Some Morons are Crowdfunding an Anti-Anita Sarkeesian Documentary

August 24, 2014 by

The Sarkeesian Effect is a documentary about “Social Justice Warriors”, and it’s so dumb it’s actually kind of hilarious.

Crowdfunding can be a great way to revive cult-favourite pieces of entertainment or allow creative people to pursue passion projects that would be otherwise shunned by large publishing houses. It can also be a great way for idiots to spread their idiocy, case in point: The Sarkeesian Effect, a new documentary analysing the Social Justice Warrior” movement. Seriously. This is actually a thing that is happening now.

The documentary is being created on Patreon by Jordan Owen, an allegedly prominent YouTuber, musician and author, and Davis Aurini, an “alternative right wing blogger”, as an attempt to tell the “untold side of the SJW story”.

The Sarkeesian Effect is an upcoming documentary film that will explore how gaming and tech culture have been hijacked by Social Justice Warriors as well as look into the background, ethics, and methodology of some the movement’s most prominent voices.  The title is a reference to Anita Sarkeesian, the primary figure in this new shift in gaming culture.  Ms. Sarkeesian’s controversial videos and Kickstarter campaign laid the groundwork for the current atmosphere of politically correct fear, manipulation, and intimidation.

In the FAQ section of the film’s Patreon page, questions like “Are you guys MRAs?”, “Are you just harassing Sarkeesian?”, and “Don’t you already have popular YouTube channels?” make this whole thing a fascinating cesspool of lecherous hilarity. Of the Patreons listed, only one is a woman, and one goes by the handle “Satan the Autistic Faggot”. That’s some fan base you’ve got there.

In their Patreon video, Owen and Aurini claim to be fighting for the right to criticize those who seek to make money from “Social Justice Movements”. Okay, I can almost see that being a fair point. But when your job is, say, being a writer or content creator focused on gaming and tech culture, isn’t that sort of your job? You make money discussing all aspects of culture? Isn’t it far worse to seek funding for a project designed to attack and insult those who are trying to make gaming and tech spaces better for everyone. You might disagree with the way in which Sarkeesian used crowdfunding to “buy games”, and you might dislike the quality of her videos, but to blame her for shutting out criticisms when most of them came in the form of disgusting rape threats is pretty pathetic.

The lack of self awareness on display here is incredible though. One of these guys hopes to get your money by wearing a black suit, smoking a cigarette and drinking scotch whilst grinning smugly from his leather armchair. If you want to come across as “the good guys”, don’t dress like a modern film version of the Devil himself.

sark
Yes, this is the film’s poster. I’m honestly surprised it didn’t utilise “Bleeding Cowboys”.

I’ve written about this kind of thing a lot, and it’s starting to get pretty tiresome explaining to a small number of people what everyone else in 2014 already understands. People of
different genders, orientations, sexualities, religions, nationalities etc. are all fine, and they should all be able to feel free to enjoy the things that straight, white guys can. Games are amazing and so are people, so let’s all enjoy games together, regardless of those minor differences that some believe separate us.

In regards to the film though, I’m fully aware that this post will raise awareness of the project, for better and for worse. Some are attempting to report the film for the use of copyrighted images in its poster, so that’s something you can do if you want to get rid of it. Part of me actually wants to see it funded and made, if anything to see what sort of thin arguments these guys come up with to defend their ass-holery. If you do one thing though, take the time to pity these guys for their smug and exclusionary attitudes, and hope that they become better people from their mistakes.

If one good thing comes from this, it will be Twitter’s reaction.

About Liam Lambert

Liam lives in York, UK, and is a writer/editor/Social Justice Waluigi. He is currently studying for a degree and drinking an ocean's worth of cranberry juice.
  • seabread

    as inflammatory as the headline is you’re entitled to write it even if your bias shows in the way you’ve written the article with a lot of accusatory and insisting terms.

    If Anita doesn’t like what she sees in video games (cherry picked instances of outrageous content), rather than saying “it’s offensive, it has to stop” why not offer an idealised alternative herself so our consumer-driven society can continue without having to pander to the sensitivities of the morally outraged?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3f975e5dd52f32ae0442821731e4341f7dd2a12483d7d4082d79203b9a39c464.jpg

  • F Harper

    “People of different genders, orientations, sexualities, religions, nationalities etc. are all fine, and they should all be able to feel free to enjoy the things that straight, white guys can.”

    So being opposed to Anita Sarkeesian’s activism automatically makes you a racist? Literally the only reason you might be against her ham-fisted critiques of gaming using out-dated, fringe psychological concepts is that you are a hateful bigot? Maybe some of us just think that she is a very poor spokesperson for equality and an enemy of freedom.

  • Kimozabi

    You literally couldn’t find a more liberal “article” than this.

    The mile high throne of morality that this author has place himself on must leave him very thin air up there. He certainly isn’t able to think or do anything but regurgitate the typical liberal script when trying to win an argument without engaging the actual argument and just trying to label people.
    “Oh look, someone who don’t throw themselves at the feet of my prophet, the mighty Sarkeesian and eat the scraps from her table. What idiots are they.”

    It speak volumes about how stereotypically arrogant and frankly stupid this whole article is, when it attempts to defeat a documentary without knowing what it argues at all, using nothing but making fun of people for the way they look. Which then becomes twice hillarious when you look at the author’s own image, where he waddles around in his belief that “if you don’t agree with me that my feelings should dictate what everyone plays, you’re a dick.”

    The more you think about this article, the more you can just copy it wholesale to any dictionary and put it under the definition of “liberal douchebag”. No discussions about anything, nobody must ridicule his idols and “ur stupid” if you have other opinions. He looks like the kind of person that believes that “rightwing” is a curse word rather than a term for a certain political leaning.

    And of course, even though he is dressed to the instruction manual of a stereotype, he is never the one that lacks self-awareness, it’s only all them people with them wrong opinions.

    And of course, not to be outdone by other liberal writers, he doesn’t shy away from twisting the words and intentions of the people he hates:
    “but to blame her for shutting out criticisms when most of them came in the form of disgusting rape threats is pretty pathetic.”

    Which is of course monumental bullshit. She has never accepted a single debate where she would have an actual opponent – she will only ever accept an interview when she can speak unchallenged. She will block anything on Twitter, even people who inform her of other people harassing her or attempting to stir up hate against her. She has disabled comments AND ratings on her Youtube videos as if yes/no ratings could ever qualify as threats or harassment. She is a coward and affraid of any type of challenge. She can’t even name 3 sexist games without her script, which Stephen Colbert made embarassingly clear on his show.
    But of course, she sits on Twitter, claims sexism isn’t possible towards men, she attacked and slandered Christopher Hitchens, an actual unapologetic, non-coward critic that brought actual value into the world, 2 days AFTER he died and thus couldn’t respond, and she exploited a school shooting to advertise a book she just happened to be featured on the back cover of.
    She graduated from a scam college and her Master’s Thesis was of such horrendous quality that she removed it from her site again, but not before exposing exactly what kind of qualifications she has (and what she doesn’t have).

    But because she was rejected from book criticism, she cast her sights on video games, where the media is 95% straight, white males who spend their days whining about how game devs should include more women and people of color, despite they themselves being very reluctant to do the same. And these white men are so desperate for women to find their field interesting that they will stay silent about anything bad og shitty done by any woman.

    And so, only her critics are ever slandered with ad hominem attacks, and never her. That’s blasphemy it seems.
    A critic of sexism in video games – even though she only ever mentions the same 2-3 genres – makes sexist comments on twitter = Oh, who cares?
    A female game dev claims to have stabbed a person in the face and not reported it = Yeah, we’re not reporting or investigating that.
    The same female game dev is being accused of having sexually harassed another game dev = Pfft, that’s not news.
    A male game dev is accused of rape with no evidence to support the accusation = OMG NEWS LET’S ALL REPORT ON IT.

    Sarkeesian sits in her videos only lambasting the same 2-3 genres over and over and tries to extrapolate that to the entire games industry and every genre of games. As if hidden Object Games, Educational Games, Social Media games, Puzzle games, Racing games, Adventure games etc etc etc don’t count. And she finds the most dubious studies with a number of participants so low that no respectable statistician would ever consider them valid, and makes sweeping generalizations.

    And instead of realizing that the discussion of sexism in many video games is too important to allow it to be muddled by a scam artist with antagonistic and vitriolic deflections levied against criticism of any sort, all media and idiots like Liam Lambert leap to her defense and try to ridicule any attempt to challenge her, starting a proper discussion and making the arguments stronger and more sound. If anybody actually wanted to poke holes in Feminist Frequency they can do it. It’s not very difficult.

    The discussion of sexism in many video games deserve a better critic than Sarkeesian. It deserves to have all arguments for and against debated and investigated, it deserves a press that isn’t deflecting any type of criticism as “misogyny” and who doesn’t raise up one person to be above questioning, criticism and doubt of any kind. It deserves a leftwing group that don’t consider her to be some sort of female Jesus whose words may never be questioned, who don’t actively seek to shut down any consenting voices and who are able to put their label makers away, even for just 5 minutes.
    And it deserves a rightwing group that don’t act like retarded children and keeps harassing the people discussing sexism in many video games.

    But the media has done such a wonderful job of making Sarkeesian a symbol for online harassment of women that we will never have a discussion cleansed of harassment and vitriol when everyone focuses only on Sarkeesian. Her and the media will continue to treat any question as misogyny and keep writing one attack article after the other, as if they think that if they keep yelling at people who don’t agree for long enough, they will eventually convince everyone that they’re right.

    And when they only refuse to actually look inside for a fraction of a second and think that maybe their retoric, their tactics, their smear campaigns and their slander might not be the best way of getting everyone on board with them, that’s all we ever get.

    Hey, liberals, maybe the outrageous, unacceptable reactions you’re getting come from a place that is not just “MISOGYNY”. There simply can’t be that many women-haters out there. When people point out that Sarkeesian created a conclusion from a study that has a sample size waaaaaaaay to small to be representative of anything, they don’t necessarily hate women. It might instead be a sign that you guys need to do more research or find more studies to make your argument concrete.

    You know, studying the problem so you can actually find its root and actually determine if it’s as bad as you think or if it’s even worse.

    But, I digress – that would require liberals to admit they were actually not 100% right about everything they do, and Armageddon will occur before that happens. And you could tell them that they themselves are in part to blame for the discussion never evolving and only takes places in two separate place, in two separate groups that already agree with themselves.

    But thank you, Liam, for a nice laugh, for claiming that everyone else lacks self-awareness while you’re bathed in it, and for your continued effort to never advance discourse beyond the pool of mud and hate that it currently is.

  • Basiclife1

    The issues Anita raises are valid but she cherry-picks examples out of context and exaggerates.

    There is a problem but she’s definitely not part of the solution, just someone who wants to make some money and grab a little fame.

  • Gandalf Olorin

    This article is such a gigantic failure. It tries to mock and insult this project with nothing but stupid ad hominems, and the highest rated comment is in direct opposition to this article writer’s opinion. To the writer; you GET nothing!GOOD DAY, SIR! GOOD DAY!

  • Allen J Harris

    Perhaps the worst review of anything I’ve seen since the actual Sarkeesian videos. Your bias is on your sleeve, Lambert. People get to criticize Sarkeesian and her lot – whether you like it or not.

  • Adam Master Shortpants Perry

    Good to know your level of intelligence, Mr. Lambert. I hope you watch the documentary after it’s released and perhaps write an apology article.

  • Pingback: Une question d'intégrité journalistique (ou: Le problème avec GamerGate) - Multijoueur()

  • Joanna

    Anita is a fraud. And not even a very good one.

  • TheNate

    More then two months later, the Sarkeesian Effect hasn’t moved past the second-trailer phase. Looks like some people who called Anita a fraud have some apologizing to do – at least she makes videos.

    • Hugh Briss

      Anita’s logically flawed and self-contradictory presentations are a prime example of why “quality over quantity” matters. If you actually know a single thing about filmmaking, you’d know that a production-quality film, even if it’s only 15 minutes long, requires a lot of time to produce. Anita Sarkeesian received over $150,000, yet in two years has produced only a few relatively short videos with only marginally higher apparent production value over her pre-Kickstarter clips, plus a lot of content that has been verified as stolen from various Let’s Play channels.

      Dread the thought that The Sarkeesian Effect might be working towards a film of some degree of quality! Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

      • TheNate

        Actually, I know a lot about filmmaking – enough to know responsible budgeting means more than begging for $15,000 a month. Aruni and morons are asking for $180,000 a year, while Anita got by on less than half of that and isn’t done yet.

        I guess you missed the part where you have to know something before being patronizing.

        Also, it’s not “stealing” – it’s called “Fair Use.” Feminist Frequency is registered as a non-profit, which makes that legal. It’s called education. Get some.

        • Hugh Briss

          You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, especially regarding the application of copyright law. You are wrong, and the fact that you use incomplete information to declare that I need to “get some education” shows what an ignorant, petulant child you are. There is no point in arguing with a fool who can’t even get basic facts straight.

          In case you think you’re going to get away with your fair use idiocy by waving around your ePenis, I have this thing called a “reference.” That’s where people who make a factual statement back it up. You might try it sometime.

          https://www.quora.com/Are-nonprofits-protected-under-Fair-Use
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Common_misunderstandings
          http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/how-does-the-fair-use-doctrine-apply-to-nonprofit–792266.html
          https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/fair-use.html#yt-copyright-myths

          Anita has stolen another artist’s content for her FF work before and attempted to shout “fair use.” http://cowkitty.net/post/78808973663/you-stole-my-artwork-an-open-letter-to-anita

          This person accurately describes the distinction between Anita’s use of the “Let’s Play” videos she used in her own videos that makes her use NOT fall under the exemption of fair use: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?p=3420574&sid=ecbde53e86a7f0484491f607654feab9#p3420574 and I quote: “…I’d distinguish between using LP footage to comment on the game, and using it to comment on the LP commentary. The second case documents gamer culture using the LP as an example, and shouldn’t, imo, require permission at all. The first case uses the work of the LP author for an unrelated purpose (talking about the game itself)…” Anita’s commentary is not regarding the videos she stole (or “appropriated” if you want to make it sound like she didn’t steal it while still saying the same damn thing) but instead is about the games that those videos were recorded from. A copyright attorney would eat her alive in court.

          • TheNate

            Wow. How does someone as stupid as you even get dressed? You’re quoting forums and Wikipedia as sources.

            Here’s a real source:

            “Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.
            The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
            The nature of the copyrighted work
            The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
            The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work”

            http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

            So, yeah, it’s a fuzzy area, but as many people smarter than you pointed out in the XKCD forum you linked to, what Anita did wasn’t exactly illegal.

            Oh, and no comment on how Aruni & co. are asking for $180,000 a year when Sarkeesian gets by on $150,000 for two years? Did you get distracted?

          • tuyme wuystah

            I don’t care for a discussion about copyright law anyway, since I don’t really feel like using this cancer that plagues the creative world in my favour – anyone who somehow bends or breaks it and gets away with it, even if they’re a crazy femtard out to hijack the entertainment industry, gets a round of applause from me. You go, grrl!

            The main issue, as it is, is that she asked for all that money so she could spend it on buying a bunch of games, and then just taking already existing footage from someone else looks kinda… fishy. But hey, you can always find excuses – she’s got more planned and had to cut budget, she wasn’t good enough to complete some level, the budget was also meant to finance her travelling around the world doink good and complain about her troll comments, the fact that she leaves out important plot points are already explained by her bias and agenda, and so on.

            So scratch that as well, doesn’t really bother me either – it’s just, like, you know, “isn’t it interesting” that she got all that money, and there’s only been a couple videos so far with some borrowed game footage to boot?
            What I really have a bone to pick with is this statemet of yours:
            “while Anita got by on less than half of that and isn’t done yet.” Neither are the filmmakers. Please stop saying stupid things in defense of Anita Sarkeesian and in great attack of her detractors – you might just write history if you do that.

          • Hugh Briss

            Sarkeesian didn’t boost her production values. The only thing she seem to have done is to fire up a nonprofit entity. It’s easy to make videos on a $150K budget when you’re not spending much. I don’t know the scope of the $180K a year film so I don’t know why they budgeted that high. Feel free to ask them yourself instead of third parties that aren’t directly involved.

            As for the rest…you’re repeating the law verbatim, so congratulations on your newly acquired ability to copy “but as many people smarter than you pointed out in the XKCD forum you linked to, what Anita did wasn’t exactly illegal.” Anita’s nonprofit status doesn’t shield her from copyrights. She was not engaging in commentary or criticism of the videos she stole from other peoples’ channels. By now, I’d imagine your thoughts run along the path of “that’s EXACTLY what she is doing, you idiot!” If so, you are incorrect. The videos created by people on YouTube are not the same as the games those videos are extracted from. She is not criticizing “Let’s Play XYZ” from “Johnny ABC’s channel,” she is criticizing XYZ itself. Fair use, as cited by yourself, takes into consideration “the purpose and character of the use.” “Nonprofit educational use” being the stated purpose does not automatically grant Anita permission to chop up someone else’s video and use it. Here’s someone smarter than the XKCD forum people for you to marinate on:

            http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/

            ——–
            Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody.

            Commentary and Criticism

            If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work – for instance, writing a book review – fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:

            * quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
            * summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
            * copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
            * copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.

            The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public reaps benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases.

            Parody

            A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that, by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to “conjure up” the original.
            ——–

            Did you notice that part about “if you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work” at the top of the first section? The copyrighted works being used are the Let’s Play videos. She is NOT commenting upon or critiquing those videos at all. She is also clearly not attempting to parody any of them. Her use is not protected under fair use; it is equal to a magazine published by a nonprofit using photographs of video game box art from a third party photographer that licenses those photographs, placing said photos in an article criticizing video game box art rather than an article criticizing that photographer or the photo itself.

            This distinction is a prime example of the difference between protected fair use exemption and illegal commercial use.

          • TheNate

            http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/03/03/breaking-gamergate-breakup-news-jordan-owen-has-fired-davis-aurini-from-thesarkeesianeffect/#more-15506

            HA HA HA! YOu are so goddamn stupid! Seriously. You, the cowardly spiteful “Guest”, are a moron.

    • tuym wuystah

      So do they :D

      • TheNate

        http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/03/03/breaking-gamergate-breakup-news-jordan-owen-has-fired-davis-aurini-from-thesarkeesianeffect/#more-15506

        No, you idiot, they do not. Idiot. Idiot.Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot.

        • tuymwuystah

          Now that sure was a passionate release after 4 months of penned up frustration and fleeting, trembling hope!

          Why would anyone have to take back calling Bob a fraud if Jack who’s against Bob turns out to be a fraud as well? If you’d said “the people who insisted JO wasn’t a fraud have some explaining to do” you might’ve had a point – but should’ve thought about that before writing that comment, eh?

          Oh, and by the way:
          :D :D
          ;)

          • TheNate

            No, it was just well-timed. It took you a whole month to think of a comeback, though.

            And what happened in that month? Let’s see – the two idiots got back together and did nothing but lose Patreon supporters, while Anita made this thing called a “video.” As in, she actually made something while Owen made nothing but a video attacking Aurini that he retracted.

            So, yeah, I have a point – Owen is a scammer at best and an idiot at worst – and you are both too stupid to understand it and too cowardly to use anything but a guest account. Another example of MRAs being the worst examples of masculinity.

          • tuymwaistah

            Huh? A month ago they announced the break-up and you no doubt rushed here that very hour to spread the sexual news. A week later, much to your long face, that ecstasy proved to have been short-lived, symbolizing the fleeting nature of bliss and happiness in our bleak existence.

            And like 3/4 days ago I felt like revisiting this page after 7 months just to see if something had popped up (not under puritanism it didn’t).

            So I don’t really know what you’re talking about :)

            “while Anita made this thing called a “video.””
            Wow, a video. That 7 minute joke, or what? The relation between the frequency of Aurini*s video releases and Sarkeesian’s is like comparing Achilles to that turtle – except it’s only in your mind that that difference amounts to nothing.

            Owen has released three since, including a response to that “video” of hers, all combined taking up almost 3 hours.

            Granted, she’s travelling around giving useless speeches while he’s editing the already finished footage, so both are slightly busy.

            I’m not not sure what’s so hard about wrapping your head around the idea of two guys taking a couple of months to edit hours of interview footage into a presentable documentary? Sure nothing to compared to wrapping your head around why Anita’s taking so fucking long to produce 20 minutes of useless analysis while Doug Walker puts out mash-up videos of much higher quality each fucking week… well, popular enough not to require a funding for that kind of thing, I guess?

            But hey, if you want more teasers or something, that’s fair I guess. Whatever, maybe they should release some.

            “Owen is a scammer at best and an idiot at worst”
            Um… no. “At best”, he’s diligently editing a long-ass movie right now, taking as much time as can be reasonably expected for such a project. At middle, he’s somewhat incompetent and takes longer than it would be standard, and at worst he’s a scammer – which, if true, will be vindicated when the movie ends up not getting released at all.

            I’m still not sure how his potential failures have any impact on Sarkeesian’s potential (let’s be honest – actual) failures, the two work rather independently from each other and the only ones you demanded to eat their words were the people bitching about her, not so much those supporting him.

            “and you are both too stupid to understand it and too cowardly to use anything but a guest account”
            Just too lazy, man, I just like write a couple things and then I’m off for half a year, why bother?

            “Another example of MRAs being the worst examples of masculinity.”
            I’m not an MRA, neither are the two filmmakers (Aurini is in the manosphere but not an MRA from what I know; Owen considers MRAs to be as bad as feminists). The most prominent MRAs right now, the ones AVfM and like-minded, don’t give much crap about “masculinity” and, in fact, actively oppose its imposition on society.

            There’s some MRAs elsewhere that do give a fuck or two about masculinity, though – one of them being Bernard Chapin, who’s a horrible partisan pratt, and a bit of an uptight socon on occasion, but quite convincingly manly despite all that I’d say.
            Quit aping pre-school rhetorical devices from the dimmest of web feminists and go get some fucking perspective you utter pratt.

          • TheNate

            1. You are still too much of a coward to use a real account. Grow a pair, wuss.

            2. I’m not an MRA, neither are the two filmmakers (Aurini is in the manosphere but not an MRA from what I know; Owen considers MRAs to be as bad as feminists). – OK, you are officially too stupid to argue. You know the whole reason for their breakup was over RooshV, right?

            3, You’re still using a guest account. How cowardly are you?

            4. “I’m not an MRA, neither are the two filmmakers (Aurini is in the manosphere but not an MRA from what I know; Owen considers MRAs to be as bad as feminists).” “Quit aping pre-school rhetorical devices from the dimmest of web feminists and go get some fucking perspective you utter pratt.” OK, no contradiction there, moron.

            Call me a prat all you want, at least I have the balls to use a real account. That means you have no proof I’m a prat, and I have evidence you are too much of a coward to stand by your own words.

          • wasteoftime

            “1. You are still too much of a coward to use a real account. Grow a pair, wuss.”
            I can literally feel my primal mirror neurons caving in to your manly peer pressure one by one as we speak.
            I’ve got to set up a real account! Geez, I really need to set up a real account now! Fuck off retard.

            “OK, you are officially too stupid to argue. You know the whole reason for their breakup was over RooshV, right?”
            Um, no, actually I don’t – Aurini posted some stupid shit along those general lines, and then later in the video said it was all just some kind of diss duel cause they were all frustrated or something.

            With that said… how does that in any way challenge what I’d just said? RooshV is a PUA (not MRA I think, but I’m not really familiar), Aurini is in the manosphere, and Owen is neither of the three.

            Gee, can’t imagine how such a constellation could ever lead to some kind of difference of opinion! Can you imagine it?! I can’t imagine it! Can you imagine it?!

            “3, You’re still using a guest account. How cowardly are you?”

            When you stop white-knighting for a painfully obvious feminist kookster, I’ll maybe consider living up to your tough guy talk a worthwhile waste of my time. Until then – there’s the door.

            “OK, no contradiction there, moron.”

            What stupid fucking contradiction?! You’re using the primitive, annoying feminist tactic of throwing the “MRA” label at anyone who disagrees with you. I told you to cut that shit out.

            Where, what contradiction? And what does this have to do with who’s a fraudster anymore? That’s all you’ve got left isn’t it, snarky quips – no arguments, no objections, just quips.
            Too much of a wuss to admit you’re full of shite when you see it? I’m not Are you?

            “Call me a prat all you want, at least I have the balls to use a real account. That means you have no proof I’m a prat, and I have evidence you are too much of a coward to stand by your own words.”
            Ah, so now the discussion’s officially about real accounts and your balls… I see.
            Bye.

          • TheNate

            Thanks for getting an account! It shows initiative!

            “With that said… how does that in any way challenge what I’d just said? RooshV is a PUA (not MRA I think, but I’m not really familiar), Aurini is in the manosphere, and Owen is neither of the three.”

            http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/its-time-for-the-manosphere-to-mend-bridges-with-the-mhrm/

            Yeah – I think even they’d admit they have a lot in common.

            “What stupid fucking contradiction?! You’re using the primitive, annoying feminist tactic of throwing the “MRA” label at anyone who disagrees with you.”

            As opposed to your enlightened tactic of lumping anyone who disagrees with you as a feminist? Because you did that. YOU DID EXACTLY THAT! Your inability to realize it doesn’t make it not true.

            “That’s all you’ve got left isn’t it, snarky quips – no arguments, no objections, just quips.
            Too much of a wuss to admit you’re full of shite when you see it? I’m not Are you?”

            Thanks for admitting you’re full of shite! That’s the first step. Now you have to realize that you’re incapable of arguing. All you’re trying to do is explain to the world why you’re so miserable.

          • tuymwuyster

            “Yeah – I think even they’d admit they have a lot in common.”
            Well, wouldn’t be sharing a label if they didn’t, would they?

            On the other hand…
            “it’s time for the manosphere to mend bridges”

            QED bitch.

            Fuckin take a look at the feud between Paul Elam and Bernard Chapin if you think they’re all in harmony and prancing through the flower fields holding hands. Let’s see Dean Esmay even kind of agree with whoever wrote that “let’s return to patriarchy” article on Spearhead.

            Whenever MRAs have been confused PUAs, all I’ve ever seen was them distancing themselves from those with a pronounced scoff.

            “As opposed to your enlightened tactic of lumping anyone who disagrees with you as a feminist? Because you did that.”
            Where did I do that exactly? I said you were *aping* feminist tactics, and that was IN RESPONSE to you calling me and Owen MRAs.

            If I’d called you a feminist for doing so, that would’ve been pretty much excusable – it’s a tactic typical and characteristic of feminists… or the idiots they influence.
            Even if I’d called you a feminist for your pro-Sarkeesian bias, that would’ve been kind of reasonable – she’s a feminist, most people blindly supporting her are feminists or pro-feminists.

            MRAs, however, are a very specific spectrum of movements and only a subset of people opposing feminism (and, as far as the more ideological feminism of Sarkeesian is concerned, it even INCLUDES OTHER FEMINISTS) – doing that to someone merely for rejecting your bias is utter insanity, and, as I’ve said, a very specific type of instanity characteristic specifically of radfems.

            Really grasping at straws here mate, eh? This isn’t some sophisticated academic feud we’re having here – the fact that I was the last one to make an argument regarding that whole “fraud” thing and you haven’t made a coherent argument since, is trivially easy to ascertain.
            I mean, we’re done here aren’t we?

          • TheNate

            You missed the point. Here it is, repeated because you’re so stupid::

            You: PUAs, MRAs, and the Manosphere all have their own intricate views and, like most hate groups, they’re riddled with infighting. Anyone who disagrees with them is a stupid feminist not worth considering.

            So you lot deserve special consideration because you’re such delicate snowflakes, while you see nothing hypocritical about lumping your enemies into a collective.

            Wow. It must suck being stupid and hateful. But if that’s how you choose how to live your life, we are indeed done here.

            How’s that for a coherent argument? Do you need me to explain it again? In smaller words? Because I’d never call trash like you “mate.”

          • tuymwuystah

            “and, like most hate groups, they’re riddled with infighting.”
            Like most groups in general, I’d say.

            However, if the point of your AVFM link was to challenge my “Aurini is not an MRA” assertion by saying “they’re all really just buddy-buddy, and yea, some infighting I guess”, I don’t see how it does.

            If there’s conlict within the MRM, and also between the MRM and MGTOW, that doesn’t in any way lead to the conclusion that these distinctions should all be abandoned.

            “Anyone who disagrees with them is a stupid feminist not worth considering.”
            Sometimes, yes – for instance, Bernard Chapin is always eager to call any mild dissenter a “leftist”.

            However, in my case, I did that to you not because you disagreed with me, but because you called me an MRA for disagreeing with you. Are you stupid or why did I just have to repeat this point to you?

            And I didn’t even call you a feminist :D

            “So you lot deserve special consideration because you’re such delicate snowflakes, while you see nothing hypocritical about lumping your enemies into a collective.”
            Well that’s a quite accurate description of feminism, but not so much myself :)

            “But if that’s how you choose how to live your life,”
            Well I don’t – are we still done, though?

            “How’s that for a coherent argument?”
            Not even an F minus – there was no coherent argument.

            “It lost almost 100 supports in the last month – almost a quarter of its base”
            So? They’ve been controversial from the the get go, and a lot were pissed with their bitch fight (a month ago).

            “Anita? More popular than ever.”
            So? She’s been popular from the get go.
            My point (not in this “discussion” right now, but in general) is that the people giving her that popularity are stupid. You, on the other hand, don’t seem to have much of a point at all!

            Who do you think is stupid? The people supporting Anita Sarkeesian, or the people supporting Her Effect?

            “ADmit defeat and run away.”
            What defeat?
            You made the assertion that people who called Anita a fraud should apologize because A/O are frauds, too. When challenged, you stopped talking about it.
            You made the assertion that A/O are frauds at best, idiots at worst – when I challenged that, you stopped talking about it.
            You made the assertion that A/O had been less busy last month than Anita – when debunked, you stopped talking about it.
            You made the assertion that I and A/O are MRAs – and so far, have failed to make any argument in support of that case, though there seem to be incoherent snippets of could become one.
            You asserted that I was an ideologue labelling anyone who disagrees with me as a feminist – when I told you I only did that (and not even that) after YOU did that to ME, you ignored it and just repeated your earlier assertion.
            Followed by “how’s that for a coherent argument”, naturally.

            Why is someone who makes a series of claims, and then drops most of them one challenged, and fails to argue in favor of the rest, considered a winner, while someone who has debunked (well, let’s be diplomatic and call it “challenged”) all of them and is still waiting for a response, is facing a “defeat” that he should “admit” to?

            “I can keep this up until Aurini/Owen’s crappy film comes out”
            Wrong – when that happens, then you can pick it up again. Since this prediction (and its desired vindication in near future) is all you’ve got at the moment, “keeping this up” would be a senseless waste of your time.

            ” – which will most likely be never.”
            Euphorically await your vindication, and go away.

          • TheNate

            Wow – that’s a lot of writing for a Saturday night. I guess you didn’t have a date. I’ll bet you haven’t had one in years. I don’t think that surprises anyone.

            So, because you’re still stupid enough to argue under the headline “Some Morons are Crowdfunding an Anti-Anita Sarkeesian Documentary,” let’s show you how stupid you are some more. Eventually you may learn something.

            “If there’s conlict within the MRM, and also between the MRM and MGTOW, that doesn’t in any way lead to the conclusion that these distinctions should all be abandoned.”

            Well, they all hate Anita, don’t they? That’s kind of the point here. Do differences really matter when you’re talking about hate groups?

            “Who do you think is stupid? The people supporting Anita Sarkeesian, or the people supporting Her Effect?”

            Uh, I think the people supporting attacks on Anita are pretty stupid. She actually makes videos. A/O – not so much.

            “You made the assertion that people who called Anita a fraud should apologize because A/O are frauds, too. When challenged, you stopped talking about it.”

            Really? Where? Can you show me where? I never said Anita was a fraud – I said A/O are the frauds. And I stand by that. And I will until they actually make their film.


            When you stop white-knighting for a painfully obvious feminist kookster, I’ll maybe consider living up to your tough guy talk a worthwhile waste of my time. Until then – there’s the door.”

            What stupid fucking contradiction?! You’re using the primitive, annoying feminist tactic of throwing the “MRA” label at anyone who disagrees with you. I told you to cut that shit out.”

            HAHAHAHA! Issues with women much? Too many lonely Saturday nights? Yeah, I think that’s obvious. Nothing proves that like a word like “White Knight” and “Annoying feminist tactic” to prove that.

            “And I didn’t even call you a feminist :D”

            Uh, see above. THose are your own words. OK, you called me a White Knight and said I ape feminist tactics. If you need that tiny point of vindication, take it, you vindictive little shit.

            “You asserted that I was an ideologue labelling anyone who disagrees with me as a feminist – when I told you I only did that (and not even that) after YOU did that to ME, you ignored it and just repeated your earlier assertion.

            “Why is someone who makes a series of claims, and then drops most of them one challenged, and fails to argue in favor of the rest, considered a winner, while someone who has debunked (well, let’s be diplomatic and call it “challenged”) all of them and is still waiting for a response, is facing a “defeat” that he should “admit” to?”

            Uh, my claim is that A/O never made their film and their support is dropping. I proved that. What’s yours? That Anita is a fraud? Do you have any proof that wasn’t debunked?

            “You made the assertion that A/O are frauds at best, idiots at worst – when I challenged that, you stopped talking about it.”

            Fine. They are. I stand by that. Did you notice the title of this article calls them “morons?”

            “So? They’ve been controversial from the the get go, and a lot were pissed with their bitch fight (a month ago).”

            See, that’s significant. Anita gets more popular. They get less so. They are losing. And they only have themselves to blame.

            “Euphorically await your vindication, and go away.”

            Done. Now fuck off. Maybe you should make your next Saturday night less lonely.

          • time waster

            “Wow – that’s a lot of writing for a Saturday night. I guess you didn’t have a date.”
            I don’t have dates…

            “I’ll bet you haven’t had one in years. I don’t think that surprises anyone.”
            But here you are as well! Failed to pussybeg your maiden to have sex with you once again? She thanked you for the protection and went off with her douchebag hunk, huh? Dumbass.

            “let’s show you how stupid you are some more. Eventually you may learn something.”
            Wow I’m thrilled. You really look like you’re gonna be really convincing this time around!

            “Well, they all hate Anita, don’t they?”
            No they don’t. They think she’s a kook – some hate her too I guess.

            “That’s kind of the point here. Do differences really matter when you’re talking about hate groups?”
            Um… yes? Libertarians hate liberals, conservatives hate liberals, that doesn’t mean you can go around calling libertarians conservatives you JACKASS.

            I like how you basically just admitted to have sloppy as fuck, and now are looking for excuses – there are none, sorry.

            “Uh, I think the people supporting attacks on Anita are pretty stupid.”
            Well, A/O think that as well, so what’s your point?

            “She actually makes videos. A/O – not so much.”
            Lol what planet you on, they make videos all the time. You tried to claim a while back that O hadn’t released one video since the split-up, while actually he’s released 3 – but hey, if you had the habit of acknowledging reality you wouldn’t be here would you.

            “Really? Where? Can you show me where?”
            ‘Looks like some people who called Anita a fraud have some apologizing to do – at least she makes videos.’ There ya go.

            “I never said Anita was a fraud”
            Of course you didn’t, you support her.

            “I said A/O are the frauds.”
            And people who called Anita fraud had to apologize because of that completely unrelated circumstance? Or were you saying A/O being frauds negated Anita being a fraud? Still waiting for an answer to that.

            “And I stand by that. And I will until they actually make their film.”
            I admire your faith.

            “HAHAHAHA! Issues with women much? Too many lonely Saturday nights? Yeah, I think that’s obvious. Nothing proves that like a word like “White Knight” and “Annoying feminist tactic” to prove that.”
            White Knight = a man jumping in to defend / fight for a woman (in the face of criticism) because she’s a woman, not because she’s in the right.
            Everyone finds the “if you disagree with us, you’re part of enemy group A because we say though” tactic annoying, and feminists use it all the time.

            Both those are facts, and hence require nothing more than observation to point out. Wanna convince me that acknowledging basic reality also requires having issues with women? Make a case for it!

            “Uh, see above. THose are your own words. OK, you called me a White Knight and said I ape feminist tactics. If you need that tiny point of vindication, take it, you vindictive little shit.”
            Wow, that sounded really bitter – i’m a vindictive baddie meaniehead because I called you on your sectarian bullshit? Wanna go cry now?
            I don’t need your “vindication” with that kinda tone of voice – I’ve been rght all along and had the arguments to back that up. You can go whine and cry if that’s your pattern.

            So, now we’ve established that I didn’t call you a feminist but you called me an MRA…. why are you doing this

            sectarian bullshit? I thought you said it was a bad thing to do?

            “Uh, my claim is that A/O never made their film and their support is dropping.”
            That passage you just quoted wasn’t about A/O, it was about you calling me an MRA for no reason while accusing me of calling you a feminist for no reason – which, as you just admitted, I didn’t, and the reason was that you called me an MRA first.

            Forgot it? Here it is again:
            ‘You asserted that I was an ideologue labelling anyone who disagrees with me as a feminist – when I told you I only did that (and not even that) after YOU did that to ME, you ignored it and just repeated your earlier assertion.’

            Come on, respond to that, stop running away. Admit that you were wrong on that one, as well!

            “Uh, my claim is that A/O never made their film and their support is dropping.”
            No, you said people who called Anita a fraud had to apologize because of that – to which I repled “no they don’t”, because one doesn’t depend on the other.

            “Uh, my claim is that A/O never made their film and their support is dropping.”
            Well, everyone knows it’s not out, and the support dropping is something the supporters did not A/O so that has no relevance as well.

            “I proved that.”
            How about you prove that their claims the footage is finished and all that’s left is the editing are false? Or that the editing is this last hurdle they’ll “never” manage? Cause that’s kinda what’s required to validate your points.

            “What’s yours? That Anita is a fraud? Do you have any proof that wasn’t debunked?”
            Where did I say she was a fraud? She’s lazy with her release structure because she’s travelling and giving talks all the time instead – I’m not bovvered tho.

            “Fine. They are. I stand by that. Did you notice the title of this article calls them “morons?””
            Huh? You still got the explaining to do why them being frauds is the “best possible scenario”, rather than, you know, the ACTUAL best possible scenario that they’re taking longer to finish editing? And that’s assuming they’re over the deadlne in the first place, which I don’t know anything about.

            “See, that’s significant. Anita gets more popular. They get less so. They are losing. And they only have themselves to blame.”
            They started out in a losing position the first place, and Anita’s popularity was as undeserved back then as it is now – so I don’t see how that’s relevant.
            If it was relevant, this article wouldn’t have tried to smear and badmouth A/O and would’ve just been like “well, Anita’S popular and they’re not, so QED”. Are you 12 or something?

            “Done. Now fuck off.”
            Well I’ve always admired the faithful among us.

            So far, you’ve still failed to:
            -explain why people who’ve called her a fraud have to take it back because of A/O

            -justify your calling me and A/O MRAs despite decrying sectarian tactics like this when others do it

            -make a case for the best possible scenario with A/O being out of the picture

            -justify your claim that O hasn’t released a single video since the split-up even though he’s released 3 (that’s two more than her if you exclude the public talk excerpt) – not sure how that’s relevant since him making videos wasn’t part of the crowdfunding arrangement, but hey, you’re the one who said it :)

            Wow… so many words, and yet all those assertions you made still dangling in the air… just like your disappointed D-member when your feminist crush ran off with that chauvinist pigdog once again. If only she knew you were a a real man’s man using a real disqus account while defending maidens on the internet, her eyes full of trembling desire she’d jump on your faithful stand-by-er in no time for sure!

            Anyway, hmm-khmm, what was I saying again? Ardent trembling desire in her fiery eyes, disqus account, big D, feminist cru… oh that’S right, dangling assertions! Yea, you might wanna take care of all those, except apparently you’re “done” now. Oh well.

            ____

            PS, some bit I missed earler:

            “She’s one of Time’s 30 Most Influential people. THat’s pretty successful.”
            The “actual failure” would be her astronomically slow video release date, what, FOUR IN TWO YEARS??! You don’t need a fuckin’ kickstarter for that, you can probably buy those games at that rate from WELFARE.
            And hey, there’s always others people’s game footage when everything else fails, right?

            Which is why your comparisons are so fucking laughable – one has only made 1/3rd of about a dozen announced videos in more than 2 years; the others haven’t finished a documentary that involved a lot of interviews and travelling in HALF A YEAR.
            But hey, you know – whatever.

            The point is that her “failure” was in reference to her video rate, not her “influence” – if she had no undeserved influence and no undeserved acclaim, A/O wouldn’t be making their movie in the first place.. because there wouldn’t be a “Sarkeesian effect” to talk about. Get it?

            Wow, someone said she’s top 30 influential – don’t tell me every mainstream news channel except FOX News and Wikipedia are putting her on a pedestal and dismissing all her critics as misogynists as well! You don’t say…

            “She also actually makes videos without getting into cry-fests, which is more than Jordan does.”
            Well he does many more and much longer videos so I’d say it all balances out in the end…

            If you decide to continue replying, I’d advise you to keep in mind that you’re not on Badass Digest here where a horde of feminist ideologues is gonna pat you on the back and support your arguments no matter how awful and inept they are – most commenters on here are decisively on the other side of the fence, the most upvoted comments are on the other side of the fence, and the same should apply to readers if any are still watching… and even a neutral observer would have no trouble seeing your idiocy while blindfolded.
            You’ll have to seriously up your game if you wanna stand a chance of convincing anyone here of, well, anything – at this rate, you’re gonna be (silently) laughed out of the room as a frantic, straw-grasping incoherent halfwit who only serves as a further example (in addition to this imbecilic article) of the other side’s stupidity.

            Know when you’re on your turf and when you’re not – it’s called self-awareness, you mght give it a try.

          • TheNate

            “But here you are as well! Failed to pussybeg your maiden to have sex with you once again? She thanked you for the protection and went off with her douchebag hunk, huh? Dumbass.”

            I was here on Sunday night – not Saturday. And I’m happily married, like Joss Whedon. So you’re wrong, stupid, and lonely. No wonder you don’t get dates. I mean, anyone who would write what you just wrote clearly has some serious issues with women.

            “No they don’t. They think she’s a kook – some hate her too I guess.”

            Because thinking someone is a kook is the same as not hating them. Oh, wait, it’s not.

            “Um… yes? Libertarians hate liberals, conservatives hate liberals, that doesn’t mean you can go around calling libertarians conservatives you JACKASS.” You are aware that liberals and conservatives aren’t the same thing, right? I mean, if I lumped sane people in with assholes like you, then OK, you’d have a point. But the PUAs, Manosphere, MRAs and so on have so much in common I have no trouble calling them collectively assholes.

            “And people who called Anita fraud had to apologize because of that completely unrelated circumstance? Or were you saying A/O being frauds negated Anita being a fraud? Still waiting for an answer to that.”

            I’m saying, once again, they are either idiots or frauds. I said that many times. Try reading.

            “White Knight = a man jumping in to defend / fight for a woman (in the face of criticism) because she’s a woman, not because she’s in the right.

            Everyone finds the “if you disagree with us, you’re part of enemy group A because we say though” tactic annoying, and feminists use it all the time.

            Both those are facts, and hence require nothing more than observation to point out. Wanna convince me that acknowledging basic reality also requires having issues with women? Make a case for it!”

            Hmmm … that White Knight thing is kind of like the pejorative label all hate groups give people who stand against their hate. That means I’m standing against hate and ignorance, which is where I like to stand. And what basic reality are you trying to acknowledge? For me, the basic reality is that women are people too. That’s why I don’t have issues with them.

            “They started out in a losing position the first place.” And so did you! But I could be wrong. Maybe they’ll put aside their issues and make a documentary where they talk to MRAs, PUA, and Manosphere advocates (which they said they are doing) that actually says something worth listening to.

            Or they could take the money and disappear. Remember Tropes Vs. Men? That’s exactly what happened.

            Or they’ll make a really crappy movie with a fraction of the money and keep the rest. It won’t be the first time people used a hateful cause to scam money.

            Or, maybe, you’ll manage to get a date. Oh, who are we kidding? That will never happen!

          • tuym wuystah

            “I was here on Sunday night – not Saturday.”

            You’ve got some OCD thing going on regarding when you can fuck? I mean the time you can’t fuck on Sunday cause the job’s early, is the time you can’t stay up at night (badly) arguing on the internet because… the job’s early.

            “And I’m happily married, like Joss Whedon.”
            Oh… well congratulations then! And don’t worry, I’ve got plenty “feminist doormat” stereotypes for the married as well as the engaged as well as the dating as well as the softplayers as well as the singles. Seen ’em a lot from the stupider members of “my ranks”, so just let me know if you want any, k?

            “So you’re wrong, stupid,”
            Well I’ll ask you again then, since you dodged the last time – how come the only party with valid (and waterproof) arguments in a discussion is the party that’s wrong and stupid? And how are you hoping to get away with this nonsense on a forum that, well, isn’t really biased towards your side at all?
            Wanna come out of a debate as the smarter one – PUT IN THE WORK. No freebies for you, socialist scum :)

            “and lonely.”
            I like the quiet…

            “No wonder you don’t get dates.”
            Well, the fact that I don’t ask for any already accounts for that fortunate circumstance – but I’m sure my wiping the floor with you right now is somehow, somewhere a factor as well :)

            “I mean, anyone who would write what you just wrote clearly has some serious issues with women.”
            Well, I have issues with stupid/dishonest/douchebag women, you on the other hand seem to be worshipping them instead – so, again, how is someone who worships and supports stupid people smarter and more in the right than someone who realizes they’re stupid? Oh wait.

            “Because thinking someone is a kook is the same as not hating them. Oh, wait, it’s not.”
            No way! Next thing you’ll be telling me that not being a footballer and being interested in trigonometry isn’t the same… please keep blowing my mind with your astute and completely useless observations.

            “You are aware that liberals and conservatives aren’t the same thing, right?”
            The number of your braincells might just have trouble competing with the number of your fingers… I wasn’t aware of having been talking to a mental patient all this whole time, until right now.

            How the FUCK did you get from “conservatives hate liberals” to “conservatives and liberals are the same”, you PLONKER.

            “I mean, if I lumped sane people in with assholes like you, then OK, you’d have a point. But the PUAs, Manosphere, MRAs and so on have so much in common I have no trouble calling them collectively assholes.”
            You have trouble with tasks simpler than counting on your fingers – so your opinion on how much all those groups are alike (after I’ve already given you arguments to the contrary, and been reminding you to follow up on those a couple times since) has no weight at all.

            “I’m saying, once again, they are either idiots or frauds. I said that many times. Try reading.”
            Try reading? That’s ironic – the paragraph you just quoted was all about the supposed causal link between AS being a fraud and A/O being fraud; but this completely failed to register with you, didn’t it?

            What am I supposed to think of a guy who calls me “wrong and stupid” yet can’t read a four line paragraph? Does your wife help you off the toilet, too?

            “Hmmm … that White Knight thing is kind of like the pejorative label all hate groups give people who stand against their hate.”
            And I’m supposed to believe you that the groups you call hate groups are actually hate groups… why exactly? Remember – you’re the guy who can’t tell between calling someone a quack and hating them.

            At any rate, yes, the White Knight term is frequently misused by a lot of the stupider members of the anti-fem camp, as well as by the kookier, more ideological (and often chauvinistic) parts of the manosphere.
            So what? Feminist misuse “misogynist” all the time, does that make the term itself invalid?

            White knight means a very specific and real thing: men who defend women from criticism even when they’re wrong. This happens all the time. Just because some other idiots use it in reference to men who support a woman who’s CORRECT, doesn’t mean shit – it’s just a term being misused, like any other term ever coined in human history.

            Are you able to com-pre-hend a-ny-of-this? Or is the simple “he said white knight => bad” all your braincells are capable of containing?
            Sadly, I already know the answer to that question.

            “That means I’m standing against hate and ignorance, which is where I like to stand.”
            Well, if by “that”, you mean that false premise, and by “means”, you mean a fallacious conclusion, then no, it doesn’t.

            A white knight AND a windmill warrior… how very cute.

            “And what basic reality are you trying to acknowledge?”
            The one I was talking about in that very excerpt you quoted you RETARD.

            “For me, the basic reality is that women are people too.”
            And for me, the basic reality is that Mars is round – since we’re already talking about basic realities that have fuck all to do with the topic.

            But hey, clap clap, awesome – you understand that women are a people. Want a medal for that? Thing is, giving the state of your rapidly degenerating brain, you actually would deserve one for that.
            Also, just because you can count months on your knuckles doesn’t mean you have 12 fingers… you have 10. Want another medal for that, too? That’s a gold one at the very least! Moron.

            “That’s why I don’t have issues with them”
            I told you to make a case for the observation of white knight behavior requiring “issues with women” as a necessary component, not to answer whether you have issues with women.

            You failed to make a case for it – therefore, White Knight remains a valid term to use. Train’s left, chance missed, gtfo.

            “And so did you! But I could be wrong.”
            Well, you’re certainly wrong about that one – the majority of the posters on this forum were agreeing with my position when I first came here, and nothing’s changed since.

            So no, you’re the one in the losing position here, and with your imbecilic imcompetence you’re doing absolutely everything in your power to make sure it stays that way.

            “Maybe they’ll put aside their issues and make a documentary”
            Wait… you’ve been thinking all this time that they’re still split? Oh dear…

            This from my 2nd response to you a mere couple days ago:
            ‘A month ago they announced the break-up and you no doubt rushed here that very hour to spread the sexual news. A week later, much to your long face, that ecstasy proved to have been short-lived, symbolizing the fleeting nature of bliss and happiness in our bleak existence.’

            Didn’t David Futirell tell you the horrible news? You were only checking out Manboobz and couldn’t be bothered to check any of their channels? Is that why you thought Owen hadn’t uploaded a video since even though he uploaded 3 (excluding the announcement that they were all buddy-buddy once more?
            What an utter embarassment. All this time you were thinking they were split, even though I TOLD YOU THEY WEREN’T RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING? You’ve just lost the last inklings of dignity you had still (arguably) left, pal.

            “Remember Tropes Vs. Men?”

            No. And this is where it ends.

            Sorry, man, I’m occasionally willing to engage with dogmatic ideologues of various kinds – but sad retards unable to see words on a computer screen are way beneath me.
            They’ll lose any argument before they start, even if what they try arguing for IS THE EXISTENCE OF GRAVITY! You couldn’t even make a case for the existence of gravity, with argumentation skills like that – why should I waste my time arguing about social issues with you?

            Have your wife lead you to a brain doctor; come back one year.

          • tuym wuystah

            Just a little parting gift to you before I leave you to your own juice – feeling kinda generous right now, and I see I haven’t completely addressed/analyzed that negligible but still sincere attempt to answer my question and make a case for your point. So there:

            “Hmmm … that White Knight thing is kind of like the pejorative label all hate groups give people who stand against their hate. That means I’m standing against hate and ignorance, which is where I like to stand.”
            I see, I see – your argument is that “white knight” is exclusively used by manosphere hate groups to refer to those who oppose their hate… and since I called you a white knight and you do oppose their hate, it all fits. Right?

            And if white knight is used exclusively by manosphere haters, referring exclusively to those agains their hate, then it follows that by calling you a white knight, I am a manosphere hater, called you out for “opposing the hate”, and consider opposing the hate a bad thing. Right?

            You say you “stand against hate”, by which I assume you mean woman hatred. Fine – you’re outside the “woman hating” island; the outside of that island, however, is roughly divided into the general “treating women as equals” sea, and another island called “giving women special consideration / treating women as superiors (to you or to other men)”.

            When “woman haters” say (=misuse) white knight, they refer to those outside the “hater” camp.
            When people outside the hater camp use it (correctly – white knight is a reference to chivalrous behavior), they refer to those outside the hate island, but still not sharing the wide sea with them – those on that other island, the “putting women on pedestals” camp.

            Your exposure to the usage of the term “white knight” has either been limited to the haters, or you were seeing normal adjusted people use it in the proper way and imagining haters using it in the wrong way instead – wouldn’t put that past you.

            You “like to stand” outside the hater camp – but until you’ve also developed a liking to standing outside the white knight camp, you won’t pass for reasonable, and be opposed by those who do.

            By the way, I’m not really insisting that you are one – there are two other explanations for your fanatical support of Anita Sarkeesian despite her being a quack:
            -exclusive exposure to feminist media and feminist communities calling for that support and equipping you with all those other stupid memes like “if you disagree you have issues with women”, “MRAs are all the same and baddies” or “Owen hasn’t released a single video for a month” + lack of critical thinking, blind acceptance of what your tribe tells you
            -mild exposure to feminist media and feminist communites + complete retardation, eliminating the need for “exclusive” or “prolonged” exposure

            I’ll go with the latter, since your retardation is established now – brainwashing is optional, you personally being a white knight is optional.

