument and discussion. You're latching onto something tangential to the point they're making in the video in order to avoid having to deal with the contents themselves.

The Deadpool:

Iridium Dawn:
People with something constructive to say have had no real avenues to speak cut off.

And people who feel the need to say something awful and pointless and useless ALSO have had no real avenue to do so cut off.

The thing, by turning off the comment section, you are splitting the discussion. Some people talk about it here, some there, some over there... But differing opinions is what makes discussion valuable. The split diminishes the discussion. And discussion is, theoretically, the whole point OF the video...

It does split the discussion, but that seems almost unavoidable. Youtube does allow for comment approval (though I think if she took that route people would still bitch about censorship), but it's also globally accessible. The first "Tropes vs Women" video got, what, 1 million+ views? If even 1% of those people commented, that's 10,000 comments to review and approve. That doesn't seem manageable for 1 person. Actually, that doesn't seem manageable for a team of people.

On that note, even with comment approval and moderation, does Youtube's format really allow for a discussion once you hit that kind of response size? I don't really bother with comments sections there, but unless you can change how the comments are presented, they are incredibly disorganized. How do you sift through hundreds, let alone thousands of comments? I mean, we're taking advantage of the Escapist mods and forum structure...

I guess that's why I disagree that splitting the discussion diminishes it. People having the discussion in multiple places only seems like it increases the number of people exposed to the discussion. I feel confident any venue capable of having a decent discussion will guarantee differing opinions get into the mix.

Iridium Dawn:

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.

Most people see the commenters as lesser, and it's not like she's debating them.

Iridium Dawn:
Allowing the comments only enables those trolls to harass a greater a number of people.

And there's ways of dealing with trolls. Other people get trolls and they still enable comments.

Iridium Dawn:

People with something constructive to say have had no real avenues to speak cut off. Grey pointed many of those out.

Bullshit. Comments are an avenue to speak, and not everyone has a video to make a video response with or has a place that will publish an article.

Iridium Dawn:

Numerous people have said it already, but nobody on Youtube is obliged to allow comments, votes, favorites, or anything else.

So what? Doesn't really address any of the criticism.

Iridium Dawn:

They can disable those features for whatever reason they choose, and it's not censorship.

It is. It doesn't violate free speech but it is censorship.

Iridium Dawn:

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,

Youtube has ways of reporting people and you can ban trolls from commenting on your videos and delete their comments.

Iridium Dawn:

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.

That's what she was doing before. And she wasn't the only one.

Iridium Dawn:

But if she enables comments and doesn't read them, then she's not responding to dissent, is she?

Yeah not responding to articles and video responses will totally make her immune to that criticism though. Honestly no one expects the video makers to respond to comments, especially ones that get a lot of them.

Iridium Dawn:

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

Allow comments. Not that hard. She says wants to foster dialogue but her actions say otherwise.

Tara Callie:

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.

Yes I do. I knew of her videos before this controversy started, I posted some critical replies that weren't hostile, they all got censored. Hell look at the comments of her old videos notice how almost none of them are disagreeing with her. Or try posting a critical comment yourself. The only ones she's allowed are those that make bad points she can respond to.

Tara Callie:

The idea that people disable comments or use the approval system to avoid "Dissenting opinions" or "criticism" is a reach at best.

Except it's happened and not just with her. Seriously it's really not that hard to test the theory.

Tohuvabohu:
You know.

I don't really love Anita. I'll listen to her, but she... frustrates me sometimes.

And yet, even I think the notion of disabling comments = 'silencing debate and discourse' is a load of crap.

Why?

Because... that notion is stated, usually, within threads discussing her and her videos. Which whenever a thread about Anita is brought up, (especially on the escapist) drag on for over a dozen pages. Every time.

So yeah. 'Censorship/Silencing discourse" my ass.

She is censoring them in the one place she has control though.

The Inquisitive Mug:

anthony87:
"Look at my video...just don't talk about it"

That's called television, and no one ever says that they're "silencing the debate" by not having a scrolling 1-800-OPINION line at the bottom of the screen.

