50 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older
50.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 19, 2014, 15:23
50.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 19, 2014, 15:23
Oct 19, 2014, 15:23
 
Add into all of this the extremely aggressive tone of your posts and I'd have to admit my interest in continuing to engage with you about this topic has pretty much waned.

Way ahead of you pal. You are nothing but a worthless troll who posts TL:DR garbage. Piss off. I can't believe I wasted so much time engaging a troll.

This comment was edited on Oct 19, 2014, 15:53.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
49.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 19, 2014, 08:23
49.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 19, 2014, 08:23
Oct 19, 2014, 08:23
 
I'll admit that I was too quick to judge your mental acuity in that first post.

But I must then also admit--and I know this sounds harsh--you've done nothing to convince me that my original assessment was wrong. No, I don't expect you to state every argument on the Internet, I expect you to state YOUR argument or provide a link to someone who you think accurately represents your position--something you've yet again failed to do in this latest comment despite my repeated asking.

Look at it from my point of view. Anytime you're asked to state your explicit problems with Sarkeesian's argument you evade the question. Instead, our entire discussion has focused around your attempt to discredit Sarkeesian--a tactic I've pointed out is both tasteless and very often conveys that the arguer has nothing to support their side.

Now, as far as Summers goes, as I've already pointed out her argument consists of "I read some literature (but I'm not going to tell you what) and I didn't find any misogyny. You should trust me because I call myself a feminist." As if that isn't fail enough, she admits she hasn't touched a video game since the 80s. At this point I need to remind you that a huge part of your argument to discredit Anita is not a gamer and only played some of the games she talked about while watching videos of others. If you still can't see how absurd your choice of Summers--someone whose entire argument was an appeal to authority and according to your own standards was less qualified to comment on games than Anita--was to support your position, I honestly have to start questioning your reasoning abilities.

Regarding Thunderf00t, I pointed out just a few of the problems with the video in this very thread. Scroll down to read them. That post was long enough without continuing to pick apart the remainder of the video and again I need to remind you that the whole point of our discussion here is not to discuss my problems with Thunderf00t's video but YOUR problems with Anita's videos--something sadly we never got to despite the enormous fuck-ton of text that we've both written because you keep failing to answer the question.

Add into all of this the extremely aggressive tone of your posts and I'd have to admit my interest in continuing to engage with you about this topic has pretty much waned. I'd like to have a rational and reasonable discussion about the issues with you and I expect (as I've already stated) we'll probably agree about some of your complaints. But having a rational and reasonable discussion doesn't seem to be something you're interested in doing here so I'll just bid you good day and let you get back to... whatever it is you are trying to achieve here.

Prez wrote on Oct 19, 2014, 02:54:
You know sdgundamx, you lecture others on attacking the person and not refuting the message but ironically that is all I see you do. You have not presented one single solitary counter argument to Thunderfoot's points. You did not offer a single rebuttal to any of Christina Summers points yesterday. For someone who complains about it happening to Sarkeesian you sure don't waste time doing it to someone else. Anita's videos are garbage. I can go through each one and systematically pick apart each point that she makes and refute it with easily-found facts. But then you would just question my mental ability. Oh wait - you already did that. That others have already done exactly what you are asking for apparently doesn't register for you. I guess you think that this debate here on Blues only started once you joined it? Should we all go back and re-make all of our points, the ones we made before you graced us with your presence, for your benefit?