            Oh and:
            “At any rate, yes, the White Knight term is frequently misused by a lot of the stupider members of the anti-fem camp, as well as by the kookier, more ideological (and often chauvinistic) parts of the manosphere.”
            Replace the “chauvinistic” with the more general “bigoted”, and you’ll get:
            -3) hate manosphere groups are a subset of bigoted manosphere groups
            -2) bigoted manosphere groups are a subset of ideological manosphere groups groups
            -1) ideological groups are a subet of manosphere groups
            0) manosphere is a subset of anti-feminism
            1) anti-feminism has an ideological subset that isn’t formally defined – you can only tell them by their irrational behavior
            2) some bigoted idiots who haven’t got the memo and still think that “feminism = gender equality”, stupidly call themselves anti-feminists – in the widest sense, I guess you could call them a subset of anti-feminism; overlaps with -2) and -3)

            To give you quick guide on the general reality behind the scary “those outgroups are bad” titles you’ve been given by your feminist idols:
            PUAs: wanna pick up women, are interested in getting laid – they’re not a political/social movement, they just wanna bone moar
            MGTOWs: mostly melodramatic drama queens who’ve decided to avoid situations where a woman could get them in trouble, or limit their contact to females, or something along those lines, and go around beating themselves on the chest for that
            MRAs: spectrum of actual movements; ranges from secular humanism to reactionary patriarchy advocacy – the former are mostly reasonably people you could actually learn a lot from.

            Then again, you could learn a lot from most people, kindergarden reading instructors for instance – have a good one!

          • tuym wuystah

            *overlaps with -2) and -3).

            The merely “ideological”, rather than specifically “bigoted”, types on that list won’t call you a white knight for not sharing their hate or something; they’ll just see you validly defend a woman from invalid criticism, and misplace the “in-” in this sentence.
            They’re paranoid, they’ve trained themselves to look for suspect patterns rather than what people are actually saying (just like you) – so say something that REMINDS them of white knighting, and they’ll SEE white knighting.

            Except in your case, they’ll probably see correctly…

            To give you a quick guide on…*

          • TheNate

            “You’ve got some OCD thing going on regarding when you can fuck? I mean the time you can’t fuck on Sunday cause the job’s early, is the time you can’t stay up at night (badly) arguing on the internet because… the job’s early.”

            No, I just have a social life, like a normal person. Leave your basement and maybe you’ll meet some.

            “Oh… well congratulations then! And don’t worry, I’ve got plenty “feminist doormat” stereotypes for the married as well as the engaged as well as the dating as well as the softplayers as well as the singles. Seen ’em a lot from the stupider members of “my ranks”, so just let me know if you want any, k?”

            That says much more about you than anyone else. You are a very horrible person.

            “Well I’ll ask you again then, since you dodged the last time – how come the only party with valid (and waterproof) arguments in a discussion is the party that’s wrong and stupid? And how are you hoping to get away with this nonsense on a forum that, well, isn’t really biased towards your side at all?
            Wanna come out of a debate as the smarter one – PUT IN THE WORK. No freebies for you, socialist scum :)”

            Wait – the party with a valid arguments is wrong and stupid? I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. And I’m already the smarter one, dipshit. All you prove is that you can’t make a point, you can’t understand a point, and you can’t discuss a point.

            “Try reading? That’s ironic – the paragraph you just quoted was all about the supposed causal link between AS being a fraud and A/O being fraud; but this completely failed to register with you, didn’t it?”

            One more time – and read slowly this time:

            I

            Never

            Said

            Anita

            Was

            A

            Fraud.

            A/O

            Are

            Either

            Frauds

            Or

            Idiots.

            That was my point. What part of that are you too fucking stupid to understand? If you don’t remember Tropes Vs. Men and what a scam that is, again, you’re the idiot! You’re literally proud of your ignorance.

            “I like the quiet…”

            For you, it’s not voluntary. I must be your only social contact you have with the world.

            And up a bit, you said,

            “Um… yes? Libertarians hate liberals, conservatives hate liberals, that doesn’t mean you can go around calling libertarians conservatives you JACKASS.”

            Then I said:

            “You are aware that liberals and conservatives aren’t the same thing, right?”

            OK, my point is:
            MRA
            and
            PUAs
            and
            the
            Mansphere
            Are
            Basically
            The
            Same
            Side.

            You
            Don’t
            Seem
            To
            Understand
            That.

            So call me what you want. Remember: I have a job, friends, a wife, a point, and am on the winning side of history. You have your hate. You fight for a piece of shit film that its own creators have almost destroyed and its own stars (particularly Thunderf00t) have disavowed.

            That is all you have. Yet you say I need the “brain doctor.”

            Think of how truly pathetic you are. Consider how alone and unhappy you are. You will always be that way.

            I will waste no more time on you.

          • tuym wuystah

            “I will waste no more time on you.”
            Coming from the guy who reads a sentence like “cons hate libs” and understands “cons are libs”? You’re so retarded, you don’t even have an opinion – all you’ve got is some SNIPPETS that somehow landed in your brain while reading feminist nonsense.

            You’re in no position to talk down to me.
            Waste your time on me? I’ve stopped wasting my time on your after my last post – in other words, you can’t sack me, you’re FIRED.

          • tuym wuystah

            I’ve just read your response; every single paragraph you’ve quoted, you caught only 1/5th of it AT BEST.

            Each time you claimed I misunderstood or misread something, it was based on you having noticed less than 1/5th of what I wrote; it’s comical how little each of your responses has to do with the quoted paragraphs directly preceding them… despite your obvious, wide-eyed conviction to the contrary.

            And this is actually the best you can do:
            “OK, my point is: MRA and PUAs and the Mansphere Are Basically The Same Side.”
            Yes, and your argument for said point is that they all hate the same thing (i.e. Anita) – this being a fallacy, as demonstrated by lib/con example, your point remains unfounded, and you just restated an unfounded point like a retard.

            “You Don’t Seem To Understand That.”
            And your other responses make this one look like a scientific paper – as I said, because about 4/5ths of what you’re responding to doesn’t register with your brain at ALL.
            In this case you “merely” confused argument with conclusion :xD

            Can’t even follow the trail of your OWN THOUGHT, you MORON!

            To the extent that you are on the “winning side of history” (which isn’t the same thing as “right side” – the wrong ones win all the time! for a time being…), it’s despite retards like you and not because of them – your betters are able to mask their stupidity.

            You are just ridiculously stupid, Nate – hope life’s fun being straw-fed by your wife, what would you do without her! Hey… maybe that’s why you can only post on Sundays?
            Sod off you VEGETABLE.

          • tuym wuystah

            “You fight for a piece of shit film that its own creators have almost destroyed”
            Lol until I told you, you weren’t aware of the “almost” bit :D

            Can’t even make your own fucking points without my help, what a joke

          • TheNate

            P.S. Have you checked the Sarkeesian Effect’s Patreon page lately? It lost almost 100 supports in the last month – almost a quarter of its base

            Anita? More popular than ever.

            ADmit defeat and run away. I can keep this up until Aurini/Owen’s crappy film comes out – which will most likely be never.

          • TheNate

            “Aurini is in the manosphere but not an MRA from what I ” know” – You know nothing. http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/its-time-for-the-manosphere-to-mend-bridges-with-the-mhrm/

            “I’m still not sure how his potential failures have any impact on Sarkeesian’s potential (let’s be honest – actual) failures,” She’s one of Time’s 30 Most Influential people. THat’s pretty successful. She also actually makes videos without getting into cry-fests, which is more than Jordan does. . http://time.com/3732203/the-30-most-influential-people-on-the-internet/

  • tuym wuystah

    Lawl some gems from the Badass comments, since they got closed now :D

    “I will IP ban the shit out of you in a heartbeat. Be forewarned.”
    The mysterious lack of dissenting views in the comment section doesn’t require this as an explanation.

    “Thank you for helping make Badass Digest’s comment sections some of the best on the internet. Every other site I’ve seen that posts stuff like this gets barraged with awful misogynistic arguments that make me lose whatever faith in humanity I gained from the actual article.”

    So a stupid, spiteful smear article reaffirms your faith in humanity, while people logically pointing out the fallacies in it drag it down… interesting. One might be seduced to speculate about what exactly that “faith” of his entails, for said humanity :D

    Although I’m probably being cynical here – surely, if this Devin White guy somehow happened to stumble upon this page and scrolled through the comment section, he’d gladly conclude that not every other site other than BD that posts something like this gets barraged with awful misogynistic comments, and would enthusiastically absorb all the new and interesting information :D

    “On the downside it kinda sucks because it creates this little bubble”
    Almost there… almost there…

    “that makes us think all of the internet is”
    ALMOST THEEEEERE…

    “this educated”
    Negative… negative.

    “I can only speak for myself, but I don’t have any delusions about how nasty the internet is.”
    A delusion about what constitutes “nasty” still amounts to a delusion about how nasty the internet is ;)

    “but having some kind of safe haven is important.”
    Sure, people who think they’ll go to Pandora after they die and ban anyone who says that’s nuts may have their little safe haven, and you may have yours.

    “and perpetuate their bent world views.”
    :D

    “drum up the courage to balance”
    Awww.

    “Enjoy your hugbox”
    Now y’all may correct me if I’m wrong, but after some scrolling I’ve found that this is pretty much the level of “dissent” that still managed to get through the force fields there.

    Credit where credit is due… I think.

    “Also I love how “a place where people value and support one another” has a derisive term now. Enjoy your shithole!”
    A not-so-subtle indication that the people over there, and more generally, a lot of folks comprising the feminist side of this great debate, don’t merely have a blind spot in this one single area, but are generally unperceptive and out-of-touch in many others.

    Now if I were generous, I could suggest that there might be a possibility this guy’s being slightly facetious about not knowing what a “hugbox” is – but when, for instance, the author of that article shows blissful oblivion about the obviously ironic intent behind the term “social justice warrior”, such generosity is no longer possible.

    And neither is it in most other cases like this.

    “I second this motion. This may be the only place where the comments don’t make you feel worse for reading them.”
    They do make me feel worse.

    “For fuck’s sake, dude, it’s called hyperbole. Devin said that to get a rise out of people… and it fucking worked! You’re embarrassing yourself right now.”
    Oh yea, that you do. Oh yes, that you do…

    “A group of gamers who routinely threaten to rape, maim, kill, or attack people/institutions that disagree with them…”

    A group of game critics who routinely refer as rape supporters, misogynists to or attack the people/groups that disagree with them…

    Nahhhh, I’m just being cynical again, surely they’re just referring to those trolls and assholes who actually did all those things, and the “mild critics” simply weren’t noticed or part of the current topic..

    “we have photos of two of them at the top of the page.”
    …oh wait.

    “Really? It appears there are two individuals at the top of the page. So again, you’re engaging in a soft form of bigotry, you can’t identify a “group” when there are only individuals.”

    When this is the level the “moderates” and “dissenters” in your community are on, *Plinkett voice* there are problemss…

    Anyway, being slightly facetious here, the threads those last couple of quotes came from have several dissenters on them, some of which I actually haven’t seen say anything crazy.

    Again… credit where credit’s due.

    You all have a great day there pumpkins!

  • tuym wuystah

    Hey Gizorama, tldr version – this time in the surreptitious guise of “asking for advice” and then “listening”:
    A woman, let’s call her “Anya Sarkesiova”, deconstructs a romantic Christmas song where the gender-unidentified speaker tells their gender-unidentified lover how they’ll always look after them and how devoted they are and what’d they do to please them;
    her conclusion is that if sung by a female singer, it signifies her submission to and dependence on her dominant male partner which is why it’s patriarchal, and if the same exact words are sung by a male it means the male character is stalking and obsessing over his girlfriend and that’s patriarchal.

    No self-awareness, no acknowledgement of the “devoted, noble minnesinger following his woman’s every whim / creepy female stalker” interpretations being just as valid, or reasons given why they’re not quite as valid let alone not valid at all – just the simple statement that no matter how much you reverse the genders / gender roles, it’s still patriarchy.

    Now, my question to you is, how do I post a public video or comment (cause God help me if I post a tweet to her or something) pointing out that she’s essentially completely full of shyte, that her argument doesn’t make an iota of sense and is 100% worthless, without making myself a sexist bigot who needs to be “explained” basic 2014 stuff to him?
    I know merely including the already completely unnecessary disclaimer that “this is a criticisism of this illogical argument, not all women” isn’t enough, cause Lord knows Jordan Owen has done that plenty of times already…
    so, how do I avoid being a misogynist while pointing out that that argument is completely bonkers? I mean, it has to be pointed out, doesn’t it? It a bad argument made on the discussion topic, and it needs to be rebutted – on the other hand, doing so makes you a bigot… yet just pointoing out a fallacy surely can’t be bigotry? I mean, it’s kinda a good thing to do in our modern, enlightened society isn’t it?

    So there must be some way, some option you must know that I haven’t considered yet. Please, I implooooore you… tell me what you think; I’m dying to know!
    You understand that, should you fail to provide a suitable answer to this question, your whole cause is basically done, right? Because if you’re unable to tell us how to apply necessary, logical scrutiny to statements without falling back into those regressive patterns and attitudes that you’re trying to rid soceity of (and, I can’t stress it enough, that scrutiny HAS to be applied), you’re utterly worthless to us, and said society in general, as educators and “explainers”.

    Your move :D

  • tuym wuystah

    Exactly the kind of horse shite I was expecting lmao. Several stupid “sjw memes” to quickly dismantle here…

    “In their Patreon video, Owen and Aurini claim to be fighting for the right to criticize those who seek to make money from “Social Justice Movements”.”
    Their main stated goal is to shine a light on the legitimate criticism of Sarkeesian and other like-minded personalities/views that’s largely being ignored or slandered by mainstream media.

    The fact that some people are making money somewhere isn’t the primary focus, I don’t think.

    “But when your job is, say, being a writer or content creator focused on gaming and tech culture, isn’t that sort of your job?”
    Above, you said “criticizing those who make money from SJMs” – did you mean as in criticizing those people who are being protected from criticism and also happen to make money, or criticizing them FOR making money in this manner?

    The criticism we’re talking about here is of the content and behavior of those people – the fact that the people engaging in said questionable content and behavior also get paid for engaging in… said questionable content and behavior, is, as I said, not the primary focus, and plays about the same role as televangelists or crystall ball quacks making money: kinda annoying, but also kinda their job/right, and all and all the falsehood of their actual claims and statements is the main issue whether they do it for free or not.

    Jordan Owen has gone on record saying that while he thinks Anita Sarkeesian is a dishonest “fraud”, other crazy feminists like Gail Dines genuinely believe what they’re saying – so the money earned really, really isn’t the main topic of any of this.

    “Isn’t it far worse to seek funding for a project designed to attack and insult those who are trying to make gaming and tech spaces better for everyone.”
    This is where the “SJW” bias of this article starts coming through. Abstracly, your sentiment is valid, however it doesn’t apply to this situation, as:
    1) This project is there to inform and expose, not attack and insult, and
    2) Sarkeesian and co. aren’t making any spaces better – even if they’re trying, the nobility of their intentions is easily matched if not outmatched by their level of delusion, refusal to participate in dialogue and, at the end of the day, the damage they’re actually inflicting on said spaces.

    If it is to be applied to the situation, then the first part of your sentence would make much more sense if applied to the Sarkeesian side of things as they never seem to get tired of insulting and attacking their critics, while the latter would be much more suited to describe this “project” that’s out to make space better by ridding it of disinformation and dishonesty.

    Still a somewhat… polemical description of things, but more accurate in comparison :)

    “You might disagree with the way in which Sarkeesian used crowdfunding to “buy games”, and you might dislike the quality of her videos, but to blame her for shutting out criticisms when most of them came in the form of disgusting rape threats is pretty pathetic.”

    Are we talking about her deactivating the comments under her videos, or ignoring and slandering the criticisms she received from outside her channel?

    The documentary in question is supposed to deal with the latter much, much more than with the former – and while shutting down your comments if, say, 80% percent of them are a bunch of shite, does seem reasonable, proceeding to discuss those 80% in public while sweeping the 20% of legitimate criticisms under the rug, is much less so.

    Also, the “80%”, or as you put it, “most” figure isn’t anywhere as self-evident as you seem to think it is: while I can’t vouch for all the fluff and nonsense that often can be found in any massive comment wave on twitter or reddit or whatever, much less those youtube comments that she blocked and deleted, most (if not almost all) of the popular youtube videos and blog posts engaging in said criticism is completely on the reasonable side of things, and, at its very worst, occasionally snarky.

    And when a simple google or yt search for “Sarkeesian criticism” brings up dozens results with all the constructive criticism and none of that attacking and harassment and raep menaces, and then you keep scrolling down (or rather clicking through the pages, at least until those sites get facebook’d, too) in order to find those rapes and attacks and insults lurking under the surface and still have a hard time finding any, then somehow the “eow excuse may for not digging through all those turds to find the odd mythical pearl you keep talking about” excuse you and others are trying to push here, starts seeming all that much less acceptable.

    “The lack of self awareness on display here is incredible though. One of these guys hopes to get your money by wearing a black suit, smoking a cigarette and drinking scotch whilst grinning smugly from his leather armchair. If you want to come across as “the good guys”, don’t dress like a modern film version of the Devil himself.”

    The target audience is the key here, and I’m guessing they’re not aiming at the sort of audience that takes “devillish” imagery any more seriously than a guy with a pumpkin picture on his T-shirt.

    Utilizing some of those more RL-related “evil stereotypes” like, I dunno, skinheads, shady street gnagstas or highschool jocks, you know, the kind that people actually tend to get a weary of when they see it – or even dressing up like the slasher killer from some popular horror franchise – might’ve been counter-productive, but the Devil??

    The amount of acceptable people raising even one eyebrow over someone dressed up like Satan is… nill! Good. Thanks!

    It’s just camp and fun, and the worst thing that’s gonna be thought of them is that they’re a poser, or maybe part of he metaller scene or something – which, ironically, the other dude who didn’t dress up like Satan actually kind of is :)

    So… *lack* of self-awareness?

    “I’ve written about this kind of thing a lot, and it’s starting to get pretty tiresome explaining to a small number of people what everyone else in 2014 already understands.”

    Tiresome, sure, but at least not as frustrating, thankless and depressing as it would be to spend said energy and effort on people who already understand what everyone else in 2014 understands at least as well as yourself, if not better – I mean, imagine the truly Hellenic horror of wasting all that breath and sweat on a completely pointless task, thinking you’re rolling that rock up that cliff while actually you’re just in a small room pushing the chunk against the wall… at least you’re trying to accomplish something there, no matter how hard and tiring it someeimes it :D

    “People of different genders, orientations, sexualities, religions, nationalities etc. are all fine, and they should all be able to feel free to enjoy the things that straight, white guys can. Games are amazing and so are people, so let’s all enjoy games together, regardless of those minor differences that some believe separate us.”
    So to whom were you explaining that again?

    “for the use of copyrighted images in its poster, so that’s something you can do if you want to get rid of it.”
    Sure, make use of the hair raisingly obnoxious and offensive copyright laws that have been plaguing the creative scene for decades, yaaaaaay…

    Seriously, as much as I’m opposed to Sarkeesian and would like her to stop making stupid videos, even I wouldn’t stoop that low. I guess it’s also kind of too bad that the videos she borrowed some of those game clips from aren’t actually copyrighted :D

    “If you do one thing though, take the time to pity these guys for their smug and exclusionary attitudes”
    Oh… so these were the people you were “explaining” things to in that previous paragraph. Oh……. :oo :O

    The reveal could be potentially traumatic for you, would you need a trigger warning? :D

    _______________

    “LMFAO COULD THESE TWO DUDES LOOK ANY MORE EXACTLY LIKE WHAT YOU’D EXPECT”

    Hm, Owen is a metaller and looks like one. Not sure what he’s talking about here… is he saying critics of Anita Sarkeesian look like metallers? Or bald guys with goatees humorously playing up their looks for a promotional photo?
    Metallers and LaVeyan Satanists, now that’s two dismissive stock slurs I sure keep seeing feminists use in blogs and forums all the time! Seriously, go to a feminist site and point out a logical fallacy or something, or maybe visit an anti-porn community and make an innocent remark about James Deen being pretty hawt, and they’ll all be like “Satanist! METALLER!! Scary, long-maned metal maniac!” without even considering your arguments, it’s ridiculous!

    “So yea, exactly what one would expect from two dudes like this :D

    “You are saying “there is no white male conspiracy” as you two white men fundraise a movie that attacks a woman.”

    It’s not a conspiracy if it’s public and wide in the open, and attacking (used by you as a more emotional term for “criticizing”, no doubt) a woman is as valid as attacking a man – so, really, it’s her fault for being a woman while saying all those stupid, illogical things, since they wouldn’t be attacking a woman otherwise :D

    Seriously… this is the kind of comment you use to boost the credibility of your article? Really? Some thoughtless mouth breather calls fundraising a conspiracy while supporting said “woman” who… fundraised her web series, and you screenshot that and post it under your article as support? Really?

    “The Fedora Report”
    It’s Trilbys, not Fedoras – it is known.
    I rest my case.

  • Arthur

    Another biased article trying to save face of a downright liar.

  • Kiltmanenator

    I’m sure Gizorama would NEVER support a musical video parody attacking a prominent Feminnist…….oh, no. I’m pretty sure they loved that when it happened to Christina Hoff Sommers.

  • Cis scum

    So just so I understand the author. Anyone who disagrees with Anita is a moron? Yeah you seem unbiased and fair.

  • Greg

    Whatever your personal ethical beliefs on this subject. There is a current move to shut down the Patreon account that’s related to this “critique”, “documentary”.

    We should not silence dissenting opinions, no matter what. As long as the piece they are doing does not contain anything that could incite violence. They should be able to put there point across.

  • Sean N.

    What a shitty, biased, cause-blinded article. This completely lacking in any objectivity, not that the “author” of this verbal diarrhea makes any indication they aren’t a politically correct censor. The issues are not about Sarkeesian’s gender. They are not about whether or not it’s ok to threaten someone online (no one is saying it is, that’s a straw man argument, wave it around and you automatically lose). They are not about her stance or views. The issue with Ms. Sarkeesian is that she routinely lies and cherry picks to build a false premise on which to promote a culture of bigotry and self-aggrandizement.

    No one would give two fucks about her if she wasn’t a confirmed LIAR. But, just like this “author” (who, might I add used that lovely adverb “allegedly” before “prominent youtubers” – to that I’d say fuck off), the SJW cult follows of Anita don’t care about her means or motive. She is wrapped in a cloak of self-righteousness, so for them, the only thing that matters is the cause (and their ability to appropriate outrage from groups they aren’t a part of and therefore inelligible to speak on behalf of) to fuel a culture of professional victimhood and censorship. These are the worst kinds of human beings, utterly devoid of reasoning skill, critical thinking ability, and a completely unintentional (despite the rampant love of hispterism) ironic position as loving to stereotype and smear those who disagree, rather than engage in a civil, rational discourse.

    The ends never justify the means. The Truth will stand unsupported. Only lies need to be supported, and they do so on the back of other lies.

  • Robin

    Liam, your whole article is just loaded with anger and hate, the exact things you’re accusing anti-sarkeesians of. This act, which I’ve been seeing a lot from pro-sarkeesian people, is getting tiresome. Shaming and belittling people for criticizing your views is not progressive and you should be ashamed of yourself. Maybe you should consider that your views may be the ones that need updating, because when you need to resort to name calling and other ad hominems, then as a writer you should realize you’ve crossed several boundaries of professionalism and lost all focus on quality. If there’s anything media needs these days it’s more objectivity, not aggressively spoon fed opinions. If you’re afraid people will form the “wrong” opinion, then take that as a sign that perhaps yours is incorrect.

  • Sand Ripper

    How can I take you seriously when I can’t stop laughing at your ridiculous headline?

  • SailHatan

    I love it how you posted the picture of the two creators to make fun of them, just like other articles do. In fact, you went so far as to link someone’s twitter also making fun of them… Are you serious???

    Revealing their photos like that… They didn’t post their pictures on the kick starter, they didn’t put their faces on the project. The only possible reason you’d want to share a picture of them is to get them harassed and targeted.

    Incredibly hypocritical of your movement to target people socially, yet every article on this loves posting pictures of them and insulting them and drawing as much harassment in their direction as possible. Not very fair.

    Every time this kind of finger point reveal is done to a female it’s instantly blowing up on all these biased news sites as horrible sexist abuse of women, but I guess these guys aren’t victims in any way right?

  • Derek Ballard

    this is the worst article i ever read way to try to protect some fem nazi with a game killing agenda

    • luci_fer

      Yes. The feminazis want to kill your games.

      • Derek Ballard

        feminist in games want to kill games and gamers its a known agenda that ur pushing. research the shit before you let your little kiddies post their bad articles

        • Alex Reynard

          I’m no fan of feminists, but I’m pretty sure they’re not trying to murder people. Might wanna reign in the hyperbole, chief.

          • Derek Ballard

            they kill games and want to kill the word gamer. the number one agenda of most of these sjw is to to shut down games that don’t meet their criteria. I’ve seen multiple post from these sjw also talking about killing/banning the word gamer cuz its misogynistic

          • Alex Reynard

            I was just trying to point out, there’s a big difference between saying they want to kill gamers and they want to kill the WORD gamer. Which, yeah, when fifteen or so “news” articles all come out within 24 hours of each other denouncing that word, you have a point there.

        • luci_fer

          Feminists want to kill games and gamers.
          It is known.

  • Hzle

    Classy title, by the way: “Some morons strongly hold different opinions from me”

    Wouldn’t do to try to see their point of view would it? Let’s just call other people “morons” – because that shows the true milk of human kindness running through our souls…

  • Jeff Walker
  • A dog

    Nobody hates or wants to censor Anita because she is a woman. They despise her with abhorrent hate for almost single handedly dividing and poisoning our gaming culture with machiavellian feminist dogma. They hate her for what she’s done and her ideology she pushes – not her gender.

    Crying misogyny and lauding the grassroots response as proof for the need for feminism only shows how detached from reason you are. It also shows you have no argument.

    • Kav P

      So… the rape threats were because…?

      • Hzle

        Well you know there are some documented rape threats that were hoaxes – crazy feminists sendig themselves hateful messages to prove a point. That sort of thing happens on the internet for some reason.

        And I dare say – for all I know – there could be a guy who’s a nutcase with several accounts on different media, sending lots of threats. Or there could be lots of people doing it.

        It’s all rather difficult to tell isn’t it, when these things are anonymous and difficult to trace? And if one doesn’t know much about where these threats came from, then it would be foolhardy to start drawing broad conclusions from it would it not?

        • Kav P

          The thing is, it is far more dangerous to assume that someone is faking abuse than to assume that they are genuine.

          If they’re faking it, the worst that will happen is that the person will eventually be exposed and it will be embarrassing for everyone.

          If they are genuine, and nobody believes them, and the person continues to be terrorised psychologically, well, I can’t imagine. And what if someone acted on it? Broke into their house and actually did what they said they would do? We can’t just slap ourselves on the wrist and say “oh, we’ll do better next time”. Future victims might also be too afraid or ashamed to report their harassment because they believe no one will listen to them and they’ll be ridiculed as WELL as harassed/raped/murdered. That would be a sad world indeed.

          In cases of alleged violence and threats, I really don’t see why you would want to assume from the get-go that people are lying. It’s safer for everyone to be proven wrong than to be proven right. It makes me sad when people don’t think about it like this.

          • Hzle

            “If they’re faking it, the worst that will happen is that the person will eventually be exposed and it will be embarrassing for everyone”

            What if they’re not exposed? What if there’s a witch-hunt based on evidence that’s not strong enough? It’s happened before.

            I disagree with your argument. Going to either extreme is dangerous, actually. We need level-headed thinking, not everyone jumping on a bandwagon. People aren’t analyzing this rationally, they’re following the herd.

          • Kav P

            Okay, what do you think is the downside of someone faking a threat, versus someone being raped or murdered as a result of no one believing them from the get-go? I’m curious.

          • dan

            in the case of Anita Sarkeesian there is no downside to that.

          • luci_fer

            So, someone on the internet posits the death and rape threats were all faked for attention.

            Same person on the internet says there is no downside with Anita Sarkeesian being raped or murdered.

            *Hrm*.

            Yup, there are definitely no people on the internet hostile enough towards Sarkeesian to threaten her.

            I’m convinced.

          • Hzle

            If you knew anything about logic or set theory you’d see that you’ve established that MAYBE one person – as a joke – might say it in theory. Problems are these:

            a) You haven’t established that he’d send a rape or murder threat
            b) one person is slightly different from the rampant “misogyny” we’re supposed to be seeing

            It’s pretty clear that the people on one side here cannot think clearly and impartially.

          • luci_fer

            …Or that I’d be unconvinced by the argument that there is no misogyny by someone *being misogynistic*.

          • Hzle

            I pointed out the flaws in your logic, you just repeated the accusation. Well done sir!

          • luci_fer

            what accusation is there in being unconvinced by an argument?

            you clearly didn’t understand my point by ‘the flaws’ you produced, so I clarified what my post actually meant.

            But ok, I can engage with them if you like.

            a) You haven’t established that he’d send a rape or murder threat

            Um, no. I don’t need to because I never accused or alleged he would follow through on that threat. Just that he was hostile, therefore his argument that all harassment was made up is not credible and he undermined himself.

            See, if you were a reasonable polite civil person and you couldn’t possibly see why anyone would do such a thing, I can understand arguing from a stance that it simply MUST be made up and faked. Because you have a higher standard of humanity and would not expect such vitriol just for studying tropes about women in video games.

            When you’re arguing from the stance there’s no downside to her being raped and killed *and*…saying people threatening to rape and killer is all made up, well, I doubt your views as credible. You clearly know it’s a possibility people are hostile towards her if you are yourself.

            b) one person is slightly different from the rampant “misogyny” we’re supposed to be seeing

            Of course. I didn’t say otherwise. But you can go find plenty if you’ve a mind, just look at her twitter. Or this. http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/images/anita-threats.JPG

            Or this.

            http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Sarkeesian-threats.jpg

            …or wait, you meant the accusation of misogyny? your argument is that saying there’s no downside to Anita Sarkeesian being murdered and raped…isn’t misogynistic? As in contains that statement contains no women hating whatsoever?

            …really?

          • Hzle

            “your argument is that saying there’s no downside to Anita Sarkeesian being murdered and raped…isn’t misogynistic? As in that statement contains no women hating whatsoever?”

            How can it “contain” woman-hating? What does that mean?

            You might say, reasonably that his statement was disgusting, but for it to be misogynist I restate: you have to infer hatred towards all women (not just one). That is the meaning of the word

            And seeing as you don’t know this person, or why they said it, you can’t make that inference..

            Too many people are falling for this meme: “look, horrible statement made towards a woman – ergo lots of misogyny”

            Finally, it would be quite possible for a few people to make several accounts and send lots of nasty messages from them. Till we have discounted that we should be wary of politicians’ talk of “hatred” – a meaningless term.

            If we could trace where all these messages come from, that would help us understand what was going on? Perhaps that should be done?

          • Kav P

            Holy shit.

          • Hzle

            The downside is of whole communities wrongly thinking that misogyny is rife – of feminists trying to persuade girls that men hate them for what they are.

            And the effect on the men who are duped by this.

            And the damage this does to relationships.

            And the effect on a legal system when such ideas begin to influence the legal system and government

            And the obvious effects on everyone’s psyche of believing that we’re surrounded by hate all the time.

            Enough downsides?

          • Kav P

            Do they outweigh murder and rape?

          • Hzle

            Certainly not but you’re relying heavily on emotive irrational argument. If you sent everyone to live on different planets or castrated all men you’d prevent rape every happening. There’s all sorts of things you could do.

            A sane person, especially one with male children and half a brain, will not want boys and men discriminated against in culture and in the law, because unintelligent individuals have been duped by exactly the kind of dishonest argument we’re seeing here

          • Kav P

            Wow, way to condescend. The hysteria you just displayed in that last comment outdoes any kind of “emotional irrationality” you think I have been displaying by believing that receiving rape and death threats over video games is a bigger concern than “journalistic integrity” at the moment.

            And I’m afraid someone just tried to doxx me on another forum with regards to my opinion on this issue despite me going out of my way not to bait people and be reasonable about current events, so I have no more wish to discuss any of this. None of you – people who do these things or people like you who defend them, directly or indirectly – are worth my time.

            Good day to you all, and I hope a truck full of shit soils all your video games. :)

          • Hzle

            ‘The hysteria you just displayed in that last comment outdoes any kind of “emotional irrationality”‘

            It’s not hysteria. It’s simply recognizing that if you overstate the misogyny in culture you are in effect branding all men, and certainly promoting a kind of prejudice towards men.

            Indeed some people are actively creatinga culture where you feel you have to apoligise for just being male, and say “I’m not one of those guys”.

            As I say, anyone who has male relatives that they care about ought to be concerned about the effects this kind of thinking will have on them

            You should be able to understand that – or at least understand the argument even if you disagree at some point – it’s very similar to what we hear every day about prejudice (based on inaccurate facts). If you can’t understand it in this case I have to wonder why not.

            And thankyou for your kind words…

          • tuym wuystah

            “receiving rape and death threats over video games is a bigger concern than “journalistic integrity” at the moment.”

            Um not really, since the fabrication and exaggeration of such threats is one of the central accusations directed at said integrity.

            Someone doesn’t get to make up a bunch of lies and then say “well think of the consequences if you disbelieved me about these horrible things” – your honesty and integrity will be examined.

            “Do they outweigh murder and rape?”
            Murder and rape, nah, murder and rape threats on the internet? Pretty much, since they poison life more severely.

            Fucking up culture and collective psyche for decades with the justification that “oh but this isn’t as bad as the possibility that those claims might be true” is, again, something that won’t fly.
            Otherwise, when that crisis is over, someone may start another scare panic and you’ll get another couple of years of damaged relationships, discrimination and unfair laws… and then again, and then again, if the society doesn’t have any defense mechanism against such things that is.

          • Hugh Briss

            You are a grossly intellectually dishonest person and you can fuck right off.

          • tuym wuystah

            Not taking precautions in case that the threats are legitimate =/= actually forming and propagating the opinion that they’re probably legitimate. You see unlike with pascal’s wager, the Rape God won’t take it you not really believing in him as a slight.

            It’s entirely logical to prepare for the 1% possibility and still maintain that the possibility is 1%, though “internet threats” have been long shown as something that is just always there and can be basically written off.

      • dan

        You mean the “threats” she faked for pity and attention?

      • nightshadow666

        Finally made an account for the sole purpose to respond to you. Looked at your username and thought it looked familiar, so I went on over to badassdigest’s article and to my (not) utter surprise there you are. Gets up and walks away.

        • Kav P

          So… because I post on a site that you disagree with, you conclude that discourse is pointless? Well, if you have that kind of attitude, I agree. You’re not worth it.

          • nightshadow666

            No the fact that you kept bringing up the exact same point repeatedly over there as you are here, admittedly every time anyone over there tried to have a civil debate they were heckled into submission, but I supposed they should of known better for trying to talk peacefully on a website called BadassDigest and yes, the fact you were on a site that has had a comment with a picture of a man raping the detached lower part of a woman’s body for almost a week doesn’t actually help either.

            But to answer your question. The threats (I’m just going to pretend for a moment that Anita couldn’t possibly be lying) were because inarticulate people disagreed with what she was saying and decided they didn’t want to stay silent, not because she was a woman on the internet, men get threats online all the time because they said something someone disagreed with.

          • Kav P

            Can you give me an example of someone using the threat of rape against a man? I’m curious.

          • nightshadow666

            Specifically? No. Probably because men can’t pull the pity card when people are mean on the Internet. I could ask some men that speak on controversial issues, perhaps Jordan Owen or Davis Aurini, if they’ve ever received rape threats against their person. But what if they haven’t? Does that invalidate any other threats? Are they invalid because because they’re male? Or white? Straight?

            Why exactly are rape threats more heinous then all others?

          • luci_fer

            I don’t think anyone is saying men don’t receive threats – men have and do (ironically) for speaking out on these very sorts of topics.

            But they don’t tend to be either of the same type or the same level of obsessive hatred.

            They tend not to be the same type because a man threatening another man sexually would be seen as The Gay. And people who find women very threatening also tend to be the type of people who worry they may somehow catch, or be perceived as having, The Gay.

            It’s the same type of people going on about this Alpha male stuff. It’s bound up in sexuality and gender roles. And what is Sarkeesian talking about?

            She’s talking about gender representation.

            And where is she talking about gender representation?

            She’s talking about gender representation (largely) in mainstream AAA games – in which the demographic (not everyone who plays them, but the safe market being catered for) are 14-19 year old males. In which the culture is ‘a closed geek culture’, and where the people within that culture may well see this as the last bastion of masculine culture that is being threatened by The Feminists.

            No, that doesn’t mean you can’t disagree with her points.

            No, that doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t engage in civil discourse about the matter.

            But that’s why she’s receiving both the type of harassment and the extent of it.

            http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/images/anita-threats.JPG

            How much of those threats are sexual in nature? What’s your theory as to why this is?

            P.S I’ve also posted at Bad Ass Digest, just as I’ve posted here, and elsewhere across the internet. So disqualifying anything somebody has to say based on one website they post on is not just an ad-hom, it’s a very silly one at that.

          • nightshadow666

            “But they don’t tend to be either of the same type or the same level of obsessive hatred.”

            Level of obsessive hatred? That’s really just your opinion because as I mention in a comment above men don’t really receive any sort of pity because people are mean to them. Just look at Jack Thompson twenty years later and he’s still getting shit and I don’t see anyone caring.

            What does it matter if it’s not the same type? Like I asked Kav why do threats of sexual assault warrant more concern than other forms of insults or attacks? Buy yes you are correct that men don’t don’t regularly receive rape threats for a multiple reason. Yes the gay thing has one thing to do with it, but sexism or misogyny? I don’t think so. I see harassment on the internet akin to hunting, you pick your weapon depending on your prey. Men in general aren’t raised to always fear being sexually assaulted so it doesn’t work on them as well as it does on women.

            “In which the culture is ‘a closed geek culture’, and where the people within that culture may well see this as the last bastion of masculine culture that is being threatened by The Feminists.”

            This entire bit is nothing more then opinion. Although I agree slightly about people being upset that gaming culture is being threatened by feminists, but remember feminists do not equate to women.

            “No, that doesn’t mean you can’t disagree with her points. No, that doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t engage in civil discourse about the matter.”

            I’m glad you agree, but sadly some people label anyone that disagrees with Anita a sexist, a misogynist, etc. That along with the fact that the games media or even the news in general has refused to acknowledge and dissent has upset a lot of people, which doesn’t exactly stop any harassment against Anita.

          • tuym wuystah

            “So… the rape threats were because…?”
            The rape threats were because internet.

            “I don’t think anyone is saying men don’t receive threats – men have and do (ironically) for speaking out on these very sorts of topics.”
            And others :)

            “They tend not to be the same type because a man threatening another man sexually would be seen as The Gay. And people who find women very threatening also tend to be the type of people who worry they may somehow catch, or be perceived as having, The Gay.

            It’s the same type of people going on about this Alpha male stuff. It’s bound up in sexuality and gender roles. And what is Sarkeesian talking about?”

            Threatening to rape another man is pretty alpha though, or are you saying all those prisoners are gay lol?

            Then, since a large percentage of these threats isn’t meant literally as much as an “over-the-top trash talk”, the fear of being gay kinda takes a backseat as well ;)

            At any rate, if what you’re saying is correct then the reason for the disparity is simply that those men are straight, not that they’re somehow more hateful or dismissive of women than men. The “not-gay” threats against men are, after all, just as intense and just as violent :)
            Another reason is that if trolling is the motivation, rape threats against men are sort of pointless as no one gives a shit about those ;)

            “But they don’t tend to be either of the same type”
            Jordan Owen is one guy who received rape threats from… fanatical Christians or something? Ask him nicely, and maybe he’ll quote a couple examples for you :)

            “But that’s why she’s receiving both the type of harassment and the extent of it.”
            No, it’s one of the “whys”, and not even necessarily the major one. Being as politically incorrect as possible and using any random trait of the target against them is one of the prime directives of trash talk – while doing exactly the thing that the moral preacher tells you is a bad thing, is pretty much one of the first things to come to mind if you want to express defiance.

            The tell you that shooting is bad, and you create the most over-the-top, graphic rifle massacre porn you can come up with as a response – they tell you how you “shouldn’t say mean words like that”, and you overload them with 5 paragraphs of the worst profanity. Think of what sanctimonious feminists tend to claim about certain harmless social situations, and what it must feel like for one of them to come into your space and go “this totally innocent thing is bad misogyny, that innocent thing is bad harassment, this is chauvinism and this is actually rape just so you know”, and what kind of topics you’d instinctively focus your inevitable defiant trash talk reprisal on – and actual misogyny or violent tendencies almost lose any explanatory value.

            “Do you think “”I’m going to go to your apartment at [censored] and rape you to death. After I’m done, I’ll ram a tire iron up your cunt” is likely to be said by a man to a man?”
            Well replace cunt with arsehole, and yea, I’ve seen things :)

            Also it’s not gay as it’s really nasty and manly and violent ;)

          • Hugh Briss

            This is completely irrelevant. You are trying to derail the discussion.

  • Scott Vogler

    I can tell this writer hasn’t heard one single solitary word out of Davis’ or Jordan’s mouth in regards to Anita Sarkeesian’s work.

    If you SJW’s are so open minded why are you so unwilling to listen for just a little while and construct any real arguments in retort? Most of us are glad to listen all you need to do is take it all in before you throw a hissy fit and make a fool out of yourself.

    It is very telling to me that the most noticeable and first responses from the SJW crowd to this film was to attempt to get it banned, try to link the creators to actual terrorist, and all the while behaving like little brats who didn’t get to have their cake and eat it too.

    I don’t always agree with Davis or Jordan on many topics, however, I do respect them for attempting to be transparent, honest, forth coming, hard working, and wiling to listen without throwing a temper tantrum when the discussion gets controversial.

    I honestly believe SJW’s hate each other and themselves on a deep and troubling level. I hope for once they will calm down enough to actually listen to some of the criticisms the world has about them but I’m not holding my breath. The more they trample on and on the more they sound like deeply entrenched religious zealots who will not let go of even one iota of their belief structure even when presented with evidence no matter how flimsy or strong. Their reaction is always histrionic.

    • dan

      SJW’s are only ever “open minded” if the opinions being expressed agree with their childish blabber.

    • therealmac

      How about these words from the white nationalist himself: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xTGoJjzXI5U

      • Scott Vogler

        Well, first of all, this particular video has nothing to do with Anita Sarkeesian.

        Secondly, did you listen to everything Davis actually said in this video?

  • thewinnipegger

    I find this highly hypocritical. You’ll bitch and whine about two dudes making a documentary about SJWs but you refuse to demand Anita be transparent in where that 160k went. The backlash on this documentary and the past issue on Zoe Quinn shows the hypocrisy in gaming is when it comes to women.

    Why are the white knights coming out to protect women from criticism ? What are you trying to hide ?

    • dan

      They defend her ofr one of two reaspns:

      (A): they’ve been taken in by her fraud and don’t want ot admit that they’ve been bamboozled by a con woman who fleeced them for over 150 grand.

      or (B): they’re pathetic beta males who cant get a real woman so they go after sad overgrown children like Anita Sarkessian.

    • Lawrence Newman

      Because any legitimate criticism of feminists, is misogyny, don’t you know. Logic is sexist.

    • therealmac

      Did you donate money to her kick starter? Are you an investor? If not either then it’s none if your business how she spent that money. Anyone who did donate, and is dissatisfied, certainly has myriad ways to deal with it themselves.

      • LouisJG

        Your point is not relevant. Just because one didn’t lose money to a scam doesn’t mean one doesn’t have an interest in the scam being uncovered and the perpetrator prosecuted. Crimes are of public interest – that’s why the government prosecutes them in the name of the people.

        What is relevant, though, is since it’s kickstarter she can keep all the money and deliver pretty much anything. So if she spends $10K on production and puts $150K in the bank, too bad for the people who donated. It would be shitty, but it’s legal and up-front shittiness because all the creator has to do is fulfill the rewards, not use all the money on the project.

        Another relevant point is so-called journalists are supporting the effort. That may explain why they don’t want to look into it. It would make them look bad. You know, people who say things like:

        “One of these guys hopes to get your money by wearing a black suit, smoking a cigarette and drinking scotch whilst grinning smugly from his leather armchair. If you want to come across as “the good guys”, don’t dress like a modern film version of the devil himself.”

        Attacking someone’s looks (ad hominem of the most childish sort) rather than addressing problems with their idea. You can bet if someone commented on Anita’s looks there would be cries of sexism.

        So, for me at least, the only really relevant point of where the money went is if the journalists have enough integrity to examine someone they threw their support behind. So far, no, and that’s part of the point of the film the “morons” are wanting to make.

        • therealmac

          So you are an advocate for a non-existing group of people? You’re concerned about a “what-if?” If no one is complaining that Anita misappropriated the funds then it is in fact your point which is irrelevant. As for the “morons” I think, at least for Davis Aurini, his videos such as “The Proof” and “Racism is a Personal Problem” effectively show that he has no credibility without mentioning his clothes.

          • LouisJG

            People are arguing she may be taking a lion’s share of the fund for her pocket, yes. There are a whole bunch of YouTube videos, blog posts, etc.

            You bring up another valuable point. If it’s fair to dismiss Aurini’s credibility on this video because of his behavior, is it fair to dismiss Anita’s? There’s pretty clear evidence out there that she didn’t make the gameplay clips herself; that she stole them off YouTube. There’s also evidence that she previously said she hated video games and didn’t play them, then later she says she’s a gamer and always loved them. Etc.

            Why aren’t these journalists going after her credibility like they’re going after those who disagree with her? Aruini may have asshat opinions, but AFAIK he hasn’t plagiarized or lied. Asshat opinions don’t go to credibility, but stealing clips and lying kinda does. That would get one dismissed from university, or fired from any reputable media outlet.

            I think the answer is pretty clear. They’re not engaging in objective journalism (or blogging or whatever). They are supporters of a worldview and engaged in promoting it even if it means covering things up, being one sided, and engaging in sophistry.

          • therealmac

            Random YouTube posters who are looking for any reason the discredit her do not count as sources of proof that she mismanaged the money. When actual contributors to the crowdsourcing come forward saying that they aren’t happy with her work then it’s a different story. Until that happens, making baseless accusation about it is no different than judging the “morons” based on their clothes and demeaned alone.

          • LouisJG

            Their opinion may not be relevant to you, and, you know, fair enough. But given that she didn’t produce at least some of the game clips herself, she listed the games she bought and the amount of money, while trivial, isn’t a huge chunk, and that the videos are short segments, etc., and so forth, it’s pretty clear they won’t cost anywhere near $160K to make. They wouldn’t cost probably even half that.

            So, no, there aren’t “sources of proof,” but there is enough evidence for someone of integrity that backed her in an article to want to find out if she’s doing the right thing by the people to whom the author recommended funding her. A person of ethics would only recommend something they were willing to stand behind, and if shit hit the fan, they would want to tell people he or she could no longer recommend it and they were sorry for being part of something untoward. If for no other reason, so it wouldn’t happen again.

            It’s kind of an unnecessary point, however, because “Feminist Frequency” is a 501(c)3 non-profit, and their funding is a matter of public record. Anyone who wants an accounting can get it after it’s filed and see how much of that funding went to Anita and Jonathan’s pockets as salary rather than production costs. Eventually, it will probably come out. Then it will be interesting to see who reports it and who ignores it both if she did a great job with the money or bought a new car with it.

            Which is my point: the “morons” are making this movie because a lot of people seem to be covering certain things up. They ignore her apparent dishonesty with regard to the clips and her statements, and they blow off any questions about the use of the money even though they put their support behind her.

            Even with all the dubiousness around some of Anita’s stuff, it would be a mistake to dismiss what she says in the videos because of it – she may in fact have a point, she just might be a douche-nozzle with a point. So even if the “morons” are complete douche-nozzles, it doesn’t mean they don’t have a point and should be dismissed out of hand and ridiculed before they even make a statement.

          • therealmac

            So your concern is that they take a salary for running their non-profit? Should people running a non-profit not take a salary? That seems much more dubious and as you stated a non-profit’s financials are public so the question is already answered by simply looking it up.

          • LouisJG

            No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. Of course they can draw a salary. The question is how much is reasonable. That’s why there’s tons of sites out there that list the salaries for non-profit CEOs and where their money goes because “legal” doesn’t always mean “ethical” or “right”.

            I’m glad we had this discussion because I went and looked up the filing. “Feminist Frequency” is claiming less than $50K funding per year. She must have mad accounting skillz, or she accepted the money as her own income rather than as the 501(c)3. Even more reason to ask questions.

            http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=463408143#.VAKtVfldWio

          • therealmac

            That amount is listed as gross receipts. That means how much they spent for the year.

          • LouisJG

            In accounting, receipts means how much a business takes in.

          • therealmac

            From the IRS website which only shows the postcard view of their filing:
            Gross Receipts Defined
            Gross receipts are the total amounts the organization received from all sources during its annual accounting period, without subtracting any costs or expenses.

            So if they had expenses, which if course they did, this doesn’t look unusual at all. If anything it shows that they are taking reasonable salaries. And keeping production costs low. Honestly if you are really concerned request the full filing. It’s also available from the California Secretary of State.

          • LouisJG

            Please re-read what you quoted again, especially the section I have *’ed:

            Gross receipts are the total amounts the organization received from all sources during its annual accounting period, **without subtracting any costs or expenses**

            Gross means BEFORE you pay bills. Filing a postcard means she took in $50K (or less) before any expenses, salaries, etc. Unless there’s a filing the IRS isn’t showing, but that seems unlikely. If she took it as straight income, that would be on her 1040 personal income tax form which is not public.

            501(c)3 is a federal filing and allows any U.S. citizen to deduct their donations to that organization from their federal income taxes. What she filed with CA would only be if she claimed tax-exempt status there for business purposes; like if CA gave her company a tax break.

            This may all be smoke with no fire; I’m not an accountant. My point, however, is there is enough smoke around the finances that an ethical journalist would at least want to ask her about it. She can refuse to answer, but I think they would want to ask.

          • therealmac

            Exactly, reread if you need to but I did mention that the IRS website lists the postcard view. Request the full filing from IRS or CA Sec of State and put it to rest. It’s really that simple and all your concerns will be addressed.

          • LouisJG

            The IRS doesn’t get a full listing if you file a postcard. All you file is the postcard. If the IRS suspects something funky, they’ll audit them and demand the accounting records then.

            This is all they file if they use the 990-N (postcard).

            http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Information-Needed-to-File-e-Postcard

            My concern is not what she filed. My care is that people who are promoting her via blogs, news, etc., and attacking others aren’t looking into it and ignoring other issues like they’re covering something up. They can look into it and say “all is well” and that would address my concern. My concern is with the “yellow journalism” if that makes sense.

          • therealmac

            No I’m sorry there’s a misunderstanding . The IRS only posts an abridged version of the filin g on the website called a postcard view. You can request the full filing from both/either the IRS or the CA sec of St. Both are free and involve nothing more that making the request. It’s free.

  • dan

    I love how morally flexible SJW’s are.

    They scream rant and rave like street corner schizophrenics who’ve just come off their meds over irrelevant things that don’t matter and never will because “we’re so victimized” and demand their right to free speech be respected as they spew their poison and contaminate society with their “poor me” bs.

    Yet when someone comes along and challenges the absurdity and hypocrisy of their beliefs that demand censorship and try to shut down the discussion because they know that they (SJW’s) are just narcissistic crybabying windbags looking for every excuse they can find to be selfish whiny demanding brats.

  • Lars Anderson

    Nice title, dickhead. You willing to call Anita a bitch just to be fair?

  • LouisJG

    “People of different genders, orientations, sexualities, religions, nationalities etc. are all fine, and they should all be able to feel free to enjoy the things that straight, white guys can. Games are amazing and so are people, so let’s all enjoy games together, regardless of those minor differences that some believe separate us.”

    I agree, but Anita Sarkeesian doesn’t. She doesn’t want to enjoy, for example, Mario Bros. because of the “damsel in distress” element. That’s fair enough – not everyone has to like or appreciate everything, but the problem is she doesn’t want others to enjoy it either, and she’s taking active steps against it. As others have said, she wants to impose her world view on what is the interactive equivalent of a fiction story complete with plot and characters. If Mario Bros were a novel instead of a video game, that would be considered a call for censorship.

    What she is doing, in fact, is twisting the content of video games into propaganda pieces. Unless one is wearing a tin-foil hat, I think it’s a safe assumption to make that the creators of Mario Bros., etc., didn’t design the games to be “patriarchal propaganda.” Yet, that is what Anita portrays them as. She basically demonizes games that don’t fit her worldview as destructive propaganda. The thing is, they were never – and are still not – propaganda; she only labels them as such because it fits her narrative. She is running the propaganda campaign; the video game makers are not.

    You can’t have it both ways, Liam. You can’t say “all should be able to enjoy things” and then defend someone who wants to stop people from enjoying something because it disagrees with how they want things to be and a vision they want to promote. It seems to me you’re being intellectually dishonest. It seems to me your statement should be “all should be able to enjoy things that don’t offend the sensibilities of anyone else that I agree with.”