Youtube comes with a comment section that you have to go out of your way to disable. A TV doesn't come with any method to communicate with the station you're getting shows from.

Grey Carter:

and she is attempting to shield herself from ANY form of dissent and deny others the ability to easily disprove or argue against her on open ground.

I must have missed the part where Sarkeesian shut down the entire internet, thus preventing anyone from arguing against her. No... wait, there's dozens of response videos, each with thousands of hits.

And Sarkesian has it so that they don't have links underneath the video like most responses. You gotta admit she's censoring dissent in every avenue she has power over.

Grey Carter:

And your "suggestions" don't any water either. Take me for example; I have no video recording abilities period,

If this is legitimately the case, then congratulations on your ability to access the internet via a potato. You obviously have a computer. You can pick up a microphone for like $2 at a dollar store. That's all you need.

Or he's looking at on a library computer.

Grey Carter:

The reasoning of "its Youtube" is also bull. Anyone who has gone to college/university, particularly if you studied a more research-orientated field knows that you do not simply prevent commentary or limit conversation

Youtube. Comentary and conversation. Pick one. Anyone who has gone to college/university will tell you that a barely moderated, poorly laid out comments system with a 500 character limit is a terrible forum for any kind of discussion.

And yet they happen all the time. Conversations happen on twitter and that has an even stricter character limit. It's not that hard to write a single good counter argument in a short space.

Oh and not all insults are ad hominems. It's only ad hominem if you use it to dismiss arguments. Calling someone a coward isn't ad hominem, saying "they're a coward so they must be wrong" is.

I don't get why she isn't allowing comments. I mean, it's inevitable it would be filled with misogynistic shit, and then she could just point at that and go 'yeah, you're kinda proving my point here'.

AJey:
I would like to disagree with the premise. Had plenty good quality intellectual debates on youtube comment sections.

How? The character limit is laughably small, it's the thing that always annoys me, and even discussions that have potential to be intellectual get muddled and misunderstood because you have to get your meaning across in such a short message. And you can't post links, can you?

Makes giving references difficult.

The only kind of discussion I really get into on Youtube is small positive stuff, like talking about how my ferret also does this cute thing, or how bunnies are cute but kittens are more adorable.

Father Time:

Tara Callie:

Father Time:

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.

Yes I do. I knew of her videos before this controversy started, I posted some critical replies that weren't hostile, they all got censored. Hell look at the comments of her old videos notice how almost none of them are disagreeing with her. Or try posting a critical comment yourself. The only ones she's allowed are those that make bad points she can respond to.

Tara Callie:

The idea that people disable comments or use the approval system to avoid "Dissenting opinions" or "criticism" is a reach at best.

Except it's happened and not just with her. Seriously it's really not that hard to test the theory.

The problem with that sentiment is that it cannot be taken on it's own merit without knowing what the criticism is, or it's context. I've known Youtubers to disallow comments purely because too much time has passed and they are weary of the notifications, RayWilliamJohnson making a schedule of this.

Also bear this in mind: Content creators retain the right to accept and dismiss criticism at their own discretion, and do not owe you an explaination. To assume the dismiss your comment out of fear of criticism is impossible to prove. You have no idea what goes on in the minds of content creators, and there can be a hundred thousand reasons they dismissed your comment.

Mr F.:
[snip]

Actually I have no problem with her disabling youtube comments. But I am reluctant to hale someone as a great academic just because because they have a degree and some videos on youtube, I'm not sure why I should take her more seriously than say ... moviebob.

That said the abuse is totally unwarranted and unacceptable.

Father Time:

Iridium Dawn:

People with something constructive to say have had no real avenues to speak cut off. Grey pointed many of those out.

1) It is. It doesn't violate free speech but it is censorship.
...
2) Bullshit. Comments are an avenue to speak, and not everyone has a video to make a video response with or has a place that will publish an article.
[From a later response] Or he's looking at on a library computer.
...
3) Honestly no one expects the video makers to respond to comments, especially ones that get a lot of them.
...
4) Allow comments. Not that hard. She says wants to foster dialogue but her actions say otherwise.
...
5) Oh and not all insults are ad hominems. It's only ad hominem if you use it to dismiss arguments. Calling someone a coward isn't ad hominem, saying "they're a coward so they must be wrong" is.