You also keep moving the goal posts. First no one was countering any of her arguments. Now people are only countering one of her arguments. Videos have been posted pointing out just how wrong she is but because you don't like the people making them the whole lot of them are null and void. You won't be satisfied until someone breaks down each point she makes, no matter how stupid, and spells it out for you why she is wrong -politely- I guess? Even then, I doubt you would be satisfied. My guess is that you know that no one here is actually going to take the time to do such a herculean task since we have better ways to spend our free time and don't have the benefit of kickstarter money (espectially when so many of her points are face-palm worthy and shouldn't need to be rebutted). So I guess you think you can therefore "win" because no one can rise to your challenge, thus we are all just Anita-hating morons. The fact is the onus is on her to try to make a coherent argument, not on us to try to pick them apart. Thus far she has come woefully short of that. You may agree with her message but if her facts, her methodology, and her logic are dishonest and wrong-headed (as they continue to be) that just isn't going to cut it for those of us not readily pre-disposed to her line of thinking. The gamergate issue came about when the media not only failed to call her out on her many fallacies she presents as truth, but actively ignored the opposition despite their responsibility to present all sides of an issue. They have abandoned their journalistic integrity in the name of agendas and activism.
48.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 19, 2014, 02:54
48.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 19, 2014, 02:54
Oct 19, 2014, 02:54
 
You know sdgundamx, you lecture others on attacking the person and not refuting the message but ironically that is all I see you do. You have not presented one single solitary counter argument to Thunderfoot's points. You did not offer a single rebuttal to any of Christina Summers points yesterday. For someone who complains about it happening to Sarkeesian you sure don't waste time doing it to someone else. Anita's videos are garbage. I can go through each one and systematically pick apart each point that she makes and refute it with easily-found facts. But then you would just question my mental ability. Oh wait - you already did that. That others have already done exactly what you are asking for apparently doesn't register for you. I guess you think that this debate here on Blues only started once you joined it? Should we all go back and re-make all of our points, the ones we made before you graced us with your presence, for your benefit?

You also keep moving the goal posts. First no one was countering any of her arguments. Now people are only countering one of her arguments. Videos have been posted pointing out just how wrong she is but because you don't like the people making them the whole lot of them are null and void. You won't be satisfied until someone breaks down each point she makes, no matter how stupid, and spells it out for you why she is wrong -politely- I guess? Even then, I doubt you would be satisfied. My guess is that you know that no one here is actually going to take the time to do such a herculean task since we have better ways to spend our free time and don't have the benefit of kickstarter money (espectially when so many of her points are face-palm worthy and shouldn't need to be rebutted). So I guess you think you can therefore "win" because no one can rise to your challenge, thus we are all just Anita-hating morons. The fact is the onus is on her to try to make a coherent argument, not on us to try to pick them apart. Thus far she has come woefully short of that. You may agree with her message but if her facts, her methodology, and her logic are dishonest and wrong-headed (as they continue to be) that just isn't going to cut it for those of us not readily pre-disposed to her line of thinking. The gamergate issue came about when the media not only failed to call her out on her many fallacies she presents as truth, but actively ignored the opposition despite their responsibility to present all sides of an issue. They have abandoned their journalistic integrity in the name of agendas and activism.

This comment was edited on Oct 19, 2014, 03:23.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
47.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 17, 2014, 10:54
47.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 17, 2014, 10:54
Oct 17, 2014, 10:54
 
Hey thanks for pointing me in the direction of where to go to get more info.

I think you and I interpret this whole movement in different ways. I'm sure there are people out there calling for forcing developers to make certain games but I don't see those people as representative of the whole movement (and I agree that there are lot of people attached to GG who are also pushing agendas not representative of the whole movement). As I've said before, what I see are people saying the industry could do better. There is some low-hanging fruit out there so why not just pick it and be done with it? Why continue to use tropes like "rescue the princess" in games when it really is just lazy design?

I was talking with my wife the other night, for instance, about the Mario platformer series of games. You know how easy it would be to turn the trope on its head AND add something fresh to the series? Go ahead and have Princess Peach get kidnapped, yet again, only this time she immediately breaks out of Bowser's final castle and begins making her way back to the mushroom kingdom. So when you play the game you alternate between playing Mario and Luigi, moving from Stage 1 toward the end stage (not knowing Peach has already escaped) and Peach, who is making her way from the last stage to the first (not knowing Mario and Luigi are on the way). On Mario stages the player moves from left to right (as is usual for the series) but on Peach stages she moves from right to left (essentially doing the stage in reverse). Eventually they both meet in the middle but Bowser catches up to them and you have a final boss battle where you can choose who you want to be (Mario or Peach). As a bonus for finishing the game, you can choose which way (left or right) to run through any stage you've completed with any character.