    • Megamatics

      The only reason something like this starts up so much controversy is because it’s easy. It’s the same thing as accepting creationist theories on origin… You can’t tell a lot of people that you believe something came from nothing simply because that requires lots of explanation. Anita is providing the “God Did it” mantra to a lot of people, and they would rather not think about the sense behind it. She wants gaming to treat women better, and wants everyone to be able to enjoy every game, those honestly are totally great things but they are in themselves not at all rationally minded. Everyone doesn’t agree on the same things and we don’t share the same likes and dislikes. Gaming is a multifaceted hobby that caters already to everybody in some way.
      The shear amount of Genre to chose from are the indicator for that. She even sometimes brings up good examples, but no one seems to recognize that those are the games she should put at the forefront for herself. There is no need to look over her own picket fence at everyone else’s lawn, she has her own.
      The fact that they look at everyone else’s lawn is why there are not many Female Protagonists or viewpoints in games. Men since the inception of gaming have been buying Mario,Zelda, Space Shooters, Shooters, and Sports Games. We helped to build the house for our interests and sadly we can’t add on to that house at the expense of our own interests, It’s not our obligation to do so in an equal society. These people should of been buying games like Heavenly Sword and Beyond Good & Evil, not trying to force their way into other people’s experience.

    • luci_fer

      …Where are you getting that from?

      “I agree, but Anita Sarkeesian doesn’t. She doesn’t want to enjoy, for example, Mario Bros. because of the “damsel in distress” element.”

      Doesn’t she? How come she explicitly states:

      “but remember that it is both possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of it’s more problematic or pernicious aspects.”

      ?

      Because that sounds a lot like it’s fine to both be aware of the damsel in distress element AND enjoy Mario Bros.

      “but the problem is she doesn’t want others to enjoy it either, and she’s taking active steps against it.”

      …Is she?
      I’m really not sure what active steps against Mario Bros she’s supposed to have taken.

      ” If Mario Bros were a novel instead of a video game, that would be considered a call for censorship.”

      Um, no, because she isn’t calling for Mario Bros to be banned.
      If her videos were based on novels instead of video games, it would be considered ‘literary criticism’. Because novels have this thing called ‘literary theory’ and receive this sort of study all. the. time.

      • LouisJG

        I’m getting that from her other videos. The quote of hers that you provide is either contradicted or rendered meaningless by other things she says.

        In her 3rd video on “Damsels in Distress” she says things such as:

        “As we’ve established, the Damsel in Distress is part of a long tradition of mythological narratives dating back through the ages. But those historic roots are no excuse for the continued use of a trope that perpetuates regressive and patronizing myths about women”

        It’s pretty clear she wants it to end since she says there’s no excuse for it to continue.

        After that she says:

        “Yet, here we are, still seeing the same old cliché trotted out again and again. It’s long past time to disrupt the established pattern, break the cycle, and create new gender paradigms.”

        In other places she talks about subverting things and how even role-reversal (female protagonist in games rescuing a man, for example) aren’t good enough for her.

        If that doesn’t make it clear she wants to put an end to it, I’m not sure how else to convince you. As far as active steps go, raising $160K to make videos to demonize games counts to me as an “active step”.

        • luci_fer

          None of that demonstrates she wants to ban Mario Bros or any other games with the trope, no. It’s a leap of logic to assume she would even if she had the power to do so (which she demonstrably does not).

          All of that suggests she would *like* tropes that perpetuate regressive and patronizing myths about women (that they are helpless and need saving, for example) not be used in future – both because they’re incompatible with the day and age in which we live *and* because, as she points out, it’s an old cliché so in terms of narrative, it’s just boring and uninteresting.

          So in the future, she’d like to see something different and interesting. Not an unreasonable thing to want, and hardly censorship or “an active step” towards banning *anything*.

          If you watched it, you would know that she didn’t simply say subverting the trope and role reversal isn’t ‘good enough for her’ – that her arguments were that a) just because the roles have been swapped it’s still, essentially, the same tired trope (so boring from a narrative perspective) b) it’s often used as a joke rather than any true subversion and c) ‘damsel in distress’ reinforces the way in which some dunderheads actually view women. by comparison, men being helpless and needing women to save them is not a common narrative that has been with us for centuries.

          I’m not saying I agree with all of her arguments (I happen to think subverting a trope can exist from within it, and I think she underplays the role of satire and irony to undermine norms – given that’s basically what satire and irony are *for*) but those are what they are, not “it’s just not good enough for me.”

          And no, her kickstarter is not an active step to banning games, or games that have stuff “she doesn’t like” or to stop others enjoyment of them. It was to fund a study project. Not to demonize games, but to look at how they use tropes; to study their representation of women. It doesn’t mean (as she says) that they shouldn’t be enjoyable, or that the individual games are ‘bad’ in themselves.

          If you remember, her kickstarter goal was considerably less than $160k. If you aren’t rich, wanting money to fund a project, both for resources and loss of income due to time devoted to it, is not unreasonable – which is why there are study grants. The reason she *got* such an exorbitant amount, was her profile was raised by the amount of harassment she received for even *suggesting* such a study project, so many people showed their support.

          Which is all a bit ironic, really. The people harassing her have nobody to blame but themselves that she has received so much funding and has a high profile.

          But no, wanting to study how something is represented is not ‘demonizing it’. You think the people who spend their lives studying books do so because they hate books? They don’t. They do it because they find it interesting how media intersects with culture and interacts with, essentially, a huge conversation we are all having with eachother. To suggest that is some serious anti-intellectualism.

          (and yes, for the record, studying how female characters are represented in a set of novels would be a completely valid thesis. surprisingly, no one doing that receives death threats or rape threats. I wonder why that is?)

          • LouisJG

            Yes, I agree she doesn’t want to ban what was already made – but she does moving forward. And that’s not a leap of logic; she states there is no excuse for it to continue. She doesn’t say she would rather it not continue. She says there is no reason for it to continue.

            The fact that people continue to buy games with that trope, the fact that it’s used in books, and comics, and cartoons suggests that she’s wrong that it’s boring – at least to many people. But that’s not her reason anyhow. Her reason is that she finds it sexist and offensive.

            Anyone reading the transcript as-stated can’t come to any conclusion except that she wants the trope to end. “No excuse to continue” is pretty clear.

            Yes, I know it started smaller. And how she got the money is a different story and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. My point of an active step is that she raised money to do this, collected $160K for whatever reason, and is putting all $160K to making videos demonizing video games that have content she finds offensive. For the record, I find some of the content offensive as well and won’t play some games like GTA.

            You simply can’t fall back on criticism when there is a call to action. Criticism is making a video pointing out the sexism without calling for these things to end, without calling for game companies to make games differently.

            You compared it to literary criticism. Literary criticism is looking at a text and commenting on all sorts of things including, yes, the content. One can comment on the Catcher in the Rye and say it presents an unfit role model. One can comment on Huckleberry Finn and say it presents blacks in a negative way. But when someone starts saying those books should not be made available – or books like them should not be written in the future – and tries to influence publishers, that’s no longer literary criticism. That’s literary activism. And that’s what Anita is engaged in.

            If it were true criticism, in an academic way, by most standards she would have to point out that a given scene she is showing is 1/1000th of the gameplay to give a fair context for the criticism. Just as if one were criticizing Catcher in the Rye (my favorite book, BTW) one would point out that Holden’s anti-social behavior starts on page one and doesn’t stop even on the last page.

            I don’t know anything about rape threats and such because I never made those kinds of threats. I also don’t know anything about calling other video makers “morons” and such. I’m here to have a discussion, so those things are irrelevant to me.

            But it’s awful hard to have a discussion with Anita’s defenders about the actual content when many of you guys can’t even objectively look at her videos and come to terms with the fact that they have an agenda (as she stated on her kickstarter page) and that she does, in fact, want no more games made with those tropes.

            These simply aren’t academic by any stretch of the imagination. But they don’t need to be – they’re activism pieces. Wrestling around in if they’re academic or not and what she wants to do or not – when I think it should be obviously from her own words – just distracts from the discussing the actual content and makes me believe people don’t want to discuss the content for whatever reasons.

            My problems with the Damsel videos are threefold: 1) I disagree with her conclusion that this particular trope is harmful to either women or society as a whole. 2) If you look for sexism or misogyny behind every rock (or racism or conspiracies or anything pretty much), you’ll find it, and that’s what she’s doing. 3) She wants to end these tropes (yes, she does) to promote her own world view instead of letting tropes come and go culturally; i.e., she wants to censor expression. I’d rather have that discussion.

          • luci_fer

            You can’t ban things that haven’t happened yet. Yes, she states there is no excuse for clichéd regressive tropes (well…there isn’t, really. we can do better than that) – there isn’t a reason for it to continue – not a good one, anyways. But that’s beside the point, which is, she has no power to stop anyone putting regressive tropes in – or an entire game DEDICATED to portraying regressive tropes, if they so choose. So yes, however stated, that is a personal preference regarding the future of games.

            Are there things you don’t like in games – any games? My partner has compiled an extensive list of various ‘faults’ that irritate him (he can’t abide cut scenes, and is very much of the school of ‘doing’ rather than ‘showing’) – does him saying there’s no reason to have cut scenes in games and no excuse for doing it mean that he has the will or the power to ban all future games containing cut scenes?

            No?

            Then why do you assume that Sarkeesian does?

            “You compared it to literary criticism. Literary criticism is looking at a text and commenting on all sorts of things including, yes, the content. One can comment on the Catcher in the Rye and say it presents an unfit role model. One can comment on Huckleberry Finn and say it presents blacks in a negative way. But when someone starts saying those books should not be made available – or books like them should not be written in the future”

            She isn’t saying that. I haven’t come across any instance where she’s said things should be banned.

            Your distinction between literary activism and criticism is a non-distinction, for intents and purposes they are the same. Criticism exists as an ongoing conversation of discussing and disseminating media, it can, in turn, effect how people write when they are aware of it. (Can’t remember whether it was Ulysses or Finnegan’s Wake, but Joyce once commented he’d written it deliberately to keep critics busy for years trying to understand it). But obviously you have no power to directly influence what they write or what publishers publish.

            She’s using exactly the same principles in literary criticism and applying them to games. I would ask you why no one doing precisely the same thing (a study looking at female representations of characters) to books receives no death threats or rape threats. (or even a raised eyebrow).

            I’d posit it has far less to do with what Sarkesian is actually doing, and far more to do with how people are characterising what she’s doing – i.e as an attack, demonising games, censorship and so on and so forth. (which to certain people justifies a counter-attack if people are already being attacked. Except someone deciding to study something and argue a point is not the same as an attack – whether you like the points made or not).

            Everyone has an agenda. She’s stated she was analysing the tropes from a feminist lens (which is perfectly reasonable from a lit crit perspective) so it’s not exactly a conspiracy. Again, it’s a leap of logic from that to say she wants to ban things that are problematic or either wants or has the power to stop things being made.

            Alright – as to your problems.

            1) Ok. Of course that’s open to discussion, whether it’s harmful and to what extent seems fairly debatable to me. She’s made her argument why she feels it’s problematic.

            What’s your argument to defend a standpoint that repeating a trope where women are helpless (damsel’d) and needs a man to save her doesn’t normalise or reinforce that kind of thinking?

            Or is the argument that thinking this way at all is not harmful to society or women at all?

            2) Possibly, yes. But that is not to say what she’s finding doesn’t exist, either. It doesn’t have to be the end of the story though – if she claims an example is sexist, and has arguments to support that, you are free to claim otherwise and counter-argue.

            3) This is our main point of contention. I’m not sure what you mean by “letting tropes come and go culturally”. I don’t think I can support your idea that it’s an entirely natural process, like the tides. It’s created by people. Whatever we create doesn’t come from a vacuum.

            Putting in stereotypical gender representations are either deliberate design choices, or they are not much thought about. She’s interrogating those representations. She has a right to do so. As does anyone.

            She wants different, more varied, representations. She’s free to express why she wants that and argue the point.

            That isn’t censoring expression. That IS expression.

          • tuym wuystah

            “You can’t ban things that haven’t happened yet.”
            Of course you can.

            “Yes, she states there is no excuse for clichéd regressive tropes”
            They’re not “regressive” in any relevant meaning of the term. If they are, then it’s escapist regressiveness and hence okay.

            “(well…there isn’t, really. we can do better than that)”
            This isn’t something “inferior” for something else to be “better than”.

            Cliches are enjoyable, and “regressive fantasies” are fun – nothing you could replace those with would provide the same flavor of pleasure or satisfaction as those exact things; whereas “better” or “improvement” entail that they’ll provide the same thing, but better.

            Are 4/4 backbeats also something we as a society should rise above, and have no excuse but to replace with compound rhythms? The question is rhetorical.

            “- there isn’t a reason for it to continue – not a good one, anyways.”
            It being fun is a very good reason!

            “she has no power to stop anyone putting regressive tropes in – or an entire game DEDICATED to portraying regressive tropes”
            No power, but quite possibly “influence”. An influence that might be even higher were it not for her critics or GG, though who knows.

            Also, the fact that she has no power doesn’t make her expressed agenda any less fallacious.

            “does him saying there’s no reason to have cut scenes in games and no excuse for doing it mean that he has the will or the power to ban all future games containing cut scenes?

            No?

            Then why do you assume that Sarkeesian does?”
            Neither have the will to ban, however, your partner also doesn’t have the will to influence ;)

            And not influence others to produce more games without cutscenes, but into making less video games with cutscenes; cutscenes a lot of people think are an essential part of the genre. And not just influencing, but calling them backwards and stupid for including cutscenes, making them listen, and having the press back his crusade.

            Seeing a problem yet? Or a difference?

            “She isn’t saying that. I haven’t come across any instance where she’s said things should be banned”
            Not banned, but *stop*. Due to guilt-tripping, or the dollars of a brainwashed audience. You were given enough quotes as evidence.

            “Your distinction between literary activism and criticism is a non-distinction, for intents and purposes they are the same.”
            Whether you want to include “activism” under the umbrella of “criticism” is, at the end of the day (as well as for all intents and purposes), irrelevant

            The things still remain the way they are:
            You can analyse descriptively, or you can criticize.

            You can criticize passively, or you call for the scene to meet your criticisms.

            You can call for them to make things that meet your standards, or for replacing the things that don’t with the things that do.

            You can be critical of a certain thing, but be okay with it existing and appealing to others.

            Or you can be convinced that it’s wrong for this thing to exist since your criteria are more important than anyone else’s.

            The respectively last cases, no matter what name you give them, have two important properties: both are bad, and both are practiced by Anita Sarkeesian.

            “Criticism exists as an ongoing conversation of discussing and disseminating media,”
            Criticism actually isn’t necessarily a discussion, however, it certainly isn’t in her case :D

            “it can, in turn, effect how people write when they are aware of it.”
            It can? Or insists on them doing so unless they wanna be called bad names?
            Understanding that you’re ultimately not the creators’ authority (with the exception of specific creators that give you said authority) is kind of a major cornerstone of being a critic who’s not retarded, or who’s welcome. Shouldn’t the ancient tradition of pissing on cave paintings be something we ought to break with and rise above? :p

            “(Can’t remember whether it was Ulysses or Finnegan’s Wake, but Joyce once commented he’d written it deliberately to keep critics busy for years trying to understand it).”
            One of the ways Sarkeesian’s “criticism” may influence the industry, is into creating a bunch of games to keep her whining for years – this backfiring effect is one of the major reasons why accusing and guilt-tripping is a really bad way of trying to cause change, especially when they’re not even justified.

            “But obviously you have no power to directly influence what they write or what publishers publish.”
            But you may dislike that circumstance and start stomping on the floor like a 5 year old until enough impressionable people start accommodating.

            “to books receives no death threats or rape threats. (or even a raised eyebrow).”
            Books aren’t known for their smack-talking community, nor for being especially popular with impulsive young people. And without wanting to spread stereotypes about educated people being civilized and low-brow being roughians, I guess there’s some (even if only culturally conditioned) correlation and there are more assholes in gaming.

            Or maybe feminist “academics” haven’t received such a one-sided support in the media – the possibilities are many.

            “What’s your argument to defend a standpoint that repeating a trope where women are helpless (damsel’d) and needs a man to save her doesn’t normalise or reinforce that kind of thinking?”
            It doesn’t in the same way that “only fleshwounds” in action movies don’t normalise or enforce notions of being shot in the shoulder being safe – they don’t when counteracted by education.

            And they won’t fool people who already know better.

            Showing things that are “false”, is one of the foundation blocks, one of it not THE core value of escapist entertainment – the fact that some people who are uneducated, impressionable or can’t tell fantasy from reality, is an inevitable consequence that should be countered with education (incl. spreading it to easily accessible places in easily accessible forms) primarily, and VOLUNTARILY realistic / educationally valuable entertainment works secondarily.

            The all-caps for emphasis: you can’t force it, and saying those that don’t meet the criteria because they serve escapist needs instead are a “bad thing” or there’s “too many of those”, is committing a fallacy and pissing off a bunch of people who otherwise might’ve listened.

            Or is the argument that thinking this way at all is not harmful to society or women at all?

            “you are free to claim otherwise and counter-argue.”
            And she to respond ;)

            “Whatever we create doesn’t come from a vacuum.”
            Both Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones were made by people, and yet the resulting increase in popularity of the fantasy genre somehow didn’t result from a bunch of D&D whining and complaining about their genre not being accepted, or it being “wrong” that there were no major fantasy productions or whatever.

            “Natural” change comes from people voluntarily embracing and emulating something they like, while the “artificial and toxic” one is achieved through pressuring and guilt-tripping – kinda worse, because people will either start protesting immediately and start creating even more outrageous stuff in defiance, or they’ll be shamed and guilt-tripped into it for a while before something comes along and encourages them to shed those poisonous emotions and it’ll all fall apart again.

            Besides, why would you want people to feel guilty and thoughtful when enjoying entertainment? That’s what religion is for.

            “Putting in stereotypical gender representations are either deliberate design choices,”
            Which is fine!

            “or they are not much thought about. She’s interrogating those representations.”
            And doing it BADLY. If there’s nothing else that can be said against her, it’s that her arguments are horrible and full of flaws, to the point of being almost completely worthless.
            And yet everyone eats up that nonsense and hails it as some kind of second coming of “improvement”.

            “Different and more varied” not as in adding new things, but as in subtracting other things and replacing them with her own. That’s the bad kind of “variety” – the one that’s forced down your throat. It doesn’t taste like milk, it tastes like semen.

            And yes, she’s “free” to do so, and just as she isn’t out to ban games, no one is out to ban her (aside *maybe* from slandering people, but that’s neither here nor there). They’re just pissed at her dishonest behavior and want the general population to stop following her blindly.

          • luci_fer

            Ai, that’s huge. (said the actress to the bishop).

            I’ve already covered a lot of this in previous responses to you, so I’ll just pick out anything new. (and I think my response will still end up being too long).

            Technically, you can’t. Something has to exist before you can ban it.

            So ‘banning going forward’ doesn’t make much sense here.

            If she’s not already getting the games containing the examples she’s talking about banned, there’s no reason to assume she would ban future ones once they come out, even if she had the power to, which she does not.

            Yes, you could pass a law preventing the creation or dissemination of certain media (and we already kind of have that, in the obscene publications act) – but it seems profoundly unlikely in this case.

            I think you’re the first person I’ve encountered to argue for the validity of clichés in and of themselves as something inherently desirable. I think people play different games for a variety of different reasons…I had not considered ‘because they’re clichéd’ to be one of them. So that’s interesting.

            How is her agenda fallacious?

            No, my partner is exactly the same as Sarkeesian, a private individual making an argument exercising their free speech. If he wanted, he could do exactly as she did, and set up a kickstarter suggesting a series of videos. If people wanted to see them, they could donate. His influence would depend on how many people paid attention and watched them.

            Nobody would have to agree with everything he said or the arguments he made.

            And certainly no laws would come in on the basis of his videos.

            Though yes, it is entirely possible developers would watch his videos and say, you know? dude has a point about cut scenes. then yes, that would be him influencing them. the same as anybody else could.

            (and he would absolutely call people stupid and backwards for having cut scenes, by the way – literally, “if you put this in your game, you are stupid.” you should’ve seen him try to get through a final fantasy. to my recollection, though, Sarkeesian hasn’t called people stupid or backwards)

            It’s a preference expressed. It has no power, in and of itself, to stop anything. Yes, if enough people agree, players and developers, or ‘the brainwashed masses’, there may be a shift; we may see less damsel’s in distress and more variety of stories, for example. But there will always be a type of game if there’s a strong market for it, though.

            The ‘conversation’ takes place mostly academia, e.g one academic writes an argument (if you like, ‘x is sexist’!) another academic writes another essay, quoting the first essay, having a different take, and so on and so forth. Eventually you get the point where some opinions and theories evolve, some stay in some form, and others are rejected (or go out of fashion).

            She’s attempted to take ideas used most often in academia and make them more widely available/accessible – i.e less elitist. It’s debatable how successful that is as an intent or format (i.e trying to cram complex ideas into a youtube video).

            Well, books are cheap and new consoles, gaming rigs and games themselves are comparatively expensive. But you have a point that university is a fair bit more expensive again than gaming, where most of this ‘lit crit theory’ stuff takes place. I don’t think it’s necessary level of education, though, it’s type. humanities/liberal arts/social sciences etc are fairly different approaches to tech, math and hard-sciences.

            Gaming is technology, and that’s often how it’s discussed; in objective terms. But it’s also art, which is inherently subjective.

            But yes, you’re right. It’s nothing to do with what she’s saying (which is generally considered fairly standard in other mediums, especially lit) and everything to do with (a vocal minority of) an audience specific to gaming.

            Who, again, I think you’re right, are quite young.

            “It doesn’t in the same way that “only fleshwounds” in action movies don’t normalise or enforce notions of being shot in the shoulder being safe – they don’t when counteracted by education.

            And they won’t fool people who already know better.”

            Precisely – that’s what normalising means, continually reinforcing a viewpoint already existing and accepted. I.e someone who *doesn’t* already know better, somebody who already has that viewpoint about men and women in general is going to have it validated.

            But if someone thinks critically, i.e questions things (to quote the old EA advert “challenge everything”), it’s harder for things to become reinforced, and become norms.

            If you’re already fairly enlightened about that kind of stuff, it won’t make you think otherwise, no. But then, nobody is saying it will.

          • tuym wuystah

            “Why would you conflate guilty and thoughtful?

            I wouldn’t want people to feel guilty for enjoying entertainment. Thoughtful is always good though.”

            I didn’t conflate them, I combined them. And while thoughtful is good, it’s only when it’s not compulsory – telling people that they’re wrong for not being thoughtful is wrong.

            “If you want ‘the general population’ to stop following anything ‘blindly’, thoughtful is the way to do it.”
            Well obviously I was talking about entertainment there, and not about real statements made by real people. Media journalists definitely should be thoughtful when reporting on real things!

            “Critics” shouldn’t thoughtlessly make completely stupid, fallacious statements, but they very well may enjoy Transformers 3 that way, and then express that thoughtlessness in their review – no problem with that at all.

            “Others have threatened to kill her, rape her, bomb places she’s spoken at, and start a school shooting if she speaks.”
            Sorry, should’ve been more careful when I said “no one”. I wasn’t referring to the “threaters”, I was talking about statements regarding her wanting to “stop” or “change” games.

            Those didn’t say she should be banned from making her videos or talking in front of audiences, and I haven’t seen them accusing her of legal censorship aspirations, either. The ones who do are obviously stupid, or have seen her say something that I didn’t :)

            “Technically, you can’t. Something has to exist before you can ban it.”
            Well you can prohibit it ;)

            Same thing really, don’t really care about the particular words used.

            Also I’m not accusing her of wanting to censor anything, so that’s neither here nor there.

            “So that’s interesting.”

            Check out “tropes are not bad” or “cliche storm” on TV Tropes, or videos such as “coolest cliches” from TGWTG. It’s something people dig, and not really a secret or surprise to most.

            Also, check out Joseph Campbell on those “cliches” that are more than just some idea copied too often, and actually run through our very blood and hence won’t ever become unfashionable.

            “No, my partner is exactly the same as Sarkeesian, a private individual making an argument exercising their free speech.”
            Well aren’t we all? According to your previous descriptions, the things he said were different from the things she said – and I described precisely in what way.

            “(and he would absolutely call people stupid and backwards for having cut scenes, by the way – literally, “if you put this in your game, you are stupid.” you should’ve seen him try to get through a final fantasy. to my recollection, though, Sarkeesian hasn’t called people stupid or backwards)”
            Well that’s some new information, and yea, if he meant all of that, he’s just as “problematic” as Sarkeesian – except that his bull-headedness is completely limited to entertainment, while she also makes statements about real-life sexism and connects them to the “fictional” one that she’s “analyzing”, which makes it worse.

            “But there will always be a type of game if there’s a strong market for it, though.”
            Well yea, I’m pretty sure a significant part of the scene will remain untouched no matter what – especially seeing how little “gamers” are willing to adopt her point of view, her influence will always be limited.

            But the way I see it, if a portion of developers (or reviewers) buy into this idea that things like that are sexist and it affects their work in some way, that would still be a problem and hence should be opposed to.

            “She’s attempted to take ideas used most often in academia and make them more widely available/accessible – i.e less elitist. It’s debatable how successful that is as an intent or format (i.e trying to cram complex ideas into a youtube video).”
            This isn’t something I’ve delved into myself, but from what I understand, there’s a certain portion of “academia” centered around feminism or other political ideologies that is kinda full of horse.

            At any rate, whatever reasonability there was to whatever she tried to “cram into” this video format, certainly got lost along the way.

            “But yes, you’re right. It’s nothing to do with what she’s saying (which is generally considered fairly standard in other mediums, especially lit) and everything to do with (a vocal minority of) an audience specific to gaming.”
            Well, what I said (and was right about) is that it DOES have to do with what she’s saying, as well as the gaming community possibly being more resistant to this type of nonsense than other communities.

            There’s a lot of similar nonsese spoken about other media, as well, and it’s none the smarter for that – case in point, Sarkeesian’s earlier videos dealt a lot with TV (and possible movies, I forget) and were actually WORSE; she wasn’t as notable pre-Kickstarter, so that sufficiently explains the lack of fuss made over those.

            Can’t vouch for every other case, though – notable movie critics such as Kermode or Ebert certainly have made the one or other “liberal” nonsense statement occasionally, but they aren’t generally anywhere as bad as her.

            “If you’re already fairly enlightened about that kind of stuff, it won’t make you think otherwise, no. But then, nobody is saying it will.”
            Well, she said “the less you think it affects you, the more it probably does” – does that only apply to the 15 year old kid who’s like “ah’m not influenced by any of this, i can tell between movie and reality!” and then ends up believing 90% of what he sees, or are educated people who know better also included?
            At any rate, her goal is to reduce these “pernicious aspects” from entertainment media, which is completely contrary to the idea of letting it be and focusing on education instead.

          • luci_fer

            Couple of side notes – (the end of your comment cut off)

            “Besides, why would you want people to feel guilty and thoughtful when enjoying entertainment? That’s what religion is for.”

            Why would you conflate guilty and thoughtful?

            I wouldn’t want people to feel guilty for enjoying entertainment. Thoughtful is always good though.

            If you want ‘the general population’ to stop following anything ‘blindly’, thoughtful is the way to do it.

            “And yes, she’s “free” to do so, and just as she isn’t out to ban games, no one is out to ban her”

            She presented an argument. She hasn’t threatened anybody.

            Others have threatened to kill her, rape her, bomb places she’s spoken at, and start a school shooting if she speaks.

            They aren’t equivalents.

          • tuym wuystah

            “All of that suggests she would *like* tropes that perpetuate regressive and patronizing myths about women (that they are helpless and need saving, for example) not be used in future – both because they’re incompatible with the day and age in which we live *and* because, as she points out, it’s an old cliché so in terms of narrative, it’s just boring and uninteresting.”
            0) It’s a bit of a more active kind of “would liking” when you’re an open activist and want your material to be shown in schools. “Would like” is something that you’d be happy to see if others decided to create it, “influencing” is an attempt to interfere, “campaigning” an active effort to spread the message and effect some change – and even that doesn’t necessarily include blaming people for not doing or already have done that thing you want them to do, which she does.

            1) “Not be used”, as opposed to “balanced out by other things” + actively campaigning = aiming to change scene to her liking. There wouldn’t really be a problem if she were campaigning for adding a bunch of stuff that’s been underrepresented so far.

            2) Notions of any of that being “regressive” or “patronizing”, or “perpetuating” anything, are a major part of why her agenda is unacceptably flawed.

            They would only be true if those tropes were reflections of the creators’ (or players’) real views or values, which, whenever true, has to be additionally demonstrated rather than taken for granted – as, otherwise, it’s just something confined to fantasy and fiction with no relevant link to IRL LOL.

            So, there we have it – she takes something completely benign and harmless and calls it “sexist” and “regressive”.

            2a) They’re only incompatible if meant literally and seriously, which is not the default reading when dealing with escapist entertainment meant for fun and imitating each other’s tropes and conventions.

            Anything from vulnerable “oh James” damsels to sneering cat dominatrices beating up people for partying to loud is compatible with society if conceived as a fantasy!

            3) It’s not boring and uninteresting, it’s primal and exciting! (And pretty hawt, too.)

            This is leaving the “biased feminist” territory, and entering the “obnoxious snob” territory with absurd memes like “innovation is good, repitition always bad”, or “advanced and thoughtful is correct, primitive and careless is disreputable” or “if you pay for the wrong thing you’re stupid and immature and frivolous!” buzzing about the air like dung flies – a very slight improvement, but the fact that that’s not saying much says a lot!

            “a) just because the roles have been swapped it’s still, essentially, the same tired trope (so boring from a narrative perspective)”
            So not good enough for the snob, but why not good enough for the feminist?
            “b) it’s often used as a joke rather than any true subversion”

            The ones that are used as a joke don’t count in the first place – unless the joke, of course, is on the “cliche” itself. The ones that aren’t, count, but have apparently just been dismissed in a).

            If there are too few of those, that could be a potential gap to fill with new and exciting content, but not by itself a sign of “sexism” – preferred fantasy, or just habit and tradition, are actually self-sufficient explanations.
            Again, suggesting your new stuff vs. accusing the present stuff and calling it pernicious.

            “c) ‘damsel in distress’ reinforces the way in which some dunderheads actually view women. by comparison, men being helpless and needing women to save them is not a common narrative that has been with us for centuries.”
            So, why do the opinions of “dunderheads” supposed to weigh that much, and do they reflect the intentions of the creators (and if yes – when, and how so?)? What about those other dunderheads that think men are dumb and women are smart, should their opinions matter? What of the nun-dunderheads that think neither, is their view still overridden by the Dunderhead Directive?

            As for the history, well, wouldn’t be a “subversion” if it WASN’T a common narrative, would it? However, if the gender of the “damsels” were somehow to be made even, the fact that it once wasn’t wouldn’t somehow make it still uneven – on the contrary, it wouldn’t count, and neither does it here.

            She should feel free to start analyzing 18th century works anytime, though.

            Basically, both these points are of peripheral importance at best.

            “I think she underplays the role of satire and irony to undermine norms – given that’s basically what satire and irony are *for*)”
            She also underplays the role of entertainment and escapism, or what they are for. In fact, anything that isn’t a 1:1 translation from reality to screen or vice versa is an enigma to her. When she doesn’t underplay, she vilifies, or finds some way to find it still misogynistic.

            “but those are what they are, not “it’s just not good enough for me.””
            Your descriptions actually count as such. Not good enough because it hasn’t been this way for 1000 years. not good enough because it’s “still cliched”, not good enough because there are other cases that are facetious about it.

            “or to stop others enjoyment of them.”
            Just the enjoyment what she says is bad.

            “or that the individual games are ‘bad’ in themselves.”

            Only the parts she says are bad.

            “It was to fund a study project. Not to demonize games,”
            A study projects in which she demonizes their “pernicious aspects”.

            “but to look at how they use tropes; to study their representation of women.”
            And find bad tropes that represent women in a problematic way. Even though none of that stuff is either.

            “studying how female characters are represented in a set of novels would be a completely valid thesis”
            It would be just as invalid if she used arguments of a similar quality – which, come to think of it, she kinda does since games aren’t a historical medium ;)

            Agree with (or don’t care about) the parts with the kickstarter and the harassment – as far as I’m concerned, she can have her money and use it all on delicious apple pies!

          • luci_fer

            Well, yes. I think she *would* be happy to see it if others decided to create it (or happy with the things that already do).

            But you can still express the opinion that is something you would like to see. (and comparison to something else is one way of making that argument).

            …and making an argument and expressing opinions can be influential, yes.

            Though aside from her preferences, what she’s ultimately doing is using critically engaging with media using critical theory (in this case, feminist theory). I suspect that might be why it’s used in schools. Because it’s a precursor to the sort of thing that someone will be doing in university if they study English, but more accesible and less academic. (dumbed-down, if you like).

            Re – point 1, we all have personal preferences. I would prefer games had no puzzles, because I think puzzles suck. I can enact no law though to make all games fit my preferences. Nor can Anita. I can argue why puzzles suck (because I largely think they’re just chores and filler, put in games to halt progress and pad out time rather than enjoyable content) and Anita can argue why regressive tropes suck.

            But yes, the fact is neither puzzles or games about male adolescent hero fantasies are going to go away any time soon.

            So, ultimately, the argument does end up being having those “balanced out” by more of a variety of things in the future.

            (“adding a bunch of stuff that’s been underrepresented so far.” puts it quite well, actually – at least in big budget commercial titles)

            “2) Notions of any of that being “regressive” or “patronizing”, or “perpetuating” anything, are a major part of why her agenda is unacceptably flawed.

            They would only be true if those tropes were reflections of the creators’ (or players’) real views or values, which, whenever true, has to be additionally demonstrated rather than taken for granted – as, otherwise, it’s just something confined to fantasy and fiction with no relevant link to IRL LOL.”

            Ok…the experience of a game (like all art, books, films etc) is subjective. Tropes are narrative cliches. Characters are representations.

            So not sure where you’re coming from with “they would only be true”. There are little objective facts, or ‘true or false’ you can put on subjectivity. You have opinions, you make arguments and you back them up with examples and theory – that’s all you can do. She’s made hers.

            Re: reflections of the creators or players real views, that of course, would be impossible to tell (and even if you asked, people could lie – which is the basis of Barthes ‘death of the author’ i.e just to look at the words in the text rather than try and second guess the intentions of an author. To do otherwise is to assume authorial intention, i.e the intentional fallacy).

            Re: ‘perpetuating’, it would have to be considered ‘normal’ in the first place in society, yes. And that depends on the person’s views in relation to that norm. But when you start thinking critically, you can start questioning what’s seen as normal and why. Which is, ultimately, what she’s doing.

            As for confined to fantasy and fiction with no relevant link to real life… it came into existence somehow, right? Through individuals making specific choices? And individuals are part of society and culture, no? Which is in turn made up of all sorts of ideas that circulate within it. Including reinforcement from media, peer group, etc.

            So media comes from society, and society is also partially created and informed by media. (well, it’s one theory anyway).

            “2a) They’re only incompatible if meant literally and seriously, which is not the default reading when dealing with escapist entertainment meant for fun and imitating each other’s tropes and conventions.

            Anything from vulnerable “oh James” damsels to sneering cat dominatrices beating up people for partying to loud is compatible with society if conceived as a fantasy!”

            See point above.

            It doesn’t have to be literary or serious to be worthy of study or a product of the society from which it came from (and continues to inform).

            (though of course, it’s all debatable, and of course, context matters)

            “3) It’s not boring and uninteresting, it’s primal and exciting! (And pretty hawt, too.)”

            Ok, well that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but it’s fairly obvious “boring and uninteresting” vs “primal and exciting” are points of view, rather than facts, no?

            Well, I can admit to sometimes being a snob, but I don’t really think it’s an absurd meme to suggest innovation is good, and something repeated too often becomes boring. That…kind of seems like a truism. Shit gets old. Something you haven’t seen before, or something done differently or in a new way, is more likely to surprise and maintain interest.

            I’m not sure about ‘primitive and careless is disreputable’ vs ‘advanced and thoughtful is correct’, obviously people can enjoy whatever they wish, there is no one ‘correct’ thing to enjoy. But that said, someone wanting something thoughtful and advanced to challenge them is going to end up bored by something primitive and careless – because it isn’t challenging them.

            Likewise, in fairness, someone wanting primitive and careless is likely to be frustrated when confronted with something thoughtful and advanced.

            You can also enjoy a variety of different stuff for different reasons.

            I’ve found the rest of what you’ve written too difficult to understand to respond properly to, tbh. I didn’t think she was saying ‘reversing the trope isn’t good enough for me’. It’s fine to debate how effective or subversive they were (or not), or the role and importance of satire at all.

            And no, she isn’t stopping people enjoying things just because she’s criticised aspects of them. You can disagree. And even if you do agree, you can still enjoy them and there’s no shame in doing so.

            There’s not much I can say in response to “the bits she says are bad” when I don’t think that’s what’s being said, and you obviously do.

      • utera

        Its a statement with no meaning. If someone moralizes to that extent about the evils of something, claiming that mario effectively leads to misogyny or worse..rape, then there is no rationalizing their previous statement about it also being ok. Either they are contradicting themselves or they don’t believe what they are saying.

        Put it this way, if jack thompson claimed as he did that video games corrupt the youth and lead to violence, and then made the same climb down statement as anita, one would have to acknowledge that he was full of shit.

        • luci_fer

          There’s a third option.
          That “Mario is morally wrong” and “Mario leads to rape” wasn’t what was said, and is in fact, an inference.

      • tuym wuystah

        “Because that sounds a lot like it’s fine to both be aware of the damsel in distress element AND enjoy Mario Bros.”
        Not just be “aware”, but consider it “pernicious” and “problematic”. We can enjoy all the stuff that she greenlights for us to enjoy (including things some other feminist could read as sexism with the same ease as she does), but that stuff she says is sexist we should recognize as sexist and “pernicious”.

        Not the games aren’t supposed to be enjoyed (as erroneously claimed above), but their “aspects”. Should she spread her nonsense to a sizeable chunk of the relevant population (customers/bloggers/journalist/developers), she may accomplish the reduction of the things that we’re supposed to consider pernicious and sexist, even though they are neither.

        • luci_fer

          She’s arguing there are examples of pernicious or problematic elements, like regressive tropes, yes.

          You are under no obligation to agree with her argument, but that isn’t the point.

          You can enjoy something while simultaneously finding it ‘problematic’. All that really means is thinking about the content critically.

          So you can engage with things in more than one way at once.

          For example, film critics think critically about every film they watch. I suspect they still enjoy watching films.

          • tuym wuystah

            “You are under no obligation to agree with her argument, but that isn’t the point.”
            Well it kinda is, since there’s a whole bunch of people who “disagrees” that are completely ignored by the mainstream, as well as her.

            Also, if you disagree that her argument is wrong, then it’s also “the point” since it’s part of our little discussion here ;)

            “You can enjoy something while simultaneously finding it ‘problematic’.”
            Unless it actually ISN’T problematic, in which case the “critical thinking” has failed – if it’s been applied at all.

            Which is my whole point really: she calls a bunch of things problematic, that ACTUALLY AREN’T – and a lot of people just eat it up, or agree already.
            And she wants those things to be reduced or to go away – which means, if they do get reduced, or to go away, it’ll be a result of stupidity and ideology, not just “shifting preferences”.

            Take your cutscenes guys again – what really is a game with cutscenes other than a musical with songs in it, or its flipside version: the opera with talking parts in it? Now it’s one thing if people stop liking that stuff and it goes out of fashion – and another thing entirely if it comes along with the stupid notion that COMBINING THEATRE AND OPERA IS WRONG AND REGRESSIVE.
            Nothing against shifting fashions, everything against the spread of stupid ideas.

  • Jon Stone

    Let’s just get this straight, since some people seem to be very slow on this:

    The videos that are being posted and shared en masse below are not ‘debunkings’ f Sarkeesian. No one with a reasonable head on their shoulders will watch them and go, “Oh gosh, I didn’t realise! Now mine eyes are opened.”

    There are only two ways to respond to any of these videos. You are either not a raving misogynist maniac, in which case you watch them and go, “Well, they seem to have completely missed the point.” Or else you *are* a raving misogynist maniac, in which case you watch them and go, “I knew it all along! I knew it! YES! And this proves it!”

    • utera

      Let me get this straight, you dismiss a mountain of evidence so people should instead just “take your word” for it

      Give me a break, by any objective standard she’s failed to make a legitimate case. Beyond this she’s actually proven how dishonest she is by how often she resorts to dishonest methods of argument.

      • Jon Stone

        Lots of youtube videos of people saying the same stupid things does not in any constitute a “mountain of evidence”. I don’t think you understand what evidence is, or what honesty is, or argument, or proof, or objectivity.

        When someone devotes a video series to examining ‘tropes’ in gaming, and shows scenes from a variety of games that demonstrate a common trope, making a youtube video where you scream, “She’s not putting these scenes in context!” is completely missing the point.

        That’s just an example. Almost every point your youtube heroes make demonstrates they have missed the point. I am very happy for anyone who hasn’t seen your precious videos to view them – I can guarantee that they will not find them very enlightening. In fact, I think they will walk away with a very ugly impression of how stupid some male gamers are.

        • Hugh Briss

          There is no reasoning with such dismissive and willfully ignorant behavior as yours. Fuck off, you shill.

          • Jon Stone

            Have you tried reasoning? Spamming a forum with whiny assertions about people being fraudulent or lying, or how journalists haven’t done their ‘research’ isn’t reasoning.

          • Hugh Briss

            I can’t hear you over the shilling force in your gears, bro. Also, you haven’t backed a single thing you’ve said up with links or specifics. Enjoy your vague shillery.

          • Jon Stone

            I’m not the one who has to back up what he’s said. You want people to believe Sarkeesian is dishonest and wrong. You have to back that up. And posting links to fucking youtube videos where people ramble on at length but never say anything of any substance whatsoever is not backing you up. It is not proving anything.

            And fucking hell, you don’t even know what a shill is.

          • Hugh Briss

            Diagnosis: FRACTURED ASS

          • Jon Stone

            Oh, fuck off back into the manosphere, you child.

          • Hugh Briss

            How many of the women who you’ve white knighted for have given you sex?

          • Jon Stone

            I don’t white knight. But yeah, I expect the fact I have regular sex is in some way related to the fact I treat women like human beings.

            Don’t grind your teeth too hard now.

          • Hugh Briss

            Or so you think. With sufficiently low standards, anything is possible.

          • Jon Stone

            Speaks the voice of experience.

            Enjoying today’s revelations?

          • Hugh Briss
          • TheScienceEnthusiast1130

            Male feminist? What a sad person you are…desperate for sexual intercourse…

          • Jon Stone

            I don’t suppose anyone else is reading this now, but an fyi for anyone who is – TheScienceEnthusiast1130 is now surfing through my history of comments leaving replies along these lines to whole reams of them. He also says I am a ‘government drone’.

            If I look out my window now to find someone watching my house and rubbing their hands together obsessively, I guess I know who it is …

          • Romantic Placebo

            Oh god, just let it go.

            Admit that you’re a freak of nature whose been brainwashed by a male-centric society into believing the only thing a (straight) man should aspire to is getting their dick wet.

            Only then can the healing begin.

          • TheScienceEnthusiast1130

            Get a life, ignorant feminist.

            Admit that you are a government drone designed to deceive and control people using the…”vagina”?

            o.o

            Lolz.

          • Romantic Placebo

            Feminism is one of the only ideologies that looks at cultural, sociological, and gender based history rather then just going with what it says in our “official” history.

            You would be hard pressed to find an “ignorant feminist,” because the position entails a massive amount of research and self reflection.

            Sort of like the opposite of what you’re doing here.

          • TheScienceEnthusiast1130

            “research”

          • Romantic Placebo

            Yes, like compiling statistics. It’s not just scientists.

          • Romantic Placebo

            That’s what they do in college courses.

          • tuymwaistah

            Have some vapid broad mindlessly quote her feminist idols, and bam you’ve got an ignorant feminist. Nothing easier than that, and no, “feminist” isn’t the equivalent of “scientist” here, more like an equivalent of “leftist” or “libertarian” – it’s determined by the positions you take, not your level of education.

            Also, isn’t feminism kind of the mainstream history? I thought it was “established” that women were completely oppressed in the 18/19th century, i.e. the feminist narrative? Not a history expert though – all I know is that feminists, as a rule, have a fantastically bad record of getting the present right. Especially in this area of popculture analysis.

            Ah, how much better they’d be off if they’d just stuck to history, culture and society! They could’ve maintained this image of “serious academics” or whatnot, who know all the right things about society and violence and power dynamics, and if you wanna talk to them you better stop playing video games and study up – they don’t concern themselves with trivial matters like this!
            Instead, they had to go in here, start spreading laughable notions about entertainment and everyday social life that any toddler can see through cause it’s just SO OBVIOUSLY STUPID, and now they’re losing droids I mean reputation fast and people are getting sick of it all.
            Not the brightest strategists, eh?

          • Romantic Placebo

            “Broad”

            And you are why we need feminism.
            Also, I’m a guy.

          • tuym wuystah

            Why, people saying “broad”? Wow, an important cause to justify a political movement fo sho.

            I wasn’t talking about you, just a hypothetical example – though I’d say you fit match it perfectly aside from that one detail :)

          • Romantic Placebo

            Some find it patronizing.

          • tuym wuystah

            Well if you’re a dolt who believes everything a political movement tells you, you deserve to be patronized.

            You know what, I’ve had it with your vacuous laconic quips – you’ve obviously got nothing left to say, just like the rest of them – so yea, bye.

          • Romantic Placebo

            No, I don’t.

          • Romantic Placebo

            Let me quote a little something from a guy who knows a little more about women then you.

            “The term “White Knight” is tossed about to shame men into not defending
            women or challenging the sexist harassment. It’s a form of gender
            policing; “conform to our way of thinking or get your masculinity taken
            away”. After all, the only possible reason someone might
            disagree with the gatekeepers of gaming is because they’re trying to
            ingratiate themselves to women in hopes of sex. White Knights can’t
            possibly be real men. Real men don’t put pussy on the
            pedestal; they wave their disgust and resentment of women loud and
            proud! (Like you!) And what quicker and easier way is there to validate your
            manliness in the eyes of your peers than by striking back against those
            emasculating feminists?” (Like you just did!)

          • TheScienceEnthusiast1130

            Wow, you sound mad.

          • Romantic Placebo

            We’re all mad here. Only some of us realize it.

          • tuymwaistah

            What dunce wrote this drivel?! And where in that pile of nonsense does his “woman knowledge” come into full display, or help him arrive at a particularly insipit conclusion?

            White knighting means irrationally defending a woman or taking her side by default. It can be used by people with illegitimate criticisms of a woman to try and dismiss the entirely valid objections coming their way AS IRRATIONAL – i.e. WHITE KNIGHTING, but that’s THEIR dirty rhetorical tricks.
            Actual white knighting exists, and it’s irrational defense of a maiden.

            Also, white knighting isn’t considered by anyone halfway sane as unmanly behavior – bravely defending the fair maiden is one of the most primal male instincts on the planet. Sure, some dweeb defending some female youtube commenter is a bit like a toddler putting on a plastic knight costume, but the imagery still stands.
            “Mangina” is where the masculinity-in-question-putting kinda starts as it refers to more submissive, doormat kind of behavior – but still not necessarily.

            Pedestal vs. disgust, false dichotomy FACK off.

          • tuymwaistah

            So you *don’t* know where to put it?!

          • tuymwaistah

            And here’s a good lesson for all those stupid MRAs I was just talking about, if any of you monkeys happen to be reading this – don’t you see it? You fling poop at them saying they can’t get laid because they’re weak and desperate for female approval; they fling poop in your general direction saying you must be *bitter* that you can’t get laid because women only fuck guys who respect them (wer ficken will muss freundlich sein!).
            And all your stupid shite is completely lost on anyone who ISN’T trying to get laid, let alone gets laid all the time just fine.

            Among squabbling dweebs, the halfway reasonable unremarkablejoe is king. Hail to the king, baby! I just came.

          • Romantic Placebo

            Why do you automatically associate defending women with wanting sex?

            Would you accuse a woman who defended a man of the same thing?

            They have no connection.

          • tuymwaistah

            There is a connection, but only some of the time. A lot of simple-minded antifems go around with this automatic assumption that any man white-knighting for a woman MUST be doing it to get laid – though you’re just as stupid, really.

          • Romantic Placebo

            “Only some of the time”

            And yet EVERY time I see people like you using that term, it’s in a negative fashion.

          • tuym wuystah

            Just because you’re not white knighing for sex doesn’t mean it’s not a bad thing :)

          • Romantic Placebo

            WHAT?

          • TheScienceEnthusiast1130

            Never use the Internet, you government drone.

          • tuymwaistah

            “Oh, fuck off back into the manosphere, you child.”
            So here’s an actual chauvinist (might be an ironic one, but for simplicity’s sake – god knows you need it), and now you can go look around this thread and compare him to all those comments that don’t mention anything about women being weak children or real men having no vageen… and hopefully improve your mind a little.
            Feeling like a dunce yet?

          • Lawrence Newman

            So you think deliberately taking scenes out of context is professional and legitimate academic behaviour?

            What a mangina you are.

          • Jon Stone

            Taking scenes out of context is *entirely* reasonable when your show is about *tropes*. Do you know what a trope is?

            Yes, it is professional and legitimate academic behaviour. It’s what critics and academics do – they take fragments out of a narrative to demonstrate arguments. They do not tirelessly recite the entirety of a text just to give context. This is obvious to anyone who’s done a fucking degree in anything and used quotes, ffs.

          • Lawrence Newman

            “Taking scenes out of context is *entirely* reasonable when your show is about *tropes*. ”

            No, it’s not if taking it out of context completely misrepresents the game. For example, filming a scene of a game of GTA where the player kills prostitutes and calls it evidence of misogyny, deliberately overlooking the fact that you do not have to kill prostitutes, that the purpose of the game is not to kill prostitutes, and that you can kill anyone in the game, women or men.

            The fact you think you can take something out of context, misrepresent the game’s intentions and call it legitimate argumentation, proves you’re a moron. You also have no penis.

          • Jon Stone

            “No, it’s not if taking it out of context completely misrepresents the game.”

            By this logic, no one could quote anything ever, or give examples of anything ever, because there would always be a greater context which wasn’t being ‘represented’. If you wanted to talk about anything, you would have to start with an entire history of the world, just to make sure your viewership understood the ‘context’ in which something happened.

            Sarkeesian never purports to give a ‘representation’ of the games she critiques. She identifies recurring tropes within them and talks about them. The fact that you don’t have to kill the prostitutes in GTA is irrelevant to and outside the point she’s making.

            “The fact you think you can take something out of context, misrepresent the game’s intentions and call it legitimate argumentation, proves you’re a moron.”

            No, it proves I’m familiar with the way academic argument works.

            There’s a simple test here Lawrence – if I and other people (people like Tim Schafer and many other games journalists) can be familiar with the games she’s critiquing, and still find that the points she’s making are sound, then it can’t be the case that the points are invalidated by understanding the context.

            I think you know this, which is why you and others are so upset that so many people who do already know the context of the games are perfectly happy to broadly agree with Sarkeesian’s points. The very fact that people like us exist shows you’re wrong – unless, of course, you can somehow prove us to be lying about our experiences, conspiring with Sarkeesian to perpetuate some kind of idea we know to be false.

            To put it shortly: your opinion leaves no room for disagreement. In your world, if someone who has played GTA also agrees with Sarkeesian, they *must* be lying.

            Well, I’m not. Suck it up. Or carry on living in a world where the only way you can make sense of anything is to try to convince yourself other men don’t have penises.

          • Lawrence Newman

            Have you found a penis yet? How’s the vagina working out for you, mangina?

          • Romantic Placebo

            Oh god, shut up with this misogyny.

            Why the fuck should it be bad to have a vagina? Why is it an insult to a man to be told he has one if women have them and no one bats an eye?

            “Mangina” is a word meant to imply weakness, when it really means nothing of the sort. You should stop using it, or you’ll look like a PUA.

          • Lawrence Newman

            Because women are born whiners, and he’s a whiner. That’s how I can tell you’re either a woman or a mangina.

          • Romantic Placebo

            Neither, not that it should matter when you’re being this obtuse. And this is how I can tell you’re a misogynist:
            You call getting death and rape threats “whining”

            Lawrence Newman, go soak your head. You live in a made up world where you apparently both fear and desire the vagina, and don’t see anything contradictory in using it as an insult.

            That’s just irrational.

          • Lawrence Newman

            No … ALLEGED death and rape threats. Where is the conclusive evidence someone other than Anita herself sent the ‘threat’?

            No evidence, no argument.

            Yes, because holding women to the same standards as men is misogynist. Feminist logic. Derp.

          • Romantic Placebo

            “because holding women to the same standards as men”

            Has it ever bothered you how you never see the opposite. “Holding men to the same standards as women”?

            Does it seems strange that you’re using “men” as the default here? That women are the “other,” while men are the inclusive group doing the comparing?

            I think it would if you thought about it.