Okay, a couple of responses. Sorry about the formatting and length, Father Time did a couple of posts and I can't make it pretty. I added a 1), 2), etc, before the things I want to address.

Father Time, I think in general you and some others are appealing to some pretty abstract ideals of censorship, free speech, desire for a completely open discussion, and it doesn't seem to get at any of the concrete events that led to Anita disabling comments. The problem with focusing on such abstract ideals is that it becomes easier to point out that they are being selectively applied.

What, exactly, do you want to happen as a result of comments on her videos being enabled? Will enabling comments actually cause those things to happen?

1) Disabling comments is censorship
I will grant you that disabling comments is, in some nebulous way, censorship. I should have said "not MEANINGFUL censorship". Youtube, hell, almost all websites have some limitations on content. An Escapist mod gave somebody earlier in this thread a warning for posting "Agreed". That is by far a more concrete method of censorship. If not allowing comments is a bigger upset than direct censorship, then how are you not taking issue with the basic idea that you can't say whatever you want, whenever you want?

2) Comments as an avenue to speak
Fine. Comments are an avenue for speech. They are not indispensable and everyone DOES has a place that will publish an article. There's WordPress, Blogger, GoogleBlog, WordSpot, BlogPress, FaceTube, YouBook. It's the Internet, there's LOTS, all free. As for the objection that not everyone has a computer, fine. There are people who only have consistent internet access at a library. They still have access to free blogging sites. And if somehow blocking comments is disabling their one avenue for speech, than you might as well say that Anita's videos not being translated into French prevents feedback. It does prevent feedback, but at that point it's not a useful objection and there's a much bigger underlying obstacle you're overlooking.

3) "Honestly no one expects the video makers to respond to comments, especially ones that get a lot of them."
I agree, but saying this contradicts your argument. If people don't expect video makers to respond to comments, then what does it matter if comments are not allowed? If it matters, then what you are actually objecting to is them not providing a forum for discussion. But why should they, if you don't expect them to participate?

4) Fostering dialogue
Her actions don't say otherwise. She posts video that anyone is free to watch and people are free to use any other forum to discuss. By disabling comments, she's turned Youtube into a simple delivery medium, nothing more or less. If that is failing to foster dialogue, so is every book that doesn't have a website and forum.

5) Insults and ad-hominems
No, calling someone a coward is not inherently an ad hominem, but it does imply a character defect that disparages them. It doesn't dismiss their argument but in the absence of actual evidence of cowardice, you're using it to dismiss them.

Tara Callie:

Content creators retain the right to accept and dismiss criticism at their own discretion, and do not owe you an explaination. To assume the dismiss your comment out of fear of criticism is impossible to prove. You have no idea what goes on in the minds of content creators, and there can be a hundred thousand reasons they dismissed your comment.

Thank you! That is precisely something I've been trying to say. Except, said concisely.

Not giving someone a forum to speak is not the same thing as censoring them. If it is, that is such a broad definition that the concept of censorship becomes meaningless.

Iridium Dawn:

Father Time:

Iridium Dawn:

People with something constructive to say have had no real avenues to speak cut off. Grey pointed many of those out.

1) It is. It doesn't violate free speech but it is censorship.
...
2) Bullshit. Comments are an avenue to speak, and not everyone has a video to make a video response with or has a place that will publish an article.
[From a later response] Or he's looking at on a library computer.
...
3) Honestly no one expects the video makers to respond to comments, especially ones that get a lot of them.
...
4) Allow comments. Not that hard. She says wants to foster dialogue but her actions say otherwise.
...
5) Oh and not all insults are ad hominems. It's only ad hominem if you use it to dismiss arguments. Calling someone a coward isn't ad hominem, saying "they're a coward so they must be wrong" is.

Okay, a couple of responses. Sorry about the formatting and length, Father Time did a couple of posts and I can't make it pretty. I added a 1), 2), etc, before the things I want to address.