So now the trope is turned on its head AND you add a new gameplay twist (doing levels backwards) that hasn't really been done in the series before. You make (most) feminists happy because Peach actually has some personal agency now and isn't some trophy to be swapped between the male characters, you allow female gamers to play a strong female lead, and maybe you could even have an "auto-complete" level feature like they did in Mario Galaxy where, if you REALLY don't want to play as one character or the other, you can let the AI beat the level for you and jump back to the character you enjoy playing.

I don't see how making a game in this way is a loss for anybody. If anything, it's going to be a huge publicity win for Nintendo. But seeing how this is the Internet I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me how terrible of an idea it is.

There are some other problems that are more difficult to fix (harassment of females and other minorities, for instance) but we could still at least continue talking about ways of making it better--and I agree with you, it is getting better.

Anyways, it's been a pleasure talking to you about these things. I wish all of the conversations people have had about this topic could have been handled this maturely.

Verno wrote on Oct 16, 2014, 11:09:
sdgundamx wrote on Oct 16, 2014, 10:53:
I'm just gonna take a guess that you don't have much experience with formal debate? Because that's exactly what it is like. Each side is given a limited amount of time to talk and try to convince the audience of their position. It's not a dialogue in any sense, although sometimes one team will refer to what the other team said earlier in order to provide a rebuttal.

I've observed a few but not much experience personally beyond that. This isn't a formal debate though, I didn't see anyone pick a format, theres no speaker or moderator and so on. This is effectively a set of youtube videos and a press filter. It's also not equal or representative, I'm sure there are many videos rebutting her material but most of them don't get picked up by a biased press. I have no idea why someone is toting thunderf00t but I am not that person, just like the people responsible for doxxing and censorship against GG hopefully aren't representative of that whole "movement".

But I also think people feel the industry is playing catchup and not moving fast enough to make more titles like that.

I disagree. When you look at the significant gap in sales demographics for AAA games I think if anything the industry is a bit ahead of the curve. Men and women buy different kinds of games because we have different taste. I don't think the industry needs to go out of its way to do anything, its all happening naturally and if there is a market there then publishers will fill it, they care about money not gender politics. I want women to buy more games with strong female leads but many of them are simply interested in more casual fare and that's not anyones fault. I don't think forcefully making games suit an agenda that isn't part of the teams original creative vision is a solution to that problem either. Whenever its done in other formats (movies and tv for example), that sort of blatant pandering can even result in reinforcing dumb gender stereotypes.

As far as the Hitman thing goes--cherry-picking works both ways. I see that example called out to death but no one ever tries to defeat the rest of her argument. In a real debate, rebutting one example from the opposing team in no way wins you the entire debate yet a lot of people seem to think that "Oh, she cherry picked this example" means "We won! GG!"

I'm sure there are others, I know Jerykk and a few other posters made detailed lists but I can only speak for the videos I personally watched. Since I know you'll ask, you can click on his username and type "Anita" into the search box :)

This comment was edited on Oct 17, 2014, 11:06.
46.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 17, 2014, 10:24
46.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 17, 2014, 10:24
Oct 17, 2014, 10:24
 
Sepharo wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 01:11:
Don't know if you guys have seen this timeline. Somebody linked it on a non-gaming forum I'm on.

Make sure to scroll backwards too.

Great link. Very easy to navigate and get a "big picture" view of the whole thing.
45.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 17, 2014, 01:11
45.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 17, 2014, 01:11
Oct 17, 2014, 01:11
 
Don't know if you guys have seen this timeline. Somebody linked it on a non-gaming forum I'm on.