            Also, if you do not believe a women who has been repeatedly sent threats calling her a “bitch” and worse (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZAxwsg9J9Q) is more likely to be telling the truth when another group of threats come in, then you are reaching for straws.

          • Lawrence Newman

            Men don’t whine about being called a bitch online. It’s happened to me various times. The fact only women whine about it exposes how thin-skinned and childish they are.

          • Romantic Placebo

            And the fact that you immediately resort to a gender essentialist view of the world which you bolster with a pithy claim about how you never complain about being called a bitch means you have no perspective beyond your own on this.

            Isn’t it so funny that Feminists are always criticized by men for being male-bashers and “unfair” to them, but then someone like you comes along and proves they are entirely right to be wary of your misogynistic attitude.

            Isn’t it funny, Lawrence Newman, that you and your words are exactly what other men are constantly trying to distance themselves from, and yet you remain oblivious to it?

            Isn’t it funny, in other words, that you have no place among men or women, and yet you don’t even see it?

          • Lawrence Newman

            ISn’t it funny that you write loads and say absolutely nothing logical or of any interest. Not really. Just sad.

          • Romantic Placebo

            It’s okay, you’ll be okay.

          • Romantic Placebo

            Shhhh. It’s okay, you’ll get it together one day and then you’ll realize what a pounce you were.

          • tuym waistah

            “Has it ever bothered you how you never see the opposite. “Holding men to the same standards as women”?

            Does it seems strange that you’re using “men” as the default here? That women are the “other,” while men are the inclusive group doing the comparing?”

            This isn’t about who’s the default gender you horst, it’s about who’s getting away with more. You can use the phrase “holding men to the same standards” when someone employs the slut/stud double standard – though, of course, not so much when someone else employs the “playa / independent womyn” double standard, then it’s the reverse again.

          • Romantic Placebo

            “horst”?

          • Romantic Placebo

            Okay, I looked up that word and either you’re so angry you can’t make a proper insult, or you’re mixing up your Germanic phrases.

            Either way, I think you’re pretty dim if you don’t look at this world and see that “man” is not just the default, but the accepted default for the majority of people. Even women.

          • tuym wuystah

            “Okay, I looked up that word and either you’re so angry you can’t make a proper insult”
            It’s a mild, ironic kind of insult – like “dweeb”. You dweeb.

            “Either way, I think you’re pretty dim if you don’t look at this world and see that “man” is not just the default, but the accepted default for the majority of people. Even women.”
            I don’t even know what that means – and as I said, the “standards” thing has nothing to do with “defaults” in the first place.

            Also, being default isn’t necessarily a good thing to be – though I’m sure you think it is.

          • Romantic Placebo

            Poltroon

          • tuymwaistah

            Your literalist mindset is the problem here. Just like when someone says “you cunt”, PZ Myers gets butthurt and outraged and is like “oh, because implying that the female sex organ known as ‘the cunt’ is inherently a bad thing is totally not misogynistic; and just because Brits use it all the time and don’t bat an eye doesn’t mean we Muricans also need to be this chauvinistic”, someone jabs ya around a bit, and is like “hey, so hows that pussy of yours, ay! ay!”, and you’re like “ohhhhh, so the conclusion is that it’s bad to have a vagina, and that’s like tho sexist and why is it bad for a man to have one if it’s alright for a wench to have one that’s like totally illogical” – no, you fag, that’s (probably) figurative speech and meant to jab you around a bit nothing more. You’re doing it wrong.

            Mangina is probably used differently by different groups, but the people I’m familiar use it to refer to “men to defer to women” or act like doormats. Well, the latter is a satisfying plus, the deference is alreadysufficient.
            A weakness of sorts, sure, but not so much because you have a vagina as because you worship the vagina ;)

          • Romantic Placebo

            Uh, it’s not inherently a bad thing. But society says it is.

          • tuym wuystah

            What is not an inherently bad thing, the female sex organ? Or the word “cunt”? I’d say it applies somewhat to the latter, but in no shape or form to the former.
            The only people who hate vaginas are some fringe misogynists and a subset of laughable fundies who don’t matter. Most people love vaginas! It really says a lot about the brainwashed and paranoid state of your mind if you’ve bought feminist nonsense about “society” thinking “vagina is a bad thing”.

            Well, saying “cunt” certainly ain’t evidence of that.

          • Romantic Placebo

            They’re not fringe.

          • tuym wuystah

            They’re quite fringe, and as someone who demonstrably keeps seeing misogyny and bigotry in places where it ain’t, you’re not a reliable source on this.

          • Romantic Placebo

            No, you just want to believe that so you don’t have to do anything.

          • tuymwaistah

            “By this logic, no one could quote anything ever, or give examples of anything ever, because there would always be a greater context which wasn’t being ‘represented’.”

            Alright, dumbass, I’m gonna make this really simple for you again:

            a) Darwin said, and I quote, “to think that something as complex as the eye could’ve just evolved without any design or guidance would be outrageous” – now what do you think he’s saying here? Well, I’m using this quote to prove my point that even Darwin thought his theory was absurd.

            b) Darwin said, and I quote: “to think that something as complex as the eye could’ve just evolved without any design or guidance would be outrageous… so one would think, until honest analysis of the evidence and a good look at less evolved forms of the eye in various invertebrates totes gonna blow your mind and then make you laugh out loudly for failing to imagine something this obvious” – now what do you think he’s saying here? Well, I’m using this quote to prove my point that Darwin was totally behind that theory of his.

            Now, one of them is just a “quote” that doesn’t drag the entirety of the book, and then the entirety of human history while at it, along with it. The other is “taking it out of context” and misrepresenting the author’s views.

            Are you honestly so retarded that it’s all the same to you?! In the first case, the content of the excerpt is qualified and subverted by the context it’s in; in the other case, it’s consistent not only with what’s on that same page, but with the thesis of the entire fucking book in general.

            And to the extent that “quoting an excerpt is automatically taking it out of context”, well, for one, the phrase “taking out of context” means something else (in German, it’s even “ripped/torn out of context”, making it more clear that it results in changing the meaning of the excerpt), and aside from that you can always be a good boy and SUM UP what comes before and after, can you not?

            Saying what the game is about, then saying what the scene is about and what the goals of the level are, and then showing the clip while saying “now this is what happens in that particular stage of the level after x and before z”, should do the trick to everyone’s sufficient satisfaction.

            You can quote that first half of Darwin’s sentence, and then add that “but he goes on to invalidate that incredulity right after that”, and dishonesty avoided!

            You can also just quote it and let it hang there without any further commentary – but of course, then a lot more people are are gonna be like “hmm, wonder if he qualifies that somehow right afterwards” whereas if you’d been there to assure them that he totally doesn’t, they would’ve just trusted you and the dishonesty would’ve worked better.. while also leaving you more vulnerable to being found out :)

            And that, of course, is exactly what seems to be the situation with Anita in this case :)

            “She identifies recurring tropes within them and talks about them.The fact that you don’t have to kill the prostitutes in GTA is irrelevant to and outside the point she’s making.”

            What “trope” does this constitute, though, other than “the optional and completely unnecessary possibility to kill a bunch of NPCs, including some hookers, at one point in the game” trope?

            “No, it proves I’m familiar with the way academic argument works.”
            And it works by making no distinction between quoting and quote-mining.

            “There’s a simple test here Lawrence – if I and other people (people like Tim Schafer and many other games journalists) can be familiar with the games she’s critiquing, and still find that the points she’s making are sound, then it can’t be the case that the points are invalidated by understanding the context.”

            Except, judging by your conversations here, it totally is the case (they describe to you a situation which, if true, would totally be Sarkeesian quote-mining the game and then adding misleading commentary on top; and you don’t even try to debunk it, and basically all but admit that they’re right when you say “so what? that’s not the point at all! she can’t be misrepresenting, after all the videos are aimed straight at us gamers and not in any way at grey-haired leftist politicians and unsuspecting schoolkids who whould be shown her academic YT videos! there are third world countries where academics quote like this all the time!”), and you gamers who technically should know better still go out of your way to deny the truth and defend your idol. Why? Ideological bias, bitch – it’s a thing. And a powerful thing it is.

            “who do already know the context of the games are perfectly happy to broadly agree with Sarkeesian’s points”
            So? There’s plenty of mouth breathers who’ll listen to a feminist tell them that Star Wars is about two strong male heroes rescuing a defenseless, sexualized princess, and completely buy it. And plenty of mouth breathers who’ll watch it with their brainwashing already in place, and form that conclusion “all on their own”.

            Also, memories aren’t always rock solid – it took me rewatching the SW prequels in order to realize how dishonest some of the arguments in the Plinkett reviews were (it’s not too bad, but less accurate than I’d thought)… and by the time I did that, I had already forgotten half of the criticisms and probabably didn’t notice a lot of those flaws while they were staring right in my face.

            Point is, as the poets of old have grieved, it’s frighteningly easy to be deceived. So don’t trust a word while they plant their discord, or you might one day end up quite peeved.

            “you can somehow prove us to be lying about our experiences”
            Maybe you’re not… but your brain does!

            “they *must* be lying.”
            If what they’e saying contradicts the actual reality of the situation, then there’s something shady going there can’t argue with that.

          • Jon Stone

            I’m just going to reply to your Darwin example. It doesn’t help your argument because you posit someone seeking to represent a person’s *views*. The example doesn’t work when someone isn’t intending the use of a quote or an example from a text to represent an author’s ‘views’ or as a summary of the whole text.

            Nothing you say negates the fact that it’s normal critical procedure to take sections of a text ‘out of context’ to demonstrate the use of a trope or to show it as part of a pattern across a medium.

          • tuym wuystah

            Nice try – it’s not about views, it’s about CONTENT; both statements/assertions and fictional/hypothetical scenarios are forms of CONTENT, and the same rules apply to what constitutes ripping statements out of context as to what constitutes ripping events out of context – heck, even real ones, which are still the “content” of the universe.

            If I take a revenge killing and omit that it’s a revenge killing and whatever deed that motivated it, I’ve taken it out of context – even though it’s not a “view”.

            You’re reaaaaaally grasping at the last straws here now – and all for what? Just to retain the image that Anita is right and her critics are not? How about you just admit that she is wrong and they are right?

            “The example doesn’t work when someone isn’t intending the use of a quote or an example from a text to represent an author’s ‘views’ or as a summary of the whole text.”
            Well, what if you’re intending the use of an event or an example from the plot to represent the plot’s events or as a summary of the whole plot? Same rules apply.

            “Nothing you say negates the fact that it’s normal critical procedure to take sections of a text ‘out of context’ to demonstrate the use of a trope or to show it as part of a pattern across a medium.”
            Actually everything I’ve said completely negates all of that.
            The difference between proper use of an excerpt and taking an excerpt out of context? Just carefully explained.
            Your misconceptions of what a “trope” is? Carefully educated you elsewhere.
            Your confusions regarding her thesis being limited to “pointing out tropes”, and the relation between pointing at a trope and drawing a conclusion from it? Cleared up elsewhere, as well.

            Regarding the first one again, let me repeat this clearly to you so you understand: taking excerpt ouf context = altering the meaning of said excerpt. Doing that automatically invalidates any arguments you could form based on that excerpt… which means something else in context than it does in your argument.

            But since you’re obviously determined not to understand anything, you’re probably reading this very comment with the same vacant, empty stare as I’m known to display when I’m sitting at a lecture after a 3 hours of sleep – so really, it’s all up to you now: all the tools you require to improve yourself are already at your disposal.

          • Andrew

            I have several degrees and I’m pretty confused about how you think intentionally taking something out of context is professional academic behaviour.

          • chiiill

            FYI, “A Voice For Men” banned me. Really speaks to their intellectual courage.

          • chiiill

            It would be nice – and honest – if they would make a ban announcement for people they ban. Some of these people are probably thinking, “HaHA! We got ‘er!” and going back to wallowing in blatantly dumb, hateful opinions.

          • Andrew

            Yeah, I saw that and I was really not pleased with it. It’s about par for the course on all forums from what I’ve seen, though. You can’t post anything contrary on a feminist site without getting perma-banned in about ten minutes either.

            For what it’s worth, I found your comments respectful and thoughtful.

          • chiiill

            Aw, shucks, dude. I enjoyed talking to you as well. Some of those people were true pieces of work, though. I was the troll? Lol.

          • Andrew

            Yeah, I’ve just been banned by the gutless imbeciles over at Raw Story. I was completely respectful to everyone who didn’t auto-launch into ad hominem at the first contrary opinion (admittedly that was relatively few of them)!

            Asking valid questions + offering relevant references = “misogyny”.

          • Jon Stone

            Every time you quote anything you are taking it ‘out of context’ and doing so intentionally. That is the nature of quotations and selective sampling.

            Did you get through your several degrees without quoting anyone or anything at all?

          • Andrew

            “Every time you quote anything you are taking it ‘out of context’ and doing so intentionally.”

            Only if you’re dishonest. You’re obligated to present the quotations in good faith and not misrepresent things.

            You’re such a vile and aggressively mediocre intellect that it’s not worth engaging with you. You can’t manage a single comment without petty insults, and you have nothing of value to say to boot.

          • Jon Stone

            “Only if you’re dishonest. You’re obligated to present the quotations in good faith and not misrepresent things.”

            She does present her samplings in good faith and doesn’t misrepresent things. She recontextualises those parts of the game into her argument, because the point is how these moments stack up from game to game. Since her videos are aimed at a gaming audience, she would assume that a good proportion of viewers would know the context anyway.

            The only way you can demonstrate that there is anything dishonest is if you can show that the context completely absolves the scene of its apparently problematic content. So for instance, if she was showing Mario as an example of the damsel in distress trope but didn’t mention that in all Mario games, you’re actually able to play as Peach and rescue Mario.

            But in all the cases I’ve seen complained about, the context doesn’t affect the content in that way.

          • luci_fer

            That’s pretty subjective that he has nothing of value to say and is insulting you.

            You argued from a position of authority on the subject “I have several degrees” to make a point about quotations.
            He questioned your authority on the subject, because that isn’t what he believes about quotations.

            …It’s actually worth asking whether your degrees were in the sciences or the liberal arts, as I’m seeing a lot of people not understand some concepts surrounding media or literary criticism. I’m not saying you are one of them, just it’s a very different area of study than, for example, tech subjects.

          • Andrew

            You are really going to pretend that I’m making an appeal to authority here when I’m responding to his pretty insult: “anyone with a degree would know that taking quotes out of context is fine”? That’s pretty under-handed.

            A bachelors in English literature, a masters in theoretical linguistics with a focus on ancient languages: Greek, Sanskrit, etc), and a d.e.s.s. in video game design (this is a degree between masters and bacc which only exists in French-language universities.)

            I’ve done plenty of large papers in multiple languages. His comments about it being normal to take quotes out of context are plain wrong, much like all of the other comments he makes: heavy on snark, devoid of substance.

          • Andrew

            You’re going to pretend I’m making an appeal to authority when you know damn well I was addressing his petty insult: “This is obvious to anyone who’s done a fucking degree in anything and used quotes, ffs”? That’s pretty cheap.

            I have a Bachelor’s in English Literature, a Master’s in Theoretical Linguistics and a D.É.S.S in video game design (that’s a degree halfway between a bachelor’s and a masters that only exists in French-language universities. I’ve written more papers than I care to remember, in multiple languages, with plenty of citations, and I can assure you that there is nothing normal or professional about taking them out of context.

            This churlish little popinjay is trying desperately to place conditions on everyone else to distract from the fact that his position is indefensibly wrong, and you know it as well.

          • luci_fer

            I don’t think his position is either indefensible or wrong.
            She’s used quotes to back up her argument, both from theorists and the primary texts. Precisely the same things you were doing in your English degree.

          • Andrew

            This argument was never about quotes in the first place–Jon turned it into that. We were discussing her use of scenes in which women are killed, presenting them as if they are rampant while ignoring that 1000-10,000 men are killed between each instance of it–indeed that murdering men is the core mechanic of all these games. She also took games where you can kill any NPCs, recorded the player killing women as examples of misogyny, ignoring the fact that you could have killed men or chosen not to kill anyone.

            This is the height of mendacity, and it bears no resemblance whatsoever to academic citation, in which it is understood that the quotes are presented charitably and provided with relevant context. Her examples were not presented with appropriately charitable interpretation and the context was deliberately excluded, because had it been included the idiocy of her claims would be readily apparent to everyone. Indeed, they already are to anyone familiar with the games she’s presenting–not counting those of you drunk on the SJW Koolaid.

          • luci_fer

            “We were discussing her use of scenes in which women are killed, presenting them as if they are rampant while ignoring that 1000-10,000 men are killed between each instance of it–indeed that murdering men is the core mechanic of all these games.”

            As you are aware, having done an English degree, if you were to do a paper on the representation of women – in the novels of Jane Austen for example – and used feminist theory to talk about how Emma (and whoever) were represented, you would not also need to automatically talk about the male characters by comparison. You could, if you wanted to frame it that way, but you don’t have to.

            That would be perfectly IN context with the title of the paper to solely focus on the representation of women in the novels of Jane Austen.

            By the same token if she was discussing how women were represented as background decoration (or whichever video your example comes from), ignoring how the NPC men are treated by comparison is perfectly valid. Because it’s not in the context of that discussion.

            “She also took games where you can kill any NPCs, recorded the player killing women as examples of misogyny, ignoring the fact that you could have killed men or chosen not to kill anyone.”

            Yes, she has. She’s made the argument that – given the developers establish the rules, the parameters of players behaviour in the game world, they decide what the players can and cannot do within that world. So she’s making the point that deliberately giving the players the option to do (particularly against highly sexualized representations like strippers or prostitutes) implicitly encourages it.

            I don’t actually agree with her on this point, because I think player freedom of choice – do make immoral misogynistic acts or not – is important, nay fundamental, to certain games. But it doesn’t matter that I disagree with her. She’s free to make the argument, and it isn’t mendacity or idiocy to do so.

            Further – how well do you think you’ve represented her arguments here? How charitable in interpretation have you been?

            “Your buddy Jon is currently arguing that taking things out of context like this is “professional and legitimate academic behaviour,” and you’re defending it.”

            I don’t think that was what he was arguing, but I’m sure he can speak for himself to clarify what he meant. (He also doesn’t know me personally, so “my buddy Jon” is slightly embarrassing. I wouldn’t mind if he was though, he seems a reasonable chap) But given you’ve decided what I’m defending, I’ll clarify how I took it.

            He said:

            “Taking scenes out of context is *entirely* reasonable when your show is about *tropes*. Do you know what a trope is?

            Yes, it is professional and legitimate academic behaviour. It’s what critics and academics do – they take fragments out of a narrative to demonstrate arguments. They do not tirelessly recite the entirety of a text just to give context.”

            I took this to mean, taking a quote – or in this case the primary text as a game (so a clip) or ‘cherry picking’ to demonstrate what you are saying is not automatically taking it out of context. If you’ve argued something exists, and found an example of it, and sourced it, that’s legitimate.

            You do not need to quote the entire book, or play a movie of an entire run through, from your primary source for it to be ‘in context’. That would be absurd, and every paper would be the size of a novel+ in order to do this.

            Of course, referencing specific quotes from a particular text to reinforce an argument MAY be taking it out of context, it MAY be a misreading of the text. It’s all up for debate, and you can counter-argue to show why. But as you are well aware after doing an English degree, analysing a *representation* of something fictional is highly subjective – it’s going to be having an interpretation of that representation, then arguing why you think this.

            That her interpretation is different from yours does not mean she is arguing incorrectly by “cherry picking” her examples. Further, as I’m sure you’re aware, her argument does not have to show all sides. it’s perfectly legitimate for her just to make her argument from a particular standpoint and let others argue theirs.

            I would also ask you, on a separate point, in your academic career, what grade do you think you would have received if you thought an appropriate way to engage with someone’s essay was to rant and froth about its author? How acceptable do you think it is to do this?

          • Andrew

            “and used feminist theory to talk about how Emma (and whoever) were represented, you would not also need to automatically talk about the male characters by comparison.”

            If you were trying to establish sexism, you absolutely would, as the definition of sexism is that one gender is treated differently on account of its gender alone. You cannot prove this by removing the context, and you know it very well.

            I was not only an English student but also a college level English professor while I was in grad school, so you can stop with the pedantic sophistry about how papers are done. You’re being extremely disingenuous.

            If I ever need to do a paper on willful ignorance though, I’ll come here and take screenshots.

          • Andrew

            “As you are aware, having done an English degree, if you were to do a paper on the representation of women – in the novels of Jane Austen for example – and used feminist theory to talk about how Emma (and whoever) were represented, you would not also need to automatically talk about the male characters by comparison.”

            You absolutely would have to talk about the males as well if you wanted to establish the presence of sexism–the very definition of which is one gender being treated differently. You can’t establish this without explicit comparison. But you already know that and you’re being willfully ignorant.

            “You do not need to quote the entire book, or play a movie of an entire run through, from your primary source for it to be ‘in context’.”

            We’re talking about willfully excluding relevant information. This would be like quoting Groucho Marx “Marriage is a wonderful institution” and intentionally omitting the second half which changes the entire meaning: “but who wants to live in an institution?” It’s blatant dishonesty, and you know it.

            “I would also ask you, on a separate point, in your academic career, what grade do you think you would have received if you thought an appropriate way to engage with someone’s essay was to rant and froth about its author? How acceptable do you think it is to do this?”

            I’ve not only taken an English degree, but also taught English at a university, grading papers, so you can can it with your pedantic sophistry about how papers are written. You either don’t really know anything about it or are intentionally being ignorant in service of your ideological ends.

            It is not only completely appropriate and acceptable to criticize authors–it’s essentially the core mechanic of academia–so stop pretending otherwise.

          • luci_fer

            If you don’t know that “rant and froth” is separate from “criticize”, then I think we’re done here.

          • Andrew

            You’re the one who seems confused about this, given that my arguments against Anita are specific and well supported: she is dishonestly representing the games by intentionally excluding information that contradicts her claim. Even if it actually were ranting, that’s called polemic and there’s a long and proud history of that in academia as well. You knew that, right? You seem to think of yourself as knowing a lot, though you have a hard time conveying anything but pedantry in your comments here.

            But please do leave. If I hear one more blatantly disingenuous and redundant hand-waving explanation of why misrepresentation is somehow acceptable (so long as it is in service of your chosen ideology) I’m going to vomit.

          • tuymwaistah

            “To think that something as complex as the eye could’ve just evolved all on its own, would be outrageous!” -totes academically valid excerpt from Charles Darwin, we academics quote all the time!
            Also totally not gonna add my own commentary and conclusion to this in my commentary that ends with a conclusion, cough cough.

        • utera

          They missed the point by pointing out contradictions and omissions of facts and cherry picking, thus making her conclusions and claims invalid?”

          Way to miss the point of how actual argument works.

          The ugly impression is of your kind, where you can look facts straight in the face and still remain in denial, standard creationist blindness to reason 101.


          Nice an short, a 30 seconds to show the “ugly impression” women like her give to gamers of “women in gaming” and “feminists”.

          • Jon Stone

            1) You can’t ‘debunk’ a person. You debunk a myth or rumour.
            2) ‘Cherry-picking’ = selective quoting. This is what all academic argument does.
            3) It’s interesting that you refer to wilful ‘creationist’ blindness. I think if you weren’t so determinedly blinkered yourself, you wouldn’t see any wild contradiction between the statement’s Sarkeesian makes in her video. It’s entirely possibly for someone to love playing some games, to be interested generally in gaming culture, but still have to ‘learn a lot’ and not to have much experience when they first embark on a particular line of inquiry.

            That is, in fact, what you would naturally assume someone to be saying if they told you these things in person. You wouldn’t really think, “Hold on! That doesn’t make sense!” The only context in which it is held up as some sort of “AHA! Con artist!” moment is when someone is desperately and determinedly trying to find some evidence of inconsistency.

            I can guarantee that someone you know has said something more self-contradictory to you in the last two weeks and you won’t have even noticed it.

        • TheScienceEnthusiast1130

          Butthurt crybaby, aren’t you?

        • tuym wuystah

          “and shows scenes from a variety of games that demonstrate a common trope,”
          If that’s all you do, you’ve got some nice material for a TV Tropes entry and nothing much more than that – certainly no case for anything approaching “proof of misogyny in video games” or “proof video games are misogynistic”, and hence no major reason for “misogynists” to object or be upset. ;)

          So yea, pick one, either she’s just a troper listing some similar plot devices, or your (and her) calling dissenters misogynists isn’t just cultist behavior but outright incoherent insanity.

      • luci_fer

        what objective standard do you think there is?

    • Hugh Briss

      Uh, yeah, they ARE debunkings of her videos. Your attempt to paint anyone who disagrees with your view as “a misogynistic maniac” is a logical fallacy and holds no weight. You have done nothing more than look like a fool in public.

      • Jon Stone

        Do you know what a debunking is? Do you know what a logical fallacy is? Aside from anything else, you use both of these terms wrongly. You belong to a subset of young men who seemed to have learned the language and terminology of rational discourse, but don’t actually understand what any of it means. You seem to think if you simply pepper any random blog post with ‘logical fallacy’ or ‘objectivity’ or any other such big word, you will come across as clever.

        Well, you don’t. I’ve issued the challenge several times on this thread for someone to simply take one point – one single point – of Sarkeesian’s where they can firmly demonstrate she has got it wrong (let alone that she’s actually dishonest), and no one has taken me up on it. Instead, you just keep referring to long, rambling videos full of men talking absolute cock.

        • Hugh Briss

          Shill harder!

          • Jon Stone

            Are you going to try to demonstrate where Sarkeesian’s wrong? Just one single point? Come on. Do it. Or else you’re all fucking talk.

          • Hugh Briss

            I don’t have to. You dismiss and ignore it all with a hand-wave anyway, so it’s pointless to argue with you. Keep on shillin’. I can troll you till the end of time, and you’ll feel compelled to respond to every last second of it.

          • Jon Stone

            “I don’t have to.”

            Right. Everyone gets it now. You “don’t have to”. You can just fly in here and assert that someone is dishonest, but you “don’t have to” back it up or demonstrate it in any way.

          • Hugh Briss

            Leading by example. Yours, in this case.

          • Jon Stone

            Do you understand how this works? You’re the one who is accusing someone of being dishonest. You have to demonstrate it. I don’t have to do jack shit until you demonstrate the dishonesty. ‘Demonstrating the dishonesty’ does not equal linking to videos of mindless ravings.

          • LouisJG

            “Anita Sarkeesian’s videos are generally good arguments and points well made. Demonstrate how that is not the case.”

            I’ll have a go at it, assuming you want an actual discussion.

            What she is doing is taking her preconceived notions, cherry picking representations to support them, spinning them into a narrative, and saying “See, this is full of misogyny!” That is intellectually dishonest. Intellectually honest would be to enter open minded, collect the facts, and draw a conclusion. She’s doing it backwards because it makes a better narrative.

            Let me give a parallel example. Looking at the same games she does in, say, her first video, couldn’t one come to an equal yet different conclusion: that men are inordinately portrayed as evil?

            In the Mario games, for example, it’s men or male-gendered non-human characters that are doing the kidnapping, restricting, and otherwise “disempowering” the female characters. Mario is one guy against an entire army of male characters who are the ones doing the kidnapping and confinement of the female. Isn’t that an offensive portrayal of men? Hundreds of bad men vs. one trying to do the right thing; it portrays most males as evil, more than happy to victimize, and very few trying to help a victim. And unlike the “victimization” of the Princess which is rarely shown, this notion of men being evil is reinforced in every second of gameplay. Wave after wave of bad men are shown to the gamer reinforcing the notion that most men are bad. Using her form of argument, one should then equally conclude that there is actually misandry in video games since men are overwhelming portrayed as evil.

            If that sounds like a constructed and supposed conclusion rather than anything having a basis in fact and conclusion in logic and scientific rigor, then Anita’s arguments should sound the same way to anyone being intellectually honest.

            The point being: one can construct outrage from anything. The facts can be correct, but one can spin it into something that 1) it was never intended to be, and, 2) make all kinds of suppositions and accusation without proving their correctness by doing an actual study on the effects.

            Do people come away from playing Mario assuming that most men are bad and hell-bent on kidnapping women? It’s doubtful. It’s equally doubtful that most people come away from Mario assuming women are incapable. Yet, that is the argument Anita is making without any evidence to support that conclusion. That is why the criticism that she’s not doing real social science but merely a propaganda piece is justified, yet she presents her conclusions as fact and, as history shows, any one who argues against her in a rational way is lumped in with the people threatening rape under the label “misogynist” as you yourself have done.

            Calling someone out for a flawed process or intellectual dishonesty is not “misogyny” – it’s critical thinking and a desire to get to the truth of the matter.

          • Jon Stone

            OK, great. Let’s go through this. You accuse her of having preconceived notions or ‘doing it backwards’.

            1) You can never know this for sure. You don’t know what was in her head when she started. This is just supposition.

            2) Just because a notion is preconceived doesn’t mean it’s wrong. So this gets us nowhere by itself. If a detective immediately suspects X was responsible for the murder, and then subsequently proves it, it doesn’t matter a jot that he began with a presumption,

            You then accuse her of ‘cherry-picking’. By this you mean she chooses key examples that support her case that certain tropes recur in video games. This is an entirely legitimate way to make an argument. Have you ever written a literary essay? Or performed a critical analysis of anything? You use quotations. Quotations are, by their nature, cherry-picking.

            There is literally no way that ‘cherry-picking’ can be a bad thing if the only thing you are trying to prove is that something is a recurring trope in a medium. If you can find the cherries, you’ve proved your point. That is it. She does not ever say, “This is full of misogyny”, as you paraphrase her – she demonstrates recurring tropes and explains how they are problematic.

            That is not, in any way, shape or form, ‘intellectually dishonest’. It is an entirely legitimate way to make an argument.

            You then try to demonstrate that she hasn’t examined this from all sides by asking about Mario: “Isn’t that an offensive portrayal of men?”

            The answer is no, because in the world of Mario, male is the default state and has no bearing on which side you are on. The real problem with Mario that Sarkeesian points to is that the female character has no agency – she does not ‘act’, either in opposition to or support of the hero. The lack of agency is the real problem with the damsel in distress trope – the fact that it’s a portrayal of femininity as essentially passive. In Mario, men act, while women wait to be rescued.

            There was therefore no reason Sarkeesian should feel she had to mention the weighting of male enemy characters. It is a non-point.

            You say “one can construct outrage from anything”. Sarkeesian does not ‘construct outrage’. She identifies problematic tropes and explains why they are problematic.

            You say she has not studied the effects, and ask “Do people come away from playing Mario assuming that most men are bad and hell-bent on kidnapping women?” There are numerous studies (not to mention common sense) demonstrating that media affects the way we view things in real life. It is the *cumulative effect* of tropes that can negatively affect attitudes to women (by both women themselves and men). It is not the case that one game ever teaches you a particular viewpoint, but that the reiteration of the same trope over a multitude of different media reinforce certain viewpoints.

            I agree that “calling someone out for a flawed process or intellectual dishonesty is not “misogyny””. The reason I accuse people of misogyny quite liberally is that I can see no better explanation for the total failure to sit back and think soberly about the points Sarkeesian is really making and understand their merit. I can see no other reason for constantly putting words in her mouth and twisting her arguments so that they are easier to attack. I can see no other reason for misconstruing her position as wanting, say, an end to *all* violence against women in games, or as being against any non-positive portrayal of women in games.

            It seems to me that many people, driven by a misogyny they themselves are perhaps blind to, want to tear her down by any means necessary just because they are not prepared to entertain the idea that her points are sound.

            I am a man, and a gamer, and I have enjoyed playing many of the games she talks about in her videos. But I am capable of seeing that the things she highlights are problematic, and that most games would be improved if they took her arguments into account. Because I am not a misogynist.

          • LouisJG

            I will be happy to address your other points, but first, let’s discuss if she had pre-conceived notions and an agenda and see if we can come to an agreement on that.

            “1) You can never know this for sure. You don’t know what was in her head when she started. This is just supposition.”

            Well, yes I can because we do have her own words to show what was in her head. They’re on her kickstarter page for the project.

            https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games

            “In this video series, Feminist Frequency will explore five common and recurring stereotypes of female characters in video games…

            I love playing video games but I’m regularly disappointed in the limited and limiting ways women are represented. This video project will explore, analyze and deconstruct some of the most common tropes and stereotypes of female characters in games. The series will highlight the larger recurring patterns and conventions used within the gaming industry rather than just focusing on the worst offenders.”

            She also clearly has an agenda. She states it. Again, in her own words from her kickstarter page:

            “Help me create another successful video series that will contribute to and help amplify the existing conversations happening about female characters in games and maybe even get the attention of the gaming industry to start creating more interesting, engaging and complex female characters, that avoid the standard boring cliches.”

            So, do you disagree that she had an agenda and pre-conceived notions even though she seemingly states as much herself?

            I will agree with you on one point. She does in fact prove that such tropes exist. However, her conclusions from the existence from such tropes is flawed, based on assumptions, and only match her preconceived notions.

          • Jon Stone

            The problem with your argument is that you arbitrarily place the starting point for her investigations at the point she began her Kickstarter. Realistically, one does not propose a series of investigative videos without having already carried out some research and having started to form conclusions.

            It’s reasonably clear that Sarkeesian had already formed a lot of conclusions about the problems that exist with games from playing them. The point of the series is to investigate further.

            *But*, importantly, we’re not talking about a single, ringing conclusion here. Just because she went into this project with some idea of what already existed doesn’t mean that she can’t then go on to nuance it and form a multitude of separate, related conclusions from what she finds. It’s very unlikely that she began with *all* these conclusions marked out. The trouble is that people tend to conflate her multiple points and conclusions into one massive, generalised statement.

            What you call an ‘agenda’ is the very thing that is utterly necessary for carrying out academic investigations – an expectation and idea of what you hope to find, and what the implications of this are.

            There is literally no reason to start an investigative endeavour like this without what you term an agenda. One does not start an essay or thesis with an attitude of “I have no idea what’s out there – could be anything.”

            Sarkeesian had an idea of what tropes existed in games and what problems this presented. She formed this from playing games, not, as far as I can see, from judging them from afar. The series she proposed promised to be a further and deeper investigation and subsequent presentation of her findings. There really is nothing untoward about that.

            I’m sure you, like me, have also read articles that have looked at positive portrayals of women in games. These have also gone in with an ‘agenda’ and ‘cherry-picked’ their findings. But that doesn’t make these articles ‘intellectually dishonest’ either. They exist alongside Sarkeesian’s videos, and neither contradict each other.

          • LouisJG

            OK, it seems that we agree there were pre-conceived notions and an agenda at least. The question becomes: does that matter? I argue it does because it removes objectivity to such a degree that it becomes promotion of a foregone conclusion rather than an argument for a given thesis.

            “The problem with your argument is that you arbitrarily place the starting point for her investigations at the point she began her Kickstarter.”

            That’s not a problem. For one thing it’s not arbitrary – I’m putting the starting point there because I thought we were talking about her videos on tropes. She states why she wants to make them and for what reason. The videos are not to prove there are tropes; if they were, she would have said “I’m going to prove there are tropes and stereotypes.” The videos were to cause discussion and change.

            You had said earlier that a pre-conceived conclusion isn’t proof that the conclusion is wrong. I agree. It’s proof, however, they have an agenda they wish to further, and when they provide only evidence supporting that agenda it’s properly called “propaganda”.

            To come to an logical conclusion, one has to examine all the evidence and draw a conclusion. To have a conclusion and only offer evidence supporting it is properly known as rhetoric (or propaganda). So, clearly, her videos are not logical arguments but rather propaganda pieces on a conclusion she has already come to privately but offered no public evidence for. That’s why I said she’s doing it backwards – at least if we’re talking about an objective analysis of a given subject.

            That’s why I reject your characterization of this as an “investigative endeavor” – an investigation is to find out “what’s what” rather than promote an already arrived at conclusion. Cf her stated agenda for proof that this is what she’s doing.

            What’s untoward is not the presentation of tropes. What’s untoward is her conclusions and claims of misogyny that are rooted in a subjective view (i.e., seeing the world through misogynist colored glasses). For example, in her first video she states:

            “The trope quickly became the go-to motivational hook for developers as it provided an easy way to tap into adolescent male power fantasies in order to sell more games to young straight boys and men.”

            That is easily demonstrable as extremely flawed at best, and completely false at worst.

            1) The trope appears in the vast minority of video games. If it were the “go-to motivational hook” wouldn’t it appear in the vast majority of them? I would submit that the “go-to motivational hook” for the male audience is actually violence based on the number of game sales to the 18-35 year old male demographic and the content of the most successful games.

            2) She is assuming, in a sexist manner I might add, that adolescent males all have power fantasies.

            3) She is assuming that gay boys and men don’t have the same assumed power fantasies as straight men. Does she have evidence of this? I always thought gay meant that someone is sexually attracted to the same sex; not that it means they dislike things other males like.

            4) If it really is about power as she assumes, the object or person being rescued is irrelevant. It could be the Holy Grail, Polly Purebread, or Fred Flintstone that one needs to quest for. Evidence suggests that the “quest” and/or “rescue” motifs are popular because of the quest itself, not the object or person. Skyrim, WoW, Pool of Radiance, etc., are all evidence that the adventure is the draw, rather than if the victim is of a particular gender. In which case, see point 3 – gay boys and men would arguably be drawn to the same games since it’s not based in some sexual desire.

            If you don’t think that her supposition / conclusion there is flawed, let me rephrase her statement to apply it back to her:

            “The trope of male stereotypes quickly became the go-to motivational hook for feminist media makers as it provided an easy way to tap into female domination fantasies in order to sell more media to young man-hating girls and women.”

            Do you see how unfair such a characterization is? Just as it is dishonest and unfair for me to present that women have “female domination fantasies” and to state this is the reason why feminists make certain kinds of media, so too is it wrong, unfair, and intellectually dishonest to make such a statement as she did in an “investigation.”

            She assumes the worst possible motivation that supports her agenda and states it as a fact.

            I don’t see how you can seriously call her media an investigation or something academic or anything of that kind. Really, it’s a propaganda piece. That was her stated goal as well – to cause people to discuss and to cause change in the gaming industry. She was honest about what it was, and I think it’s time some of the people supporting her did the same.

            Then we can begin a discussion on whether her opinion (which it really is since she doesn’t prove anything except that a trope exists) has any basis in fact including the cause, the effects, and if something needs to change or not.

          • tuymwaistah

            I’m not sure if I can totally follow you there on everything, but just two things:

            “For one thing it’s not arbitrary – I’m putting the starting point there because I thought we were talking about her videos on tropes. She states why she wants to make them and for what reason.”
            She’s being doing the same shite before the Kickstarter, only to TV shows / music instead and with much less pretense of professionalism. Basically if you wanna see the emotionally charged, vapid and hysterical essence of Anita’s argumentation without this mask of “serious analysis” and detached professionalism, go watch some of those early TvW videos.

            The Kickstarter thing got her noticed, but other than that didn’t change much at all.

            “She assumes the worst possible motivation that supports her agenda and states it as a fact.”
            This is true for a lot of her points, and after all, if a feminist like her says something about “straight white male power fantasy” then incoming trouble shouldn’t be far away!

            But, aside from sounding kind of condescending, I don’t see how this is particularly condemning, or even particulary unreasonable.
            Shooting up a bunch of zombies or duking it out with hood gangstas doesn’t sound like much of an “emotional” hook to me – and while I don’t have the evidence for that, the idea that as soon as sweeping emotion and storytelling are introduced, DiD becomes a frequent occurrence if not a “go-to” one, seems quite plausible to me.

            After all, it IS a very primal, old scenario, almost a given in the superhero genre and happens quite frequently throughtout action/thrillers in general.
            And yea, while there’s different reasons people may like it, “sexual/romantic power fantasy” / “obvious emotional investment” does seem to be the prevailing default,

            Also, gays are a minority therefore exceptions anyway.

          • tuymwaistah

            “It’s reasonably clear that Sarkeesian had already formed a lot of conclusions about the problems that exist with games from playing them. The point of the series is to investigate further.”
            Why “reasonably clear”? She’s been doing videos before that, you know.

            “doesn’t mean that she can’t then go on to nuance it and form a multitude of separate, related conclusions from what she finds.”
            No, it doesn’t – but it does hurt the chances, and Anita ain’t no counterexample in that context if you take my meaning.

            “It’s very unlikely that she began with *all* these conclusions marked out.”
            Some details may have been fleshed out in the process, but largely, no, it was all pretty much there, in all its blistering lunacy.

            “The trouble is that people tend to conflate her multiple points and conclusions into one massive, generalised statement.”

            Well, one of the troubles of trying to organize her multiple points and conclusions into one massive, generalized statement is that they’re often quite inconsistent with each other. However, while there’s contradictions between various statements regarding what constitutes misogyny and what doesn’t, the massive generalized statement that the medium is sexist against women remains stable and entirely impressed with that blubbering quantum fluctuation at the lower levels.

            “an agenda”
            Looks like there’s some inter-subcultural misunderstanding regarding what the word “agenda” means. When they say it, it doesn’t just mean “having a goal”, they mean someone actively implementing their ideology; and when they say “ideology”, they don’t mean “set of values and worldviews that are basically non-crazy”, they mean “set of values and worldviews that is absolutely fucking crazy”.

            Ideology is the “earthly” equivalent of religion – an abandonment of reason in favor of a particular narrative. Having an agenda means notjust believing in said ideology, but applying it actively.
            Oh, and pursuing a hidden goal to which your being here and trying to convince someone of something is merely a means to that end rather than a transparent communications of your views and goals, is also called “having an agenda”.

            Anyway, you can’t really read these meanings out of the words themselves, maybe around your parts they’re used differently altogether; but this is what he meant here.

          • Megamatics

            A Preconceived notion means there was never a need to do any research because you already have the answer. Your Justification for it isn’t really formulated on a reasonable base since you were not given the full answer.

          • luci_fer

            That’s called a hypothesis. You can then prove or disprove it.

          • Megamatics

            Preconceived notions work a little differently, it’s something like an analyses created after a study that for the most part stands as is due to a multitude of people who believe it. It can be comparable to a Hypothesis, but it’s more so along the lines of a belief in a close to religious fashion.

          • luci_fer

            Not really.

            You’d be right in the fact that having a hypothesis to prove or disprove is used in science discipline, and things work a little differently in the academic arts.

            But you can start off from a particular perspective, say, “I’ve heard x and I’m going to find out if x is the case, rather than y” which is not dissimilar in premise.

            To state it’s in anyway dogmatic to be comparable to religious belief can be doesn’t make sense to me though – as it’s about enquiry. Religious belief tends…to be the opposite of enquiry (you aren’t attempting to question or find out if your religious beliefs are right or valid, for example. you just have faith).

            That the argument is being made through a particular lens (in this case feminist theory) can be called a bias, if you like. But media critics use theory as ‘a way in’ to texts, and use the theory most relevant to the topic (so ‘study of representation of women’ is pretty much automatically going to lend itself to ‘feminist theory’ just like ‘study of representation of class’ could use marxism, etc). They argue against each other all the time by reading the same text but switching the lens.

            There is no reason not to challenge Sarkeesian’s arguments from another perspective, if so inclined. (and absolutely some of her points are simplistic, as she’s trying to boil down ideas re: theory into compact accessible videos).

            Perhaps one of the reasons (some) people feel so threatened is because they haven’t come across this kind of lit-crit/theory stuff before, so they don’t really know how to counter-argue effectively – so just end up insulting and attacking her, or trying to undermine her credibility, rather than actually engaging with the arguments.

          • Megamatics

            So your argument is that I have to understand feminism before I can argue this matter of sexism ? Using the literal definitions is not enough to understand her points, and discrediting her isn’t possible without that knowledge ?

            She would be guilty of the same thing when she removes the context from the examples in her videos. She doesn’t understand the worlds and nature of the environment in her games, as well as bringing in a viewpoint that doesn’t exist in that game world. Something like this seems rather confusing but it is totally plausible. Most Video Game Developers don’t make games with feminism in mind, so any analysis using that as a starting point will only end with “This is not a feminist perspective”. That is the issue with this preconceived notion and the overall conclusion she keeps coming up with. It would always be a clash of ideals, The Developers may not think there game is offensive, Sub Group Finds game offensive, other group finds game to be totally evil, other group loves and adores it. It’s too convenient to accept one perspective, and too easy. Preconceived notions stint the amount of places you can look for data because in this case it can only be viewed from a feminist perspective.

            Since that Preconceived Notion is already a feminist one, I doubt she ever tried to challenge it, as she was able to title her videos years before they came out. We can disprove her claims with the Damsel In Distress and this with very little Logic. Her “Hypothesis” utterly fails under the light of testing.

          • luci_fer

            Not really, not sure where I said that about feminism. I just said feminist theory was the lens she happened to be using (which is a common thing re: lit theory).

            With the last paragraph, what I meant was, on this site I’ve seen people argue things like it’s unscientific, or that she’s morally forcing them to do something, or that it’s censorship leads me to believe that people may not know what lit/critical theory is or what it’s function is. Which is going to lead to a central misunderstanding of what she’s doing.

            The function is not to be the be all and the end all of discussion – it’s the opposite. People claim that she isn’t presenting a complete or balanced view – well, no. And she’s under no responsibility to do so, there’s no intellectual dishonesty there, she’s *stated* she’ll be looking at tropes through a feminist lens. Where the conversation grows is others writing essays, blog posts, doing their own videos discussing it.

            Eventually, you do get a more balanced picture, because through debate the weaker sides of the argument are unpicked and other aspects are explored. It’s like someone first posits something, argues it, backs it up with clips and theory. Someone else responds, disagrees, backs it up *with their clips*, maybe a different lens maybe the same, doesn’t really matter. Another person responds, says ok, well my position is situated between the two, I can see your points here with this, but this person is right about this. And so on. And so on.

            Then you get this huge extended conversation where all aspects are covered and *that* is when you get the broad, complete and balanced view on this topic. This is how it works with lit/crit in academia – though the quality is vetted by peer review, but it’s also fairly elitist. This way, anyone can do it.

            But you get absolutely nowhere constructive in that conversation by attacking Anita the person, rather than engaging with her arguments.

            I’m not sure why ‘discrediting’ her is the end goal for you here, or that there’s any point to that. She could be typing her scripts in one hand and strangling newborn babies with the other – that might make her a bad person, but it doesn’t effect any of her arguments.

            The problem with what you say here is covered above: “It’s too convenient to accept one perspective, and too easy. Preconceived notions stint the amount of places you can look for data because in this case it can only be viewed from a feminist perspective.”

            It would be too convenient to accept one perspective, I agree. So where is the idea coming from that Anita’s is, or should be, the final conclusive word in the subject rather than the objective being an extended conversation encompassing many viewpoints and arguments?

            That it can only be looked at from a feminist perspective is absurd. Yes, in terms of theory, feminist theory is the obvious one to use as it looks at representation of women and has done for many, many years. That doesn’t mean the same topic can’t be approached from a different stance – or that there isn’t mass disagreement and different viewpoints within the field of feminist theory (there is – even on some of the most basic concepts).

            And yes, as I admitted, being this is an arts not a science field, hypothesis is the wrong word to use. But in the sense that it can be fairly neutral, Preconceived Notion is similar here. (I.e yes, she can have a ‘preconceived notion’ or a ‘hypothesis’ that the damsel in distress trope exists in games, she can then find those tropes to study and explore). It isn’t really something that can utterly fail under the light of testing though. (I mean, I think she has fairly conclusively proven it exists as a trope in games, no?)

            But you can continue the conversation by interacting with her arguments and challenging them. That doesn’t automatically invalidate everything she’s said, or validate anything you’re saying, but it will extend out to be more balanced eventually.

          • Megamatics

            Yes, This is the Feminist Perspective (If the other Feminists choose to accept it). However Feminist Theory is something that isn’t necessarily challenged by Feminists and exists more as a religious belief system. The Prevailing arguments coming from it are one sided by default and can not hold up under the eyes of scrutiny. Anita is a Public Figure and every public figure deserves to be challenged in the means of discrediting them. I myself do not feel she is equipped to talk about gaming as she only offers the Feminist Perspective, not the Feminist Gamer’s Perspective. This has everything to do with her claiming to not play video games, and how she for the longest time has presented rather ignorant viewpoints on games in the past on her Youtube.

            Feminsist Theory for the most part is indicative of Social Science but a lot of the time the statistics used are easily skewed and done in a fashion to where the theory couldn’t be dis-proven. It’s one of the reasons why I think accepting the Feminist Perspective as part of the conversation to be too convenient. Even if it is a source to a discussion, using Feminist Theory as part of the Discussion itself would be totally devoid of sense. Many of the definitions she uses are not substantiated by anything other than conjecture.

            The more balanced argument is never had as Journalists have never put her project under a critical lense. Lots of them seem to simply agree and do nothing but contribute to the controversy around it. It’s gotten to the point where it feels like talking about the Project at all to be totally engulfed in the political nature surrounding it. The preconceived notions and most radio silent Sarkeesian don’t seem to want to discuss anything so long as it makes their stance look more victimized. It even feels like they don’t want to further the discussion at all since people wont ask her the tough questions and when they do she totally folds and gets mad about it on twitter.

            Her GaymerX is the only case where she addresses the criticism and her stance is generally that no ones gets her point. She turns what should of been a serious discussion into a talking point to poke fun and act generally like she is the authority on gaming. To me that would be rather intellectually dishonest .

          • luci_fer

            I understand your frustration that it feels difficult to talk about the topic due to the controversy surrounding it. But I really feel that the conversation won’t move on until it moves away from attacking or attempting to discredit Anita Sarkeesian the person, to addressing and discussing the arguments presented.

            …Though yes, making arguments about the content of media, how characters are represented, things about story are *all* going to be subjective by default – you can make solid arguments and back them up with quotes from your source material and frame your argument within theoretical underpinning, but it’s all up for debate.

            But everyone is entitled to their own view and to take part in that debate. Including you and including Anita Sarkeesian.

          • Kav P

            “Feminist Theory is something that isn’t necessarily challenged by Feminists and exists more as a religious belief system.”

            I don’t really understand how you came to that conclusion. Are you aware that feminist discourse covers a HUGE range of thoughts and ideas, movements and ideologies, much like philosophy? Given that, when you think about it, it is a subset of philosophy? There is no feminist holy text that people claim holds all the answers. That’s what makes it such a fascinating subject. Feminists are constantly challenging other feminists in discourse over a range of different topics, and with each wave of feminism ideas are updated and changed with our growing understanding of the intricacies of the human mind and sociology, amongst other things.

            Have a read, or at least a scan, and you’ll see what I mean. :)

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

          • Megamatics

            Pointing me to Wikipedia which is more so a reference does not make your argument that it can be applied in this case any stronger. The mere quipping to ideals and philosophy is inherent to a belief system despite what subsets of feminism exist. That is also to say that Sarkeesian’s Project isn’t the feminist perspective but her own shallow perspective since so many types of feminists and feminist theories exist. The fact that this is more philosophical and less scientific makes her arguments much worse.

            I get that you’re trying to justify her work, but that doesn’t at all work in this case. It stands as Easy and too flimsy to hold up to even the most minuscule of scrutiny.

          • Kav P

            Excuse me? I have no idea what you’re talking about. Go look at the discussions I’ve been having with Hzle. They’re actually reading what I say and responding in kind and we’re having a great time. :)

          • Megamatics

            What am I supposed to respond to ? you just used “Look it up yourself”. I know what you are talking about and I don’t see how at all Feminist Theory can be used in a discussion without it getting thrown out. If you contend to have a discussion it should be on a rational base, not one set in politics and personal beliefs.With Hzle you’re just having a great time justifying your claims, that isn’t a discussion, that’s a debate. Discussion is done on mutual speaking terms without morality in play.
            You also have no idea what I’m talking about because you’re just trying to be right. Get rid of the morality of right and wrong and just talk in the context of cause and effect. When you can do that, make a reply to this message and I will be happy to respond.

          • Kav P

            I think you need to check your definition of “rationally”.

          • Megamatics

            I think you need to check your understanding of the definition of Rationally .

          • luci_fer

            “I don’t see how at all Feminist Theory can be used in a discussion without it getting thrown out.”

            Because femininst theory is used in media criticism/critical theory (as well as many other theories; marxism, dialogics, post-structuralist, psycho-analytic, deconstructionism, autuer etc). Media criticism is what she’s doing.

            The theories used will vary in applicability to the subject matter of the media you are looking at. This integrates your ideas into pre-existing ones, and inserts it into a larger body of conversation.

            She’s looking at the representation of women in media. Feminist theory looks at the representation of women in media. It’s an applicable theory to use.

          • Hzle

            Well a number of feminist beliefs are defended much as a religious credo. EG: this belief that misogyny is rampant.

            I’ve seen people just make up definitions just to try to support this view – definitions of misogyny and of “hatred”. But the feminist movement seems to thrive on the vagueness. Words like “hatred”, “equality” etc are horribly vague, but they make good slogans, don’t they?

            This is the behaviour of dishonest politicians (who are trying to wind people up) not of academics with a genuine intellectual interest.

            As you say one can’t define what feminism is, but the problem with calling it a subject is that we can’t say what the subject of study is, either, which is er.. odd.