Father Time, I think in general you and some others are appealing to some pretty abstract ideals of censorship, free speech, desire for a completely open discussion, and it doesn't seem to get at any of the concrete events that led to Anita disabling comments. The problem with focusing on such abstract ideals is that it becomes easier to point out that they are being selectively applied.

What, exactly, do you want to happen as a result of comments on her videos being enabled? Will enabling comments actually cause those things to happen?

1) Disabling comments is censorship
I will grant you that disabling comments is, in some nebulous way, censorship. I should have said "not MEANINGFUL censorship". Youtube, hell, almost all websites have some limitations on content. An Escapist mod gave somebody earlier in this thread a warning for posting "Agreed". That is by far a more concrete method of censorship. If not allowing comments is a bigger upset than direct censorship, then how are you not taking issue with the basic idea that you can't say whatever you want, whenever you want?

2) Comments as an avenue to speak
Fine. Comments are an avenue for speech. They are not indispensable and everyone DOES has a place that will publish an article. There's WordPress, Blogger, GoogleBlog, WordSpot, BlogPress, FaceTube, YouBook. It's the Internet, there's LOTS, all free. As for the objection that not everyone has a computer, fine. There are people who only have consistent internet access at a library. They still have access to free blogging sites. And if somehow blocking comments is disabling their one avenue for speech, than you might as well say that Anita's videos not being translated into French prevents feedback. It does prevent feedback, but at that point it's not a useful objection and there's a much bigger underlying obstacle you're overlooking.

3) "Honestly no one expects the video makers to respond to comments, especially ones that get a lot of them."
I agree, but saying this contradicts your argument. If people don't expect video makers to respond to comments, then what does it matter if comments are not allowed? If it matters, then what you are actually objecting to is them not providing a forum for discussion. But why should they, if you don't expect them to participate?

4) Fostering dialogue
Her actions don't say otherwise. She posts video that anyone is free to watch and people are free to use any other forum to discuss. By disabling comments, she's turned Youtube into a simple delivery medium, nothing more or less. If that is failing to foster dialogue, so is every book that doesn't have a website and forum.

5) Insults and ad-hominems
No, calling someone a coward is not inherently an ad hominem, but it does imply a character defect that disparages them. It doesn't dismiss their argument but in the absence of actual evidence of cowardice, you're using it to dismiss them.

You bring up some good points.

Anyway even if she never reads the comments, they serve a purpose. She has fans and people who agree with her (and people who might've been persuaded by her), they can debate people on the youtube page.

As for it failing to foster dialogue, a book doesn't come with a discussion forum, you have to make one. A youtube upload comes with a comments section already which she chose to disable. It's not about her going out of her way to facilitate discussion it's that she's gone out of her way to shut down one avenue.

Ah sometimes these jokes literally write themselves don't they?

Grey Carter:
The Great Debate

We Will Not Be Silenced!

Read Full Article

I see little problem with it. There are times you want to share a video on youtube for the video's contents.

The problem is there are viewers who take this whole trolling thing to far and have to start the, gay, rape, fag, ect ect ect comments to someone say showing a nice sunset. And honestly in America your freedom of speech is only gaurented in a public venue to be heard with politicans and if you slander, say something treasonous, or vulgarly insult someone you lose that "right" to the rights corasponding responcibilities.

If the internet held peoples free speech to what is really writen, most trolls would be banned from all forums after about three posts. But kids never want to follow the rules to the right. They just want the right with no holds barred.

If your so out of wack calling someones sunset video faggoty or whatever...make a video responce like most the people out there and allow it. But no one needs to allow you to crap all over their video just for your jollies.

Lieju:
I don't get why she isn't allowing comments. I mean, it's inevitable it would be filled with misogynistic shit, and then she could just point at that and go 'yeah, you're kinda proving my point here'.

AJey:
I would like to disagree with the premise. Had plenty good quality intellectual debates on youtube comment sections.

How? The character limit is laughably small, it's the thing that always annoys me, and even discussions that have potential to be intellectual get muddled and misunderstood because you have to get your meaning across in such a short message. And you can't post links, can you?

Makes giving references difficult.

The only kind of discussion I really get into on Youtube is small positive stuff, like talking about how my ferret also does this cute thing, or how bunnies are cute but kittens are more adorable.