Make sure to scroll backwards too.
Avatar 17249
44.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 16, 2014, 11:09
Verno
 
44.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 16, 2014, 11:09
Oct 16, 2014, 11:09
 Verno
 
sdgundamx wrote on Oct 16, 2014, 10:53:
I'm just gonna take a guess that you don't have much experience with formal debate? Because that's exactly what it is like. Each side is given a limited amount of time to talk and try to convince the audience of their position. It's not a dialogue in any sense, although sometimes one team will refer to what the other team said earlier in order to provide a rebuttal.

I've observed a few but not much experience personally beyond that. This isn't a formal debate though, I didn't see anyone pick a format, theres no speaker or moderator and so on. This is effectively a set of youtube videos and a press filter. It's also not equal or representative, I'm sure there are many videos rebutting her material but most of them don't get picked up by a biased press. I have no idea why someone is toting thunderf00t but I am not that person, just like the people responsible for doxxing and censorship against GG hopefully aren't representative of that whole "movement".

But I also think people feel the industry is playing catchup and not moving fast enough to make more titles like that.

I disagree. When you look at the significant gap in sales demographics for AAA games I think if anything the industry is a bit ahead of the curve. Men and women buy different kinds of games because we have different taste. I don't think the industry needs to go out of its way to do anything, its all happening naturally and if there is a market there then publishers will fill it, they care about money not gender politics. I want women to buy more games with strong female leads but many of them are simply interested in more casual fare and that's not anyones fault. I don't think forcefully making games suit an agenda that isn't part of the teams original creative vision is a solution to that problem either. Whenever its done in other formats (movies and tv for example), that sort of blatant pandering can even result in reinforcing dumb gender stereotypes.

As far as the Hitman thing goes--cherry-picking works both ways. I see that example called out to death but no one ever tries to defeat the rest of her argument. In a real debate, rebutting one example from the opposing team in no way wins you the entire debate yet a lot of people seem to think that "Oh, she cherry picked this example" means "We won! GG!"

I'm sure there are others, I know Jerykk and a few other posters made detailed lists but I can only speak for the videos I personally watched. Since I know you'll ask, you can click on his username and type "Anita" into the search box
Playing: Wildermyth, Mass Effect Legendary, Returnal
Watching: Deadwood, Dune, Evil
Avatar 51617
43.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 16, 2014, 10:53
43.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 16, 2014, 10:53
Oct 16, 2014, 10:53
 
Verno wrote on Oct 16, 2014, 10:24:
Except talking at people is not debating. Who is she debating exactly? I've never had a chance to challenge this argument in a proper format, so why should I treat it as such? I don't think shes interested in actual debate, shes interested in presenting one sided scenarios without considering reasoned responses. I've watched a few of her videos and just had to shake my head at her conclusions. I was also annoyed that she cherry picks examples to make her point without considering alternatives (her take on Hitman for example).

I don't really see that she or anyone else has painted a convincing picture that there is some gender crisis in gaming that needs resolution either. I think gaming is probably one hobby that doesn't get the credit it deserves for being forward in this regard. Despite the massive gap in gender representation in AAA games for example, we're seeing increasing numbers of female protagonists and strong female roles.

I'm just gonna take a guess that you don't have much experience with formal debate? Because that's exactly what it is like. Each side is given a limited amount of time to talk and try to convince the audience of their position. It's not a dialogue in any sense, although sometimes one team will refer to what the other team said earlier in order to provide a rebuttal.

So if someone was serious about rebutting her positions they would make a similar well-researched and argumentatively strong YouTube video (pretty much the polar opposite of the Thunderf00t vid) and try to convince the audience that their position was correct. If it was truly like a formal debate, though, their position would have to be the exact opposite of hers. In other words it would have to be "There is no sexism or misogyny in gaming or the game industry." Frankly, I wouldn't want to be on that team and have to try to prove my points with facts.