            It pretends to be an academic subject, or at other times it pretends to be an ideology. Do feminists have anything in common other than fighting for women against men, who are treated as the enemy?

          • Kav P

            I think you’ll find that:

            1) Increasingly “women’s studies” and “feminist studies” classes are being relabelled as “gender studies” classes to reflect the greater scope that these classes represent, i.e. studies into sociology regarding both women and men of all backgrounds, sexualities and identities. The LGBTQ community and people of colour are also explored deeply in these classes with regards to gender identity and representation.

            2) I think you’re confusing feminism in general with a strand of radical feminism. Most modern feminists agree that feminism benefits men as much as it does women, and all they really want is equal representation and opportunities. You might be surprised to find that feminist groups have given more money to support male victims of domestic violence and other causes relating to males than the “Men’s Rights Movement”! Many people actually follow a feminist ideology without realising it.

            I’m not really sure why there is such a strange conviction around that feminism is out to destroy men. Men are great. So are women. Everyone deserves to feel safe and welcome. That’s why people are starting to discuss issues regarding the representation of women in video games – to open up gaming to reflect its audience, which is increasingly built up of women and minorities (more adult women than under 18-year old boys now!). It’s bizarre that some people are taking these efforts to make gaming better as a personal attack on their livelihood. More representation and variety in games is going to be more fun and interesting for everyone, including straight white men. Imagine the possibilities for narrative and game design! :)

          • tuymwaistah

            “You might be surprised to find that feminist groups have given more money to support male victims of domestic violence and other causes relating to males than the “Men’s Rights Movement””
            Maybe, I don’t know. What I know is that it doesn’t require any ideology to invest money in supporting victims of DV, just solidarity and basic morality.

            But insisting that DV against women is “men upholding the patriarchy”, or saying that “sure, I guess you can break your finger while punching a woman in the face”, or the practice of placing default blame on men, absolutely requires ideology – feminist ideology primarily, and others like conservative traditionalism that share some of the “tenets”.

            When you say people follow a feminist “ideology” without realizing, do you mean they’re biased against men and tend to see female victimhood everywhere without realizing it, or they’re for equality of opportunity and against enforced gender roles without relizing that it’s actually feminism?

            Well, I’m for equality and against gender role because that’s just the sensible and moral way of doing things – the core values that lead me to that conclusion would be the value of individual self-determination and the notion that putting artificial constraints on people for stupid reasons is meaniehead. Do you see “women” or “patriachy” anywhere among those core values? No? Then it’s not feminist.

            “It’s bizarre that some people are taking these efforts to make gaming better as a personal attack on their livelihood.”
            What do you mean by “these” efforts? Gramatically speaking, you must be referring to Sarkeesian and her pals, in which case, well, she’s actually a “strand of radical feminism” by your own definition – not so much of the kind that is out to “destroy” men as out to force them into gener roles (while claming not to, naturally). And women too, of course, if they disagree.

            I don’t have any problems with “feminists” whose values are indistinguishable from, say, secular humanism or some similar moral framework. I don’t even have any problem with them calling themselves feminists according to the main focus of their activism.

            Once they start deviating from that, adding suspicious baggage specific to them and playing fast and loose with truth and reason, they’re ultimately as bad as these subversions and deviations they happen to commit.

            With Anita, they’re all quite egregious.

            “More representation and variety in games is going to be more fun and interesting for everyone, including straight white men. Imagine the possibilities for narrative and game design!”

            I’m not quite sure right now what variety and diversity there’s supposed to be that hasn’t already been done – but if I’d have to choose between lack of variety, and a finger-pointing ideology making creators create the variety, I’d go with with the freedom option any day of the week.

            Obviously, no requirement for such a ideology exists, so Anita can go fuck off. ;)

          • Hzle

            It’s not a subject it’s a kind of politics that sometimes masquerades as an academic discpilne, sometimes as an ideology

            For it to be a subject there would need to be a clearly defined subject matter. Also some clarity of definition would make it all a bit more believable. Words like equality, misogyny, hatred, oppression are all kept deliberately vague.

            Which is the sort of thing dishonest politicians do – isn’t it?

          • tuymwaistah

            They’re not challenging “feminism” in on itself, ís I think what’s being said here. Attacking other feminists for being the wrong kind of feminist? Sure!

            I fail to see how feminism is a “subset of philosophy”. Philosophy is about reflecting on and organizing your thinking in a logical fashion, and questioning everything that you hold as true and can’t absolutely back up.

            Feminism “questions” notions, alright – but from all I’ve seen, it’s not on the basis of it not being absolutelly accounted for, but on he basis of how it supposedly affects women; and instead of deconstructing the notion down to its tiniest components and trying to reconstruct it while adhering to strict reason, they just replace it with their own even less founded conclusions.
            So, long story short, it’s an IDEOLOGY. And not one they always like seeing “questioned”.

            And that’s only to the extent that it’s about “thinking” or “changing your thinking” in the first place – feminism is mainly a form of social and political activism, and it’s also a worldview made up of empirical claims and specific values. That’s got jack to to do with “philosophy”.

          • tuymwaistah

            “Religious belief tends…to be the opposite of enquiry (you aren’t attempting to question or find out if your religious beliefs are right or valid, for example. you just have faith).”

            There are different kinds of religious belief; some value faith; others argue that that there totally is a God and they’ve arrived at that realization through rational, empirical means. Some, like Ken Ham, kinda try to have the cake, too, by saying the validity of their belief can be rationally demonstrated, but just in case it can’t, so what.

            Sometimes it’s kind of a mixture – “faith” is the true path, but if you ask why, they’ll start trying to make a case why… and, of course, arrive at the conclusion they were supposed to.

            At any rate, this isn’t about religious belief – a much simpler word exists to descrbe that kind of thing, it’s called BIAS?!

            “can be called a bias, if you like”

            HEY I JUST SAID THAT.

            “There is no reason not to challenge Sarkeesian’s arguments from another perspective,”
            I’d argue the lack of any “lens” would be a good perspective.

            “Perhaps one of the reasons (some) people feel so threatened is because they haven’t come across this kind of lit-crit/theory stuff before, so they don’t really know how to counter-argue effectively – so just end up insulting and attacking her, or trying to undermine her credibility, rather than actually engaging with the arguments.”
            Sometimes I guess it’s that; but it’s also true that a lot of people have been fed up with this kind of thought for years and may have lost the patience.

          • luci_fer

            Sure, #notallreligions. I’d say faith is a feature of the religions of the book, though.

            “I’d argue the lack of any ‘lens’ would be a good perspective.”

            So not to use theory or draw on anyone else’s ideas, but just posit your own opinions? I’m not sure that’s better, tbh. It just sounds less informed.

          • Kav P

            Oh my God, Jon Stone, you are my hero. Never change. <3

          • tuymwaistah

            “she demonstrates recurring tropes and explains how they are problematic.”
            Well, those tropes are only problematic if they appear in a certain context.
            Either the trope only becoms problematic in specific contexts, which means every instance of finding a cherry outside of that context or within a different context is a waste of time and signifies nothing – or it’s inherently problematic all by itself, in which case there can be no cherry-picking in the first place.

            PICK ONE.

            “The answer is no, because in the world of Mario, male is the default state and has no bearing on which side you are on.”
            That’s just one way to look at it – if you decide that male is the default, then the gender becomes meaningless and any potentially “problematic” implications disappear accordingly.

            But there’s nothing about the game that has “male is default and stands for gender-neutral really, just like when you say he instead of they” – all there is, is a male hero, a bunch of male villains, and a female victim. How is his interpretation any less valid? Or the kind of synthesis betweeen the two, that “villains and kidnappers are men by default”?

            None of them are, but if you pick one, then there are negative implications about men, and if you pick the ther – there aren’t!

            Who’s to stop you from interpreting it as a “the only nice guy among a bunch of misogynistic douchebags” fantasy? And, if you do, are you gonna interpret it as “problematic” for whatever reason feminists hate the “nice guy syndrome”, or are anti-feminists gonna scoff at it as a feminist game, because feminist men always see themselves as the only gentleman among a bunch of fratboys?

            Is it technically alright for Mario to accept this situation that he’s up against a horde of male douchebags and just rescue the princess I mean the *person* *currently in requirement* of *assistance* – or is it problematic because it’s men fantasizing about rescuing a woman, and that implies that they want a woman to get kidnapped so they can save her?

            Here’s how you do it – you pick whatever conclusion you want to reach for your narrative, then pick the interpretation/perspective that’s gonna make you arrive at said conclusion! There’s always a whole tree of such interpretations/perspectives, so you’ll always find one to support your desired conclusion :)

            “she does not ‘act’, either in opposition to or support of the hero”
            So how is being portrayed as passive worse than being portrayed as evil? And what Anita have to say about a game where every woman is evil and you have to shoot them all to move along? I know TYT had a massive problem with some game where you had to shoot gay naked rapists jumping out of bushes at you, cause it implied all gay men as rapists – so I’m kinda curious about that.

            Or, you know what? I’m absolutely not – because it’s absolutely arbitrary.

            “the fact that it’s a portrayal of femininity as essentially passive.”
            How does “femininity is essentially passive” follow from “this princess in this game is very feminine and also passive”?

            “In Mario, men act, while women wait to be rescued.”
            Yes, men act… mostly badly. What is worse, waiting to be rescued, or doing the kindapping and the attackin’?

            Now, all of that wouldn’t be a problem if Anita’s thesis was: “there’s all sorts of patterns and reocurrences in video games carrying all sorts of bad implications for all demographics in this world and the next, and I’m just gonna focus on the women here while you guise can do other bits! Labor division, harmony and fluffy rainbows, let’s all be fwieeeeends!” – but, of course, that’s not her thesis at all; her thesis, clearly visible throughout all her work (starting with her master’s thesis about the “white supremacist patriarchy”, and going up all the way to a recent talk in which she confirmed she still holds that view), is that video games are overwhelmingly/frequently SEXIST AGAINST WOMEN, and require the cure of feminism.

            And if you’re out to prove THAT conclusion, citing examplse that can be interpreted as man-hating as well as woman-demeaning with equal validity, simply doesn’t do.

            “She identifies problematic tropes and explains why they are problematic.”
            I’ll just ignore your obliviously cliched use of “problematic” as a codeword for “chauvinist misogynistic”, even though the word problematic can refer to misandry as well as misogyny and many more things, and remind you of what’s just been demonstrated here:

            That she takes a scenario, which can be interpreted as sexist against women or sexist against men or both or none at the same, CHERRYPICKS THE INTERPRETATION THAT SAYS IT’S AGAINST WOMEN, and then insists that IT’S SEXIST AGAINST WOMEN AND HERE’S THE PROOF.

            The outrage, of course, completely relies on this conclusion to be true – the conclusion that it’s bigoted against every single person on the planet doesn’t lead to any outrage, and certainly doesn’t call for “feminism” to solve the problem; only the conclusion that it’s all tilted against women does either.

            “but that the reiteration of the same trope over a multitude of different media reinforce certain viewpoints.”
            If you know better, then no reiteration of “the moon is flat” is going to convince you that it is.

            If you know better, then no reiteration of “it’s only a muscle wound” is gonna make you think that being shot in a muscle is totally safe.

            Having your worldview influenced by a piece of fiction isn’t some accumulative lottery process – the recipient is a major, that is to say DECIDING factor in this; if they’re smart and educated about a certain subject, it won’t influence them in any meaningful way.

            Or how come that you’re sitting here and vehemently arguing against the idea of women being weak and passive even though you’ve played a lot of games? Has the accumulative lottery just not struck you yet, or could it be that, being a pro-femtard, you’re so inoculated against the idea of women being weak and passive that it’s even a bit excessive? Did watching a bunch of femtard movies create that inoculation, or do you think the act of listening to real-life femtards making actual statements about the world may have been slightly more instrumental?

            “is that I can see no better explanation for the total failure to sit back and think soberly about the points Sarkeesian is really making and understand their merit.”
            Not anyone else’s problem – there are tons of explanations, because there are tons of biases that can make people take any irrational position there is.

            In this case, it could be misogyny, i.e. disregarding Anita cause she’s a woman; or it could be a subconscious (if it’s conscious it can’t be a failure to think can it) desire to keep the misogynistic status quo; or it could the desire to believe in a world without misogyny cause the idea that women have it bad is just too bad to stomach (WHICH IS THE TOTAL OPPOSITE OF MISOGYNY); or it can be an act of defiance against anyone barging in and moralizing about your vidya or your character; or just resistance against changing your worldviews; or contrarianism because all the media supports her; bias towards your vidya cause you’re a fan; or, you know, just a simple fucking failure to think, because sometimes humans, it’s crazy I know, just fail to think.

            In this case, of course, there is no failure on their part to think about her points, so the explanation for why they think she’s a kook is because they’re right :)

            Now, I can also think of tons of possible motivations for your failure to think critically about her arguments – not just those two obvious cliched one frequently used by anti-fems/MRAs of a simpler persuasion, but many more :)

            ” I can see no other reason for constantly putting words in her mouth and twisting her arguments so that they are easier to attack”
            Me neither – putting words in her mouth and twisting her arguments is in no way required for making them easy to attack.

            “I can see no other reason for misconstruing her position as wanting, say, an end to *all* violence against women in games, or as being against any non-positive portrayal of women in games.”
            Well, fair enough – that’s not really her position, and people accusing her of that are wrong (for, again, a whole lot of different possible reasons – the most likely being that once you’ve reasonably concluded that Bob is wrong and your opponent, there’s natural irrational instinct to try and increase the rift dividing you and/or perceiving his stance as even more wrong and against you than it is).

            However, she is capable of taking ANY instance of vaw, ANY non-positive portrayal, and in fact any instance of non-violence/protection and any positive portrayal, and construe them as sexist.

            Now, you say, isn’t it kinda contradictory, not being against all instances of x but being capable of condemning any instance of x at will? Well, yes it is – a common feature of irrational, ideological positions.

            In her case, I’d say the risk of her going from “any” to “all” is negligible – her arguments consistently rely on contrasting the “problems” with positive examples, real or hypothetical (her hilariously bad game pitch for instance), and hence ignoring all the ways those could be construed as problematic as much as the ones she’s criticizing at the moment.

            “driven by a misogyny they themselves are perhaps blind to”
            Or any other number of other reasons that you’re blind to. For instance, the reason of being correct, which, by extension, you’re also blind to.

            “But I am capable of seeing that the things she highlights are problematic,”
            Good! Being able to recognize criticisms of the things you like is an essential, defining step towards not being a fanboi; the ability to separate invalid criticisms from the valid ones, is an important step towards your not being a fanboi being a superior state to you being a fanboi.
            I see you’ve still got some work ahead of you, in that department ;)

            “and that most games would be improved if they took her arguments into account.”
            To the extent your blind acceptance of a thesis you heard in a video, mixed with a systemic cluelessness about the foundations of fiction and entertainment, can be in any way referred to as a “capability to see”, yea, sure

            “Because I am not a misogynist.”
            Non sequitur, F-.

          • tuymwaistah

            “You can just fly in here and assert that someone is dishonest, but you “don’t have to” back it up or demonstrate it in any way.”

            ;) :-p

          • Mike Campbell

            What about misrepresenting zelda about just being nothing more than a damsel in distress or miss the point about pandora’s tower having multiple endings and elena is not a damsel

          • Hugh Briss

            Nonono, don’t actually try to argue with it. Brick walls are notorious for not budging.

          • Jon Stone

            THANK YOU, Mike. Thank you for actually having the balls to say something other than “It’s obvious – look at all these videos.”

            However, one thing at a time. In what way is she ‘misrepresenting’ Zelda? Where does Sarkeesian ever say that it’s ‘nothing more’ than a damsel in distress? Her point is simply that the damsel in distress trope appears in multiple games, and that this trope gives a female character no agency, no story. What’s your problem with her making that point?

          • tuymwaistah

            Did you ignore Andrew’s post or did he post it after ah fuck it whatever

        • Andrew

          One game figuring prominently in this video is the last Assassin’s Creed. She points to the murder of a female prostitute as proof that women are objects to be acted upon in gaming, ignoring the fact that the entire game is about the slave trade and the majority of those slaves are depicted as men in the game. They are often shackled, being beaten or killed. It seems especially vindictive to attack this series in particular, which prominently features women writers, at least one woman lead in the series and is directly tackling social issues like slavery.

          The video also generally ignores that the core mechanic of all these games is murdering a nearly limitless quantity of men. To do any of these play-throughs, you’d literally have to kill 1000-10,000 men between every cut scene showing a woman being killed. Indeed, there are plenty of agentless innocent male bystanders being murdered in all of these games as well, but if you want to claim that the agency is the big deal here then it ignores the fact that men are reduced to disposable cannon fodder–sure they are “agents” but they are obligated to drive themselves into a meat grinder because they are male.

          Many of the other examples show the player killing women NPCs and moving their bodies around while she comments on how the women are merely objects to be manipulated, ignoring the fact that the player can kill any NPC and move their bodies around. In other words, she’s literally manufacturing situations where women are “objectified”/killed by player choice, when the player could equally have chosen to do it to men or not to do it at all.

          Not only does she cherry-pick every instance where women are victimized while ignoring the orders of magnitude more examples where men are victimized, but she seems to believe that the simple existence of women being victimized is automatically misogyny.

          Games are about being heroes. To be a hero you have to kill evil people/avenge the innocent, so it’s normal that there are depictions of evil people doing evil things. By her logic any movie about World War 2 tacitly supports genocide because it depicts Nazis killing people.

        • tuymwaistah

          Well, it’s not so much a “logical fallacy”, as a rhetorical device possibly making use of, but ultimately not relying on, 1 or 2 particular logical fallacies.
          Well, one of those is almost identical with said rhetorical device and coexists with it on a wibbly-wobbly transitional spectrum – so just one, really.

          :)

    • Lawrence Newman

      So you have no actual argument, only ad hominem attacks?

      Keep it up.

      • Jon Stone

        Anita Sarkeesian’s videos are generally good arguments and points well made. Demonstrate how that is not the case.

        • og_king_god

          You keep saying that, but so far all you have to back it up is “no reasonable person…” Which is exactly the strong-arm bullshit everyone who isn’t in the SJW camp is fed up with. You create a fake dichotomy where you either believe that all video games — fucking video games, mind you, not even real things happening in the real world outside of Tumblr — are systematically damaging women the world over and Anita is Susan B Anthony OR you’re a misognystic gamer neckbeard who sends death threats and hates all women. Which is just nonsense on its face because if you can pull your head out of the asshole that is the yellow journalism (see: this article) over the last week you would realize that gamers are not a collective and only a small number of individuals who call themselves gamers are NOT on the side that opposes death threats and harassment.

          Now, you say they’re “good arguments” but don’t go into any detail why. I would submit that the burden of evidence is on you to tell us why we should take Anita seriously when she tries to draw links between Duke Nukem and actual real world injustice and rape, etc. But since I know you people are intellectually incapable of having that discussion without losing your toucan, I will take it upon myself to spell out for you why Anita is a fraud.

          First off, the ‘cherry picking’ thing. Well, it’s not like she can review every game ever, right? She’s picking out the problematic ones because they’re a microcosm of a bigger trend, right? Well, no. What she picks out is a bunch of 2-3 second clips out of 8-30 long games and goes SEE LOOK OPPRESSION. Exhibit A is the way she deliberately mislead people into thinking certain games (Hitman and others) rewarded the player for killing or abusing women when in fact you can do the same thing to men in the game and you aren’t rewarded either way. The famous, glaring hypocrisy of the Hitman case was touched on by Thunderf00t who pointed out that not only does the game not encourage mutilating women, it penalizes you for it. But she went out of her way to omit that point, going so far as to use clever editing to make it look to her audience like the reverse was true. People have pointed out numerous other games she gave this treatment to, including Deus Ex: HR off the top of my head, which she points out as problematic for letting you save Chinese sex slaves from futuristic gangs that prey on women by killing their ‘pimp’ and helping them find sanctuary from said gang (OMG MISOGYNY.) It’s so incredibly disingenuous that anyone who has played these games will watch her doctored footage and go “hey, that’s not what I remember happening.” In other cases, she uses games like GTA, which is clearly a satire of social decay in America and goes SEE LOOK AT ALL THIS SOCIAL DECAY. Uh, no, Anita, satire is so you can reflect on the ills of society without being a shrill hypocritical twat who needs to police everything down to how we’re allowed to express social commentary.

          Let’s talk about the myths her series creates about the Damsels in Distress trope. I’ll preface this by saying it’s my least favorite plot device and makes for annoyingly banal and shallow games, but I don’t think the examples she points out are terribly harmful to women. First up is how she goes out of her way to discount ‘strong female characters’ outright by saying that if female game characters are on equal footing with their male counterparts, they’re inherently exempt from her analysis. So, let’s ignore all of the positive portrayals and skip right to the cherry picking. One of the first examples that come to mind in her series is a scene from Prototype where paramilitary type squads are out in the street executing everyone they see on sight. One of them happens to be female. Misogyny, obviously. So why use a cute young woman when you’re already executed half a dozen men? Emotional appeal; people see that scene and think of their sisters, or daughters, or friends in that situation. They see the dozen or so men and recognize them as another target in what was a brutally bloody game about millions of deaths, and about 1 (one) example of a woman being brutalized throughout the whole thing. She goes on to explain how saving men in video games is kosher, but any time you have a male protagonist and a woman playing the role of a victim, it’s feeding the patriarchy by brainwashing young men into thinking that (a) power over women’s agency is good or (b) in the case of ‘women in refrigerators,’ that abusing women is an altruistic act because that’s sometimes how it is framed in about a handful of different games over the past decade. Nevermind the possibility that sometimes we like to play a tragedy, and when you are a straight male, nothing invokes an emotional response from your audience like the death of the person you love.

          All of this assumes that games and gamers exist in a vacuum where we are naught but drones being programmed to carry out these misogynistic writers’ agenda for patriarchal domination. This, of course, is contrary to basic reality where we consume information and then judge how we feel about it for ourselves. Anita concludes one of her videos by saying something similar but, naturally, missing the point entirely by claiming that just because it makes sense within the context of a game doesn’t mean it’s okay for that game to exist. And this is the crux of my problem with Anita et al. No one should be policed into frankensteining their original ideas into a PC pile of shit just because non-fictional people are harmed by non-fictional sexism. She may not be able to, but I and hundreds of millions of gamers out there are capable of differentiating between fiction and reality, and I shouldn’t have to relinquish all of the fictional things I like just because she feels they don’t represent women well. That being said, I agree with her series insofar as these tropes are a poor representation of women and make for terribly shallow narratives that I don’t like, but the idea that they harm women is a clownish idea for clownish people like Sarkeesian. Rape harms women (and a significant number of men.) FGM harms women. Anti-abortion anti-contraceptive laws harm women. But you know what harms the fight for equality most of all? Charlatans like Anita drawing the focus away from the real fight for justice and onto her fictional narrative that means jack shit in the social context of real freakin’ life.

          Oh, and let’s not forget that as soon as her campaign got the slightest pushback, she went crying to social media for victimbux and cashed out to the tune of 160 grand because a handful of people sent mean messages to an internet personality (gasp!)

          • Jon Stone

            “You create a fake dichotomy where you either believe that all video games — fucking video games, mind you, not even real things happening in the real world outside of Tumblr — are systematically damaging women the world over …”

            That’s not the argument.

            “What she picks out is a bunch of 2-3 second clips out of 8-30 hour long games and goes SEE LOOK OPPRESSION.”

            No – she says SEE LOOK TROPES. Tropes, by their nature, are things that recur across different contexts. If she can find the cherries, she’s done her work. If she can find a bunch of 2-3 second clips that portray sexualised violence against passive female characters in prominent games over the last few years, she has proved her point.

            “… she deliberately mislead people into thinking certain games (Hitman and others) rewarded the player for killing or abusing women …”

            It’s not misleading. If you can do it, that is in itself a reward. A game rewards you intrinsically by letting your actions impact its world. When we play a violent game, it’s the satisfaction of killing that is the primary reward.

            If you let someone kill a defenceless character, as long as they die with a satisfactory splatter, you are rewarding the player. Which in itself, we might say, isn’t a big deal. If we were just talking about male and female citizens in GTA, that’s questionable, but not gendered violence.

            However, when you prominently feature, as your defenceless, passive victims, representations of women who are normally viewed in a sexualised context – prostitutes and strippers – you create gendered, sexualised violence. And when those make up the majority of the women in a game, no context can excuse it.

            “… Thunderf00t who pointed out that not only does the game not encourage mutilating women, it penalizes you for it.”

            Thunderf00t missed the point spectacularly. He tried to argue that a level based around ending a sex trafficking ring couldn’t be sexist, completely avoiding Sarkeesian’s argument – that the problem is women being used simply as props and components to give a male character a reason to act.

            It’s difficult to say ‘missed the point’ though, when Thunderf00t, on the evidence of that video, is actually just disingenuous. He reminds me a lot of Rush Limbaugh or Richard Littlejohn – all faux outrage and an argument pitched solely to people who already agree with him.

            “…. problematic for letting you save Chinese sex slaves from futuristic gangs that prey on women by killing their ‘pimp’ and helping them find sanctuary from said gang (OMG MISOGYNY) …”

            Yes, this is a problem, because the male character has all the agency. The women are just props in his story.

            “It’s so incredibly disingenuous that anyone who has played these games will watch her doctored footage and go “hey, that’s not what I remember happening.””

            Except you know that’s not the case. You know plenty of gamers, including many journalists, watch her footage with the full knowledge of what happens throughout these games, and don’t take issue with her sampling. People who do are, as I keep repeating, missing the point, which is the lack of female agency throughout these games.

            The only sense in which her sampling would be unfair is if you could point to a game she’s sampled from where you can actually play as a female character and entirely avoid instances of sexualised violence against females. That’s the only thing that would bring some measure of balance to what she highlights.

            “… which is clearly a satire of social decay …”

            She addresses that point in a way that, again, all of her detractors seem to magically forget or pass over. Satire or historical recreation, as she points out, are not an excuse in themselves. To be a context with changes the way the sexual violence operates, the satire has to be making the player think critically about what they are doing and what’s wrong with it. If you’re just enjoying killing things, GTA fails as a satire.

            “… she goes out of her way to discount ‘strong female characters’ outright by saying that if female game characters are on equal footing with their male counterparts, they’re inherently exempt from her analysis …”

            What on earth is your problem with that? They should be exempt from her analysis of the trope because they do not fulfil the trope. Again, the only way you could possibly make this stick as a criticism is if you could show that the vast majority of games presented both genders on equal footing and that Sarkeesian was only presenting a few outliers.

            “Emotional appeal; people see that scene and think of their sisters, or daughters, or friends in that situation.”

            Again, women as props to make men feel emotions or to tell you about male characters, to make male players angry because it reminds them of women they know. Women in a passive role, given no representation as actors or people with their own stories.

            “Nevermind the possibility that sometimes we like to play a tragedy, and when you are a straight male, nothing invokes an emotional response from your audience like the death of the person you love.”

            This part of your argument manages to both misunderstand Sarkeesian’s point and to actually confirm exactly what she says. The point is that it’s done to provoke a reaction from an assumed male audience, and it does so by reinforcing stereotypes about ourselves as actors and heroes, and women as people we are supposed to protect.

            I find it very, very difficult to believe you wouldn’t be able to see Sarkeesian’s point entirely if we were talking about a medium in which the typical protagonist is a woman who kills other women, saves other women and faces off against other women, where the main job of the very few male characters is to give that woman motivation and to provoke emotional investment from the player.

            “All of this assumes that games and gamers exist in a vacuum where we are naught but drones being programmed to carry out these misogynistic writers’ agenda …”

            No, it doesn’t. The argument is much more nuanced than that. We are all influenced by the media we consume. It affects our idea of what is ‘normal’. The more a medium portrays women in a negative or reductive light, the more that affects, in general, how consumers of that medium see women.

            I am affected by the media I consume. You are. Everyone is. This is just a fact.

            She also doesn’t accuse anyone of having a misogynistic agenda. Sarkeesian’s subject, like that of many feminists, is passive sexism – is things that are worse for women because people don’t think sufficiently carefully about what they’re doing, about their assumptions.

            “No one should be policed into frankensteining their original ideas into a PC pile of shit just because non-fictional people are harmed by non-fictional sexism.”

            No one is arguing for ‘frankesteining’ (I guess you mean bowdlerising?) of ideas, but most of these games would be better if the elements she highlighted were either removed, or if they were done differently. Games in general would be better if women were featured in more prominent roles and in a wider variety of roles. Games would be better, and less problematic, if developers thought very carefully about how you responsibly portray serious, difficult subjects like sex trafficking and rape, instead of using them as cheap devices to wring blunt emotions out of players.

            I cannot remotely see how games could be made worse – how they would lose any element of what makes them a worthwhile and interesting medium – if developers set out to address Sarkeesian’s criticisms.

            “Charlatans like Anita drawing the focus away from the real fight for justice and onto her fictional narrative that means jack shit in the social context of real freakin’ life.”

            No, this isn’t what harms the fight for equality most. What harms it is people being unwilling to consider their own behaviours part of the problem, to accept that there are things about themselves and the things they consume that could be changed for the better.

            Sarkeesian’s points are sound – and to me, they’re soundest when it comes to the games I recognise and have played through which she features. Every single time one comes up that I’ve played through myself, I can’t help but agree with her that it could have been better, that it lets itself down in the way she highlighted. Her criticism is sound criticism of the kind that all adult media receives, and will, I think, be instrumental in improving games, especially as the hostile response to her work more than proves her point about what kind of attitudes the negative portrayal of women breeds in consumers of gaming media.

            Thanks, though, for the full response.

          • tuymwuystah

            “Wow, I’d played those games and played through those scenes, but I’d never quite looked at it in this light before.”

            I’m not familiar with any of those games, but I’ve read his description of them and this is a head spinningly lame way to respond to them.

            Let’s say you’re penalized for shooting hookers in a game – how does presenting that penalization as a reward make someone who’s played it go “wow I didn’t look at it that way before”? If your mind is so feeble that someone’s video review can alter your memory at will, then, well, your mind is pretty feeble – and, we’re back to “misleading the audience”.

            “That’s not the argument.”
            Well, it’s a statement about you committing this false dichotomy, and it being a false dichotomy.

            “No – she says SEE LOOK TROPES.”
            What is a TROPE, though? It can be anything ranging from a short phrase template llke “even x? especially x!” or “I’m not paranoid… wait what was that?” to a COMMON PLOT STRUCTURE SPANNING ENTIRE MOVIES.

            Any reoccurring pattern is a trope. An action taking up an entire 2 seconds of screentime can be a trope; the combination of this action with another action that follows immediately after, or hours later, can be a trope if this combination is something that reoccurs; the combination of these two actions in context A is then a trope in itself, and a different trope when in context B.

            The entire fucking “hero’s journey” every toddler knows about by now, is a “trope”, and it’s defined by a sequence of particular single events; a protagonist defeating a government is a trope; a hero defeating an evil government is a trope (a subtrope in relation to its parent trope, but also a trope in itself), a villain protagonist crushing a good government is another – which is, of course, determined by the CONTEXT that is the moral state of both parties, but once the CONTEXTS GETS EMBEDDED INTO A TROPE it becomes a NEW TROPE ON ITSELF that, upon which this construction can further appear in different contexts and then THOSE CONTEXTS get embedded and IT ALL BECOMES YET ANOTHER TROPE.

            What, don’t like that basically anything starting with a quark and ending with a beehive gets called a “trope”? Well tough, that’s the commonly used definition – slurp it up ot gtfo.

            “Tropes, by their nature, are things that recur across different contexts.”
            ^^

            Well, what if we’re talking about a “trope” that can only be called “sexist” if it’s found in a particular context (the neutral trope and the context then fucking and forming a new entity: a sexist trope), but she insists that it’s inherently a sexist trope and cites cases where it occurs in a sexist context as an example?

            That’s like taking a picture of some bird and then insisting that you found a duck.

            And what if it can only be called sexist if there’s an imbalanc between trope A+ and trope A-? Then, if you cherrypick only A+ you can falsely claim sexism when there’s actually balance.

            Like if you cite a bunch of flies, but omit the bunch of spiders that prevent them from becoming an environmental problem.

            “If she can find the cherries, she’s done her work.”
            But if her premise was to show that there’s a vegetable/cherry imbalance in favor of cherries, then no she hasn’t.

            Or if it was to show that there’s a bunch of rotten cherries and she’s found some healthy ones, then no she hasn’t.

            Or if it was to show that there’s a bunch of cherries lying around in puddles of milk and that can induce anti-matter explosions, and then no she hasn’t.

            I can go on with this :)

            “If she can find a bunch of 2-3 second clips that portray sexualised violence against passive female characters in prominent games over the last few years, she has proved her point.”
            Except her point wasn’t that there’s sexualized violence, but that those games are sexist – so no, she hasn’t.

            “It’s not misleading. If you can do it, that is in itself a reward. A game rewards you intrinsically by letting your actions impact its world. When we play a violent game, it’s the satisfaction of killing that is the primary reward.

            If you let someone kill a defenceless character, as long as they die with a satisfactory splatter, you are rewarding the player. Which in itself, we might say, isn’t a big deal.”

            Now that’s some major “death by exile” fucking logic.
            No, reward for an action means you get something for that action. A game where all you do is run around a city and shoot zombies may be very fun to play, one might even say… “rewarding”; but if shooting those zombies doesn’t give you any level-ups, any items, and additional missions or in fact anything aside from the experience being fun in on itself, then it’s a game without rewards. (And hence, by some more narrow definitions of the term, not even a game.)

            The fact that you’re resorting to THIS, tells me all I need to know about whether Anita lied about the “reward”. Can can you not see the giant gaping tautology in this?? You can’t reward someone for doing thing A… with them having just done thing A. You utter pratt.

          • tuymwuystah

            *Like if you cite a bunch of flies as an environmental problem, but omit the bunch of spiders *

            “If we were just talking about male and female citizens in GTA, that’s questionable,”
            Yes – if you’re part of a conservative “parents against x” group.

            “However, when you prominently feature, as your defenceless, passive victims, representations of women who are normally viewed in a sexualised context – prostitutes and strippers – you create gendered, sexualised violence.”
            So?

            “And when those make up the majority of the women in a game, no context can excuse it.”
            No excuses required, no context required – go watch your vanilla romcoms instead and problem solved.

            “Thunderf00t missed the point spectacularly.”
            Which one? The one about the penalties, or the next one?

            “He tried to argue that a level based around ending a sex trafficking ring couldn’t be sexist”
            Eh, did he argue that? Wouldn’t put it past him, been a couple weeks since I saw it tho.

            That’s obviously wrong – a level based around ending a sex trafficking ring CAN be sexist.

            “completely avoiding Sarkeesian’s argument – that the problem is women being used simply as props and components to give a male character a reason to act.”
            So? It takes a lot more than that to pass for sexism.

            “Yes, this is a problem, because the male character has all the agency. The women are just props in his story.”
            How is that a problem? That’s like saying Back to the Future 2+3 are sexist because while Marty’s being all agent his gf is sleeping on a veranda, Fucking hogwash – if your plot involves defeating villains who deprive other people of their freedom, it will, by definition, feature characters that lack said freedom; however, condemn those villains, make the plot about defeating them and helping the enslaved innocents and bam, you’re moralfag.

            Seriously, think about the implications of what you just said – if it’s immoral for a story to feature kidnapped victims with restricted agency even though the story takes a stance against them being kidnapped and is all about ending said restriction, and sexist in particular if those victims are female… then how is Star Wars not pro-tyranny and against non-rebels for featuring a bunch of oppressive tyrants opressing innocent people that get defeated by rebels? Dumbass.

            “including many journalists, watch her footage with the full knowledge of what happens throughout these games, and don’t take issue with her sampling.”
            Well, a lot of those journalists are feminist ideologues who constantly miss the point their dissenters make by calling their arguments misogynistic – so not impressed.

            “People who do are, as I keep repeating, missing the point, which is the lack of female agency throughout these games.”

            Wrong – her point is that there’s sexism in video games. The lacking female agency is only one type of said sexism that she points out, there are many others – and, as with most if not all of those others, the arguments for for it being an example of sexism are lacking at best and absent at worst.

            “Yes, this is a problem, because the male character has all the agency. The women are just props in his story.”

            That’s cause… they’re enslaved, and his story is about rescuing slaves from slavery? How can the plot be a “problem” if the plot is the only way the plot can be done in the first place? A problem, apparently, whose only solution is to create a logical contradiction – awesome.

            “The only sense in which her sampling would be unfair is if you could point to a game she’s sampled from where you can actually play as a female character and entirely avoid instances of sexualised violence against females. That’s the only thing that would bring some measure of balance to what she highlights.”
            So… um… what if there’s a different game where you can only play as a female character? Cause, you know, she’s talking about tropes and games in general and the individual works only serve as examples – so it counts if it’s from a different game, right? Like, maybe even a game she’s discussed elsewhere in her own series?

            Either that, or any movie that doesn’t follow both a male protagonist and a female protagonist, is sexist. A correct dichotomy this time :)

            “Satire or historical recreation, as she points out, are not an excuse in themselves.”
            What do you mean by “excuse”? If violence is included for a satirical purpose, or for the purpose of historical recreation, then it wasn’t included out of an approval of said violence – or, to the extent that there is no mutual exclusion between those, it serves as sufficient explanation behind said violence and eliminates the need for any additional ones.

            “To be a context with changes the way the sexual violence operates,”
            Wat.

            “If you’re just enjoying killing things, GTA fails as a satire.”
            Ah – so it’s NOT satire, but if it was then that would count as an excuse? Nice gear switching there.

            Well, correct – if there isn’t any ironic/reflective/critical twist anywhere, it’s not satire, it’s just violent escapism (even if it’s still ironic it can still be that). A lot of entertainment is that – so, your point being?

            “They should be exempt from her analysis of the trope because they do not fulfil the trope.”
            But not from having an impact on the overall conclusion about the state of strong female characters in the medium.

          • tuymwuystah

            “Again, women as props to make men feel emotions or to tell you about male characters, to make male players angry because it reminds them of women they know.”
            Precisely – which means that the result from this that you describe below:
            “Women in a passive role, given no representation as actors or people with their own stories.”
            … isn’t based in sexist though, but rather in the attempt to create an emotional reaction as you’ve described above.

            Which means it’s not sexist. Which means that it’s very muchch possible for a story to feature proactive men and passive women and not be sexist – mind blown, right?! Dipshit.

            “The point is that it’s done to provoke a reaction”
            Emotional stories usually do that, yes.

            “from an assumed male audience”
            There’s stories that are aimed at a male audience, yea.

            “and it does so by reinforcing stereotypes about ourselves as actors and heroes, and women as people we are supposed to protect.”
            WROOOOOOOOOOONG. It doesn’t reinforce any such stereotypes – all there is is a plot with individual characters; it’s you who assumes they’re supposed to represent their whole gender and serve as an example of how they should act.

            Unless, of course, you can point out ways in which the story itself does make such generalizations, and does impart such lessons.

            Of course, once you’ve got an established situation in which the “woman” has no possibility to prevail on her own, I wonder what kind of lessons you reall thing there’s any logical place for – how is “wait for someone to save you” an imparted value, or a statement about how all women act, if that’s the only option there is at all?

            “I find it very, very difficult to believe you wouldn’t be able to see Sarkeesian’s point entirely if we were talking about a medium in which the typical protagonist is a woman who kills other women, saves other women and faces off against other women, where the main job of the very few male characters is to give that woman motivation and to provoke emotional investment from the player.”
            Well, the first season of “Tru Calling” is pretty much entirely like this (she’s got a male mentor, but one that makes Giles from Buffy look like fuckin’ Rooster Cogburn and is the frequent butt end of jokes – other than that, a whimsical comic relief brother and a dreamy pretty bf crush that gets shot at the end to make her more determined that ever!) – now, point me toward an MRA who cites that show as misandric or “marginalizing men”, and I’ll show you three complete dunces.

            “The argument is much more nuanced than that. We are all influenced by the media we consume. It affects our idea of what is ‘normal’. The more a medium portrays women in a negative or reductive light, the more that affects, in general, how consumers of that medium see women.”
            It may be more nuanced than the blunt strawman by og-king-god you just quoted, but nowhere nuanced enough to pass for anything more than complete drivel.

            For quite a long time now (not sure if “since the wheel and the fire”, but longer than your lifetime for sure), fiction has existed between two poles: the literalist pole, dealing with representing realities, imparting values and exploring speculative scenarios, and the escapist pole, depicting fantasies, fulfilling desires and generally aiming at creating pleasure… frequently subverting reality, values and reason in the service of those goals.

            Basically, one is an aspect of public discourse, the other is RECREATION.

            Most fictional works you’re probably familiar with lie somewhere between those two poles, or are a mixture of sorts – and consumers usually have some latitude regarding which way to take it.

            Validly determining where a work or genre or whatever lies on that spectrum, to the extent that it’s possible, requires a complete lack of ideological lunacy (that excludes Jonathan McIntosh with his “all fictional media is a communication of norms and values” tweets) – and the best tool against people mistaking escapist material for literalist material is EDUCATION, which is kind of a requirement anyway.

            People who know better won’t take a piece of fiction with “active men and passive women” at face value. And people who aren’t McIntosh’s soulmates (that excludes you) won’t insist that something meant for entertainment is really meant for something else.

            “I am affected by the media I consume. You are. Everyone is. This is just a fact.”
            Yes, and your rational faculties have the power to filter and influence how you are affected by the media you consume. Which means that you are affected by the media you consume.

          • Jon Stone

            This is a very old thread to dig up, so I don’t really care to spend much time responding to you. Having given your reply, and the others you’ve posted, a quick readthrough, all I can say is that I don’t believe you’re thinking very logically, fairly or open-mindedly – you’re just determined to defend a pretty shady position because it suits your own sense of entitlement and laziness not to have to rethink your intellectually malnourished attitude.

          • tuymwaistah

            “because it suits your own sense of entitlement and laziness not to have to rethink”
            “so I don’t really care to spend much time responding to you.”

            ;) :-p

          • tuymwuystah

            You got REKT dude, along with every other “supporter” on this article. Bye.
            :)

          • Jon Stone

            Dude, I got more ‘REKT’ the last time I had a haircut.

          • toymwoysteh

            What, they cut parts of your brain off? That’s the only way I can imagine it being “worse”, and, coincidentally, serves as an explanation for a couple of things, too.

          • tuymwuystah

            “She also doesn’t accuse anyone of having a misogynistic agenda.”

            At one point she says people don’t have such an agenda, at another point she says they do. But I’m too lazy to dig up them quotes, so I’ll just concede your claim instead – and that still doesn’t save from being wrong and completely unreasonable.

            “don’t think sufficiently carefully about what they’re doing”
            You two are the ones to talk.

            “but most of these games would be better if the elements she highlighted were either removed, or if they were done differently.”
            Horseshit.

            “Games in general would be better if women were featured in more prominent roles and in a wider variety of roles.”
            Horseshit – women in prominent roles and quality are two entirely independent factors.

            What’s true is that such a thing would enrich and widen the overall landscape, or that of this medium in particular, serving both poles (lol) immensely – except, of course, it already does, and has been doing so since ancient times.

            “Games would be better, and less problematic, if developers thought very carefully about how you responsibly portray serious, difficult subjects like sex trafficking and rape, instead of using them as cheap devices to wring blunt emotions out of players.”
            If their goal is to educate and make you think, then yes. If their goal is to arouse and entertain, then no.

            And you may not like the sound of the latter, but there’s a load of healthy, responsible people out there who’ll read news about things like sexual slavery or home invasions, be properly horrified and maybe think about how to prevent that from happening, and then a couple of days pass, or maybe just under an hour, and they’ll start thinking “I wonder if I can try that out with my bf though”.

            “I cannot remotely see how games could be made worse – how they would lose any element of what makes them a worthwhile and interesting medium – if developers set out to address Sarkeesian’s criticisms.”
            Well, for starters, begin imbuing every depiction of “rape and sex trafficking” with seriousness, responsibility and difficult education, and people are gonna go look for their BDSM kicks elsewhere.

            And the list goes on, and then it goes on. How can entertainment suffer in any way by taking advice from people who don’t understand anything about entertainment? Escapes me…

            “What harms it is people being unwilling to consider their own behaviours part of the problem”
            Well, fine then – how about you two go and encourage people to consider their own behaviours when they might be possibly inspired by escapist movies? Cause that’s really all that matters.

            “Sarkeesian’s points are sound”
            Well, now that I’ve carefully explained to you how they’re anything but, I’m sure you’ve modified your opinion within a reasonable degree :)

            “Her criticism is sound criticism of the kind that all adult media receives, and will, I think, be instrumental in improving games,”
            That’s ironic of you to say that, considering she started out by criticizing “all adult media” – i.e. music, TV shows, and some movies. Not games yet, at that point she wasn’t much into games cause they were like gross and you were ripping zombies’ heads off, but other than that, yea – or that’s what you meant by “adult” media”, right? Didn’t seem to me like you were talking about porn, anyway.

            Feminists and other “social liberals” have been vapidly commenting on movies, books and TV for what seems like ages, and video games are no stranger to being the target of uptight moral outrage by a long shot – not sure if from leftists, but conservative pious moralfags and general kind of snobknobs have had their fair share of fun with this medium I can assure you of that.

            Tldr, none of this is new in any way or shape new – where you see a new blossoming new medium “finally being held to the same standards that all the other media are”, in reality we’re looking back at at least half a century of evolving pop culture and people enjoying recreational entertainment on the one hand, and fluctuating groups of concerned, uptight and eternally frightened Stiffy Stiffersons “illuminating” both with their obnoxious background radiation on the other.

            And you’re welcome to smack yourself on the head and join the right side of history anytime! :p

          • Jon Stone

            “Well, now that I’ve carefully explained to you how they’re anything but, I’m sure you’ve modified your opinion within a reasonable degree …”

            Not really – sorry. I think what you’ve written here, although you’ve taken care to try to phrase it as argument, is based on a starting premise that your enemies are caricatures – “concerned, uptight and eternally frightened Stiffy Stiffersons” – which is all arse about face.

            I’m also not convinced by the argument ‘horseshit’ when it comes to anything that doesn’t fit your preconceived notions.

            And the question “How can entertainment suffer in any way by taking advice from people who don’t understand anything about entertainment?” is an interesting one, seeing as much of the landscape of gaming consists of people who don’t understand anything about entertainment insisting that their opinion is right on the basis that they are regularly entertained and therefore understand the mechanism behind that.

            Honestly, I think if all of Sarkeesian’s suggestions had been implemented from the get-go – if none of the problems she identifies ever existed as problems and if there was nothing that needed changing – neither you nor anyone else would be complaining about a lack of entertainment or a lack of kicks. You’d be perfectly content. You all argue from the position of: “Here’s something I like – some people are suggesting changes – this will RUIN everything!”

          • tuym wuystah

            “is based on a starting premise that your enemies are caricatures”
            You think? How about you demonstrate it? In what way is this the “starting premise” of my arguments when none of my arguments have been derived this supposed premise?

            The “Stiffy Stifferson” bit, as well as the “moralfags and snobknobs” bit, was a description of moral outrage history to you, in response to your implication that some big change or revolution is happening with this feminist critique of video games.

            It was about giving you a general overview of where this critique fits in in the general social context – however, it being a “Stiffy Stifferson” one has already been determined before putting it in a row with the other Stiffy Stiffersons, based on entirely non-circular reasoning :)

            Or show otherwise.

            “I’m also not convinced by the argument ‘horseshit’ when it comes to anything that doesn’t fit your preconceived notions.”
            Since you’re not reading any of the actual arguments, no one cares what you’re convinced by.

            “seeing as much of the landscape of gaming consists of people who don’t understand anything about entertainment insisting that their opinion is right on the basis that they are regularly entertained and therefore understand the mechanism behind that.”
            Maybe – this was to foggy of a statement to repond to properly, But that doesn’t negate that these feminist critiques have even less of a grasp of entertainment.

            “Honestly, I think if all of Sarkeesian’s suggestions had been implemented from the get-go”
            Which is impossible because her suggestions, when all put together, amount to a sea of self-contradictions and unpleasable unfalsifiability. Feminine woman – different from man, sexist. One wearing a suit – man with boobs, sexist.

            “if none of the problems she identifies ever existed as problems and if there was nothing that needed changing”
            a) There already isn’t, and b) under her system, she’s capable of identifying ANYTHING as a problem. All the positive examples and hypothetical improvements and pitches she represents, fit all the criteria that would make it problematic by her own standards.

            “neither you nor anyone else would be complaining about a lack of entertainment or a lack of kicks.”
            Well, some people need to be shown the possibilities first before they understand what it can be like :)
            Others have imagination :)

            “”Here’s something I like – some people are suggesting changes – this will RUIN everything!””
            Well, it will ruin that specific thing.

            Speculations, suggestions, theories, “interesting questions”, arbitrary, inaccurate interpretations – you seem to be determined to everything conveicable to my comments except reading them, understanding them and making counterarguments if possible (it ain’t).

            You’re a complete joke – provide you with an argument or explanation, and you start dancing around, blowing fog all over the place and dodging everything. How can there be any doubt left concerning which of us has the valid position and which of us has nothing at all? Well there isn’t – up your game or bug off, I’m not interested in hearing any more of your “oh well here’s what you said but I really think you meant and here’s what I really feel” horsedung.

          • tuymwuystah

            Read the 4 comments in reverse order :)

          • Jon Stone

            One more thing – you might like to consider the fact that Sarkeesian’s videos are aimed for at gamers and people familiar with games than the general public. They are arguments intended for people like us to consider.

            Therefore she probably assumes that many of her audience will have played the games, or will be fairly familiar with them. The idea that she is trying to ‘mislead’ them therefore doesn’t make any sense.

            The kind of response Sarkeesian’s videos hope to provoke – and I’ve seen this response in various people – is: “Wow, I’d played those games and played through those scenes, but I’d never quite looked at it in this light before.”

        • Lawrence Newman

          Why would I do that when there are dozens of videos on youtube debunking her already. If you don’t accept their debunkings, you won’t accept mine. Because you’re a religionist. All feminists are religionists, because feminism is a religion. You also have no penis.

          • Jon Stone

            Lawrence, you can’t ‘debunk’ a person. You can’t ‘debunk’ an argument. You debunk a rumour or a myth.

            “If you don’t accept their debunkings, you won’t accept mine. Because you’re a religionist.”

            No – it’s because unlike you and the authors of those videos, I didn’t spectacularly miss every single one of Sarkeesian’s points.

            I am intrigued, though, as to how this hatred of feminism has had to twist itself into a knot to try to get around the fact that an increasing number of men now sympathise with the movement. Interesting to see you’ve opted to try to dismiss it as a religion.

          • Lawrence Newman

            “you can’t ‘debunk’ an argument. You debunk a rumour or a myth.”

            The shit Anita talks about is fiction, i.e. myth.

          • tuymwuystah

            “that an increasing number of men now sympathise with the movement.”
            Really? I thought an increasing number of men were also waking up to its bullshit, after sort of making concessions to the PC police for a couple of decades.

            Anyway, if we put aside these recruitment olympics just for a second, the answer to your question is that the “shocking phenomenon” of men joining the feminist side is fully accounted for by most anti-feminists I’ve ever seen.
            The simple-minded monkey variety just dismisses them as “betas desperate to get laid”, others reasonably explain it with the human tendency to accept mainstream ideas uncritically, and the most prominent MRM position as of now is that men are inherently chivalrous and tend to see women as a moral authority – of which feminism is just a modern incarnation.

            How are you gonna twist yourself in a knot trying to explain how so many women are MRAs?

          • Hzle

            Well there are both

            a) a steady supply of very young men who want girls to like them (or sleep with them) & who are letting feminists tell them what to think and do, and

            b) as you say, plenty of men who feel that they’ve been lied to by feminism – who see clearly that it’s not about “equality” at all (quite the opposite).There have been well-intentioned young male feminists for more than half a century – though there’s a big attrition rate when men get married and have kids and the fact that they’re not all that “privileged” hits them in the face

            You’re quite right about another thing: we’re dealing with the devotees of a religion (perhaps a “cult” might be a better word)

            Feminists have sort of of detached themselves from reality and from opposing views, despite both being instantly available. To do so, they have to keep banging on about the Great Evil: misogyny.

            Jon Stone’s post is a perfect example of this: no argument, just “if you disagree, you’re a misogynist!” It’s dishonest, and slightly bullying behaviour – because, as we’re constantly told, being a “misogynist”* is the worst thing in the world!

            * whatever one of those actually is – and it could be anything from someone who vehemently hates all women (I’ve never met such a person) to just someone who suggests that men and women are wired differently.

        • utera

          Which is like saying creationist science is good science, but I see what you are doing here, flooding nonsense in an attempt to dilute any good content in the comment section. Your tactics are rather transparent.