Youtube debates start in comment section, but end in private messages.

Anyone that claims that youtube comments have no worth has never seen PBSIdea Channel, and is a significantly lesser person for it. Discussion can be good, and if Anita provided a link in the description of her videos to a forum where she could host the debate, that would solve the entire problem. She just wants a moderated forum, and that's understandable. However, there are people who would genuinely like to discuss her material, and while I know that Cory and Grey's job is to exaggerate for effect, it is mildly damaging to assume everyone who sees Anita's videos will respond with a "I hope you get raped." Making a video response is an option, but it is a drastically slower one, and I'd wager not a viable one for all people on youtube.

People angry about Anita Sarkeesian disabling comments because OH NOES IT STIFLES MY FREE SPEECH IF I CAN'T RESPOND TO IT OR DISAGREE are missing one huge point (whether deliberately or accidentally, I don't know):

You can still respond to it. You can still disagree. You can make a YouTube video response. You can make a blog post. You can comment in any one of the threads on major gaming sites about it. You just can't do it in her space. And as for the laughable claim that she's being hypocritical because "she claims to want to start a dialogue but then prevents it from happening," she's not preventing a thing! Look at us. Right here. This is part of the dialogue! Every comment thread, every video response, every tweet about her videos is the very dialogue she wanted to start!

It's an asinine argument that simply falls apart under logical scrutiny. If you disagree with her, great! Disagree all you want; there are plenty of spaces in which you can do that. But she is not obligated to provide you one.

You have to admit, though, it's kind of amusing to see how any and every video gets derailed by sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and hatred of every kind regardless of what the video is about. Amusing in a pitiful way, of course.

AJey:

Lieju:
I don't get why she isn't allowing comments. I mean, it's inevitable it would be filled with misogynistic shit, and then she could just point at that and go 'yeah, you're kinda proving my point here'.

AJey:
I would like to disagree with the premise. Had plenty good quality intellectual debates on youtube comment sections.

How? The character limit is laughably small, it's the thing that always annoys me, and even discussions that have potential to be intellectual get muddled and misunderstood because you have to get your meaning across in such a short message. And you can't post links, can you?

Makes giving references difficult.

The only kind of discussion I really get into on Youtube is small positive stuff, like talking about how my ferret also does this cute thing, or how bunnies are cute but kittens are more adorable.

Youtube debates start in comment section, but end in private messages.

But then, is it still a youtube debate?

Just because the soap company stopped putting out boxes for you to stand on, doesn't mean you can't find other boxes.

Mimsofthedawg:

AJey:

Lieju:
I don't get why she isn't allowing comments. I mean, it's inevitable it would be filled with misogynistic shit, and then she could just point at that and go 'yeah, you're kinda proving my point here'.

How? The character limit is laughably small, it's the thing that always annoys me, and even discussions that have potential to be intellectual get muddled and misunderstood because you have to get your meaning across in such a short message. And you can't post links, can you?

Makes giving references difficult.

The only kind of discussion I really get into on Youtube is small positive stuff, like talking about how my ferret also does this cute thing, or how bunnies are cute but kittens are more adorable.

Youtube debates start in comment section, but end in private messages.

But then, is it still a youtube debate?

Of course. It is taking place on youtube after all.

Does anyone still remember how this whole fiasco started?

She made some video (not nearly her fist; just another video in a long string of videos). Video got spread across 4chan. Tons of people posted countless sexist insults and death/rape threats in the comments. Every gaming news site wrote a story about the storm of rage and sexism in the youtube comments, spreading Anita's name throughout all of gaming culture.

She's a big name now not because of how good or bad her content is, not because she's a feminist, not because of the merit of her arguements, but because of youtube comment sections.

Personally, I'm glad that comments are disabled. Women and gaming can definitely be discussed, but youtube has already demonstrated that it can't have a mature conversation. If she comes up with a new video, discuss things then. Until then, everything to be said about Anita Sarkeesian has already been said. Let it fade away already.

Shamanic Rhythm:

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.