I think you're right the industry is moving in the right direction. I've said before games like The Last of Us are brilliant in their portrayal of all human beings as... well, as fully-fledged human beings with differing genders and sexualities but a common humanity. And they did it without sacrificing gameplay.

But I also think people feel the industry is playing catchup and not moving fast enough to make more titles like that. That's what I took away from Anita's videos--not "You all suck," but "These are some areas where you could be doing better." I think she makes it very clear that the titles she talks about are still fun games but there are issues in them in their presentation of women.

As far as the Hitman thing goes--cherry-picking works both ways. I see that example called out to death but no one ever tries to defeat the rest of her argument. In a real debate, rebutting one example from the opposing team in no way wins you the entire debate yet a lot of people seem to think that "Oh, she cherry picked this example" means "We won! GG!"
42.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 16, 2014, 10:27
42.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 16, 2014, 10:27
Oct 16, 2014, 10:27
 
Ah thunderf00t, another guy with no history of discussing games but a long history of shitting on women. But this is about games and ethics!
41.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 16, 2014, 10:24
Verno
 
41.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 16, 2014, 10:24
Oct 16, 2014, 10:24
 Verno
 
Except talking at people is not debating. Who is she debating exactly? I've never had a chance to challenge this argument in a proper format, so why should I treat it as such? I don't think shes interested in actual debate, shes interested in presenting one sided scenarios without considering reasoned responses. I've watched a few of her videos and just had to shake my head at her conclusions. I was also annoyed that she cherry picks examples to make her point without considering alternatives (her take on Hitman for example).

I don't really see that she or anyone else has painted a convincing picture that there is some gender crisis in gaming that needs resolution either. I think gaming is probably one hobby that doesn't get the credit it deserves for being forward in this regard. Despite the massive gap in gender representation in AAA games for example, we're seeing increasing numbers of female protagonists and strong female roles.
Playing: Wildermyth, Mass Effect Legendary, Returnal
Watching: Deadwood, Dune, Evil
Avatar 51617
40.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 16, 2014, 10:04
40.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 16, 2014, 10:04
Oct 16, 2014, 10:04
 
Verno wrote on Oct 16, 2014, 09:09:
I think it's perfectly okay to question Anitas credibility and people don't have to be nice about it either, that's really their choice. You can attack the argument and the person presenting it if you think their motives are dubious, its done all the time in debates.

Uh, no it's not. Unless you're talking about political debates, which are really just snide remarks and sound bites couched as debate.

In actual formal debates it is considered extremely bad form to resort to ad hominem attacks (i.e. attacking the speaker). You debate the argument and let the facts and reasoning sway the audience rather than like/dislike for the speaker.

And that's my issue with the people who attack Anita's credibility. They don't present any actual facts that would show she lacks credibility.

Take Thunderf00t's video mentioned below. He tries to paint her in the very first minute as if she is not a "real" researcher because she calls herself a "pop culture critic". He somehow conveniently leaves out the the fact that she is a trained researcher in social issues with a Master's from York University where she wrote a thesis on women's portray in pop culture (specifically science fiction). She then went on to research and lecture about women's portrayal in popular TV culture (focusing on Buffy the Vampire Slayer series). Her work is actually studied in women's studies classes at the university level. Therefore she has WAY more academic "street cred" than people like Thunderf00t are willing to give her credit for.

But that doesn't stop people from trying to smear her and make it sound like she's this loon who maybe took a women's studies course once and got really mad at games for some reason.

You want to attack her character or motivations? Put out some credible facts that show she's not who she claims to be.

Otherwise, you risk looking like you can't argue with her position rationally and therefore need to attack her personally in order to make her message to go away because you don't like what she's saying.
39.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 16, 2014, 09:45
39.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 16, 2014, 09:45
Oct 16, 2014, 09:45
 
Morga wrote on Oct 16, 2014, 06:03:
Feminism versus FACTS (RE Damsel in distress)
Thunderf00t Video link

In this video I take to task Feminist Frequencys latest video on 'Tropes vs women: the damsel in distress'

I have two main problems with her video, the first is the way she takes a very, VERY natural response, like wanting to protect your loved ones, as for instance a damsel in distress, and turns this into objectifying the damsel in distress. This is simply bollox. Most people are perfectly capable of wanting to protect a loved one without thinking of them as an object.