    • Megamatics

      The reason she is wrong is because it is too easy to arrive at her conclusions. How long did you think it took her to discover why women are being demonized by the Damsel In Distress ? With something so open as a question how could she have arrived at one conclusions ? … The simple way to put it, is that she only had one conclusion in mind. She turned an Essay Question into a Yes or No Question “Is it Sexist or Is it Not ?”. When she arrived at the preconceived notion of “yes it is” all of the cherry picked data just fell into place while ignoring all the instances where it doesn’t add up. If all research was conducted in that manor it would be supremely too lax and un-evolving. I Guess that is why after watching her videos all people can say is “I agree”, “I don’t Agree”. It’s too easy…

      • Jon Stone

        “The reason she is wrong is because it is too easy to arrive at her conclusions.”

        You realise that sounds an awful lot like you’re saying “The reason she is wrong is because she’s obviously right”?

        Saying that someone started out with a preconceived conclusion isn’t proof that that conclusion is wrong. Accusing them of ‘cherry-picking’ when they are demonstrating tropes doesn’t make sense either. A trope, by its nature, is recurring but embedded, and needs to be picked out.

        You’re essentially saying she had a theory, tested it out and found that all the evidence ‘fell into place’.

        The more I engage with this so-called debate, the more obvious it is to me: the real problem here is that lots of people do not understand critical reasoning and how it works. You’re crying foul at something that’s completely within the rules, at a way of making an argument that is entirely legitimate.

        • Megamatics

          No, it’s proof that her conclusion is too broad a statement to be an answer.

          • dan

            You’re arguing with someone (Jon Stone) who quite clearly has the IQ of chocolate pudding.

        • tuymwuystah

          “No one with a reasonable head on their shoulders will watch them and go, “Oh gosh, I didn’t realise! Now mine eyes are opened.””
          Well, I was already fully aware of the flaws in her reasoning before watching any of those debunkings, so in that sense you are not wrong.

          “You are either not a raving misogynist maniac, in which case you watch them and go, “Well, they seem to have completely missed the point.””
          How does not being a raving misogynist maniac lead to making some particular conclusion about a collection of specific youtube videos having missed someone’s point? Also, if being a raving misogynist maniac means the failure to detect someone having missed someone’s point about something, then why does your tone of voice give me the vibes that it’s kind of a very bad thing to be?

          “Accusing them of ‘cherry-picking’ when they are demonstrating tropes doesn’t make sense either. A trope, by its nature, is recurring but embedded, and needs to be picked out.”
          Alright, let’s talk some tropes then: so you’ve got trope A which is “idealistic hick gets his village attacked, decides to join the fight against the evil warlord, and after the untimely death of his newfound mentor and reaching the lowest point eventually defeats the warlord”, and then you’ve got trope B which is “idealistic hick gets told that he’s been chosen by an ancient prophecy to defeat a local warlord, accepts his destiny, and after the untimely death of his mentor and disillusionment with the prohecy, eventually realizes that it was true all along and defeats the warlord”.

          Are you saying that if I claim only the latter ever gets made and then cite the Matrix, Riddick, Oz the Great and Powerful and the SW prequels as my examples while omitting the SW originals, LOTR, Batman and Jack the Giant Slayer, that I’m NOT cherrypicking tropes because “demonstrating tropes” precludes cherry-picking?

          Fack off.

    • dan

      So says the village idiot.

    • utera


      Actually they are, and here’s the shortest and most concise one.

    • TheScienceEnthusiast1130

      Your IQ seems too low…

  • Kes

    This suddenly occurred to me: remember when Harry Potter was still coming out, and had just gotten reeally huge, around the 4th book, and lots of conservative Christian pastors were banning the books from their congregations and saying they promoted “devil worship” and “witchcraft”, despite not having a problem with the hundreds and hundreds of children’s book featuring magic that had come out prior? Their real issue with Harry Potter, as I saw it, was that it was too popular and too ubiquitous.

    Anita Sarkeesian’s video series is like that. She’s not saying anything that hasn’t been said countless times before, going all the way back to Second Wave feminism. She’s just applying the same thinking and theories to modern video games. People love to complain about all the money she raised and “where it went” without thinking about what it *means* that she was able to raise that much. Because there is a large base of people who like her analysis and want more of it. Her “crime”, in the eyes of the relentless harassers who have hounded her for two years, is not being a woman, or a feminist, or a video game critic; it is being a *popular* and *successful* one.

    I’m very sorry that she has had to live thru this non-stop harassment campaign, but I am very glad that her videos have sparked this conversation and exposed these ideas to such large audience, and make them think about their entertainment in a more critical way. All the complaints about “cherry-picking evidence” sound to me more like irritation that she found such sexist elements in people’s favorite games. “Your fave is problematic” isn’t a new idea to anyone who’s studied feminism very long, but it seems to make some parts of the video game audience *extremely* uncomfortable. I wish they could take that discomfort and do something positive with it, rather than freaking out and trying to silence and scare away the messenger.

    • Alex Reynard

      “All the complaints about “cherry-picking evidence” sound to me more like
      irritation that she found such sexist elements in people’s favorite
      games.”

      In Hitman: Absolution, Anita says that the game rewards you for killing strippers, and that we are meant to view these women as inanimate objects for the player to derive a sick thrill from. She fails to mention that the game punishes you for killing civilians, including the strippers, by docking you points. That is what’s meant by cherry-picking evidence; ignoring real context and substituting the conclusion that she wants instead, even if it means playing the game in a way nearly all real players would avoid.

    • tuymwuystah

      It’s funny how you started out by referencing vapid conservative/religious complaints about pop culture, but then arrived at a conclusion that had entirely nothing to do with their similarity to the vapid liberal/feminist complaints about pop culture that are the main subject here.

      :)

      Now one could point several “ironies” in your reasoning – for example, that feminists only really started ripping into games when those became sufficiently popular and ubiquitous. Or that Christian tradcons complain about all pop culture all the time incessantly, and the HP example just happened to be the one to receive such widespread attention.
      So which of those four examples (Xtians reacting to HP cause it’s notable; public reacting to Xtians cause that became notable; feminists moving on to vidya cause they became popular; public reacting to Sarkeesian cause she got popular) are gonna be compared to which other exactly?

      But that would be tldr – the basic truth of the matter is that you’ve got these two obnoxious movements, the Christians / tradcons on the one hand, and the feminists / social justice warriors on the other, who’ve been molesting public discourse with their obnoxious vapid ideological complaints and condemnations of harmless human behavior and entertainment for decades, and it only makes sense to liken them to each other, rather than the reasonable backlashes against either.

      She didn’t FIND sexist elements, she invented them, and people are slowly getting fed up. Quite straightforward, really.

  • utera

    The problems aren’t opinion, the mountain of evidence against her videos and claims out there debunk her based on objective fact, not opinion, and so it can easily be fact checked. When she misrepresents a game, or cherry picks evidence for a claim in a dishonest way, this all can be confirmed, and it has been by many youtubers including, Thunderf00t, jordanowen42, internet aristocrat, dangerous analysis, aurini, the fantastic skeptic, investig8tivejournalism, GamingAnarchist and many others.
    Links on Anita’s long record of dishonesty
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6gLmcS3-NI
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MQuEjiU2KQ
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqJCCnued6c
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwwFx-tz9TY
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUxcLxClQ08
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Ju-1I1DTU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk5F-S_hI
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lERF9q40iS0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrOMP0hJPxA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7nO9F7okbo
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hie1UFUdSRk
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gHJ_cHr5hA
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQJW3WMsx1q3BAZh3XsK1cSwCiaqjSulc
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAHt7RG67Ok
    On why in actuality there are more male protagonists in games and media.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5L2MBPBl3I
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etZRsZP64Xg
    These are people who are making arguments against Anita Sarkeesian based on objective truth, they judge her claims of holding to an “academic standard” and find it wanting, they look at her claims on a case by case basis and find her to be cherry picking evidence, editing videos to mislead, or lying through omission. Not occasionally, not accidentally, but as the entire basis for her videos. I won’t detail the cases made against her because I’d have to write a book, and the youtubers linked below do a better job regardless. This woman cherry picks evidence to build dishonest cases, and relies on her own trope of “damsel in distress” to avoid criticism, and really her cherry picked examples of “harm against female characters” is really just special pleading based on reinforcing the old idea of chivalry where women are supposed to be specially protected from harm. The fact that one slaughters countless male characters in games, not a concern for her, but one woman gets abused? Outrage.
    People like the youtubers listed have made solid cases against her, but these people are dismissed as “trolls” or “misogynists” by the main stream media, aided by the fact that Anita Sarkeesian disables all comments and feedback, thus limiting visibility of criticism, and then since she’s sold the lazy media on her claim of being a victim, she is protected from criticism in those places as well. Anita’s claims of victimhood are not genuine, she and her ilk take “dives”, a dispreputable sporting tactic where a player will feign injury in front of a referee to try to gain advantage, you see this in sports like soccer where you see players falling to the ground, crying while grabbing their leg when nothing happened. Anita Sarkeesian is aided by the unskeptical and unethical media which doesn’t fact check anything and just repeats this narrative. Its notable that Suey Park of the #cancelcolbert campaign also took this route, claiming harassment, but unlike gamers, Colbert fans did not fall for it and start to attack themselves for their supposed misogyny and privilege. But with gamers, there is an in built prejudice which allows people to believe the worst, and so the narrative took root and allows this woman to be protected even when with a cursory check, she can be proven to be a liar.

    Anita Sarkeesian’s lack of integrity is documented by the links in my previous email, beyond blatantly misrepresenting herself as a gamer which was proven false by a video of her talking to a class before her kickstarter, and her videos rely on cherry picking and are made to intentionally mislead people, instead of being informative, its propaganda 101. Its clear her knowledge doesn’t go beyond a superficial wikipedia level but that doesn’t matter, because she only needs enough to misrepresent video games to fit her preexisting argument. His entire narrative of this woman is factually incorrect when there is video of her literally admitting to not liking video games. Just based on the idea of full disclosure and non bias that should have been something to include.
    She misrepresents her own narrative no differently than she misrepresents her topics for discussion. If Anita Sarkeesian were talking about the newest spiderman film she would depict it as a misogynist tale where a woman(gwen stacy) is an “object” to be “abused to death” so the male hero can learn a life lesson.
    Or as GamingAnarchist said in his video, she would describe Django Unchained as “a story of a man seeking ownership of his woman, who has been taken from him by another man. He goes out and earns himself enough money in order that he can purchase the woman from that man. The woman is brutalized whipped humiliated in front of people, she is treated like a dog and less than a human being and yet the man is standing there, watching this happen and doing no action immediately to save this woman. It is a sad indicative sign that our society is a patriachal monster that treats women as objects to be desired and to be obtained by men from men. That these women are nothing but posessions to be bought and sold.”

    This is the type of unfair depiction she relies on in all her videos and why its just astounding why no one questions her legitimacy

    And this issue has gained more prominence in the last week because of “quinngate”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5-51PfwI3M
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKmy5OKg6lo
    as explained by internet aristocrat, which revealed the level of corruption in the games media, and the level of “protection” certain people get.
    This all matters because its led to a distortion of values. The supposedly progressive side is now in gaming resorting to suppression of information, censorship, and just smearing anyone who dares to disagree. Its a strike against all free thought and freedom of speech. But its rampant in gaming, and in the main stream media where people like Anita Sarkeesian control the narrative.
    The extent of corruption in the games media and even general media when dealing with the issue is a bit like if almost every channel were fox news. And then every criticism of Sarah Palin would be prefaced with a lecture on just how misogynistic democrats are, and how its just not tolerable, citing some random poster who might have said something nasty at Sarah Palin at some point, before just outright dismissing any claim against Sarah as just misogynistic by default. This is how reporting on Anita Sarkeesian has been. And to take it even further, not only are people silenced and smeared, but all over the internet, on games sites and forums, any mention of this woman can get you banned, no matter how civil, no matter how rational and accurate. This was in evidence with the more recent Zoe Quinn debacle, where a reddit editor who was caught being in contact with Zoe Quinn went out of their way to delete tens of thousands of comments on the issue.
    This narrative of the damseled woman is pervasive in modern media and society and is what leads to things like. Susan Wilson who exploited the same narrative for personal gain.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIVhMwqwqdo You will note that after it was found out that people were rushing to the aid of a wealthy woman, there was silence on this issue.
    And its become so pervasive that this need to be dishonest to put on the apperance of being for and protecting women is even perpetrated by men. This video outlines the dishonesty of angry joe, a prominent youtube game reviewer who resorted to the same tactics and narrative.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lzGQZBNd3Y

    Dangerously Analyzed 5: Escaping The Quinngate #GamerGate
    Which is another new video addressing the ethical corruption in the gaming press.
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWeZblpq1zeVigPZUOBwMcw

    Dangerous Analysis’s analysis of Anita’s videos.


    His
    criticisms of Anita are hard to argue with, but the problem is that the
    narrative excludes all people like him, its just about Anita’s
    victimhood, and everyone else is a “troll”

    and of course jordans response.

    • Romantic Placebo

      Oh my god, thanks for slowing down my browser with this shit.

      Aurini is a fucking racist and slut-shamer, I don’t trust anything you put here with him in it.

      • tuym wuystah

        You call anyone that, so I don’t trust anything you claim about anyone aside from him :)

        Aurini is some kind of “alternative right-winger” and I don’t know anything about him, but I’ve seen a lot of Thunderf00t, jordanowen42 and some aristocrat, plus a number of less known youtubers that can be easily found on the first couple of pages if you do a search, and none of them are racist or slut-shamers. So there.

        • Romantic Placebo

          T-foot has said some very not good things about rape, even used a “condescending Wonka” meme to mock the idea of men being taught not to rape, so I call him out on that.

          IA is an MRA from what I hear, and so is MundaneMatt.

          • Hugh Briss

            Being an advocate for the rights of men is a good thing. If you disagree then you have to disagree with traditional feminism (advocates for the rights of women) or you are a sexist, full stop. Tumblr feminists have stretched the word “rape” to cover things that clearly are not rape; it is a good thing that some people exist who have the courage to stand up in front of these people who would have the term “rape” cover scenarios that are not even sexual and tell them that they’re full of shit when they try to redefine the term.

          • Romantic Placebo

            “It’s a good thing that some people exist who have the courage to stand up in front of these people who would have the term “rape” cover scenarios that are not even sexual.”

            That depends on how you define “sexual,” versus invading your personal space.

            And T-foot, with his “what some people call rape, other people would call BAD sex?” is one of those?

            Hugh Briss, do you really want to be the one defending a rape apologist?

          • Hugh Briss

            What’s that? You want to pretend that there are women don’t tell people consensual was rape when they regret it? You want to redefine “sexual” to include things that aren’t sex? You want to very selectively interpret someone else’s words as having an intended interpretation that requires intellectual dishonesty to assign to that person, and then label them an undesirable label based on that bullshit interpretation?

            No, I’m not having any of your shit. Fuck you.

          • Romantic Placebo

            You disgust me. Of course women CAN lie, but the stigma of bringing accusations against someone is so great that if that’s the first thing you think of then you’ve obviously never seen the vitriol survivors get from EVERYWHERE for daring to speak up.

            What the hell, we’re talking about sexual assault, shouldn’t that be up to the survivor to parse out?

          • Hugh Briss

            I don’t care one bit how you feel about me, troll. Keep on crying, your tears are delicious.

          • tuym wuystah

            “And T-foot, with his “what some people call rape, other people would call BAD sex?” is one of those?”
            Ah. oh, wait… that bit. Right, he said that, yea.

            Hm, yea, still not sure what he was talking about there. There are certainly opinions expressed in “tumblr-esque” areas that actually do equate bad sex with rape, cause guilt-tripping / pressuring / whining your girlfriend into sex is being a rapist apparently. There’s been some lulzy article by some guy confessing to having been a rapist for doing those things, and similar statements made by feminists elsewhere – but I don’t think that was in response to that, and if it was, he should have disputed the “rape” part, not acknowledged it.

            There are other “grey areas” with regards to rape: the transition between drunkenness and being an alcohol corpse would be one; scenarios in which it’s not immediately clear whether a “no” was meant sincerely or as a part of a roleplay, and whether the “man” would’ve backed off or was determined regardless, or whether the “woman” went along because she wanted it or because she was intimidated.
            The “implications” dialogue from Always Sunny in Philadelphia may be a close cousin of that.

            However, I don’t see how “bad sex” can transition into rape, so yea – might have to probe him on that bit lol.

            But then, Anita Sarkeesian tweeted that all school shooters are male – so if that doesn’t disqualify her every argument in your eyes, neither should this; and as it happens, he’s the reasonable party in this particular discussion.

          • Romantic Placebo

            “Grey rape” is not a tumblr only concern. Also, if you’re choosing to have sex with someone who’s drinking, you really need to ask yourself if you know them well enough to not hurt them.

          • tuym wuystah

            “”Grey rape” is not a tumblr only concern.”
            Wow – you just combined two unrelated points into one in a more abstruse fashion than than a Scary Movie does movie plots.

            “Also, if you’re choosing to have sex with someone who’s drinking, you really need to ask yourself if you know them well enough to not hurt them.”
            Irrelevant to this.

          • Romantic Placebo

            I take offense to that Scary Movie comparison.

            And you were talking about areas when consent is hard to establish due to not understanding someone’s intentions. Sex under the influences seems to fit this well.

          • Guest

            You’re offended? So what?

          • Hugh Briss
          • Romantic Placebo

            You know…I don’t think Stephen Fry was thinking about bad logic when he made that quote. More like intolerance.

          • Hugh Briss

            Doesn’t matter. The sentiment is universally true. Be offended all you want. I don’t have to give a shit.

          • Romantic Placebo

            I don’t think you realize how intellectually unsound that statement is. For instance, I highly doubt Stephen Fry would say that if a homophobe made the comparison of gay men to pedophiles. He would say he is offended, and that someone talking like that should have no validity in the conversation.

            Similar to your backwards policies on assault.

            But I’m honestly not sure what we’re arguing about now, and it’s clear you don’t care, so let’s not waste any more words.

          • Hugh Briss

            Mmmhmm, because you somehow get to decide what Stephen Fry “would say.” Fuck off.

          • Hugh Briss

            It’s great to know that you speak for Stephen Fry. Jump off a cliff.

          • Romantic Placebo

            Okay, but before I do, why don’t you take a long walk off a short pier and hug an octopus?

          • tuym wuystah

            The “hurt” part (I understood as “emotionally) wasn’t relevant to this topic, not irrelevant on a personal level or others – had you said “know them well enough to know they’re like really consenting”, that would’ve been relevant.

          • Guest

            There is no such thing as “grey rape.” There is rape or there is not rape. Nice try.

          • Hugh Briss

            There is no such thing as “grey rape.” There is rape or there is not rape. Nice try though.

          • Romantic Placebo

            Ah, good! So we agree.

          • tuym wuystah

            Wrong – if the victim isn’t sure whether they were raped or it was non-verbally agreed ravishment, then it’s grey rape ;)

            Like Jaime and Cersei on GoT – seriously, I’ve seen people say it was definitely rape, and others “look it’s not rape she kissed him back and was into it!”, and I’m watching it and still can’t figure it out. Doubt she was even sure herself.
            So yea – grey rape. It certainly can be condemned, or criminalized (Louis CK style), but it’s what it is.

            Those grey areas exist – “bad sex” ain’t one of them.

          • Romantic Placebo

            You do know that Women’s Center’s cater to male survivors of rape, right? So how are they no advocating for men again?

          • Hugh Briss

            Completely irrelevant. You’re an idiot.

          • tuym wuystah

            “T-foot has said some very not good things about rape, even used a “condescending Wonka” meme to mock the idea of men being taught not to rape”
            That video and the follow-up are probably the only two “inept” videos he’s made on the whole subject. I haven’t seen the particular bits they were in response to, so there may have been some misunderstanding or strawmanning.
            At any rate, no matter what the Slutwalkers said, there are actually plenty of crazy feminists out there who really think any advice how to avoid rape is the same as “victim blaming”, and/or that no woman needs to hear that as they obviously see dangers glaring at them from every corner first hand.
            Such statements are bullshit and those Thunderfoot videos were an appropriate (though flawed) response to those – but as I said, I don’t know whether the ones he was responding to actually had made such statements.

            Aside from that, though, what was that “not good” thing he said about rape? The “condescending Wonka” was meant to say that there will always be people who’ll do bad things no matter what; I don’t remember him saying you couldn’t *reduce* violence – so, again, the correct response to some crazies, but might’ve been a strawman.

            “IA is an MRA from what I hear, and so is MundaneMatt.”
            Um, MundaneMatt? Really? That’s kinda surreal, where did he say he was one? Or IA for that matter?
            Even if they are, so what – there are plenty of alright ones. And, oh, if what you “heard” was from a feminist source, it’s 100% unreliable :D

          • Romantic Placebo

            I’m sorry, but “There will always be bad people” is a justification, and the more I hear it, the more I see that it allows us to ignore dealing with important aspects of our society that go beyond our individual choices.

          • tuym wuystah

            “I’m sorry”
            Why should you feel sorry, if not for being completely wrong? ;)

            You just went full retard, seriously.

          • Romantic Placebo

            If all the human beings on earth shared their pain, then we would never abide the kind of cruelty we tolerate in believing as individuals first.

  • Pingback: The End of Gatekeeping: The Extinction Burst of Gaming Culture - Paging Dr. NerdLove()

  • Alex Reynard

    Oh cool! Thanks for letting me know about this documentary so I can go
    donate to it! They’re gonna get money now that they wouldn’t have
    otherwise, because you wrote this article making me aware of it! And you
    were also kind enough to let me know that you’re the bad guy in this,
    because you stooped low enough to pick on the filmmakers’ appearances
    instead of actual civil criticism. And BTW, I don’t hate Anita because
    she’s a woman any more than I hate Jack Thompson because he’s a man.

    God bless the Streisand Effect! :D

    • steelcapped rage

      Here’s the clincher about Sarkeesian: Much (if not damn near all) of her feminism comes from her boyfriend, Jonathan McIntosh! Her hipster twatwaffle of a boyfriend is actually a bigger feminist than herself. He provides the ideological aspect of the campaign, while she provides the marketing aspect. I call them the “Duplicitous Duo”. Their ultimate goal is to get paid (and to stay getting paid by cementing a place in spotlight) at the expense of of the idiots (like the author of that article) who uncritically swallow their bullshit.

      • Jon Stone

        “I call them the “Duplicitous Duo”.”

        What a wit you are. Or half of one at least.

        • Lawrence Newman

          You have a vagina. On your brain.

          • Jon Stone

            And you are going to die still bitter at Anita Sarkeesian and other feminists for taking your toys away.

          • Lawrence Newman

            You do not have a penis.

          • tuym wuystah

            Why should they have the right to take anyone’s toys away? Was that an admission LOL

          • Kav P

            Wait, what? Leave vaginas out of this.

        • steelcapped rage

          Wow. Really? LOL! That reply is almost as pathetic as you look. I’m serious. Like most social justice warriors, you’re both ugly AND stupid. I look at you and I can’t help but think that your parents are close relatives who had a drunken tryst at a family reunion.

          • Jon Stone

            “Wow. Really? LOL! That reply is almost as pathetic as you look. I’m serious. Like most social justice warriors, you’re both ugly AND stupid. I look at you and I can’t help but think that your parents are close relatives who had a drunken tryst at a family reunion,” screamed steelcapped rage, frantically masturbating.

          • steelcapped rage

            Truth hurts. Let’s face it, you DO look like a cast extra from deliverance.

          • steelcapped rage

            I’ll give you this much — As hard as you fail, you still give it your best. LOL!

          • Jon Stone

            I could say the same to you, if the screed of sexually frustrated, homo-curious rage you’ve posted to me further down the page is anything to go by.

          • steelcapped rage

            Correction, you WISH you could say the same thing about me. Failure is in your genes. The tripe you post and a single glance at your pic confirms that fact.

      • Romantic Placebo

        I hope you realize how ironic it is that you are “debunking” Anita by saying she’s not actually that much of a Feminist, it’s her BOYFRIEND who started her on that path.

        Like, do you even know Feminism?

        • steelcapped rage

          Yes, I do. He’s the ideologue. She’s the marketing, mouthpiece and public face. I never said she wasn’t “much of a feminist” shit-for-brains. Like, do you even know reading comprehension, fucktard?

          • Romantic Placebo

            I am aware of reading comprehension, yes.

          • Romantic Placebo

            I don’t know, you just seemed like another asshole. My bad.

          • Romantic Placebo

            I think suggesting that a woman is a Feminist specifically because her boyfriend is one is kind of rude.

        • tuym wuystah

          Well that’s the irony, laser brain :D

          At any rate, I don’t think there’s proof for these claims, it’s just something that’s suspected based on some older videos and biographical facts.
          What if she isn’t his mouth piece, what if he converted her with passionate love LOL
          nah just kidding it’s all conjecture as far as I know.

          • Romantic Placebo

            Yep. Speaking of which, i recently found a great series of videos that do a good job of explaining how all the “conspiracy” thing is logically and rationally unsound.

          • Hugh Briss

            It’s too bad that this video is logically and rationally unsound.

          • Romantic Placebo

            You just upvoted your own comment, as well as your other one.
            Think you may be trying too hard?

          • Hugh Briss

            I do it because it’s funny that you feel the need to discuss it.

          • Romantic Placebo

            I just think it’s sad, so I guess we’re even.

          • Romantic Placebo

            Ironically enough he used a plethora of rational terminology that fit perfectly with the examples he featured. So I’d say you’re certifiably mistaken.

          • Hugh Briss

            You don’t seem to fully comprehend what “terminology” and “certifiably” mean.

    • utera

      Yea its not unnoticed that these people are guilty of every sin they claim to be against, their behavior is a crime against progressive ideals, its hypocrisy to the core. The idea that progressive people are more open minded and base their opinions on objectivity and facts is just made a mockery of by these people. They instead take on the traits of the worst fundamentalist churches in the past, who suppressed silenced and burned heretics and atheists because they couldn’t deal with their arguments. So instead of engaging in a legitimate debate they did just that, smear and silence, and this is just sjw’s standard operating behavior these days.
      And its just ironic many of these people probably laugh at Fox news, because these people are just like those very same people, but worse. Fox and friends claim perpetual victimhood by the “leftist media” thus they are able to disregard fact and reason. This is also the standard social justice warrior playbook. Things stop having to be true, or even addressed once someone like Anita Sarkeesian claims to be a victim. But its worse because fox news is one channel amongst many. In gaming, there are few large outlets and they are all controlled by social justice warrior types, or are too cowardly and afraid to go against the grain, and they take it a step further by enacting active suppression. If fox news had friends on reddit that would delete threads containing tens of thousands of comments at a time, that would bee something even a social justice warrior would find abhorent. But standard hypocrisy kicks in when this behavior is done in their name, then its fine. Anything to protect their “victims”.

      Just imagine if the social justice warrior code were applied to someone like Sarah Palin, anytime someone had a legitimate criticism of her, the only answer in the media would be mass production of articles about how democrat online somewhere made a nasty comment or threat about Sarah Palin, what was said in the criticism would be entirely drowned out and disregarded to fixate on this so called threat and misogyny. In fact just look at the reailty of Sarah Palin, some leftist reporter actually moved into the house beside hers to “report” on her. Now imagine if this had happened to mrs sarkeesian, there would be endless screaming about how she was being stalked by a man, and was under attack, it would be put forth as evidence of misogyny, patriarchy and whatever else they’d want to claim, but since its just Sarah Palin, the same people are silent, because they don’t have universal principles, these outrages aren’t genuine, they are simply tactical, and these are people without ethics who will exploit any opportunity to capitalize on manipulating the narrative.

      So really, its time to stop letting these people slander our community. These people are just prejudiced. By their reasoning every time they met a black person they’d first lecture them on not stealing, because somewhere out there I’m sure there are black criminals, therefore, its only right to scold everyone by default, and just assume the worst of everyone.

      Its notable Suey Park of #cancelcolbert fame did the same thing. Suey claimed threats against her the second she was put on the spot, it was a deflection tactic, but colbert fans didn’t take it, they didn’t tolerate her nonsense and since colbert is a leftist media darling, neither did the media. Its time to take that lesson to heart because this issue has festered mostly because there are far too many gamers out there who have been far too willing to attack their own, that has to stop. These women are taking dives, like when in soccer a player just brushes past an opposing player and then crumples to the floor wailing in pain all in an attempt to gain advantage by trying to get a favorable call from the referee. Its disreputable behavior, and people have to stop accepting and excusing it. This tactic has become so popular that one prominent femnist blogger, meg lanker simmons actually resorted to making threat comments against herself on a site she had a problem with. Luckily in that case she was caught, and is being prosecuted, but it tells you just how attractive this narrative of victimhood is these days. Its not “terrible”,

      Anyways people who have an open mind and want to objectively fact check this woman will find that she simply is a dishonest person. Even her personal narrative was proven to be false, video evidence exists of her plainly stating that she isn’t a gamer, taken before the kickstarter campaign which made her famous.

      Many youtubers including, Thunderf00t, jordanowen42, internet aristocrat, dangerous analysis, aurini, the fantastic skeptic, investig8tivejournalism, GamingAnarchist and others have debunked her point for point. Its not surprising at all that the sjw’s always fail to address this fact, and resort to constantly reiterating the narrative of her victimhood to derail any discussion, and then smear all her critics as just misogynists. Its really just not acceptable behavior from “journalists”.

      • Alex Reynard

        Very well said. I especially liked “but since its just Sarah Palin, the same people are silent, because they
        don’t have universal principles, these outrages aren’t genuine, they
        are simply tactical”. That really sums it up.

        And I’ve noticed that, right at the moment when both of them are suddenly facing a tidal wave of anger for their ethical shortcomings, both Anita and Zoe Quinn have claimed harassment so bad they had to leave their homes. Fishy enough on its own, but the tweets against Anita look very much like she made them herself, logged out and screencapped them immediately, and I don’t think I’ve seen *any* evidence from Quinn. Just her word, which we all now know to be worthless.

    • luci_fer

      Ok, but Jack Thompson is an ambulance chaser who wants games to be banned.
      Anita Sarkeesian is an academic who wants to discuss them.

      • Alex Reynard

        Jack Thompson is an outsider who has never contributed (content or financially) to video game culture, but he still wants to use shaming tactics and unproven, pseudoscientific arguments that games cause real-world harm, in order to force what you play in line with his vision of morality.

        Anita Sarkeesian is an outsider who has never contributed (content or financially) to video game culture, but she still wants to use shaming tactics and unproven, pseudoscientific arguments that games cause real-world harm, in order to force what you play in line with her vision of morality.

        • luci_fer

          Well, you’re certainly right on the former.

          As for the latter – Sarkeesian has contributed financially (a portion of that kickstarter money has gone on buying the games she’s been playing) and she’s contributing in terms of content *right now* to video game culture (which is why she was presented with the Game Developers Choice Awards ‘Ambassador Award’, btw. You will not find any developers honouring Jack Thompson).

          She isn’t using shaming tactics, she’s studying tropes. And ‘unproven and pseudoscientific’ doesn’t really work with literary/critical theory, as yes, it’s all subjective and debatable so impossible to prove by definition, and isn’t pretending to have any scientific basis anyway. It’s like saying ideas are unscientific. Well yes, they are, but no one was claiming otherwise.

          No artefact of culture exists in a vacuum, but I don’t think Sarkeesian is arguing that anyone viewing something will automatically copy it or warp their brains (as Thompson does) just that the prevalence of the tropes shows they are concepts that are normalized.

          She isn’t forcing anyone to play in line with her vision of morality. It isn’t about dumbing games down or making them more politically correct (or ‘feminising’ them). It’s about analysing the common tropes or ‘themes’ and representations of women. She’s just making an argument.

          Feel free to make a counter one – you are equally entitled to.

          • Alex Reynard

            >As for the latter – Sarkeesian has contributed financially (a portion of that kickstarter money has gone on buying the games she’s been playing)

            How do you know? There have been a lot of people pointing out how she’s stolen other YouTubers’ Let’s Play footage instead of showing herself playing games. Having watched her videos before and after the Kickstarter, I have seen no apparent jump in production quality or research.

            >and she’s contributing in terms of content *right now* to video game culture

            I do not view attacks on a medium to be ‘contribution’.

            >(which is why she was presented with the Game Developers Choice Awards ‘Ambassador Award’, btw. You will not find any developers honouring Jack Thompson).

            And yet, both of them have a central message that video games cause real-life harm. Neither has any proof of this other than their own rhetoric and insistence. I find it baffling and shameful the GDC Awards gave her that award.

            >She isn’t using shaming tactics, she’s studying tropes.

            When she describes misogyny in games as being a threat to real women, there is absolutely shaming towards the people who play and create these games:

            “I should note that this kind of misogynistic behavior isn’t always mandatory; often it’s player-directed, but it is always implicitly encouraged.” (So she says about the game Hitman: Absolution, in reference to being able to kill strippers in it, which the game *discourages* you from doing by giving you a lower score.)

            >And ‘unproven and pseudoscientific’ doesn’t really work with literary/critical theory, as yes, it’s all subjective and debatable so impossible to prove by definition, and isn’t pretending to have any scientific basis anyway. It’s like saying ideas are unscientific. Well yes, they are, but no one was claiming otherwise.

            No. When she is making definite claims that video games encourage real-life misogyny, those claims can be tested. They MUST be tested. She should be showing us actual research backing up what she says, but she doesn’t.

            >No artefact of culture exists in a vacuum, but I don’t think Sarkeesian is arguing that anyone viewing something will automatically copy it or warp their brains (as Thompson does)

            She makes EXACTLY that argument:

            “In other words, viewing media that frames women as objects or sexual playthings, profoundly impacts how real life women are perceived and treated in the world around us. And that is all without even taking into account how video games allow for the more participatory forms of objectification that we’ve been discussing in this episode. … Paradoxically and somewhat ironically, those who most strongly believe that media is just harmless entertainment are also the ones most likely to uncritically internalize harmful media messages. In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected.”

            >She isn’t forcing anyone to play in line with her vision of morality.

            Not overtly, no. But through the perception that she is the victim of unique threats and harassment because of her gender (instead of her ideas/actions), and a gaming press eager to reinforce this perception, she is able to shut down criticism of herself by painting all her opponents as misogynists.

            >It isn’t about dumbing games down or making them more politically correct (or ‘feminising’ them). It’s about analysing the common tropes or ‘themes’ and representations of women. She’s just making an argument.

            Yes, and regardless of her intentions, that argument can still be criticized. For example, if I say I’m going to make a series of videos analyzing the suffering Hurricane Katrina victims go through, that is a noble intent. But if I conclude that they’re suffering because they had negative auras that invited hurricane vibes, then that conclusion needs to be called out for being unproven, untruthful and unhelpful. Similarly, if Anita is going to hold up all of gaming as being hostile to women, without ever acknowledging the ways in which her own arguments could be used to “prove” gaming is equally hostile to men, that needs to be called out. When she gets facts wrong about games, or strawmans them through inaccurate synopses, that needs to be called out. When she makes claims about real-world harm caused by games as if they’re self-evident, that needs to be called out.

          • luci_fer

            Well, there’s been a photo of her with a stack of games under the caption research material. It could be doctored I guess, but that certainly led me to believe she’s bought games.

            and I don’t view it as an attack on the medium, so we’re at an impasse regarding if it’s a contribution or not.

            I don’t think Anita’s central message is that video games cause real-life harm. Respectfully, I think that’s a misinterpretation.

            Your point re: Hitman is valid if you lose points; losing points by killing strippers is discouragement. I see no problem with you challenging her premise on that particular point on that particular game.

            I don’t think there’s any shaming of people who play or create them, even if they do contain sexism or misogyny. I’m pretty sure she said at one point that a lot of sexism can be completely unintentional – just an extension of societal norms taken for granted or uncontested – which they developers may not even be aware of.

            Oh, sure, if she was citing a study or something making claims that video games encourage real-life misogyny I would want something to back those findings up, yes. But, again, I don’t think she has actually said that specifically.

            There is a massive difference between saying monkey-see monkey-do, anyone running over a prostitute in Grand Theft Auto will then think it’s permissible to run over a prostitute in real-life and go and do it themselves and what she actually says:

            “In other words, viewing media that frames women as objects or sexual playthings, profoundly impacts how real life women are perceived and treated in the world around us. And that is all without even taking into account how video games allow for the more participatory forms of objectification that we’ve been discussing in this episode. … Paradoxically and somewhat ironically, those who most strongly believe that media is just harmless entertainment are also the ones most likely to uncritically internalize harmful media messages. In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected.”

            And there’s nothing factually inaccurate about that statement.

            Everything you externally consume helps to shape how you see the world (and the worst offender actually for this is advertising). Various norms are continually reinforced through media, cementing them and effecting how we see the world.

            What she is saying here, is be critical of what you absorb so you can question it, aware instead of passive.

            As a non-gaming example of what she’s saying – at Christmas there was an advert on TV by Morrisons or whoever, where the kids came home from uni and the mum went to a great deal of effort cooking it all, and when it was finished the tagline was something like “and the family enjoying the meal I cooked was the best Christmas present of all” (or something like that).

            And fine, some people may feel like that – not saying they can’t or shouldn’t. But that’s being put forward as a ‘typical’ family and ‘typical’ views – i.e, a societal norm. Which millions of people then watch. And it’s meant to appeal to them, so they buy the product. It contributes and reinforces a larger narrative that says the woman *should* cook a large dinner for her family at Christmas, and she *should* be all self-sacrificing about it.

            And no, people who already don’t feel this way or do things this way, won’t do so because Morrison’s depicted it as a normal thing to do. But the people who already feel women should fulfil this role, have just had that belief reaffirmed as normal and natural, because it’s just been viewed as such by millions of consumers. It’s just one shitty advert about Christmas dinner, which in isolation is fairly harmless, but it contributes to a larger narrative about how women are expected to behave.

            Which is not the same as saying someone who shoots in a game will shoot someone in real-life (as Jack Thompson would allege) but way more nebulous concepts and ideas reinforce other ideas and norms if internalized passively and are not challenged.

            (and frankly, good luck on getting some solid scientific data on how every element of society, culture and media effect how we view the world and others and to what extent).

            “Not overtly, no. But through the perception that she is the victim of unique threats and harassment because of her gender (instead of her ideas/actions), and a gaming press eager to reinforce this perception, she is able to shut down criticism of herself by painting all her opponents as misogynists.”

            Well, her opponents have made a pretty poor show of themselves, yes. I don’t think that’s down to the media showing them in a bad light though – there’s no good light to the threats and harassment.

            Again, the answer to that is to engage with her arguments, rather than leaving her death threats/rape threats/phone calls to her house and family etc.

            Opposing views can be taken more seriously when put rationally and calmly and addressing her arguments rather than attacking her personally. I’m not saying they don’t exist, but they tend to get lost under the deluge of hate and rage.

            Of course the argument can be criticised – that’s precisely what you’re supposed to do!

            But that said, your arguments will not be off to a good start if you’ve misrepresented or misunderstood the other persons position. All open to interpretation, of course, but I don’t think Anita has ever held up all of gaming as being hostile to women (though I would say a vocal minority of the gaming community certainly are). She’s just identified the tropes being used (which is not all games, just the ones being cited that contain them).

            Additionally, failing to identifying the tropes that show stereotypical or regressive depictions of men is not a flaw in her argument . Because the scope of her study, as outlined, is representations and tropes of female characters in games. Not including them within that scope is not the same thing as saying they don’t exist. They just aren’t being studied here. The table is completely open for someone to do a study of that if they so choose.

          • Alex Reynard

            >Well, there’s been a photo of her with a stack of games under the caption research material. It could be doctored I guess, but that certainly led me to believe she’s bought games.

            Maybe. But her videos show no great knowledge of having played them. Again, she steals other YouTubers’ playthroughs instead of showing her own. She could be posing with someone else’s collection for all any of us know.

            >and I don’t view it as an attack on the medium, so we’re at an impasse regarding if it’s a contribution or not.

            Saying that a medium is riddled with misogynistic messages against women is an attack. How can you view it otherwise?

            >I don’t think Anita’s central message is that video games cause real-life harm. Respectfully, I think that’s a misinterpretation.

            How can you say that!? That’s the core message of her entire series! She was even saying that back in her Feminist Frequency vids! And YOU MAKE THE SAME CLAIM YOURSELF JUST A FEW PARAGRAPHS LATER!! To me, it’s incomprehensible that you could say something like this.

            >Your point re: Hitman is valid if you lose points; losing points by killing strippers is discouragement. I see no problem with you challenging her premise on that particular point on that particular game.

            Allright. Good.

            >I don’t think there’s any shaming of people who play or create them, even if they do contain sexism or misogyny.

            “I don’t think” is basically giving me your opinion in place of an argument.

            >Oh, sure, if she was citing a study or something making claims that video games encourage real-life misogyny

            She does!! YOU do!!! WTF!?

            >And there’s nothing factually inaccurate about that statement.

            Sure there is: “viewing media that frames women as objects or sexual playthings, profoundly impacts how real life women are perceived and treated in the world around us.”

            What profound effects? By whose standards?

            And objectification is nothing but an unproven theory anyway. It’s an idea repeated so often that people take it as face value as a fact. But I see no evidence of it. A stripper is not objectified because she is exchanging services for money; she has agency in a capitalistic transaction. Women are not objectified by media portrayals of women, because when men see a photo of a woman; an object, they humanize it. Not the other way around. I see this idea of objectification used mostly as a tactic to demonize male sexuality, since the concept could equally apply to any of the many ways women use men for sex or money, yet the accusing finger is never pointed in that direction.

            >Everything you externally consume helps to shape how you see the world (and the worst offender actually for this is advertising). Various norms are continually reinforced through media, cementing them and effecting how we see the world.

            That’s like saying that reflections in mirrors are more real than the objects they reflect. Culture mirrors humanity’s standards and values. While there is somewhat of a feedback loop, for the most part, companies want money, and they’re not going to get money by feeding the customer what the customer doesn’t want.

            >What she is saying here, is be critical of what you absorb so you can question it, aware instead of passive.

            Sure, and there’s no problem with that. But it’s simplistic to blame the messenger for the message. It’s wrong to make the assumption that it’s possible to know with certainty (and without research) what effect media is going to have on any given consumers.

            >And it’s meant to appeal to them, so they buy the product. It contributes and reinforces a larger narrative that says the woman *should* cook a large dinner for her family at Christmas, and she *should* be all self-sacrificing about it.

            Or, it reinforced the norm that you’re supposed to buy lots of food on holidays. What annoys me is how so many people leap to the assumption that it’s all about gender and never make any comparisons to see if there are larger reasons for a cultural norm.

            >But the people who already feel women should fulfil this role, have just had that belief reaffirmed as normal and natural,

            So in other words, blame the symptom instead of the root cause.

            >Which is not the same as saying someone who shoots in a game will shoot someone in real-life (as Jack Thompson would allege) but way more nebulous concepts and ideas reinforce other ideas and norms if internalized passively and are not challenged.

            I don’t see ANY SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE between those arguments. We live in a culture that celebrates violence; video games let you simulate violence; video games reinforce the idea that violence solves problems. It’s the same damn argument. I see no rise in violence corresponding to the rise in popularity of video games, so I throw out Jack’s argument. I see no rise in misogyny corresponding to the rise in popularity of video games, so I throw out Anita’s argument too. In fact, weren’t video games rising in popularity along the same approximate time period when feminism was?

            >(and frankly, good luck on getting some solid scientific data on how every element of society, culture and media effect how we view the world and others and to what extent).

            In the absence of that data, I choose to believe the null hypothesis; that video games do not make people any more misogynistic than it makes them violent. Largely because I *have* seen studies showing that most sane people have the ability to compartmentalize fantasy violence and real violence. I see no reason why they wouldn’t do the same with fantasy misogyny and real misogyny.

            >Well, her opponents have made a pretty poor show of themselves, yes. I don’t think that’s down to the media showing them in a bad light though – there’s no good light to the threats and harassment.

            If the media focuses only on the harassment, as if that is the majority of criticism she receives, and if they frame it as being based on her gender instead of her actions, then that’s dishonest. It ignores that every single internet-famous person alive has gotten horrible things written to them by trolls. Nothing I have ever seen that’s been sent to Anita has been unique. (I’ve been sent just as awful things myself.) Even the ‘punch Anita’ game: someone modded a fighting game so you could brutally murder Jack Thompson. Was that because he’s a man speaking passionately about video games, and his detractors are all misandrists? I am dead sick of people spinning hatred of one individual woman as hatred of all women, so as to diminish the reasons for hating that individual.

            >I’m not saying they don’t exist, but they tend to get lost under the deluge of hate and rage.

            Gee, could that possibly be happening on purpose?

            >but I don’t think Anita has ever held up all of gaming as being hostile to women

            I don’t think the Earth obits the sun. See how true that is?

            >Additionally, failing to identifying the tropes that show stereotypical or regressive depictions of men is not a flaw in her argument . Because the scope of
            her study, as outlined, is representations and tropes of female characters in games.

            You just said that this is not wrong because it’s not wrong.

            Well, you’re wrong. Completely. GENDER ROLES ARE INHERENTLY INTERCONNECTED. Despite this endlessly-harmful narrative that gender roles primarily hurt women and primarily benefit men, in reality, gender roles give differing but balanced advantages and disadvantages to both genders. Humanity has been almost entirely blind to ways in which gender roles harm men and benefit women, 1) because men complain less about their fates, and 2) because we haven’t had a movement wrench our heads out of normality and say this isn’t okay, which is what feminists have succeeded in doing with women’s roles. You cannot fairly talk about the damsel in distress without also talking about the trope of the one good man who’s expected to slaughter hundreds of identityless evil men, risking his life to save a woman he doesn’t even know. This is a narrative that explicitly reinforces the notion that a woman’s life is worth far more than a man’s, but Anita skips over that part. This is like a biologist studying only the females of a newly-discovered species. Or someone trying to study the tides without acknowledging the moon. Anita is being ASTRONOMICALLY dishonest by only presenting one side of an issue that affects men and women exactly the same. She is being sexist beyond belief to place all the blame on men, all the victimhood on women, and remain silent on all the ways her own arguments prove the opposite. Her reasoning leads to innumerable other conclusions than the ones she chooses to present. And that’s because she chooses her conclusions beforehand, then roots around for ways to justify them. That is not how real research is done. That is how every kind of pseudoscience, conspiracy theory, religion, and other assorted bullshit are formed. Knowledge can only be gained by looking at the evidence, comparing it without bias, and concluding only what the data leads to.

          • luci_fer

            OK…

            “>and I don’t view it as an attack on the medium, so we’re at an impasse regarding if it’s a contribution or not.

            Saying that a medium is riddled with misogynistic messages against women is an attack. How can you view it otherwise?”

            She was looking at how women are represented in games. In quite a lot of games, she found examples of various tropes – such as the damsel in distress.

            Now, I’m not saying games are the only media to exhibit that trope, and neither, I assume, is Sarkeesian. Just that she argued they existed in the games she cited.

            That doesn’t mean the game is automatically invalidated for having that trope, or that there might be more positive aspects to that individual game aside from having the trope.

            Bringing it up that they’re there isn’t an attack. Asking people to think about why they’re there isn’t an attack, either. Preferring that they weren’t there and better ways of representing characters were in those games isn’t an attack, also (or censorship).

            She’s highly critical of the use of the tropes themselves, yes. But that doesn’t mean the game itself is bad and can’t be enjoyed. And it certainly doesn’t mean all games are bad or that they ALL depict women in a regressive or patronising manner, nor does it mean all gamers are sexist for playing them.

            It is not a study about all aspects of gaming. It’s a study about tropes that represent women.

            “How can you say that!? That’s the core message of her entire series! She was even saying that back in her Feminist Frequency vids! And YOU MAKE THE SAME CLAIM YOURSELF JUST A FEW PARAGRAPHS LATER!! To me, it’s incomprehensible that you could say something like this.”

            Eh? Where did I say that?
            I play games all the time so I can’t think they encourage real life misogyny :|

            “”I don’t think” is basically giving me your opinion in place of an argument.”

            Alright. But you’re presenting your opinion that she is shaming people, and I’m presenting my opinion that she isn’t.

            To put it in terms of an argument then –
            Please provide examples to back up your claim that Anita shames people who play video games. That by simply playing a video game, you are a bad person. Because I haven’t seen her say that.

            “Oh, sure, if she was citing a study or something making claims that video games encourage real-life misogyny

            She does!! YOU do!!! WTF!?”

            What study am I citing that claims this? :|

            Well, as far as I understand the word ‘objectification’, it means viewing a person as an object. To view someone as an object is to dehumanise them by default. Which makes sense to me as you can’t be an object and a human at the same time.

            “That’s like saying that reflections in mirrors are more real than the objects they reflect. Culture mirrors humanity’s standards and values. While there is somewhat of a feedback loop, for the most part, companies want money, and they’re not going to get money by feeding the customer what the customer doesn’t want.”

            Well, how the relationship between culture and the individual functions, and to what extent one influences the other is theory, of course. Though I’m not sure culture and humanity’s standards are two distinct entities that you draw them to be.

            If culture is simply a mirror of humanity’s standards, what influences and creates humanity’s standards?

            With regards to advertising, it’s not a matter of feeding the customer something that the customer doesn’t want, or just appealing to them, it’s often trying to create demand.

            Re: the advert I mentioned – it isn’t about blame. It’s trying to make the point that she isn’t talking about one person playing one specific game, then that altering or warping their minds. And I’m not talking about – or blaming – one advert for any possible sexist messages. It was to try and make the point that our culture, en masse, taken as a whole, expressed in our media – in adverts, magazines, tv, the internet – all the external information makes a difference to how we, the individual, see the world and how we see other people – particularly if you don’t question the culture around you and receive it all passively, and especially if certain ideas are repeated over and over again – they then seem normal. (i.e cultural norms).

            The idea of cultural norms is best emphasised by comparison to another culture. They may do things differently to what you are used to that will seem weird and not normal. Because the things in your culture have been repeated so often to you, and you didn’t question any of it; it’s just normal.

            “I don’t see ANY SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE between those arguments.”

            One is saying that you are unable to distinguish between fantasy and real-life, and will believe that if it’s ok to shoot someone in fantasy, it’s ok to do the same in real-life as well. You may then do this in real-life.

            The other is saying that if you continually hear the same thing over and over again without questioning it, you may (inevitably) start to view it as normal, natural and right.

            One is a direct monkey-see-monkey-do process that assumes everyone will copy what they see.
            The recommended solution is to ban the things that can be copied, so they don’t pose a danger.

            The other is talking about a more complicated idea of becoming inured to cultural norms.
            The recommended solution is to think critically about the media you consume.

            “In the absence of that data, I choose to believe the null hypothesis; that video games do not make people any more misogynistic than it makes them violent.”

            I don’t disagree. Video games have never made me misogynistic.

            “If the media focuses only on the harassment, as if that is the majority of criticism she receives, and if they frame it as being based on her gender instead of her actions, then that’s dishonest.”

            Right – I don’t think it is dishonest, I think it would’ve been taken a lot better received if a guy had said “hey, let’s have some stronger female characters in games” and then presented arguments why – because my partner has said that, often and publicly, and garnered no controversy whatsoever. So I think both her being a woman and a feminist have contributed to being seen as ‘an outsider’ and ‘an attacker.’ But that said, if you are correct and the media genuinely are misrepresenting things… that dishonesty would surely be down to the media outlet in question.

            “Nothing I have ever seen that’s been sent to Anita has been unique. (I’ve been sent just as awful things myself.) Even the ‘punch Anita’ game: someone modded a fighting game so you could brutally murder Jack Thompson.”

            Well, sadly, no, it’s not uncommon. But what does seem fairly unique about Anita in particular is the sustained level of harassment. She received harassment with the advent of her kickstarter, at the mere suggestion of studying tropes, before a single video was ever made. Now however many months on people have threatened herself and her family to the extent she had to leave her house.

            Which is ridiculous, surely we can agree on that.

            “>Additionally, failing to identifying the tropes that show stereotypical or regressive depictions of men is not a flaw in her argument . Because the scope of
            her study, as outlined, is representations and tropes of female characters in games.

            You just said that this is not wrong because it’s not wrong.”

            The point was simply to say, the title of her project wasn’t “studying representation and tropes of male and female characters in games”. If it was, and she had completely ignored the male ones, there would be a problem with project. But given she said, from the outset, she was going to look at representations of women – that is the reason there’s no male characters.

            Not a conspiracy, or that she believes men aren’t represented in any harmful ways – or that they are. She hasn’t commented either way. They just aren’t what she’s studying.

            Saying “There are regressive stereotypes of women [here] [here] and [here]” is not the same thing as saying “There are NO stereotypes representations of men in existence.”

            “GENDER ROLES ARE INHERENTLY INTERCONNECTED.”
            I agree, that’s how I view it in real-life.
            But that doesn’t mean you can’t choose to take any aspect of that and talk about it specifically without having to talk about all of it.

            “Anita is being ASTRONOMICALLY dishonest by only presenting one side of an issue that affects men and women exactly the same.”

            No, she would be being dishonest by telling everyone she was going to study gender tropes that effect both men and women in games, and then only looking at the ones effecting women. She’s been upfront about what she wants to study, and that’s her choice.

            There is plenty of room for people to do projects on depictions of male characters in video games and the various tropes that exist and offer some commentary on this; particularly in the ways with which the video game male protagonist may have changed or varies from culture to culture (such as Bishonen). I’d be quite interested in seeing that.