While not strictly disagreeing, that's a shit argument. To say that she's is about as academic as anyone's ever gotten with video games is far from the truth. Especially when there are Universities filled with media studies students/professors doing plenty of academic study and publishing peer reviewed papers. There are people like Jesper Juul who could quite frankly run circles around her.

Prosis:
Does anyone still remember how this whole fiasco started?

She made some video (not nearly her fist; just another video in a long string of videos). Video got spread across 4chan. Tons of people posted countless sexist insults and death/rape threats in the comments. Every gaming news site wrote a story about the storm of rage and sexism in the youtube comments, spreading Anita's name throughout all of gaming culture.

She's a big name now not because of how good or bad her content is, not because she's a feminist, not because of the merit of her arguements, but because of youtube comment sections.

Personally, I'm glad that comments are disabled. Women and gaming can definitely be discussed, but youtube has already demonstrated that it can't have a mature conversation. If she comes up with a new video, discuss things then. Until then, everything to be said about Anita Sarkeesian has already been said. Let it fade away already.

Let me fix that for ya:

She made some video (just another video in a long string of poorly researched of videos skewed to get the desired conclusion). She spread it across 4chan. She then allowed unedited public comment for the first time ever. Tons of 4channers posted countless sexist insults and death/rape threats in the comments as she intended. Every gaming news site wrote a story about the storm of rage and sexism in the youtube comments, spreading Anita's name throughout all of gaming culture as she intended. Then she made a butt load of money on her Kickstarter as she intended

She's a big name now not because of how bad or lazy her content is, not because she's walking stereotype of straw feminism, not because of the almost complete lack of merit of her arguements, but because she played 4chan, feminists, and white knights then laughed all the way to the bank.

I'm angry that comments are disabled. Women and gaming can definitely be discussed, but hiding behind censorship and your "right to control YOUR video" tells the world you think your arguments cannot stand up to criticism. Especially when it's her policy to delete any dissenting opinion her site too no matter how politely it is worded.
Thankfully this manipulative pseudofeminist has pretty much faded away. At least until she wants money again and taunts internet trolls.

Shaitan051:
[quote="Prosis" post="6.406612.16960731"]
She made some video (not nearly her fist; just another video in a long string of videos). Video got spread across 4chan. Tons of people posted countless sexist insults and death/rape threats in the comments. Every gaming news site wrote a story about the storm of rage and sexism in the youtube comments, spreading Anita's name throughout all of gaming culture.

And so what?

Fact is, these people MADE these violent and sexist threats. Threats of death and rape - because a "feminazi" said something they didn't like. As far as I'm concerned, the whole "showing it to 4chan" was simply a way to lift away the rock that these insects crawled under. It was a sneaky way of showing what was there - but it still showed what WAS there.

That some people don't like the way she GOT the evidence (of gaming culture possibly being a cesspool of misogeny), does not CHANGE the evidence.

One thing that I think a lot of people forget when preaching about the first amendment and trying to wow us with the evils of censorship is that our first amendment does NOT give you the right to be heard, it does NOT require people to listen to your opinions, and it most certainly does NOT give you the right to say anything you want anywhere you want without any form of consequence.

That aside, I am in complete agreement with Erin's views here. In order to have a reasoned discussion on the internet, you need moderation. YouTube does not have moderation in any real sense of the word and thus the comment section falls prey to adolescents (or at least those with the mind of one), tired cliches, unfunny jokes, and flat out, needlessly cruel remarks.

SecretNegative:
I don't see anything wrong with Youtube co...

Oh...

That second one is hilarious - "I don't like white people because... [loads of random stuff] they hid the et.s"

Shaitan051:

snip

Did she play the system? Yep. And it totally sucks that she yanked the internet by their collective balls. But rage only furthers her influence.
It doesn't matter what arguements she makes, or what arguements are made against her. As long as people continue to discuss her, she will still be at the forefront of gaming culture. Her arguements have already been broken down and destroyed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I). But it doesn't matter if everything she says is false. It doesn't matter if her every arguement is turned around and crushed.