Secondly is turning the games industry into some patriarchal conspiracy out to subjugate and objectify women. This is simply delusional, the games industry only cares about turning a profit, which it does by turning out fun games that people like to play.

I also find it rather weak that she holds up the 'pity shield' and adopts professional victimhood as seen in her ted talk. The conspiracy she paints is pretty paranoid. The reality is, pretty much everyone who wildly expresses an controversial opinion forcefully on the internet gets hatemail. In Anitas case, I think the majority of hatemail she got was simply because she was talking bollox. Thats always kinda a button issue on the internet!


For a breakdown of Feministfrequencys dissertation:
Link

A transcript of this video can be found here:
Link
MANY thanks to Linda for doing the hard work of creating this transcript :-)

Thanks for that! I needed a good laugh!

Seriously, it's like Thunderf00t set out to make a parody video of himself--that's how appallingly bad his counter-arguments are. But he also fits right in to the GG movement by using the first couple of minutes to personally attack Anita rather than her argument by suggesting she's not a real researcher and that's why we shouldn't take her arguments seriously.

Epic argumentative fail right there, but he follows it up by trying to incredulously claim that women should feel empowered by Double Dragon Neon because--I kid you not--the female character punches the final boss in the balls during the ending credits.

Yeah, let's forget that she was kidnapped and brainwashed (exactly the trope Anita was bashing it for), that she's dressed like a hooker for most of the game(and barely dressed at all when she comes back as a boss), that she's given dialogue to make her sound like the biggest bimbo on the planet ("I'm a baaaaad girl" when she shows up brainwashed during the boss fight). Surely, this game is a bastion of women's empowerment--or so Thunderf00t would have you believe.

Honestly, that video is the epitome of intellectual laziness and blatant distortion of facts. He commits all of the sins Anita supposedly does (cherry picking, etc.) in magnitudes of greater degree.

In all seriousness thanks for the transcript though. Hadn't seen that link before.
38.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 16, 2014, 09:09
Verno
 
38.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 16, 2014, 09:09
Oct 16, 2014, 09:09
 Verno
 
I think it's perfectly okay to question Anitas credibility and people don't have to be nice about it either, that's really their choice. You can attack the argument and the person presenting it if you think their motives are dubious, its done all the time in debates.
Playing: Wildermyth, Mass Effect Legendary, Returnal
Watching: Deadwood, Dune, Evil
Avatar 51617
37.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 16, 2014, 08:24
37.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 16, 2014, 08:24
Oct 16, 2014, 08:24
 
InBlack wrote on Oct 16, 2014, 04:16:
Where did I attack Anita you piece of shit troll??

You have a stunningly short memory, apparently.

InBlack wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 02:22:
I doubt that she is sending death threats to herself. But she is making them public, that much is true. Its an infinite closed loop, which feeds attention seekers (see I went out of my way not to use the 'bad' word just in case) and is certianly giving her a lot more visibility in the media and even bigger speaking/presenting $$$.

Anita's crying all the way to the bank. Oh the horror.

You just insinuated that A) Anita is an attention seeker (which implies we should ignore her arguments because she must be exaggerating in order to get more attention) and B) that we shouldn't feel bad for a woman receiving now constant death threats because, as you claim (without even a shred of evidence to back you up by the way), she is making tons of money from the situation.

Still want to act all offended about my comments towards you?