            There’s also plenty of room for people to do projects on the depictions of both male and female characters in the same or similar/equivalent tropes – as you suggest.

            But it’s not Sarkesian’s responsibility to make them, or incorporate them into her original project as stated. Nor has she been dishonest by not doing so.

          • Alex Reynard

            >Bringing it up that they’re there isn’t an attack. Asking people to think about why they’re there isn’t an attack, either. Preferring that they weren’t there and better ways of representing characters were in those games isn’t an attack, also (or censorship).

            Focusing only on the negatives is an attack.

            Having watched Anita’s videos, I cannot offhand think of one instance of her holding up a good example of something that breaks the mold she’s describing. I haven’t seen her offer solutions. Contrast her with Extra Credits. That’s a series that looks critically at video games, but doesn’t dwell only on the negative. They regularly feature games that they think you’d like playing. They highligh what’s good about the industry. They do charity work. I haven’t seen Anita do any of this. HER CRITICISM IS NOT CONSTRUCTIVE. For that reason, it is an attack.

            >Eh? Where did I say that?

            “But the people who already feel women should fulfil this role, have just had that belief reaffirmed as normal and natural, because it’s just been viewed as such by millions of consumers.” Here’s the plainest instance I can find of you saying it.

            >I play games all the time so I can’t think they encourage real life misogyny :|

            Do you, or do you not, believe that the Christmas commercial you mentioned reenforces a sexist social norm? Would not reinforcing norms that are sexist encourage misogyny? Especially in someone who is already misogynist and, as you say, this belief is now reinforced for them?

            >Alright. But you’re presenting your opinion that she is shaming people, and I’m presenting my opinion that she isn’t. Please provide examples to back up your claim that Anita shames people who play video games. That by simply playing a video game, you are a bad person. Because I haven’t seen her say that.

            “Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters. It’s a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal, connected to the active controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality. ”

            Considering that she is saying this in regards to a moment in Hitman:Absolution where she does something the game actually docks you points for, but then describes it with this kind of language, I cannot help but see this as an attempt to shame players and developers, rather than accurately report what she’s viewing. In the video, she kills some women, drags one of them around in a circle, and acts as if this is a normal game mechanic. (Thunderf00t responded that after watching 40 Let’s Plays of this scene, not one other player acted like this.)

            >If culture is simply a mirror of humanity’s standards, what influences and creates humanity’s standards?

            Biology (to an extent which almost no one is willing to amit), parenting, peers, relationships and culture. Culture is just one factor of many.

            >With regards to advertising, it’s not a matter of feeding the customer something that the customer doesn’t want, or just appealing to them, it’s often trying to create demand.

            Sure. But it does this by piggybacking on what the customer already believes. So many beauty products imply that you’re inadequate, ugly or old-looking if you don’t use their products. Do you think consumers would stand for such insults if they didn’t already have these thoughts in their mind? And if the advertisers didn’t position themselves as being their savior? “You KNOW you’re not good enough, that’s why you need our new magic product!” It’s slimy as hell, but it succeeds because it’s a near-human universal to never feel content with what we have, to always worry about getting old, and to worry that we’re losing our looks (for women) and our ‘performance’ (for men).

            >Re: the advert I mentioned – it isn’t about blame. It’s trying to make the point that she isn’t talking about one person playing one specific game, then that altering or warping their minds. And I’m not talking about – or blaming – one advert for any possible sexist messages.

            Just because you’re making a nuanced argument doesn’t prove Anita is.

            >It was to try and make the point that our culture, en masse, taken as a whole, expressed in our media – in adverts, magazines, tv, the internet – all the external information makes a difference to how we, the individual, see the world and how we see other people – particularly if you don’t question the culture around you and receive it all passively, and especially if certain ideas are repeated over and over again – they then seem normal. (i.e cultural norms).

            Well, sure. But as I said, that’s just one factor among many. Unless you’re a complete social outcast who gets most of your knowledge of the world from TV and games, most of your beliefs about other people will come from other people.

            People like Anita dissect media and call out tropes without ever asking, ‘Why is this trope common?’ Ideas are like organisms; there is a survival of the fittest to them. An idea that persists in the human mind may not be true (may even be the farthest thing from the truth), but it persists because it resonates for some reason. Just calling these tropes misogynistc doesn’t _accomplish_ anything. It doesn’t help us to understand where they come from or why. And, as I said, especially if you’re not offering any solutions or good examples, then all you’re doing is just screaming, “I don’t like this! Somebody else change it!”

            >The idea of cultural norms is best emphasised by comparison to another culture. They may do things differently to what you are used to that will seem weird and not normal. Because the things in your culture have been repeated so often to you, and you didn’t question any of it; it’s just normal.

            I get that. I fully understand the danger of normalcy, and people doing things just because that’s how they’ve always been done. But pointing out bad ideas which have become accepted through normalcy is only the FIRST STEP. Anita, even if she is right, is still not saying anything useful.

            >One is saying that you are unable to distinguish between fantasy and real-life, and will believe that if it’s ok to shoot someone in fantasy, it’s ok to do the same in real-life as well. You may then do this in real-life.
            The other is saying that if you continually hear the same thing over and over again without questioning it, you may (inevitably) start to view it as normal, natural and right.

            You’re making these two ideas seem different by using an extreme example in the first half and a more vague one in the second.

            You can compare the claim that video games make you think shooting is okay to the claim that video games make you think rape is okay.

            You can compare the claim that video games normalize the idea that conflict is a successful problem-solving strategy to the claim that video games normalize traditional, obsolete gender roles.

            Comparing one from colun A and one from column B is an unfair comparison. You’re simplifying Jack’s argument to make it sound worse and giving more nuance to Anita’s argument to make it sound better. At their core, they are still the same argument: that you get your morality in a warped form from the media you consume. Both of their arguments ignore the fact that humans share a largely-consistent morality and would not normally be prone to violence or misogyny. Neither do comic books encourage juvenile delinquency, neither do rock lyrics encourage suicide.

            >The other is talking about a more complicated idea of becoming inured to cultural norms.
            The recommended solution is to think critically about the media you consume.

            What if I think critically and come to the opposite conclusion that Anita does? You say that Jack’s solution is banning; I say there’s not a substantive difference between an overt ban, and a collusion between gaming media, gaming devolopers, and an audience of ideologues to sink the career of someone who commits wrongthink through coordinated accusations of misogyny.

            >I don’t disagree. Video games have never made me misogynistic.

            How do you know that’s not a common outcome for other gamers?

            >Right – I don’t think it is dishonest, I think it would’ve been taken a lot better received if a guy had said “hey, let’s have some stronger female characters in games” and then presented arguments why – because my partner has said that, often and publicly, and garnered no controversy whatsoever.

            Probably because that’s a reasonable position, and it’s also not what Anita has said. This is the same tactic as when Christians tell me, “My religion is nothing more than having a personal relationship with the lord. Who could be offended by that?” In saying that, he pretends that all the baggage attactched to that belief isn’t there, and he’s just being picked on by haters. You’re also ignoring the fact that plenty of women have said they’d like to see stronger characters and haven’t been harassed for it. Because they haven’t ALSO said the kind of divisive things Anita has.

            Also, has Anita ever defined what, to her, is a “strong” female character?

            >So I think both her being a woman and a feminist have contributed to being seen as ‘an outsider’ and ‘an attacker.’

            I see no evidence of that at all. I think she’s seen as an outsider because she has never been a part of gaming itself; she is a media critic. She has also admitted on video that she is not a gamer. And I think people see her as an attacker because, like I said, she offers no solutions or good examples, only negativity.

            >But that said, if you are correct and the media genuinely are misrepresenting things… that dishonesty would surely be down to the media outlet in question.

            Sure it would. (And I’m glad to see game news sites being bombarded by gamers with questions about why so many of them push an incomplete narrative about Anita.) But Anita is guilty also, of misrepresenting herself and the games she talks about.

            >Well, sadly, no, it’s not uncommon. But what does seem fairly unique about Anita in particular is the sustained level of harassment.

            Evidence, please. I’ll bet Rush Limbaugh has been getting more hate mail than Anita for possibly longer than she’s been out of high school. I’ll bet the threats Anita gets are _dwarfed_ by what Obama or W. Bush recieve. There is NOTHING unique about a person saying things which many people disagree with getting lots of shitty online comments. TheAmazingAtheist has made videos about the harassment and threats he recieves. Richard Dawkins has too.

            >She received harassment with the advent of her kickstarter, at the mere suggestion of studying tropes, before a single video was ever made.

            Not true. She had been making dozens of videos for months beforehand. There was a massive body of Feminist Frequency videos for people to watch and come to the same conclusion I did: she’s an ideology-driven liar. She had disabled comments on all of these videos. And she CHOSE to enable comments just before the Kickstarter announcement. Gee, I wonder why? If she’d just kept those comments closed, she wouldn’t have had any examples of her harassment to show off to create the perception she’s a threatened damsel in need of rescue and money. Oh, wait…

            >Now however many months on people have threatened herself and her family to the extent she had to leave her house.

            Where’s the evidence? Her word? Do you realize that Zoe Quinn has made that exact claim within mere days? And both of these women are under intense scrutiny right now for their part in a massive web of corruption amongst game journalists and game developers? Seems awfully damn convenient to me. Especially considering that the tweets Anita showed off, there is a lot of reason to believe they’re a hoax.
            http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/819/481/9fe.png
            http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/819/436/22a.jpg

            >>The point was simply to say, the title of her project wasn’t “studying representation and tropes of male and female characters in games”. If it was, and she had completely ignored the male ones, there would be a problem with project. But given she said, from the outset, she was going to look at representations of women – that is the reason there’s no male characters.

            My point was that the original choice to focus on female characters is pointless and sexist. Why? If you’re going to highlight women, allright, but not to the extent Anita has done, which is to act as if female characters exist in a vacumm. She offers no comparison between female and male tropes, and female and male treatment. You cannot reach a conclusion with no control group. And it’s dishonest to claim that an aspect of gaming is a female problem if it also affects men just as much and you choose not to mention that.

            An example of this (and again I bring this up) is her talking about how awful it is that you can kill and drag around female corpses in Hitman:Absolution. She does not mention that you can kill, drag around, and UNDRESS male corpses in the same game. This is what I mean by comparison being NECESSARY. She is making the game seem misogynistic by leaving out important details showing that the game devs actually gave the female characters more dignity.

            >Saying “There are regressive stereotypes of women [here] [here] and [here]” is not the same thing as saying “There are NO stereotypes representations of men in existence.”

            It is, on a practical level, if you intentionally withhold information showing that men are affected by the same stereotypes you indicated against women. Lacking that vital data, the viewer is left to conclude that these stereotypes are affecting only one gender. In other words, I could point out that [x] amount of women are killed in plane accidents every year, and frame this as a women’s issue, and choose not to reveal that the same number of men (or more) die from plane accidents.

            >No, she would be being dishonest by telling everyone she was going to study gender tropes that effect both men and women in games, and then only looking at the ones effecting women. She’s been upfront about what she wants to study, and that’s her choice.

            Being upfront about prejudice is still being prejudiced. “I’m going to make a video series about how [blank] affects my ethnic group and only my ethnic group, without offering any larger context that would help the viewer understand how my group is affected in relation to other groups.”

            >There is plenty of room for people to do projects on depictions of male characters in video games and the various tropes that exist and offer some commentary on this; particularly in the ways with which the video game male protagonist may have changed or varies from culture to culture (such as Bishonen). I’d be quite interested in seeing that.

            People _have_ done that. How many of those are highlighted the same as Anita’s work? How many Kotaku articles are about them? Have you actually looked for such projects?

            And, I can make my own series and ALSO criticize Anita’s poor research too.

            >But it’s not Sarkesian’s responsibility to make them, or incorporate them into her original project as stated. Nor has she been dishonest by not doing so.

            It is her responsibility to report her findings accurately. And if she doesn’t, then people have a right to be angry about that. If she wants to make a video series about women and gaming, then she ought to make one that 1. does not misrepresent her subject matter to force it into agreement with preset conclusions, 2. doesn’t withhold necessary information, 3. offers solutions, 4. highlights positives as well as negatives.

          • luci_fer

            My response broke disqus. It’s too big. So it’s broken up into sections/broad topics of response (but they’ll overlap somewhat – sorry)

            On Criticism= attack, and offers no solutions or anything worthwhile/ Creative development and being open to criticism:

            “Focusing only on the negatives is an attack.”

            I don’t agree. There are other reasons to be critical than to want to
            attack or demonize something. Wanting it to improve something is
            one.

            If any critical thinking is rejected as attacking, all you will be left
            with is an incestuous echo-chamber of people thinking the same way as you do – that things are fine as they are and should remain
            so.

            Which doesn’t seem like a good way for a creative medium to develop. (Which to me would involve being open to criticism, not intolerant of it).

            I’m aware you said that you found it baffling and shameful that she was presented an award by developers. But perhaps (some) developers feel that having broader, more diverse feedback, both in content (not the things we are usually concerned with in games; the graphics, gamplay,mechanics etc), demographic (not the safe 14-19 male demographic who are widely catered for) and style (from a lit-crit theory perspective, rather than a ‘how enjoyable is this for me’
            perspective) is fundamentally worth-while from a creative
            perspective.

            We can keep repeating the formula of bro-shooter 2025, or fifa 2030 (and in fairness, The Sims 2700 and Final Fantasy 302857, which are less gendered and have something of a broader demographic) – and people will undoubtedly still buy them, and that’s all fine. But variety,and improving creatively as well as technically, are also important.

            Or they are to me, at any rate.

            To think otherwise (that we should just have the same things repeated for the same people, and people just play games for fun so it doesn’t matter anyway) is to overlook gaming as a truly unique and exciting medium that offers things no other medium can – i.e, games can place you into a world and allow you agency, to explore and make your own decisions within that world.

            ( please note, a willingness to both accept and allow diverse criticism and view it as constructive is, again, not necessarily agreement with everything she says).

            It may well be a ‘first step’ but that doesn’t mean that it’s not
            constructive, that it’s pointless, not saying anything worthwhile or
            an attack.

          • Alex Reynard

            I think we’ve reached an impasse.

            I’m talking about Anita Sarkeesian’s methods, and your responses are about Anita’s intentions.

            I have nothing against legitimate criticism (of *anything*!). I have nothing against a wider variety of games. These are things which Anita claims to want, but I know from lots of experience that claiming to want something does not guarantee your methods will be effective in achieving it. I’m not against Anita because of her goals. I’m against her because she’s DISHONEST. I firmly believe that a lie is like poisonous soil that no lasting good can grow from. And lying in service to a noble goal is possibly the worst kind. Because if someone can attack that lie, it then undermines the entirety of the cause.

            Let me put it this way: I am very much a supporter of animal rights. Consequently, I hate PETA more than I can express. Because those hypocritical lunatics have been so stupid with their tactics, they’ve succeeded only in tainting the very idea of animal rights with craziness. People see PETA’s work, think that’s what animal rights activism is, and they dismiss the concept.

            This is how I feel about Anita. When you can fact-check her videos and find that she’s misrepresented a half-dozen or so games every episode, and when she gets caught stealing content from other people, or when she makes dubious claims that she’s uniquely harassed and threatened solely because of her gender, all of that hurts what few good points she may make. She is NOT a good ambassador because of this exact reason.

            What you’re doing here is describing a perfect, alternate-world Anita whose actions match her words. And I don’t have any problem with that Anita; I have a problem with the real Anita. This reminds me a lot of how I found myself appalled at seeing Christopher Hitchens’ support for the war in Iraq. Here was a man whose intelligence amazed me, and he was supporting such an obvious clusterfuck. Well, when I actually listened to his arguments, it became clear. What he was actually in support of was an idealized, competent war to depose Saddam Hussein, and he listed many good reasons why that deserved priority. I understood now. Christopher was imagining the war the way *he* would fight it. Not the way George W. Bush was. And similarly, you are telling me what you would do if you were Anita. And that’s not what I’m arguing against.

          • luci_fer

            I don’t think she’s lying.

            I’m not telling you what I’d argue if I was Anita, I’m telling you that my interpretation of her words is that she isn’t saying video games cause rape, or words to that effect.

            I think what she’s saying is, that games contribute to the larger narrative that all media are engaged in; the relationship between media, culture and the individual.

            My interpretation of her words is different to your interpretation of her words.
            Which is fine.
            It makes neither of us liars if we genuinely believe our interpretations.

            I’d also add you don’t *know* the real Anita.

            Which is why it’s better to engage with the arguments, rather than the person, and also why trying to argue authorial intention is flawed.

            I’m not trying to tell you what I think she intends, I don’t know that. I have no ability to see into her mind. I can only tell you how I’ve understood her words.

            I haven’t told you what I’d do if I was Anita. My arguments would not be the same as hers. I disagree with her on several points.

          • luci_fer

            On criticism is limited and misleading by only talking about one side of things/Should be broader/Should include men/Extra Credits, Star
            Wars/Arguing all side vs arguing your side (pt 1):

            “Having watched Anita’s videos, I cannot offhand think of one instance of her holding up a good example of something that breaks the mold she’s describing”

            She does a bit actually – I think she mentions some indie games that have done certain things she’s talking about well, but it’s a very brief mention and I’m afraid I can’t point you to the video in question (not without being bothered to look through them all, anyway!)

            That said, we aren’t at the end of her video series. Complaining there are no good examples of representations of women is premature. If you go look at her kickstarter, she’s currently (roughly, I don’t think she’s stuck entirely to the schedule) on video 5, women as background decoration.

            Positive Female Characters is suggested as video 11.

            https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games

            “Contrast her with Extra Credits. That’s a series that looks
            critically at video games, but doesn’t dwell only on the negative.
            They regularly feature games that they think you’d like playing. They
            highligh what’s good about the industry. They do charity work. I
            haven’t seen Anita do any of this. HER CRITICISM IS NOT CONSTRUCTIVE. For that reason, it is an attack.”

            Heh
            :) I like Extra Credits, I subscribe to them on youtube.

            But complaining Anita isn’t Extra Credits seems pointless. As you say,they look critically at video games. Anita isn’t looking at video
            games as a whole. She’s looking at tropes in video games.

            For that reason, if she finds tropes that are regressive or sexist in
            SOME games (or even most games) it does not mean they are in ALL games – nor does it mean there are not positive aspects in that game aside from that trope, or that the game itself shouldn’t be enjoyed or isn’t positive in other respects.

            It just means she’s studying tropes.

            I’ll use another example outside games: when I was in High School, my teacher started talking about representations of women in books,
            films and tv – the idea of a gender stereotype (he didn’t use the
            word ‘trope’). He was talking about it specifically in sci-fi and
            fantasy if I recall correctly (the geeky subscultures that I
            enjoy).

            “Not Star Wars though!” I interrupted him. I fucking loved Star Wars
            and would brook no criticism. The things I loved about Star Wars (and all sci fi/space opera, fantasy) was the escapism – how it was so
            ‘out there’ compared to other real-life situated dramas, the
            mythology of it (and the scope of that mythology – all the worlds and
            creatures created) the beauty of it, the adventure and the fun of
            lightsabre battles.

            What about Princess Leia? She seemed progressive to me – she was sassy, spunky, shot people with a blaster, stoic in the face of being threatened with torture and imprisonment. Contrary to the usual representation of Princesses (i.e Disney) as ultra feminine dress wearers with romantic ideas (which, to my sexist teenaged brain at the time, already made them fairly useless).

            He raised an eyebrow at me “…Star Wars is one of the worst
            offenders.” He replied. He didn’t go into examples, and just
            left me to quietly fume that he said something bad about something I
            liked.

            I don’t know what his points would have been – but I can guess:

            Who needs to be rescued at the beginning of the first film? Princess
            Leia. Given they’re brother and sister, and both have jedi potential,
            how come it’s automatically Luke who gets to be the hero? Who needs saving later, from Jabba in Return of the Jedi? Leia. What was the point of representing her collared as a slave-girl in a chain mail bikini? (Clue: It wasn’t to increase drama and tension and make it ‘gritty’ that Leia is being humiliated and enslaved).

            And of course the above isn’t entirely ‘fair’ on all points to Star
            Wars. For example – Han needed rescuing too! But there isn’t
            already an underlining trope of the mercenary anti-hero who needs
            rescuing. There is already an underlying trope of princesses who need rescuing.

            I’m now 30 and I still enjoy Star Wars – and feel no shame for doing so. The things I loved about it as a kid; the escapism, the mythology,
            the scope and adventure are completely unaffected by the knowledge that the representation/handling of the Leia character, while in some ways counter to a ‘Princess’ stereotype, are in many others ways ‘problematic.’ (I also still like Leia, plus, y’know, it was made in the 70s).

            But writing a paper entitled: ‘Princess Leia: The Damsel in Distress in a Galaxy Far, Far, Away’ discussing Leia’s representation as a
            stereotype wouldn’t need to talk about Han – at all. (It could, but
            it doesn’t have to). And what it definitely doesn’t have to do, is
            address all the things I loved about Star Wars, all the ‘good’ things
            about it to be fair. It’s scope would be limited to the subject
            brought up in the title of the paper.

            Essentially saying that you would rather she also looked at gender
            representations of men in games, and wanted her to discuss games more broadly as Extra Credits do, is saying you would’ve rather she’d done a different project. Which is an opinion your entitled to, but it probably makes more sense that somebody else does that (who wants to do it) rather than demanding she changes the scope of her original project or that to study one thing and not another (however interrelated those things are) isn’t valid.

          • luci_fer

            On Criticism is limited and misleading by only talking about one side of things/Should be broader/Should include men/Extra Credits, Star
            Wars/Arguing all side vs arguing your side (pt 2):

            “She offers no comparison between female and male tropes, and female and male treatment. You cannot reach a conclusion with no control group.”

            And she doesn’t have to. It’s also…not that kind of study (such as a
            psychological study). You don’t need a control group for media
            criticism.

            “It is, on a practical level, if you intentionally withhold information
            showing that men are affected by the same stereotypes you indicated against women.”

            Choosing not to study something is not the same as ‘intentionally witholding information’. She does not have to be the source of information of a broader topic than the one she has decided to study.

            “the viewer is left to conclude that these stereotypes are affecting
            only one gender.”

            Then that’s a leap of logic made by the viewer.

            If the viewer had read that the project was only concerning itself with
            one thing (representations of women in video games), the viewer would then understand why the study is only concentrating on that thing – and that commenting only on that thing makes no other comment on all the other things.

            (in the same way that writing an essay about the representation of
            Princess Leia, and having half of it about Leia and half of it about
            Han, would make no sense).

            “In other words, I could point out that [x] amount of women are killed
            in plane accidents every year, and frame this as a women’s issue, and choose not to reveal that the same number of men (or more) die from plane accidents.”

            Ok,you could, but that would be an issue with misleading statistics, not choosing a particular study topic.

            She could simply be interested in representations of women in media in general. It is not ‘unfair’ or prejudiced to have that interest or want to study it.

            “People_have_ done that. How many of those are highlighted the same as Anita’s work? How many Kotaku articles are about them? Have you actually looked for such projects?”

            And that’s fantastic that they’ve done that, then. And no, they haven’t received the same attention. Perhaps now they will, as people like yourself who argue that representation of men in video games is equally important and should be talked about, can bring them up. That extends the conversation and is a good thing.

            But, additionally, it opens the door for people to kickstart their own
            projects, which will allow them to have similar production and
            resources to do a media-critic video style approach, if they so wish.

            “What if I think critically and come to the opposite conclusion that Anita does?”

            Then that’s obviously utterly and completely fine,
            provided you engage with her arguments rather than attacking her as a person. To do so is ad-hominem, a fallacy, which will undermine your own arguments.

            The point is to discuss. Anita’s arguments are not the end of the discussion, nor should they be.

            (As I said, I don’t agree with every point she makes. That doesn’t mean she shouldn’t be allowed to present them, or that doing so is invalid).

            “And,I can make my own series and ALSO criticize Anita’s poor research too.”

            Of course.

            And seeing problems in her arguments can inform how you want to frame your own.

            “It is her responsibility to report her findings accurately. And if she
            doesn’t, then people have a right to be angry about that.”

            Alright, but you’re demanding a level objectivity from something fairly
            subjective. Her findings are her point of view – her argument. She’s
            framing them with theory and backing them up with clips. It’s
            positing something.

            If her arguments are faulty, if she’s misunderstood or taken an example out of context as part of her argument, it’s fine to point that out and include it in your own arguments or counter-arguments.

            Being angry if she has done so makes little sense. Feeling entitled to that anger makes less.

            There was once a feminist interpretation (it just happened to be a feminist one, but it could have just as easily been a marxist interpretation, or post-structuralist or w/e) of a comic book that I disagreed with. I argued that she took it out of context, because looking at the series as a whole shows something different than what she concluded.

            Getting angry at that person for making (what I considered) a flawed argument would have been pointless (and given it was in an academic format, as Sarkeesian is trying to emulate, I
            would’ve failed if I’d started ranting, because it’s not generally
            considered helpful to any larger debate). Instead, I incorporated it
            into my own arguments.

            As an aside, I used to get red pen on my essays that said ‘judiciously argued, but you don’t need to argue both sides’. You literally don’t. I liked to be ‘fair’, as you put it, and felt I needed to demonstrate all sides of an argument before I could come to any kind of stance on it. But this tends to be inadvisable within constraints if you want to look at something within any depth (as you lose focus in a 2000 word paper – or a 10 minute youtube video).

            It’s perfectly fine and legitimate just to make *your* argument, and let others make theirs.

            “If she wants to make a video series about women and gaming, then she ought to make one that 1. does not misrepresent her subject matter to force it into agreement with preset conclusions, 2. doesn’t withhold necessary information, 3. offers solutions, 4. highlights positives as well as negatives”

            She can absolutely limit her analysis to just exploring how women are represented and has no obligation to do otherwise, whether you believe she ‘ought’ to or not. Doing so is not misrepresenting or withholding information.

            Stating she’s kickstarting a project to look purely at representations of women in games, and then deciding to look at both men and women in games, would be misleading.
            (Additionally, not that she has to, but how do you know she has no
            plans to do another project under this topic in the future?)

            She isn’t withholding the information. The information is not held by
            Anita Sarkeesian. Anyone can play the games themselves and reach their own conclusions.

          • luci_fer

            On Misogyny/The advertising example/Relation between individual and culture/Skyrim and beheadings:

            “But the people who already feel women should fulfil this role, have just had that belief reaffirmed as normal and natural, because it’s just been viewed as such by millions of consumers.” Here’s the
            plainest instance I can find of you saying it.”

            How have you interpreted me saying that to mean I believe video games can cause real-life harm?

            The advert example was used to demonstrate/explain how it’s *not* saying video games cause real-life harm, and it’s a more complex
            relationship involving social norms being reinforced.

            Social norms that come from somewhere, not a vacuum. (i.e they don’t originate either from any specific game, or even any specific advert- but media taken AS A WHOLE, as does EVERYTHING external to us, has a role in shaping what we think and reinforcing what things we see as normal).

            It’s not saying “games, as a medium, will cause people to be
            misogynistic” – or even this one particular advert will.

            But anything you read/watch/play – even look at on a billboard, is likely to add to a larger narrative reinforcing an idea (what ever that idea may be) if you a) already think that idea is harmless and normal to begin with and b) are not in the habit of challenging the ideas
            presented to you (i.e you absorb media passively, rather than
            critically).

            How have you taken that to mean games are harmful as a medium?

            “Do you, or do you not, believe that the Christmas commercial you
            mentioned reenforces a sexist social norm? Would not reinforcing
            norms that are sexist encourage misogyny? Especially in someone who is already misogynist and, as you say, this belief is now reinforced for them?”

            Yup.
            If they already think it’s normal, hearing it again multiple times
            from various sources is going to reinforce it as normal. Including
            that advert.

            But that isn’t the same as saying the Christmas commercial created or causes that sexist social norm (instead, it came out of the society
            and culture that produced it – and is a part of the society and
            culture that produced it). It also doesn’t mean that this Christmas
            commercial, in and of itself, will then cause anyone to be
            misogynistic in turn. (and, importantly, it doesn’t mean my
            interpretation of that Christmas commercial is the same as
            everyone’s).

            “Biology (to an extent which almost no one is willing to amit), parenting,peers, relationships and culture. Culture is just one factor of many.”

            Parenting, peers and relationships are not distinct from culture, though. They all have social contingents. Biology has a role, and the extent is debatable, sure. That said, arguments emphasising the role of biology tend to come under criticism for being deterministic and reductionist. (i.e boil us down to the sum of our parts).

            “So many beauty products imply that you’re inadequate, ugly or old-looking if you don’t use their products. Do you think consumers would stand for such insults if they didn’t already have these thoughts in their mind? And if the advertisers didn’t position themselves as being their savior?”

            Sure, and that’s what I’m saying about reinforcing norms that already
            exist. But where does those thoughts and insecurities come from in
            the first place, where does an idea of a beauty standard, for
            example, come from? I think you’ve succinctly worded the concept as a (continual) feed-back loop but may be underestimating it’s role.

            You can, of course, argue that I am overestimate it’s role. as I said,
            there are theories to all degrees (Freud, Bakhtin, etc) so the extent
            can be debated (as well as chicken-and-egg style arguments of
            importance and that [x] informs [y]). That a relationship exists at
            all, though, between society, culture and the individual, I would’ve
            thought is a solid premise?

            “Well, sure. But as I said, that’s just one factor among many. Unless you’re a complete social outcast who gets most of your knowledge of the world from TV and games, most of your beliefs about other people will come from other people.”

            yes! Exactly. One factor among many, and many is going to include other people – i.e society. But. We have norms and standards that are reinforced by both external factors such as media (games, tv shows, tv news, newspapers,magazines, books, films, advertising, internet etc etc) AND from our peer groups, parents and so on and so on.

            But that’s the cultural and social in cultural and social norms – the idea of something being reinforced as ‘normal’ also ties in a little bit with the idea of ‘common sense’ – and the idea it doesn’t need to be
            interrogated because it’s so obviously true because so many people
            believe it. (Which is not to say all social norms are inherently BAD
            or anything like that, just that it’s a reason why we sometimes don’t
            challenge them).

            This is the example you gave as exactly the argument that playing a game could then warp you or make you copy it:

            “In other words, viewing media that frames women as
            objects or sexual playthings, profoundly impacts how real life women
            are perceived and treated in the world around us. And that is all
            without even taking into account how video games allow for the more
            participatory forms of objectification that we’ve been discussing
            in this episode. … Paradoxically and somewhat ironically, those who
            most strongly believe that media is just harmless entertainment are
            also the ones most likely to uncritically internalize harmful media
            messages. In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the
            more likely you are to be affected.”

            See, I don’t think she’s saying playing something then makes you misogynistic here, I don’t think that’s her argument. When she’s saying “viewing media” I don’t think she’s specifically talking about games – particularly as she then later mentions games specifically as
            participatory as a distinction. So media can be meant in a more
            general sense, which games are a part of.

            She then says that framing women as objects and playthings in the media (as a whole) profoundly impacts the perception and treatment of women. And yes – as one of our external sources, the media in general doing this is going to impact perception – i.e continues to reinforce that doing this is ‘normal’ to those who already think this, continue to justify various thinking. It’s also not invalid to then suggest our thinking influences behaviour.

            (though, here again, it isn’t one-way and our behaviour and those of others also influences our thinking).

            In the last point she makes the point I’ve made about passivity vs critical thinking – if you absorb ideas without challenging them, continually, they become normalized. i.e “uncritically internalize harmful media messages.”

            So she’s grounding things on these fundamental ideas, and applying that logic to games. I don’t think she’s saying playing a game that has a sexist or regressive representation in it will make you attack women or think that it’s ok, if you already don’t. That is an
            interpretation of her argument, but it’s not a charitable one, and I
            think it simplifies what she’s saying here. (Though, as stated,
            there’s a problem re: simplification with the medium she’s chosen to
            use to convey the ideas, e.g youtube vids).

            “How do you know that’s not a common outcome for other gamers?”

            I don’t. But from my personal experience I find it unlikely that
            watching something violent, and then being violent, is a common
            outcome.

            An example. Skyrim. I have a character who duel wields axes. In Skyrim, you get a nice slow-mo animation when you do a special attack, and one of my absolute favourites is when my character stops, puts both axes to someone’s neck, pulls both across and beheads the npc,execution style.

            I get a child-like glee from doing this. I tap my partner on the
            shoulder so he can see. “Look, look!” I urge “You’ll
            miss it!”

            “You’re sick,” he responds, as an npc’s head falls off and rolls away
            down a scenic hillside. (he always turns round too late).

            And,yes, well, maybe the amount of delight I get from doing that isn’t
            entirely healthy, who knows.

            But I’ve never even thought about buying a couple of axes and doing the requisite act in real-life. It’s not even remotely likely I ever
            would.

            For the first point, I feel empathy with people in real life who are not
            made of pixels, because I’m not a psychopath. For the second, I’m
            actually quite squeamish – I’m unable to watch hospital dramas that
            are too realistic. Part of the joy of Skyrim here is that, despite
            the good graphics, it’s clearly escapism.

            I’m a (relatively) well adjusted adult and I know the difference between fantasy and reality.

            Obviously I cannot say the same of everyone, but it’s probably, hopefully, largely the case. (and I would think, if someone is genuinely unhinged enough, anything may be enough trigger a psychotic axe-wielding attack. Skyrim would be fairly low on the list,
            though).

          • luci_fer

            On The Hitman Examples – continuation of a theme:

            “Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters. It’s a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal, connected to the active controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality.”

            Well, that’s her interpretation that it’s a very deliberate design feature, with an intended specific reaction from the player (“players are meant to derive”). I’ll admit if her interpretation was correct,
            that would be somewhat shameful (and cynical) on the part of the
            developers to do that. So perhaps that example does indeed shame the people who created them.

            However, this falls squarely on assuming authorial intention or ‘The
            Intentional Fallacy’, in attributing the intentions of the developers
            and what they meant the players to derive. I would agree her argument is flawed in this example for this reason.

            That said, I never felt shamed personally as a player, by her arguments overall, which explicitly states you can simultaneously find *an aspect* problematic, but still enjoy playing the game. (See the Star Wars post for an example of how this is possible outside of gaming).

            “Considering that she is saying this in regards to a moment in Hitman:Absolution where she does something the game actually docks you points for, but then describes it with this kind of language, I cannot help but see this as an attempt to shame players and developers, rather than accurately report what she’s viewing. In the video, she kills some women, drags one of them around in a circle, and acts as if this is a normal game mechanic.”

            Well, I conceded the validity of the point in our last exchange
            regarding the game docking you points for doing something as
            discouragement, rather than encouragement.

            Re: normal game mechanic though, I could be wrong, but I think she made the argument somewhere that – from a design perspective – you choose what behaviours – what parameters if you like – the players are contained within; e.g the rules of the game world.

            I suspect she is more coming from the perspective that the designers have allowed this behaviour to exist within the game world through deliberate choice, i.e that you *can* do it, rather than what the majority of most players would choose to do in various
            situations.

            (And I have my own opinions on this re: player autonomy and the potential for moral choices. I won’t go into them, because that would be moving further away from what we’re discussing).

            “An example of this (and again I bring this up) is her talking about how awful it is that you can kill and drag around female corpses in
            Hitman:Absolution. She does not mention that you can kill, drag
            around, and UNDRESS male corpses in the same game. This is what I mean by comparison being NECESSARY. She is making the game seem misogynistic by leaving out important details showing that the game devs actually gave the female characters more dignity.”

            And it’s fine to bring that up, and it’s fine to say that element is
            missing from her analysis; that she’s taken this example out of context and therefore the point she’s making about it is flawed.

            What’s less reasonable or valid is to say “I want her to study tropes concerning men AND women!” because what she chooses to study as a topic is up to her and looking at one particular aspect to something in-depth (i.e those specific tropes) is completely reasonable. It’s not dishonest or unfair to do so.

            If you feel doing this is saying it only happens to female characters,
            not male ones then the obvious rebuttal is to make – or reference – a
            project that has done so.

          • luci_fer

            On Nuance and simplification, The Jack Thompson vs Anita Sarkeesian debate:

            “Just because you’re making a nuanced argument doesn’t prove Anita is.”

            Aw.
            Well, thanks. I am, admittedly, taking up a lot of word-space to try
            and do so, though.

            And no, it doesn’t prove anything, other than you think she’s not and I think she is and we’re both arguing our reasons why we think what we think.

            (and I do think she is making a nuanced argument, that the things I’m trying to get is essentially what she’s saying, but one problem is
            some of the nuance is going to be lost in trying to condense
            information and theory and trying to make it accessible/easily
            understandable. That is A Problem, purely in medium rather than
            message, in what she is trying to do here).

            “You’re making these two ideas seem different by using an extreme example in the first half and a more vague one in the second.”

            Sure, but not dishonestly. They are very different to me, and I do think his view is extreme, and Anita’s more nuanced.

            “You can compare the claim that video games make you think shooting is okay to the claim that video games make you think rape is okay.”

            Of course, you can compare those two disparate statements. But as
            lengthily discussed above, I do not believe that Anita is claiming
            that video games make you think rape is ok. It’s a more complicated
            idea of reinforcing social norms and an interrelation with
            culture.

            “Comparing one from column A and one from column B is an unfair comparison. You’re simplifying Jack’s argument to make it sound worse and giving more nuance to Anita’s argument to make it sound better. At their core, they are still the same argument: that you get your morality in a warped form from the media you consume.”

            You can compare many different claims, yes, but we were talking about two specific peoples arguments – the points of view they are getting across. I don’t think I was simplifying Jack Thompson’s arguments to make it sound worse. I think that is exactly his argument, and the reason he has CAMPAIGNED for violent video games to be banned.

            This is a man who will talk about something like a school shooting
            tragedy, something which is going to have a range of reasons for
            happening, from cultural reasons (such as the gun culture in America) to specific individual reasons (the state of mind of the individual) and, on finding out this one specific person played a violent video games – (like millions of people do who do NOT shoot other people in real life) will immediately jump on that and make the (highly illogical connection) that the reason this person killed people, was because of the influence of the violent video game this person
            happened to own.

            Anita Sarkeesian is not making the same arguments from the same position. She isn’t rifling through the video game collection of convicted rapists and saying “aha! evidence of why he raped!” nor is
            she campaigning that any game that uses sexist tropes should be
            banned. If in discussing the future of games as a medium, she is
            positing that representations of women being more positive would be a good thing, and more variety of those representations would be a good thing, she is not saying that broshooter 390820 shouldn’t exist or have a demographic that enjoys it, or that games should be ‘dumbed down’ or ‘feminized’.

            Yes, she’s saying it can reinforce norms – as all media can, of course she is, and of course it does. But that isn’t the same as claiming it’s a linear relationship between one game and one person where someone views a murder or a rape, and they then copy that behaviour in real-life or view it as acceptable.

            I’m representing Thompsons argument as simplistic and Sarkeesian’s as more nuanced because I think they *are*.

            “Both of their arguments ignore the fact that humans share a
            largely-consistent morality and would not normally be prone to
            violence or misogyny. Neither do comic books encourage juvenile
            delinquency, neither do rock lyrics encourage suicide.”

            Of course comic books don’t encourage juvenile delinquency or rock
            lyrics encourage suicide – and those themselves are stereotypes. But they are part, as discussed, of a wider media. So, let’s say, rock
            lyrics talking about a woman being property contributes to an idea
            that women are property. Then, this is reinforced by a comic book
            showing her this way. And a game, and a film, and an avert. Etc
            etc.

            Also, as discussed, even hearing and seeing this multiple times, and even having that reinforced by your peer group, will not change your mind if you already view this stance as unacceptable. If someone already views women as people with agency, not property, viewing something that says otherwise will not change their mind – they will criticise it and question it instead.

            Which is the point about being critical, rather than passive, of media.
            You will not become ‘warped’ if “not normally be prone to
            violence or misogyny”, but if you already see women as property
            as a norm, and that norm is continually reinforced, at what point are
            you going to question it’s validity or engage with the idea
            critically?

            “You say that Jack’s solution is banning; I say there’s not a substantive difference between an overt ban, and a collusion between gaming media, gaming devolopers, and an audience of ideologues to sink the career of someone who commits wrongthink through coordinated accusations of misogyny.”

            Ok, and I disagree.
            I think there is a big difference between an overt ban and one person studying tropes in video games.

            I also think linking the two things together (banning something and studying a topic) is potentially, a very bad idea and will, in fact, (ironically) stifle discussion and conversation.

            I do not agree that someone deciding to study representation of female characters in video games (which is no different to studying representation of female characters in books or films, which happens all the time) is “a collusion between gaming media, gaming developers and an audience of ideologues to sink the career of someone who commits wrongthink through coordinated accusations of misogyny”.

            That sounds a bit paranoid and conspiracy theory-esque to me, and fairly unlikely (as does the idea that she’d fabricate her own harassment).

          • luci_fer

            On Harassment and Reception:

            “You’re also ignoring the fact that plenty of women have said they’d like to see stronger characters and haven’t been harassed for it. Because they haven’t ALSO said the kind of divisive things Anita has.”

            I think that kind of *is* what she’s saying though, by showing a bunch
            of stereotypes of women who are helpless, useless or objectified,
            she’s saying wouldn’t it be nice if they were active, more realistic,
            fully realised 3 dimensional, believable characters. Rather than
            stereotypes.

            Which is not overly different to what my partner wants. And no, he hasn’t said everything else that she’s said, of course not, but the idea in itself, as you say, is a reasonable one.

            It isn’t censoring, demanding political correctness or feminizing games to want these things. It’s actually wanting more sophisticated and complex characters and plot devices. (which also doesn’t mean simpler stuff cannot still exist).

            The difference, also, between my partner and perhaps the plenty of women not being harassed for it, is profile and scale. My partner said this in a gaming forum, but amongst a fairly high age group (Eve-Online, and most of the players are probably 20-40 so in their 30s on average). Anita Sarkeesian, on the other hand, was picked up by media outlets and her profile was raised; many, many more people saw her views than ever saw my partners, and not a specific group or age demographic.

            But that said, I certainly find it difficult to believe my partner
            would’ve been seen in the same way – as a hostile outsider – for
            voicing similar views. And therefore his treatment would’ve been
            different.

            “I see no evidence of that at all. I think she’s seen as an outsider
            because she has never been a part of gaming itself; she is a media
            critic. She has also admitted on video that she is not a gamer. And I
            think people see her as an attacker because, like I said, she offers
            no solutions or good examples, only negativity.”

            You can both play games as a hobby AND be media critic, they aren’t mutually exclusive activities. Additionally, there is a difference
            between enjoying games and self-identifying as ‘a gamer’ – I see that
            label as anyone who plays and enjoys games, personally. So I see
            myself as a gamer.

            But many identify themselves under a label of ‘elite’ sub-culture of broski’s who play ‘hardcore’ games. (Which would mean I’m not, plus the only ‘shooters’ I really like are left4dead, payday and unreal tourney).

            I don’t agree she offers no solutions (and there has been some specific examples – I think at one point she demonstrated how you could have a story involving a princess escaping under her own agency as a way you could challenge the trope without being part of it) and the validity of her examples are open to debate.

            “I’ll bet Rush Limbaugh has been getting more hate mail than Anita for possibly longer than she’s been out of high school. I’ll bet the
            threats Anita gets are _dwarfed_ by what Obama or W. Bush recieve. There is NOTHING unique about a person saying things which many people disagree with getting lots of shitty online comments. TheAmazingAtheist has made videos about the harassment and threats he recieves. Richard Dawkins has too.”

            Right.
            and what relative power to Obama and Bush have compared to
            Sarkeesian, who is one person doing a study on tropes representing
            women in video games?

            I like TheAmazingAthiest and find a lot of what Dawkins has said
            interesting (particularly re:abortion), but they don’t shy away from
            making controversial statements, particularly against religion.
            (Which is not saying any real-life harassment they receive is right,
            or justified, of course).

            But in what universe is a study project on tropes representing women in video games controversial enough to warrant the level of harassment she’s received? It’s the level of disproportionate reaction which is, if not unique, certainly odd.

            Particularly when doing precisely the same thing that when applied to literature, rather than games, garners no controversy whatsoever?

            Perhaps then the issue becomes not *what* she’s saying, but who she’s saying it *to*.

            “>She received harassment with the advent of her kickstarter, at the mere suggestion of studying tropes, before a single video was ever
            made.

            Not true. She had been making dozens of videos for months beforehand.There was a massive body of Feminist Frequency videos for people to watch and come to the same conclusion I did: she’s an ideology-driven liar.”

            Ok.
            I’ll rephrase. What I intended to get across here was “she
            received harassment with the advent of her kickstarter, at the mere
            suggestion of studying tropes in games, before she created a single
            video about those tropes in games”.

            Which is true. I wasn’t referring to the videos she made before involving tv shows (or w/e) rather than games. What this shows, is people are willing to prejudge before she’s actually produced any content *on this specific topic*. And that the harassment wasn’t based on the content of her arguments in that specific topic – because she hadn’t made them yet.

            I would also wonder why, if having watched a series of her discussing how women are portrayed in other media, film and tv (or whatever), people would then make the argument that she is singling out or attacking games in some way?

            The perspective that arguing from a particular stance you don’t agree with can be automatically equated with lying is dogmatic. It’s mostly points of view, not true or false statements.

            “She had disabled comments on all of these videos. And she CHOSE to enable comments just before the Kickstarter announcement. Gee, I wonder why? If she’d just kept those comments closed, she wouldn’t have had any examples of her harassment to show off to create the perception she’s
            a threatened damsel in need of rescue and money. Oh,
            wait…”

            Presumably, because wading through the abuse wasn’t something she was interested in doing. I would do exactly the same thing in her position. It doesn’t seem unlikely or unusual to me.

            Not sure about your final point there at all. So she should’ve kept quiet about the harassment and not told anybody? Why shouldn’t she call them out? The behaviour is inexcusable.

            I don’t remember her claiming that because she’s been harassed, she needs additional money for her kickstarter. But it raised her
            profile, and many people heard of what she was doing who wouldn’t
            have otherwise done so, and thought, WTF? She’s getting that much hate just for wanting to study something?! And then decided to
            contribute.

            Additionally, whether I disagree with any of her points of view or the ideas she raises, does not mean I wouldn’t defend her right to argue them. Because I also have a right to argue back, if I so choose. And I value having that.

            I’m not going to talk about Zoe Quinn in depth as that’s going to move the conversation (which incase you haven’t noticed, is already fairly lengthy) in another direction. Other than to say, like with Sarkeesian, I condemn the abuse she’s received or any notion it’s acceptable or she deserves it.

            If there’s an issue with journalistic integrity, then that issue should
            be looked at, sure. But without harassment or abuse or attack.

          • luci_fer

            …also, on the topic of Extra Credits, here is Daniel Floyd talking about Story and Narrative in Games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jdG2LHair0&list=PLFA6389395ACC2E42

            there’s some really good points in here that I think are relevant to this debate; particularly re: innovation and moving forward in a creative medium.

  • Dracology

    Anita bugs the hell out of me because she brings up valid things to discuss but does them in such a terribly argued way that any discussion starting with them is already off to a bad start. Her observations are bland, the clips she plays often cherry picked and stripped of context that would make them less demonizing, and ultimately she just.. doesn’t even know her basic stuff.

    And the truly scarey thing is that the people who support Anita can be just as bad as the people who harass her. Some of them just cannot process the notion that someone can be critical of Anita while also being pissed at the harassment she gets. And so out go the hate tweets and wishes of someone killing themselves or getting murdered. You got truly terrible on both sides, but the narrative doesn’t allow for more than one group of bad guys.

    Anita get’s a lot of credit for “starting dicussions” But it’s akin to someone yelling fire in a theater and thus getting people talking about how terrible theater fires are and fire safety. She might have started a discussion but not in any way that is helpful or worth praising.

  • steelcapped rage

    A moron wrote this article. A moron who uncritically swallowed Sarkeesian’s bullshit.

  • Zachary Michaels

    Greetings from Badass Digest! We’ve recently had a bit of a fedora infestation, and it seems to have come from much the same place that yours is! Jordan himself showed up! We called him a fuckface and he threatened to put our mean comments into his documentary. It was awesome.

    • dan

      You’re pseudo-intellectual hacks who couldn’t get a real job reporting for a publication that matters so you spew your SJW twaddle online to an audience of stupid 15 year olds and pseudo-intellectual first semester college students who know nothing of how the world is supposed to work.

      • Zachary Michaels

        *farts*

      • Kirk Vaughn

        “Know nothing about how the world is supposed to work. Me man, me strong, me win. No women allowed.”

      • Kav P

        Ha ha ha, you said “twaddle”.

    • Megamatics

      Your kind of antics are the exact thing that don’t further discussion, that site is just polluted with malcontents. They did nothing but launch insults contributing to the toxicity. I appropriately baited them even more simply because I wanted to see how deeply they could delve into the pool of toxic waste. It’s disgusting, and some even tried to use rape to further their arguments. Discussing there just became a joke.. I couldn’t take any of you seriously.

      • Kav P

        WE’RE DOING IT FOR THE LULZ WHY CAN’T YOU TAKE A JOKE

        • Megamatics

          Because it’s not a joke to me. Are you trying to have a discussion or throw it under the bus ?

          • Kav P

            Why so serious? You really need to lighten up about this. No one is trying to destroy the world of gaming for you – it’s just evolving into something awesome as it starts to be treated as a serious medium. :)

  • Krissy Aldrich

    Everyone who becomes a public figure on the internet is subject to scrutiny and criticism and Anita since her arrival on Youtube has heavily controlled her Youtube channel. At the beginning she allowed comments on her videos but they were on approval only and if you read the comments of her videos they were absurdly positive.

    She was criticized early on in her Youtube career for very apparently not having viewed the media that she criticized this is the biggest no-no as far as media critique that there is. She heavily censored comments, I commented a few times to voice my criticism, I did my best to be respectful and those comments were never published or responded to. Much was the same with many comments I’m sure. Eventually she figured out that by banning comments altogether she could get the control she really desired over her image.

    Her channel has never been about a discussion even among feminist thinkers. Her channel has always been about lockstep agreement, never once has she posted a response video to any of her critics, never once has she directly contended with any of her critics. Even her most civil critics, even her critics that agree with 90% of her views don’t get a response if you criticize Anita, the most you can hope for in terms of a response is a tweet alluding to the situation but not directly referencing it.

    Real activists confront criticism head on. Anita is NOT an activist. She is a fluffy media confection to forward an agenda, if this were discussion or theory she would contend with her critics.

    • Kirk Vaughn

      Her you tube comment censorship is to stop the wave of death and rape threats. It isn’t all that difficult.

      • Morde#1

        Except when it stood to benefit her right? Because, when her kickstarter opened up, mysteriously, comments were opened without moderation, because it finally benefited her monetarily. Not everyone that criticizes her hurls insults at her and actually, and this may come as a shock to you, but they do it with tack, you know, not calling people morons in a wanna be “article” like this crock.

        • Keosegg

          Oh you sweet summer child.

          Sarkeesian’s Youtube channel was BARELY KNOWN before she started her Kickstarter, so barely anyone commented on her videos. I’m sure she received hate mail, just not much.

          But when she started her Kickstarter, suddenly EVERYONE knew her and they were ALL commenting on her videos.

          That’s when the death and rape threats started EN MASSE and so she disabled the comments.

          As was her right.

          • utera

            Which is the false narrative, she’s let slip that she knew of 4chan before kickstarter, it was a slip up when her original narrative was that she had no idea of this group. She clearly manipulated the situation for her own ends. This was a professional victim who generated her own controversy for her own advantage. She has no interest in answering criticism, lets not pretend its out of fear of “comments”. Lets not lower our standards that low just because she’s a woman. She deliberately does this because she has no intention of answering criticism, its entirely part of her game plan, the fact is she can’t answer criticism at all, her videos and her deliberate dishonesty are just not anything one can defend with a straight face, and so she doesn’t, she makes every appearance about her victimhood, because that was her original intent. Why would someone who has been caught on video confessing her dislike of video games, someone who was not a fan of video games actually care about arguing about video games, no, she uses this issue as a tool to peddle her feminist agenda, which is how she makes her money, as a feminist “victim” figurehead who goes on speaking tours.
            And lets not pretend we don’t live in a world where this is the way these people work. When meg lanker simmons, a prominent feminist blogger actually resorted to making threats against herself when she couldn’t find what she needed when going after a site she didn’t like, you know this is just a tactic people use now. Its just not geniune, and we should stop pretending it is.
            I mean seriously when girls like Malala Yousafzai who get shot in the head for going to school don’t fear to speak out about real issues of oppression in the world, its really pathetic when people make excuses for women like Anita who use some nasty comments on the internet to hide the fact that they can’t answer any legitimate criticism. This incredibly low standard for integrity for women by certain groups of people is really the bigotry we should be talking about. That is the true problem no one is addressing.

          • Morde#1

            1. You are right, she became more well known after this
            2. Her kickstarter campaign was posted on 4chan and other various forums and sites, possibly by her, possibly by someone she knows or possibly by a supporter, possibly by a troll, but it caused people to react.
            3. Her comments were actually disabled on two prior videos and the comment section of her Kickstarter video were unmoderated, She knew exactly what she was doing, and you know, it was smart, very smart to do.
            4. Nowhere did I say she had no right to disable comments.