This is the internet. Traffic matters more than anything. Everyone hated Rebecca Black's "It's Friday". But she made millions, because they hated it. Everyone knows the Kardashians are worthless. But they are some of the richest celebrities, simply because people won't stop talking about them. Online, its not about logical arguements or discussions. It's all about Traffic.

Traffic = money. Traffic = popularity. Traffic = influence.

And every thread that discusses the stupidest things that Anita has recently done only sends more traffic to her videos and her websites.
So I'm glad comments are disabled. Comments enabled would only generate more people post RAGE, more people reading that RAGE and becoming sympathizers, and more traffic to her site.

We can't logically debate and discuss her out of gaming culture. If we truly want Anita gone, we have to quit talking about her.

Zachary Amaranth:

rembrandtqeinstein:
The nature of freedom is that some people will use it do things you don't like.

And the minute Youtube becomes free you will have a point.

Until then, you're not talking about a forum for free speech in the first place, so lolfreespeechandcensorshipclaims, I guess.

It's nice that you want some sort of platform for intelligent discussion, but trying to force it on Youtube is like trying to get a panda to mate with a BMW. Fruitless, and probably frustrating for the panda as well.

But fine, we'll play it your way. Part of freedom is freedom of determination. If we are talking a truly free forum (though we are not), then people should absolutely have the right, nay the obligation to determine the channels by which they are interacted with. Why do you oppose others' freedom, rembrandtqeinstein?

1337mokro:

You have CLEARLY never wandered onto a Creationist channel have you? :D

I honestly can't blame them for not wanting to be laughed at openly.

BMW?... Big Metal... Wombat? Yeh, won't do that.

John Funk:
People angry about Anita Sarkeesian disabling comments because OH NOES IT STIFLES MY FREE SPEECH IF I CAN'T RESPOND TO IT OR DISAGREE are missing one huge point (whether deliberately or accidentally, I don't know):

You can still respond to it. You can still disagree. You can make a YouTube video response. You can make a blog post. You can comment in any one of the threads on major gaming sites about it. You just can't do it in her space. And as for the laughable claim that she's being hypocritical because "she claims to want to start a dialogue but then prevents it from happening," she's not preventing a thing! Look at us. Right here. This is part of the dialogue! Every comment thread, every video response, every tweet about her videos is the very dialogue she wanted to start!

It's an asinine argument that simply falls apart under logical scrutiny. If you disagree with her, great! Disagree all you want; there are plenty of spaces in which you can do that. But she is not obligated to provide you one.

Hello.

I think the distinction is that people want to address her directly, and hopefully get a response. Not saying they're entitled to it, but she does drop the "opening a dialogue" line, I think... in most videos of hers that I've seen. She's had youtube comments, twitter and her own website where comments have been moderated with the rules-of-conduct more-or-less being "agree with me or get deleted". The dialogue gets to happen(yay!...?) but it has to happen away from her, unless it's praise... in which case, it's welcome.

It's her space, that's fair. The messages are a little mixed though, and dialogue between people who all agree is of questionable worth.

Love Panda.

You know the weird thing is, if I uploaded a video to YouTube, it would be for the soul purpose of using it as the most convenient hosting point and I'd turn off the comments too.

captcha: extra cheese

shifter85:

Shaitan051:
[quote="Prosis" post="6.406612.16960731"]
She made some video (not nearly her fist; just another video in a long string of videos). Video got spread across 4chan. Tons of people posted countless sexist insults and death/rape threats in the comments. Every gaming news site wrote a story about the storm of rage and sexism in the youtube comments, spreading Anita's name throughout all of gaming culture.

And so what?

Fact is, these people MADE these violent and sexist threats. Threats of death and rape - because a "feminazi" said something they didn't like. As far as I'm concerned, the whole "showing it to 4chan" was simply a way to lift away the rock that these insects crawled under. It was a sneaky way of showing what was there - but it still showed what WAS there.

That some people don't like the way she GOT the evidence (of gaming culture possibly being a cesspool of misogeny), does not CHANGE the evidence.

You mean there are bad people in 4chan who occasionally raid people. This would be news if it were 2009.

And when the sample pool is specifically cherry picked and includes a 4chan raid the evidence is incredibly weak.

 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