It doesn't surprise me at all that you had no cognitive dissonance when you wrote either of those posts. Nor does it surprise me that you're so touchy about the whole subject that you've felt the need now to:

1) Question my credentials as a gamer
2) Call me a troll when I pointed out your bullshit

I must say, you're like a poster child for the GG movement. I have no idea if you support them or not, by the way, but seriously this is exactly why they're losing on the public image front. Too many people like you (and the others I mentioned earlier in the thread) clogging up the forums in GGs supposed defense but only driving people who are on the fence off in the opposite direction.
36.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 16, 2014, 06:03
36.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 16, 2014, 06:03
Oct 16, 2014, 06:03
 
Feminism versus FACTS (RE Damsel in distress)
Thunderf00t Video link

In this video I take to task Feminist Frequencys latest video on 'Tropes vs women: the damsel in distress'

I have two main problems with her video, the first is the way she takes a very, VERY natural response, like wanting to protect your loved ones, as for instance a damsel in distress, and turns this into objectifying the damsel in distress. This is simply bollox. Most people are perfectly capable of wanting to protect a loved one without thinking of them as an object.

Secondly is turning the games industry into some patriarchal conspiracy out to subjugate and objectify women. This is simply delusional, the games industry only cares about turning a profit, which it does by turning out fun games that people like to play.

I also find it rather weak that she holds up the 'pity shield' and adopts professional victimhood as seen in her ted talk. The conspiracy she paints is pretty paranoid. The reality is, pretty much everyone who wildly expresses an controversial opinion forcefully on the internet gets hatemail. In Anitas case, I think the majority of hatemail she got was simply because she was talking bollox. Thats always kinda a button issue on the internet!


For a breakdown of Feministfrequencys dissertation:
Link

A transcript of this video can be found here:
Link
MANY thanks to Linda for doing the hard work of creating this transcript :-)
35.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 16, 2014, 04:16
35.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 16, 2014, 04:16
Oct 16, 2014, 04:16
 
sdgundamx wrote on Oct 16, 2014, 00:21:
The comment certainly is condescending. Glad you noticed. People like you who are out there in the forums trying to smear Anita and other speakers instead of actually attacking their arguments deserve nothing BUT condescension.

Where did I attack Anita you piece of shit troll??
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
34.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 16, 2014, 00:21
34.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 16, 2014, 00:21
Oct 16, 2014, 00:21
 
The comment certainly is condescending. Glad you noticed. People like you who are out there in the forums trying to smear Anita and other speakers instead of actually attacking their arguments deserve nothing BUT condescension. You're making the rest of us gamers look bad and I don't feel any remorse for calling you or others out on it.

But how is it hypocritical? I think you misunderstood the point of the original post. The point is NOT that all gamers are sexist, misogynistic assholes (as an aside, nor was that the point of any of the "gamers are dead" articles by the way).

My point was that there is a sub-culture of sexism, misogyny, homophobia, and other assholery which exists within the larger culture of gaming and that we (yes, YOU and ME both) as a community haven't done enough to separate ourselves from them. In your case, you're actually (incidentally?) enabling them.

As I mentioned in my response to Sepharo, how can these extremist guys look at the forums, look at all the stupid hate comments directed at Anita, Wu, Zoe, and others--stuff that ranges from the mild "she's laughing all the way to the bank" bullshit to "fucking feminazis" and worse--and not think they are speaking for a large part of the gaming community when they issue these threats? Those kinds of comments don't help the situation and I contend are actually making it worse.

Which is why all of us, as gamers, should call it out when it happens.

That was the point of the original post.


InBlack wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 08:36:
panbient wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 06:31:
sdgundamx wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 03:28:
Basically, if GG has taught me anything it's not that there is a huge problem with gaming journalism, it's that there's a huge problem in many gamers themselves.

This. One million times this. And only this line.

Fuck that line. Its about as condescending as it can be, its hypocritical (assuming sdgundamx is a gamer himself) and its the worst sort of a general blanket statement you can make. Sort of like this one:

Hey guess what? There's a huge problem in many HUMANS themselves! Well DUH!

Let me remind everyone that gamers are human too and so are gaming journalists. Lumping everyone in some kind of category doesnt make you look smart, it makes you look stupid and prejudiced.
33.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 16, 2014, 00:01
33.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 16, 2014, 00:01
Oct 16, 2014, 00:01
 
Nice fail.

Wishing someone will die in a fire is not a threat. In case you didn't realize, to threaten someone you actually have to tell them you personally intend to harm them (or are going to hire/convince others to do the harm for you).

An actual threat would sound something like "I am coming right now to your office at [actual street address] to shove a K-bar up your ass."

Which is pretty much the threat Wu got sent except it was her home address and the the guy was threatening to stick the knife up a different hole.

But please don't let reality interfere with your fantasyland in which these women are supposedly making up threats or greatly exaggerating them.

harlock wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 08:43:
jdreyer wrote on Oct 14, 2014, 22:38:
Julio wrote on Oct 14, 2014, 20:18:
Fabrication of threats is good for publicity it looks like.

Occam's Razor: someone is threatening her.

depends on what you mean by that, for example:

Creston wrote on Oct 7, 2014, 22:28:
Fucking publishers. Die in a fucking fire.

if creston posted that to a publishers web forum, it could be considered a "death threat", and this is exactly the kind of thing these "victims" can point to... even though its pretty much common internet traffic
32.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 23:50
32.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 15, 2014, 23:50
Oct 15, 2014, 23:50
 
I like your analogy because one of the major problems that keeps getting pointed out is that the Islamic world (which is, as you said, extremely varied) is not doing enough to combat radical Islam ("combat" not in the physical fighting sense but in the "addressing the root causes" sense). Just like GGers, when shit happens they just like to say "They're not affiliated with us." And that's the end of it.

It's not enough. As I pointed out, the people who enabled these assholes ARE gamers. They're posting right here in these forums, attacking Anita and others personally instead of attacking the arguments being made. The extremists, seeing this, have to be emboldened by it. They're just taking those personal attacks that they see happening in virtually every forum on this topic to the next level.

In other words, as gamers this IS our problem. We have to call out racist, sexist, homophobic, or any form of bullshit when we see it. Otherwise, our silence is just enabling the extremists to continue what they've been doing. It allows them to speak for us by proxy. And I'm not okay with that and I'm pretty sure you're not either.

EDIT: Forgot to quote.

Sepharo wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 14:19:
Change criticism of gaming to criticism of Islam and gamers to Muslims and you'll see what Anita and many journalists are doing wrong.

"Islam has serious problems that need to be addressed."
-some Muslims agree, some Muslims disagree, some send in death threats
"Muslims are sending me death threats! Muslims are intolerant, unwilling to discuss these issues. They attack the messenger. Muslims this! Muslims that!"

Hey stop lumping me in with the guys sending death threats.
31.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 14:19
31.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 15, 2014, 14:19
Oct 15, 2014, 14:19
 
InBlack wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 08:36:
panbient wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 06:31:
sdgundamx wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 03:28:
Basically, if GG has taught me anything it's not that there is a huge problem with gaming journalism, it's that there's a huge problem in many gamers themselves.

This. One million times this. And only this line.

Fuck that line. Its about as condescending as it can be, its hypocritical (assuming sdgundamx is a gamer himself) and its the worst sort of a general blanket statement you can make. Sort of like this one:

Hey guess what? There's a huge problem in many HUMANS themselves! Well DUH!

Let me remind everyone that gamers are human too and so are gaming journalists. Lumping everyone in some kind of category doesnt make you look smart, it makes you look stupid and prejudiced.

Change criticism of gaming to criticism of Islam and gamers to Muslims and you'll see what Anita and many journalists are doing wrong.

"Islam has serious problems that need to be addressed."
-some Muslims agree, some Muslims disagree, some send in death threats
"Muslims are sending me death threats! Muslims are intolerant, unwilling to discuss these issues. They attack the messenger. Muslims this! Muslims that!"

Hey stop lumping me in with the guys sending death threats.
Avatar 17249
50 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older