        • Kirk Vaughn

          What? God, I hate the conspiratorial aspect of gamers. Look at her mentions on twitter, she gets tons of hate speech. Do you think just because some people want to try to retort to her intellectually means that she doesn’t get tons of hate speech?

          • Morde#1

            Where did I say she didn’t get hate speech?

    • Jon Stone

      Tell me, what do ‘real activists’ do when most of the ‘criticism’ they receive is in the form of unintelligible abuse and threats to their wellbeing? I think turning my youtube comments off is the least I’d do.

      • utera

        Sorry that is just a lie. And you wouldn’t tolerate it if the media defended Sarah Palin the same way, by constantly digging up some nasty comment on the internet by some democrat somewhere to just disregard any and all criticism of the woman, playing a game of continuous “misogynist say what?” to give her effective immunity from criticism all the while brow beating her opponents based on the most dishonest and disresputable smear tactics out there.

        The fact is many people have legitimate criticisms of her, which cannot be answered, which is why she resorts to damselling herself continuously.

        Its really time for this to stop. Its notable Suey Park of cancel colbert fame tried this exact tactic the second she was called to answer criticisms, only in that case colbert fans didn’t turn in on themselves like gamers obviously have, and so she faded away having been revealed for the fraud she was.

        And you think threats are bad? Sarah Palin had a “reporter” “stalk” her by moving in next door, and did you guys run to her rescue? Imagine if that had happened to St Sarkeesian, I don’t think there would be enough internet around to absorb the screams of rage from the social justice warriors if that happened.

        Anyways.

        This all can be confirmed, and it has been by many youtubers including, Thunderf00t, jordanowen42, internet aristocrat, dangerous analysis, aurini, the fantastic skeptic, investig8tivejournalism, GamingAnarchist and many others who have put out videos debunking her content, and her narrative.

        Links on Anita’s long record of dishonesty
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6gLmcS3-NI
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MQuEjiU2KQ
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqJCCnued6c

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RQIpwi-K9s
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwwFx-tz9TY
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUxcLxClQ08
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Ju-1I1DTU
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk5F-S_hI
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lERF9q40iS0
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrOMP0hJPxA
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7nO9F7okbo
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hie1UFUdSRk
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gHJ_cHr5hA
        https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQJW3WMsx1q3BAZh3XsK1cSwCiaqjSulc
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAHt7RG67Ok
        On why in actuality there are more male protagonists in games and media.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5L2MBPBl3I
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etZRsZP64Xg

        This narrative of the damseled woman is pervasive in modern media and society and is what leads to things like. Susan Wilson who exploited the same narrative for personal gain.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIVhMwqwqdo You will note that after it was found out that people were rushing to the aid of a wealthy woman, there was silence on this issue.
        And its become so pervasive that this need to be dishonest to put on the apperance of being for and protecting women is even perpetrated by men. This video outlines the dishonesty of angry joe, a prominent youtube game reviewer who resorted to the same tactics and narrative.

        Dangerously Analyzed 5: Escaping The Quinngate #GamerGate
        Which is another new video addressing the ethical corruption in the gaming press.
        https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWeZblpq1zeVigPZUOBwMcw

        Dangerous Analysis’s analysis of Anita’s videos.


        His
        criticisms of Anita are hard to argue with, but the problem is that the
        narrative excludes all people like him, its just about Anita’s
        victimhood, and everyone else is a “troll”

        • Jon Stone

          Right, so just to prove your point you’ve spammed this page with a load of youtube videos made mostly by raging misogynists without an ounce of credibility, at least one of which is also a racist.

          And you expect that to convince anyone.

          I’ve watched enough of these to know that they contain not a single ‘legitimate criticism’ – just a load of ranting that relies on misconstruing all of her points.

          Rage on, little boy, because she’s winning, and will go on winning.

          • utera

            Proving my point again. Your blanket dismissal is no better than someone claiming any one who dares question sarah palin is by default a misogynist. That is the broken reasoning you are relying on.

            And yes, just keep going with that immature mentality you are displaying, you are again just proving my case on what kind of people defend this woman.

          • Jon Stone

            Let’s issue this challenge once again: summarise for me, here and now, one single legitimate point you think any of these videos make. Just one.

          • Ston Jones

            I’ll do you two better and give you three:

            1. There is a social agenda being dishonestly pushed by gaming news websites.
            2. There are people dishonestly profiting via cronyism, corruption and favour-trading in the gaming journalism and games development fields.
            3. There is a concentrated effort to silence and ridicule anyone who attempts to criticise, dissent or investigate the above two issues.

          • Ston Jones

            “raging misogynists without an ounce of credibility”

            Only by your very specific and subjective measure of what credibility is.

          • tuym wuystah

            “Right, so just to prove your point you’ve spammed this page with a load of youtube videos made mostly by raging misogynists”
            So let’s play your game then – show me a single case of any of them displaying misogyny. Nay, wait – you said “mostly”, let’s see you show how MOST of them have done that ;)

            “I’ve watched enough of these to know that they contain not a single ‘legitimate criticism’ – just a load of ranting that relies on misconstruing all of her points.”
            You can talk about your credibility and misconstruing all you like – at the end of the day, if challenged to demonstrate your opinion, you’ll fall flat on your face and that’s really what counts.

            “not a single ‘legitimate criticism'”
            You could’ve gotten away with saying “few legitimate criticisms”, at least people might’ve thought you could be generally reasoned with – now, you’ve lost that chance :D
            I’m about as anti-Sarkeesian as it gets and even I can see that she makes sensible points from time to time. Exposing yourself for the zero-input ideologue you are :D

            “Rage on, little boy, because she’s winning, and will go on winning.”
            Are you emulating that viral video with that goatee guy spitting at the camera in his car on purpose? :D

  • Karall

    Believe it or not, you can be critical of Anita and not be a conservative bigot. A few minutes of fact checking and you know she’s talking shit, a few minutes more and it’s obvious she’s a liar and a fraud. How can people act so condescending when they don’t really address any actual arguments? This is just a pile of strawmen and BS.

    • Jon Stone

      So how come with all the fact-checking that’s been carried out, no one has been able to demonstrate that she’s ‘talking shit’ or a liar or a fraud? All I’ve seen is half-baked nonsense spouted by obvious bigots who can’t engage in serious debate to save their life, and that’s being generous.

      Please tell me you have something better up your sleeve than the putrid videos by Thunderf00t and internetaristocrat.

      • dodoking

        I see you on almost every site that talks about anita sarkeesian always spewing the same thing disregarding every evidence and attacking anyone who ANY criticism about anita sarkeesian. NO ONE REPLY TO HIM he gets owned every time and here again pulling the same thing and will again get owned soon enough

        • Jon Stone

          How am I going to get owned if no one replies to me? You didn’t think this through. Seems to be a common ailment.

      • john wainman

        Do you know how to research?

        • Jon Stone

          As with the chap above, I’m obviously going to have to explain this to you pretty clearly, so that you don’t get confused.

          The problem is not that I haven’t read or seen this collection of ‘arguments’ in youtube videos and articles that supposedly ‘debunk’ Sarkeesian’s claims. I have seen/read lots of them. The problem you have is that they consist almost entirely of laughable rubbish, and could only be considered as a convincing argument by someone so blind, so idiotically consumed with hatred for Sarkeesian, that all their faculties of reasoning have melted,

          You know what, John? I can find fault with Sarkeesian myself. I would, in some contexts, argue against some of her points. Just not with utter garbage like “Uh she’s biased because she doesn’t explain that you can NOT kill the prostitutes in Hitman and if you do more enemies come at you.”

          • utera

            Sorry your dismissal isn’t an argument, its verifiable that she lies in her videos, and that her videos rely on trying to mislead people through omission or misrepresentation. We aren’t talking about things which can’t be proven. The woman has gone as far as editing game trailer footage to cut out a male character so she can further her distorted point. By any objective standard she can’t be defended as an honest person.
            Go ahead, disprove thunderf00ts or dangerous analysis’s videos. You can’t, because when they point out her lack of consistency or her cherry picking of evidence, they are dead on.
            She’s not biased, she’s deliberately dishonest. Creationist science isn’t biased, its a lie.

          • Jon Stone

            “… disprove thunderf00ts or dangerous analysis’s videos.”

            You clearly don’t understand what the concept of ‘proving’ or ‘disproving’ means. I take it you mean: demonstrate how thunderf00t gets it wrong. I’ll take just one example. Early in his video he says, scofflingly:

            “She takes a mission where you’re trying to shut down a sex trafficking ring and portrays that as sexist.”

            The idiocy required to misunderstand Sarkeesian’s argument here is off the scale. The whole video is about women being deployed as background decoration and as crude motivation for male protagonists, with no agency of their own. This level from Watchdogs aptly demonstrates that point. But Thunderf00t, being a massive fucking buffoon, can’t understand how it can possibly be a problem as long as the male protagonist in question is saving the women from some villainous type. He seems to think it disproves her point to simply mention that the level in question is about taking down the sex trafficking ring.

            I should also point out that this is a quarter of the way into the video, and it’s the very first point he actually makes. Everything up to then is a mixture of basic assertion and outright slander. The man is a cunt.

          • Andrew

            “The man is a cunt.”

            Misogynist!

          • john wainman

            You need to read your own writing. The accusations you make against those who don’t support her, are the very ones you yourself are guilty of.So, how are you more credible than they are?

      • steelcapped rage

        There’s a plethora of Youtube videos by both men and women debunking Anita’s BS. Like most Sarkeesian supporters, you’re just lazy and dishonest. You DO know how to use Youtube’s search feature, right? Or is that too daunting of a task for you?

        • Jon Stone

          Listen, ‘steelcapped rage’. Let me take this in steps so you can follow it. It might just blow your tiny mind.

          1) Shockingly, I have actually seen the videos you are talking about. The problem here is not that I haven’t seen them.

          2) Alas, because I am not an utterly credulous, critically illiterate moron like yourself, I found that they did nothing to ‘debunk’ anyone. They consisted of the inane ramblings of very, very stupid men who do not understand the basic tenets of reason and critical thinking.

          • steelcapped rage

            Wow, like most recipients of a genetic raw deal (moronic social justice warriors, hipsters and other failed abortion attempts), you’re a snivelling, loathsome twit who tries too hard and fails horribly in the process (as evidenced by your silly reply). Honestly, I can’t expect you to wrap that misshapen head of yours around the facts discussed in those videos as critical thinking is a trait severely lacking among your type (social justice warriors, hipsters, and others who came up “snake eyes” in Mother Nature’s genetic game of Craps). Why do all SJW “males” and hipsters (ultimate betas) look like the kind of guys who would pull a muscle while arm wrestling a Japanese girl? You should kill your parents for not agreeing to do anal on the night of your conception.

          • Jon Stone

            Let’s ignore the physical insults for a moment (which, really, are wasted on me, since I’m very happy with my body) and see if you can manage to give me a single example – just one single example – from any of this in-depth ‘research’ you’ve carried out of one thing that refutes one of Sarkeesian’s arguments.

            Furrow your brow hard and concentrate so that you can stay specific, rather than going off into a muddled generalised rant about misrepresentation.

            (Oh, and to anyone confused by his above rant, ‘betas’ is a term straight out of the MRA handbook – it suggests this chap hasn’t had much luck with women.)

          • steelcapped rage

            I never claimed to have conducted any extensive research. Your butthurt/impotent rage level is so high it has you reading into shit that isn’t even there. You claim to have seen the videos, yet you deny there is anything that refutes Sarkeesian when the videos do just that. What would be the point in posting info already covered in those videos? Videos you claimed to have watched? You’re a snivelling, disingenuous little bitch who now suddenly wants this deep debate after your attempt at delivering insults backfired. You are deserving of only my mockery and contempt .

            Oh and the term “beta” as it refers to males with testosterone levels only slightly higher than Filipino girls in their teens, goes back way before MRAs or the MRM. Last I checked, MRAs reject that term outright since “beta” and “alpha” are seen as female standards set for me. I’m sympathetic to MRAs, but I don’t toe any party line.

            As far as luck with women goes, you’re in no position to speak on it since you’d die a virgin were not for the existence prostitution or some chick giving you a pity/sympathy fuck. You are NOT the kind of dude that makes women moist ‘down there’.

            The SJW femtard wenches you kiss up to are the ones who want to fuck me. Why? They have deep rooted daddy issues and since their fathers are white, they take their daddy issues out on all white males (like you) which manifests itself as some weird form of racial self-hatred. Retarded as fuck.

            They may date you, but when they have itch that need to be scratched, they look in my direction. I’m their ultimate revenge fantasy against the “white male patriarchy” (which they still consider you to be a part of no matter how much you kiss their asses). Who am I? THE BLACK GUY!

            Unfortunately for them, I’m not into them since I actually have standards and my interracial weakness is for Latinas (Puerto Ricans, Dominicanas) and Southeast Asians (Pinays, Lao, Khmer).

            Unless your girlfriend (if you have one) is a racialist of some sort, then she’s fighting the “White male patriarchy” by getting ravished in all three holes by a black dick. Like most beta dorks, you’re an involuntary cuckold.

            I would say that you may as well “go gay”, but based on your appearance, you could walk into a gay bar full of the horniest “hard gays” and NOT ONE OF THEM would even consider buying you a drink.

            If there’s a God, then your existence is proof positive that he enjoys trolling people.

            Ciao!

          • Jon Stone

            How’s that anthropology major coming along, ragey?

          • steelcapped rage

            Better than whatever worthless program you’re pursuing. You know I’m right. >:-D

          • utera

            You clearly haven’t seen them, otherwise you’d have to answer why you continue to defend her when she’s proven to be objectively wrong, she’s proven that she deliberately misleads people without dishonest arguments. This is simply proven, you can’t argue against facts, and then you have to explain just why she has that many “lies” per minute in her videos, you can’t chalk it up to mistakes, or else you’d have to admit she’s grossly incompetent. If she’s competent, then she’s simply dishonest. Its really that simple a choice at this point because you can’t argue against her track record.
            And simply dismissing the factual rebuttals of her videos as “inane ramblings” just shows your opinion is based on belief, not objective fact. No different than how a creationist can never be convinced, no matter how much scientific evidence is brought to bear, they will find a hole, and then immediately be convinced of their own case which has zero evidence at all.
            The problems aren’t opinion, the mountain of evidence against her videos and claims out there debunk her based on objective fact, not opinion, and so it can easily be fact checked. When she misrepresents a game, or cherry picks evidence for a claim in a dishonest way, this all can be confirmed, and it has been by many youtubers including, Thunderf00t, jordanowen42, internet aristocrat, dangerous analysis, aurini, the fantastic skeptic, investig8tivejournalism, GamingAnarchist and many others.
            Links on Anita’s long record of dishonesty

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MQuEjiU2KQ

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwwFx-tz9TY

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Ju-1I1DTU

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lERF9q40iS0

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7nO9F7okbo

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gHJ_cHr5hA

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAHt7RG67Ok
            On why in actuality there are more male protagonists in games and media.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etZRsZP64Xg

            nita Sarkeesian’s lack of integrity is documented by the links in my previous email, beyond blatantly misrepresenting herself as a gamer which was proven false by a video of her talking to a class before her kickstarter, and her videos rely on cherry picking and are made to intentionally mislead people, instead of being informative, its propaganda 101. Its clear her knowledge doesn’t go beyond a superficial wikipedia level but that doesn’t matter, because she only needs enough to misrepresent video games to fit her preexisting argument. His entire narrative of this woman is factually incorrect when there is video of her literally admitting to not liking video games. Just based on the idea of full disclosure and non bias that should have been something to include.
            She misrepresents her own narrative no differently than she misrepresents her topics for discussion. If Anita Sarkeesian were talking about the newest spiderman film she would depict it as a misogynist tale where a woman(gwen stacy) is an “object” to be “abused to death” so the male hero can learn a life lesson.
            Or as GamingAnarchist said in his video, she would describe Django Unchained as “a story of a man seeking ownership of his woman, who has been taken from him by another man. He goes out and earns himself enough money in order that he can purchase the woman from that man. The woman is brutalized whipped humiliated in front of people, she is treated like a dog and less than a human being and yet the man is standing there, watching this happen and doing no action immediately to save this woman. It is a sad indicative sign that our society is a patriachal monster that treats women as objects to be desired and to be obtained by men from men. That these women are nothing but posessions to be bought and sold.”

            Dangerously Analyzed 5: Escaping The Quinngate #GamerGate
            Which is another new video addressing the ethical corruption in the gaming press.
            https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWeZblpq1zeVigPZUOBwMcw

            Dangerous Analysis’s analysis of Anita’s videos.

          • Jon Stone

            “You clearly haven’t seen them, otherwise you’d have to answer why you continue to defend her when she’s proven to be objectively wrong …”

            Wow. Just wow. How can I make this any more clear? Their arguments are shit. They will convince nobody. The only people who believe they ‘prove’ she was ‘objectively wrong’ are people who had already decided she was wrong and were looking for affirmation.

            These are shit videos written by foolish people who have proved absolutely nothing apart from what their own inability to think clearly.

      • spuddicusmaximus

        You really don’t know that she’s talking shit? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Where do you want me to start? Dante’s Inferno, Bayonetta, Dinosaur Planet, Medieval folklore, songs and legends, Barney Oldfield’s Race for a Life, Princess Peach, the prominence of courtesans in history? You’re seriously going to say that no-one has been able to demonstrate that she’s been a bloody idiot? Odd notion you’ve got going there, I must say. I’ve got to ask, how long have you been researching these matters?

        • Jon Stone

          “How long have you been researching these matters?”

          Since I’m not a hate-fuelled misogynist hell bent on taking down women in games, not very long. But then, the ‘research’ you’re talking about consists of watching youtube videos by other hate-fuelled misogynists and failing to notice that their arguments rely on misconstruing every single one of Sarkeesian’s points.

          I’ll issue you the same challenge I’ve issued to someone else. Take just one single point on which you think she’s wrong – not just some wild, flailing assertion of ‘misrepresntation’ – and post it here. One single point. As a sample. Do it. Because I’m pretty sure it won’t be hard to demonstrate it’s a fatuous load of cock.

          • spuddicusmaximus

            Naaaaaaaaaaaaw. I’m a misogynist? Get some better insults, you Daedra worshiping sodomite. Quite frankly, it gets tiresome. Just because I disagree with a pseudo-intellectual nutcase, that does not mean that I hate all women. Must be a really hard concept to wrap your small mind around, so I’ll let it sink in for a bit.

            Have you processed that? Good. One point huh?

            Well, Anita fucked up on Medieval literature. She apparently thinks that the DiD tope was extremely prominent.

            Folklore/songs/legends which do contain DiD:
            Tales of the Elders of Ireland
            Historia Regum Britanniae
            Buile Suibhne
            The Vision of Mac Conglinne
            Somniale Danielis
            The Bestiary of Love
            Book of Taliesin (half was written in the 14th Century, but has poems of much, much older origins)

            Folklore/songs/legends which do contain DiD:
            Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
            Bósa saga ok Herrauðs

            Is that one good point? Or do you want me to write about more?

          • spuddicusmaximus

            Hey, spud. Are you going to reply?

  • dan

    “It is only totalitarian governments that suppress information, in this country we take a democratic decision to not publish the information”
    ~Sir Humphrey Appleby.

  • Cat Blade

    Oh man. The comments are rife with COD fans who are butthurt that no one gives a shit that they are COD fans.

  • Megamatics

    I love how this Project Just tears you SJWs apart. It’s coming out, absolutely you will not stop it with your silly agenda.

    • Cat Blade

      Oh no! What will women like me do? These two idiots will lead the world into a rebellion against us and take all of our gaming privileges away. I say they should make the movie, because it’s safer to shine a spotlight over the predators like them.

      • dan

        Self victimization is for the weak lazy and stupid.

        • Cat Blade

          You obviously can’t detect sarcasm. I’m in no way threatened by fatty mchillbilly and his bald, lispy associate.

          • dan

            I’m talking about people like Anita Sarkesian and their need to self victimize and blame it on everyone else rather than take responsibility for their lies and admit the truth

          • Blade Cat

            Judging people based on supeficial aspects of their appearence?

            That sounds like stereotyping.

      • ZoulKyud

        Ironically Anita herself does not matter and neither do these two guys. Companies will pander to her if it gets them more sales. They will likely change nothing or drop her the moment they get their chance. Youtube is pretty much for entertainment anyway. Social change does not come from youtube or tumblr. No one really cares about either.

        Profit motive is the only thing that will drive change at a company.

    • Dude, I can tell you honestly that gaming journalism, at least on this site, is something we do because we love the culture. We love the people. If you think that journalists like Mr. Lambert or I are earning six figures for our opinions and our research and our reviews, you’re mistaken. Maybe not everyone is in that same boat, but I can promise you, there are more people doing this for the right reasons than there are not.

      And if there is an agenda, will someone PLEASE email it to me? I’d join any resistance to quiet the madding throng of internet trolls.

      • Megamatics

        Controversy garners widespread appeal, and it’s easier when there is a black and white system involved. It’s easy to think gaming is sexist because that opinion is something easy to transpose. All it takes is the general comic book style logic of “what is bad can only mean bad and what is virtuous can only be the truth”. Anita Sarkeesian’s Project is easy, anyone could come up with the same conclusions she has come up with on any day at anytime. That in itself is an awful thing and indicative of Toxic culture, a Toxicity indicative to things like the Witch Trials or a Holy War.
        Don’t be taken back by that obvious comparison… I’m merely quipping to the intent behind it. Totalitarianism became possible only because people were shamed into not challenging the word of the lords. What I see here may not be as bad, but the attitudes expressed towards this project are totally the same… It’s Silly. We know bad people exist in the world, but two guys making an opinion piece are not those bad guys. The case that no one in the media has challenged Anita’s Ideals are the bad guys, they are using the controversy to their favor, and it’s only increasing the toxic attitudes in the gaming community.
        What’s happening for a small facet of the gaming community that actually care is a war that horribly misrepresents many people. We all share this hobby, and when we all can’t speak about something that is supposed to be an issue, then you have an agenda. We’ve avoided that kind of thing for so long but now it’s growing rather tiresome. Lots of people look at gamers distastefully, and it’s only furthering the attitudes against us that we who love to play video games are disgusting.
        It’s not calling for awareness or Change, it’s calling for outsiders to notice us and shame us for the things we like. I hate that, I wouldn’t do the same thing to any person on this planet. Even if that person hates or disagrees with me.

  • Knightwing19

    This is just a smear pieces that bullies and lies to further the agenda of a fraud and the corruption of the gaming media.

  • spuddicusmaximus

    Why am I not surprised that those Twitter comments which you apparently supprt, seem to be from a bunch of bigoted and biased simpletons?

    Le sigh. I may actually start to make videos about Anita as well. Because you guys just annoy me to no end. Almost as much as the creationists. Truth be told, you guys are on the same level of insanity as those deluded bunch of spuds. Get a hold of yourself, use that brain of yours and you may actually learn something. As small of a possibility that is. Personally speaking though, I’m not holding my breath. Mindless defence of half-wits with access to the Internet are what you guys do best after all.

  • Chris

    Hey Liam, it says here that you’re a gamer. Obviously you’re familiar with hitman,right? How on earth can you justify Sarkeesian’s representation of Hitman Absolution??

    “The player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon because they were designed and placed in that environment for that singular purpose. Players are meant to derive a perverse sense of pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting female characters….”

    I may not be quoting verbatim but you can check the accuracy of what I have typed from the original video if you want.

    Now, please tell me how you think Sarkeesian’s position is defensible and that she isn’t full of shit? Or do you actually agree with her that this is what Hitman’s main purpose is?

    I played through that level a few times and almost always I tried to avoid getting detected by the strippers. On the odd chance I did get seen, I ended up knocking/killing minimum number of strippers necessary and hiding their bodies. Its what you have to do to fulfill the mission. It happens over and over again with male characters but that doesn’t bother Anita or you,does it?

    • Lawrence Newman

      Anita is a religionist. There is no valid reasoning behind her assertions, it’s all based on feelings.

      • Chris

        True. But that doesn’t explain why the big names in gaming pander to her. Its easy to see how full of lies her rhetoric is especially for someone who calls himself a gamer like the author of this piece is supposed to be.

        • Lawrence Newman

          Gaming journalists are predominantly millennials who went to liberal arts colleges and got brainwashed with feminism and gynecocentrism. They are simply singing from the same hymn sheet. Journalism attracts psychos.

          • Cat Blade

            I thought the whole point of this Sarkeesian Effect film/movement was to discuss facts in an objective manner. You’ve done the opposite.

          • Lawrence Newman

            If what I said is true, then it’s objective. Just because you disagree with it, doesn’t mean it’s invalid.

  • Lawrence Newman

    Wait …. someone who believes there’s systemic misogyny in videogames, is accusing the makers of the Sarkeesian Effect of conspiracy theories?

    Really?

  • Kaaria Mucherera

    Surprise, Surprise! More bias articles!

  • Mark

    I’m glad the comments are calling you out on your strawmen and bullshit. We gamers are done with corrupt thought polices that use dishonest arguments to further SJW propaganda.

  • Mark

    As expected. Another crony “journalist” trying to trash talk people who dare to have a different opinion towards the cult of feminism, not even bothering doing proper research and merely putting up strawmen and attacking the people making it rather than the content itself. Rather seems kinda racist aswell to judge them by their appearance. Absolutely pathetic article that completely misses the point of this documentary.

  • Eshto

    I wish them well. And I say this as a liberal, a queer person, a person with Women’s Studies courses under my belt: Anita is a fraud. She has no expertise in social science to speak of; she steals content; her videos contain the most simplistic, stereotype-ridden nonsense pretending to be social commentary which is not supported by any social science research; and rather than wanting to diminish trolling and cyber-bullying, she actually capitalizes on them. It’s pathological. It’s the same as the pro-lifer who opposes contraception and anything else that might actually reduce abortion. It’s also the same as the moralizers who spread panic about Harry Potter or Dungeons & Dragons causing people to take up witchcraft and Satanism. Anita is Jack Thompson, she simply accuses games of being misogyny machines rather than murder machines.

    There is no misogyny problem in gaming. (“GASP” go the SJW’s, how dare you challenge our narrative!!) Let me repeat that: There is no misogyny problem in gaming. Is there sexism and racism? Yes of course, because those things exist in society. But what are we comparing gaming culture to? A lesbian bookstore in Portland? The Southern Baptist Convention? You have no idea, it’s just the narrative some ideologues have spiked the kool-aid with. It’s just tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, and I’m sorry for you if you believe it.

    People like Anita, who have no academic background whatsoever in anything relevant to this discussion, go around making grand, sweeping declarations damning gamers and gaming culture, with only random troll tweets as “evidence”. And if you challenge her shitty ideas, her fans are quick to rush in and accuse you of horrible misogyny, rape culture, patriarchy, all the popular SJW buzzwords. Plus, of course, all the typical assumptions and stereotypes about “MRA, Brony virgins living in their parents’ basements”. Hilariously, social justice warriors never met a stereotype they didn’t love.

    So of course Anita gets blowback for this conduct. It’s a dick move, to be perfectly blunt. It’s shitty, unfair and incendiary. If a rightwing demagogue did this, the (largely left-leaning, I presume) gaming journalists would see right through it. But because Anita flies the flag of “feminism”, and I suspect because you actually know nothing about the history of feminism or gender studies or sociology to begin with, you morons eat it up, and even shower her with awards. Pathetic.

    I have never seen this tumblr-style “feminism” or “social justice warrior” nonsense result in anything constructive. It invites Internet drama and flame wars, that’s about it. Which I think is the point, actually. It’s driven by clickbait and call-out culture tabloid “journalism”; and narcissists on tumblr and twitter who want attention. This is not real activism. It’s not addressing, let alone solving, any valid gender-related issues in gaming or popular culture. Most of all, this SJW shit is grossly ILLIBERAL. Liberal values include treating people as individuals, not as stereotypes (BRONY MRA DUDEBROS!!), freedom of inquiry (SHUT DOWN ALL COMMENTS, ACCUSE ALL CRITICISM OF BEING BIGOTRY), valuing education (SHE HAS NO CREDENTIALS, GIVE HER AWARDS) and having a healthy respect for others’ sexuality (VIRGIN SHAMING, HAR HAR HAR).

    It’s all crap. This SJW shit is the Tea Party of the left. We’ve seen in recent days how gaming and tech Internet journalism is actually fairly incestuous. If you only hang out with other Anita fans who sing her praises and like you, are too uneducated to detect her bullshit, you might not realize how out of touch and dishonest she, and her supporters, look to most other people. ESPECIALLY liberals with a stronger educational background in feminism.

    But go ahead and ignore everything here, twist my argument into something boring like “you just hate women!!111!”, and accuse me of being an MRA dudebro and a virgin living in a basement, I wouldn’t expect anything else.

    • Ruben Bañuelos

      Thank you for writing that well worded and thoughtful response.

      • luci_fer

        I completely agree with him.

        But it’s not a matter of censorship, dumbing down, feminizing or accommodating people who are easily offended.
        Sarkeesian isn’t saying “I’m offended, so it’s bad, so change it.”

        She’s studying tropes – gender stereotypes – that represent women in video games.

        Somehow, I doubt Stephen Fry would be on board with harassing and attacking someone for just studying something and making an argument. Because aside from the misogyny angle, it’s also deeply anti-intellectual to respond this way.

        • Ruben Bañuelos

          I really don’t see anyone on their right mind on board with harrassing and attacking someone for anything…

          My point with Stephen’s Fry image was more about the fact that Anita’s work seems more focused to point out things about gaming that she finds offensive rather than attacking some actual issues on the matter.

          Sorry it came out the wrong way.

          • luci_fer

            “I really don’t see anyone on their right mind on board with harrassing and attacking someone for anything…”

            Look around. There’s quite a few arguments flying about justifying attacking her – that she either deserved it, it’s not a big deal or it’s all been fabricated as part of a grand feminist conspiracy to destroy gaming.

            “Sorry it came out the wrong way.”

            No worries. As I said, I’m not a big fan of faux outrage and believe strongly in freedom of speech – so I agree with what he said. We just have a difference of opinion on what Sarkeesian is doing.

          • merri

            I see people explaining why; I don’t see many people at all justifying it. Hell, I’ve been involved and reading this whole thing ever since it started, and I’ve not seen anyone condone that crap, outside of a few random, anonymous people over the course of a year, and those people are constantly shutdown by everyone else. Shit, I have gigs of IRC logs and such where that could be found.

            I think you interpret peoples’ explanations as “justification.”

          • luci_fer

            “that she either deserved it, it’s not a big deal or it’s all been fabricated as part of a grand feminist conspiracy to destroy gaming.”

            I don’t think any of the above are ‘people explaining why’.

          • merri

            I see “particular things were fabricated” and “it’s not a big deal” quite a lot.

            I’m inclined to agree to varying degrees. Firstly, she takes advertises her threats and profits off of them, rather than first going to the police with them, and secondly, some of her previous advertisements were extremely suspect.

            None of this makes anyone “deserving,” and I would like to see where anyone is saying she deserved raped threats.

          • tuym wuystah

            “that she either deserved it, it’s not a big deal”
            If you look at these kinds of threats in a similar fashion you look at fictional violence or phrases like “makes me wanna punch his face”, i.e. violent expression that doesn’t really “stand for” the violence it expresses, and basically amounting to litle more than “nasty over-the-top trash talk”, then both of those sentiments are justifiable.

            Not a big deal indeed, and she “deserved” having a bunch of trash talkers “go at her” in the “standard interwebs language”, essentially just expressing how pissed off / annoyed they are, BY pissing them off with a bunch of condescending lies and bullshit they were already tired of and knew would inevitable take off.

            This perspective makes some sense as that’s the way a lot of those threats are meant (i.e. not literally or seriously, as “expressions”), and a lot of people look at it (or just perceive them as “white background noise”).
            It’s also, um, “problematiac”, cause there are some who do mean it seriously, and some who take it literally, and most of the time which of those ends up being the case on the other side of the line is kind of a gamble.

            I guess the right perspective is that justifying the latter type is disturbing and inacceptable while the former type isn’t even something to be justified – and that problems arise when trying to determine which is which.

            “or it’s all been fabricated as part of a grand feminist conspiracy to destroy gaming.”
            Well that’s not technically “justifying”, is it ;)
            And, yes, it can’t be doubted that she at least exaggerated it, made some “wilful interpretations” of what lies behind it, and also actively shone a bright spotlight on it while selectively dimming the rest.
            Completely fabricating, though? Naahhhhh, those comments are obviously there.

          • luci_fer

            Yeah, I’d agree the comments are obviously there, but I’ve certainly seemed it claimed otherwise. How do we know for sure she isn’t making them up? What is the proof? Etc.

            I think believing in the conspiracy theory does justify her abuse, yes. If you think she’s out to destroy something you love, attacking back becomes justifiable and you start seeing it as a ‘war’ that you’re ‘fighting’, rather than a person you’re harassing.

            Regarding trash talk, I’d agree it’s a common internet thing, though never great when it’s directed by many people at one individual. Though I think it goes a lot further when the fantasy/ rhetoric/bluster ‘I’d like to do x to someone for having an opinion!’ said in passing, is said to the person directly, along with their real address, which has been obtained by people egging eachother on in chans.

            I’m not really sure about the lies and bullshit you say deserves the fantasy/violence/bluster, mind. She made an argument. Disagreeing with that argument is fine, but doesn’t make it ‘lies’. I’m also not sure it was inevitable and that she should have seen it coming or was deliberately winding people up.

            If I decided to look at narrative tropes that use female characters in games, I wouldn’t have expected such level of vitriol. Some maybe (always idiots in the youtube comments) but people threatening my life and doxxing me?…No, not really a response I’d anticipate.

          • tuym wuystah

            “ow do we know for sure she isn’t making them up? What is the proof? Etc.”
            I haven’t kept a book on this so my impressions may be murky, but there were cases of her “publishing” some of those comments that weren’t available publicly (only a few of claimed hundreds and hundreds), and calling them threats while they weren’t real threats but things like “you deserve/should to be …”. Some of those demands for proof may be aimed at the amount óf those comments, as, in some number those comments are always there anyway.

            But yea, not an expert on that as of now :(

            “I think believing in the conspiracy theory does justify her abuse, yes.”
            I meant you said it was “fabricated” as a plan of said conspiracy, so that’s more denial and not really justification :D

            “If you think she’s out to destroy something you love,”
            Well she kinda is, at least to some extent. She’s got some acclaim and influence in the industry, as well as obviously in the press – and should enough people get brainwashed by her nonsense, this might change the gaming scene for worse.

            “is said to the person directly, along with their real address, which has been obtained by people egging eachother on in chans.”
            It does, and that’s where I definitely draw the line as well. However, apparently such things are as good as never followed through, especially given how many celebrities have “available” home addresses and how much shite they get per email, as well.

            “Disagreeing with that argument is fine, but doesn’t make it ‘lies’.”
            There’s a point at which you can look at how someone makes their case, or doesn’t, and how they deal with dissenting voices, and reasonable conclude that they’re being “dishonest”.
            However, I’ll give you that most of the time, telling deliberate manipulation from genuine delusion / ideology blindness is often not as easy, especially seeing as how, with those, the *brain* is essentially *manipulating the person* using very similar tactics.

            “If I decided to look at narrative tropes that use female characters in games, I wouldn’t have expected such level of vitriol.”
            She always finds a way to find “misogyny” in everything, often says it in a judgy, accusatory tone, and then goes on to complain about her “harassers” without ever mentioning the tons of completely reasonable blog rebuttals and video responses she’s received.
            While I don’t really remember her actually pointing at one of those with her finger and calling it “hateful misogyny”, one can’t be blamed for drawing such an implication from her behavior – and whatever she doesn’t say, the press that supports her unquestioningly (like this article) surely fills in.

            Not puzzled at ALL by seeing people pissed off – however, the people I’m familiar with express this frustration in proportional and reasonable terms, and leave no doubts about either their ethical boundaries or their intentions.
            Trolls posting over-the-top threats, even without home addresses (which is the point where the fun REALLY stops), can’t claim such luxury.

            “Some maybe (always idiots in the youtube comments) but people threatening my life and doxxing me?…No, not really a response I’d anticipate.”
            Well I’m not a youtube celebrity, but the ones I occasionally listen to always mention something about nasty death threats at some point, or maybe not everyone but it’s kinda something I’ve been used to hearing.
            Looks like being notable enough and pissing off a bunch of idiots is likely to have this kind of result – go figure. Jack Thompson received them as well, as far as I know.

          • luci_fer

            ‘”I think believing in the conspiracy theory does justify her abuse, yes.”
            I meant you said it was “fabricated” as a plan of said conspiracy, so that’s more denial and not really justification :D’

            Not sure on what you mean here.

            I’m commenting that people who view her in a certain way are likely to see the abuse as justifiable.

            Denying the abuse happens at all, that she has made it all up or claiming it doesn’t matter, is ‘turning a blind eye,’ which is also a type of justification, yes.

            …Why would you think someone is trying to destroy games by making an argument about the character representations and tropes within them?

            (Making an argument about art doesn’t destroy it, however influential the critic)

            “She always finds a way to find “misogyny” in everything, often says it in a judgy, accusatory tone”

            Well, she’s looking at representation of women in tropes.
            Tropes are narrative clichés. Narrative clichés involving women do tend to be stereotypical…pretty much by definition.
            So that’s not entirely surprising.

            I didn’t have the same reaction to her tone, other than mostly I thought it neutral and civil. Rather than getting emotional, ranty or angry (which I have seen a lot of by her detractors…)

            “goes on to complain about her “harassers” without ever mentioning the tons of completely reasonable blog rebuttals and video responses she’s received.”

            Ok, but reasonable blog rebuttals and video responses are…normal. They are what you’d expect.

            Harassment and death threats less so. One is more unusual and therefore noteworthy than the other.

            …She’s entitled to complain about harassment, at the level and duration she’s received it. Anyone would. Whatever the topic of study is about.

          • tuym wuystah

            “Not sure on what you mean here.”
            If you think the abuse is fabricated, you’re not really justifying it as, in your mind, there’s no abuse to justify in the 1st place :D

            But yea, I get what you’re saying.

            “which is also a type of justification, yes.”
            It *can* be used towards the same goal as justification, but it’s not the same thing. Anyway, semantics I guess.

            “…Why would you think someone is trying to destroy games by making an argument about the character representations and tropes within them?

            (Making an argument about art doesn’t destroy it, however influential the critic)”
            Looking through some other comments you’ve left on this page, I have my doubts whether this particular argument is capable of getting through to you at all, but regardless:

            Her stated goal is to change things – not just to criticize, but to call for change. Given influence, such a goal is likely to come to fruition at least to some degree.

            “Well, she’s looking at representation of women in tropes.
            Tropes are narrative clichés. Narrative clichés involving women do tend to be stereotypical…pretty much by definition.
            So that’s not entirely surprising.”
            Not surprising at all – just wrong.

            “I didn’t have the same reaction to her tone, other than mostly I thought it neutral and civil. Rather than getting emotional, ranty or angry (which I have seen a lot of by her detractors…)”
            It’s kept to a minimum in her game videos, but you can clearly see some of it in some of her ealier ones on music and television.

            The content has been “toned down” as well, but accusations and guilt-lorentzing are still there in plain view.

            “Ok, but reasonable blog rebuttals and video responses are…normal. They are what you’d expect.”
            She said she wanted to have a “discussion” or something like that, so responding to those rebuttals is also something you’d expect.

            “Harassment and death threats less so. One is more unusual and therefore noteworthy than the other.”
            It’s not unusual actually, not even in her narrative – only, in reality, everyone receives stuff like that not just women.

            At any rate, there are basically two things you can do: you can “draw the obvious connection” between her accusing both the content and its creators/consumers of sexism and then ignoring the rebuttals that would shatter her narrative while highlighting the harassment that confirms it, or… you can strip it all away, arguing that not every public person is aware of other people’s responses to what they said, or deems it necessary to respond to them, and that the media have simply picked up on the harassment as the more “notable” part of the story.
            In both cases, however, the end result is the same: whether by design or accidentally, whether by deception or just by mistake, there’s a heavily biased, false image projected onto the general public that needs countering – which is the main purpose of this documentary, from what I’ve gathered.

            And, by the way, while you might excuse Anita (judging from what I’ve seen her do or say) or other media for just making a honest mistake, you can’t excuse this article – which obviously´points at two concrete, real critics of her and calls *them* creepy and misygynists etc.

          • tuym wuystah

            Maybe that’s her hidden emotional motivation or whatever, but on the surface, she doesn’t make statements about things being offensive, to her or others, she makes illogical, false bullshit arguments about things being portrayed in a sexist way, and that being bad because it “shows sexism”, “perpetuates” it, influences real life attitudes (obviously) and excludes / scares away female consumers.

            It’s not so much “offense” as “YOU SHOULD POTRAY MORALLY CORRECT VALUES!” with her – the liberals that talk about not offending groups, things being “offensive” etc., they’re out there, and they’re saying these things, using those exact terms, in the open. The conservatives (Christians especially, though that’s not necessarily related) as well.

            Sarkeesian isn’t one of them. She fits the other archetype you’ll find on both sides of the spectrum, namely the “moral purity” angle – you shouldn’t say or depict those things *because that’s wrong*, and also corrupts morals IRL.

        • merri

          She’s also making CAUSAL claims about the effects of games on people, using phrases like “evidence shows,” and not actually showing any evidence, at least not based in any significant, academic study, research etc.

          To say simply, “she’s studying tropes,” is to completely ignore the primary issues people have with her arguments, especially considering how she has vocalized her wanting this material to be “taught” in schools.

          As for harassment, Jack Thompson and Roger Ebert got the same treatment from the internet sociopaths for making similar, largely unfounded criticisms of games, but people seemed much less inclined to donate and/or profiteer from it, and seemingly no one at all was claiming misandry as a component to it.

          • luci_fer

            No, to say simply “she’s studying tropes” is not to completely ignore the issues certain people have with her. I’m aware.

            I just think those certain people are entirely misunderstanding what she’s doing and the arguments she’s making, and therefore reacting disproportionately.

          • merri

            The statement itself ignores it, and what she’s doing is making unfounded claims about the causal effects of games on people, and lying about their legitimacy. Of course, as with anyone who criticizes significant aspects of culture this way, she attracts a few sociopaths who express themselves with shitty threats.

          • luci_fer

            “Of course, as with anyone who criticizes significant aspects of culture this way, she attracts a few sociopaths who express themselves with shitty threats.”

            Odd. Because when you do exactly the same thing with novels (i.e literary criticism, the thing that informs what she’s doing here) you tend not to get the same strength of reaction.

          • merri

            But, if you do the same to facets of culture that relate to the internet, and the advent of anonymity within, you do, particularly pop culture. It’s predominantly a behavior relating to fame and celebrity. Literary criticism doesn’t really operate on much of that in any notable capacity… oh, and besides, novels have always been on the receiving end of that kind of stuff.

          • luci_fer

            In which case, you’re just saying some of the audience for the specific medium of video games are shitty sociopaths. Ok, I can buy that. I think we’re seeing it.

            Re: novels always being on the receiving end…Curious which literary critics got death threats, bomb threats and a school shooting threat directed at them for their discussion of tropes in novels.

        • Hzle

          2 sides to that. If someone was “studying” homosexuality and “making an argument” that it should be illegal, I imagine Fry might display an intemperate response.

          He’s done so before, I think it was Jan Moir who wrote something in the Daily Mail that might have been construed as saying gays were immoral or something. A blogger wrote quite a spiteful response to her – people may have been understandably angry but it was pretty unpleasant in itself, no better than the piece it was responding to – and Fry described it as “exquisite” or some similar word

          • luci_fer

            well, of course he would display an intemperate response. that argument would be criminalising him; in essence, a personal attack on his sexuality and morality. (And yes, someone ‘studying’ homosexuality making an ‘argument’ they should be illegal would be discriminatory in nature).

            Which is not quite the same as Disgusted of Tumbridge Wells writing to the BBC to complain that because they found a joke on telly offensive it should be taken off the air immediately. Which is what I’m pretty sure he was getting at there. People who actively look to be offended or outraged by something.

            (Though obviously the comparison is further off here when related to Sarkeesian, as she isn’t making any argument that something should be banned or illegal).

        • Adam Master Shortpants Perry

          Except that she’s not simply examining gender tropes in gaming… She’s extracting wealth from people under the fraudulent pretense of creating a video series while at the same time contributing to cultural decay on a huge level.

          • luci_fer

            …No, it is exactly ‘simply examining gender tropes in gaming’.

            That isn’t how kickstarter works – you don’t ‘extract wealth’, people freely volunteer it if it’s a project they want made. There is no way to take it from people unwillingly.

            It’s also not a fraudulent pretence of creating a video series when that video series actually exists and has been created.

            Also, what is with that crazy hyperbole. It’s not ‘contributing to cultural decay on a huge level’ it’s someone’s study into tropes on youtube and you need to get over it.

          • Adam Master Shortpants Perry

            Lucifer, if you actually did research on the things you blindly defended, maybe you wouldn’t be blindly defending them. She is YEARS behind her projected date for uploading videos, and she’s been proven a con artist on more than one occasion. Why not actually do a google search for Anita Sarkeesian Debunked or something and then come back and talk with the adults once you have some information?

          • luci_fer

            I haven’t blindly defended her videos. There’s quite a few aspects of her argument I disagree with actually, but that’s hardly the point.

            Whether she’s behind schedule or not does not make her fraudulent.

            She was donated money for the videos. She has made (and is continuing to make) the videos she was given the money for. No fraud has occurred.

    • Knightwing19

      O Captain, my captain! Very well said!

    • Megamatics

      Trying to convey those sentiments to any closed minded SJW is a waste of time. They either lack or do not want to be empathetic to what people may think that do not agree with them. That hurts their arguments far more than they can perceive, and is ultimately why they are easy to control. The prevailing supportive comment for Anita is something along the lines of “I don’t think she used the right examples here, but that doesn’t hurt her point”. That is just lying to yourself outright, The Examples have everything to do with the point. How are you gonna show 2 + 2 = 4 without 2 + 2 ? it’s impossible. The clearly unsubstantiated notions will not make gaming better, they have no critical base to them. This is probably why SJWs are so quick to label and insult people rather than bring any knowledge or insight to a discussion.

    • steelcapped rage

      Well said. Very well said.

    • Morde#1

      Well thought out sir, awesome.

    • Jim Magdelania

      congrats on being white and male and not knowing what the fuck they are talking about. it must be nice.

      • A dog

        ^Persecution complexes are always amazing

      • Hugh Briss

        Because being white and male somehow makes you less of a human and a second-class citizen, right?

      • Guest

        SJW’s are the biggest morons out there. Please come back and respond to people when you have a valid argument and not some strawman response that talks about the supposed plight and oppression of the white middle class woman.

      • belarus2

        Yes. It’s a persecution complex when a human who is a woman dares complain about a white male who, sic, calls black people niggers who hate themselves and women whores who gangbang every weekend and don’t read the books they quote make this sort of ridiculous project. Predictably, he used the money to buy a car.

    • Mikel Crawford

      Post of the year, of all years.

    • luci_fer

      “People like Anita, who have no academic background whatsoever in anything relevant to this discussion”

      From wiki:
      “She earned a bachelor’s degree in communication studies from California State University, Northridge and a master’s degree in social and political thought from York University. Her master’s thesis was titled I’ll Make a Man Out of You: Strong Women in Science Fiction and Fantasy Television”

      Communication and social and political thought seems like a solid foundation to discuss media and culture and engage in media criticism.

      It might not automatically mean her criticism is right or good – obviously. But it certainly means she has an academic background relevant to that discussion.

      • RoelSchuring

        Bachlors in communication… That fit’s right up there with only having worked at McDonalds in things that are useful.

        Same goes for her masters (which, to say it bluntly, comes down to “how did people think of this back then”)
        Have you seen her thesis? It’s high school level with how obviously biased it is, and it being one big quote fest of semi-related and out of context quotes. It suffers the exact same issues as her video’s do, they only work within the scope she is working in (anti-sex feminism) but outside of that not so much.

        • luci_fer

          I did read it, yeah.

          But whether communication studies, social studies, English literature, media studies or whatever else that would be relevant to discussing media is a ‘joke subject’ or useful in general is not the issue.

          It’s whether it’s relevant to discussion of media.

          It is.

          • RoelSchuring

            of course, but I’m pointing at “joke subject” in which her master’s thesis is a joke in and on itself, at the very least for general audience.

            It might be relevant to the anti-sex feminist movement, and correct in that way (It still would be a bad thesis in most other ways, but better). But the same could be done for white supremacy in Neo-nazis, because the group thinks that way doesn’t mean there arguments they use to justify their thinking hold water.

            And seeing how most of her videos come right out of her thesis, with the same biased extreme anti-sex feminist movement as sources. Not to mention those sources are never accredited works or people (outside the ant-sex feminist movement that is).

          • luci_fer

            Alright. But she’s disclosed she’s analysing the material from ‘a feminist lens’ perspective theory wise. A standard thing to do in media criticism/critical theory is pick a stance and argue from it.

            i.e complaining it only argues from one stand point as a flaw doesn’t make a lot of sense when it’s intended, rather than an oversight.

            other people can then argue their stand points on it from different perspectives. she doesn’t have to present all viewpoints and arguments, she just has to make her own.

            (how effective those arguments are, of course, is a separate point entirely).

          • RoelSchuring

            Well she never “really” disclosed it, granted it’s heavily implied if only by channel name. But still she speaks only for the loud minority within modern feminism, so she speaks for a good chunk of feminists that don’t agree with her.
            Not to mention she implies that most male game developers and gamers are women haters, which is something extremely prevalent within the anti-sex feminist movement (as in, every men hates women and is a potential rapist until proven innocent).

            And of course most of those sources she uses are easily debunked (or are discredited or have a biased hypothesis to begin with) by a simple google search because they often, possibly purposely, misinterpret scientific words and studies.

            So it’s quite natural she get’s harassment; she speaks for a group where most don’t want her representing them, she implies that people making and liking games often hate women, she uses flawed arguments and ignores all criticism and to top it off she gets praised and awarded for being such a “brave” women because she gets harassed by the people she shits on this while her fans are often worse than the people harassing her.

          • luci_fer

            Eh? What group is she speaking for.
            She’s an individual studying tropes in video games.
            Using feminist theory to do so doesn’t mean speaking for all feminists (or anyone else, for that matter).

          • Bacchus

            “I did read it, yeah.” Then you can see that her degree is emphatically NOT an academic endorsement: http://youtu.be/p6gLmcS3-NI

            Circular reasoning, points that contradict themselves and a level of work that amounts to doing less than the bare minimum. What do these things mean?

            They mean that even accounting for the extremely narrow lens of her blinkered interpretation of feminism, her masters thesis is an academic failure on pretty much every level.

            Whilst It might seem churlish to critique someone’s formative work I do it for two reasons:

            1. Those like yourself who laughably bring this degree up as a point in her defense whenever people ask why she is qualified to speak on the subjects she does.

            2. The fact that the same flaws in this work are STILL PRESENT in the videos she is doing now with her Feminist Frequency series.

            I’m afraid that I am burdened by facts when it comes to looking at someone’s work. If you want to do the accounting, I am here for you.

          • luci_fer

            …that’s pretty much what degrees are – academic endorsement. A piece of paper that basically says ‘you’ve reached this level in this subject’.

          • Bacchus

            You’ll brook no disagreement from me on the dictionary definition of what degrees are. But that is not the point I am advancing. Perhaps I should have phrased it otherwise:
            A degree is only as valuable as the academic standards one is held to in order to attain it.

            My view is that the air of academic legitimacy afforded to Anita by her degree is unwarranted, given the poor quality of the work submitted in order to qualify for it.

            After all, if you can get ‘A piece of paper that basically says ‘you’ve reached this level in this subject” whilst committing the kind of academic blunders previously described, then that piece of paper really shouldn’t be worth much credibility-wise, should it?

            To be fair, you can argue how much of the fault lies with the relevant parts of the education system or with Anita. But given that the same flaws keep popping up in her current work, she seems unwilling or unable to rise above those dismal standards and engage in honest, academic work.

            One of the main reasons I bring this up are the fact that I’ve seen this degree used as a way to deflect criticism in a rather petulant way (well, she’s more qualified to speak on the subject than you… etc) or to shut down discourse around her work, which annoys me slightly if I’m honest.

          • luci_fer

            Absolutely on your last paragraph, I think that *anyone* gets to talk about any kind of media; degree or otherwise.

            It’s just, in this case, someone stated “People like Anita, who have no academic background whatsoever in anything relevant to this discussion.” While, like you, I’d agree you don’t *need* an academic background, the statement is factually inaccurate. (You can debate its worth, but she has that degree).

            I think there might be a misunderstanding in that original statement; that because the media she happens to be looking at are games, she needs a tech oriented degree. But that isn’t relevant when you’re discussing the *narrative tropes* within them.

          • Bacchus

            Ah well then I think we certainly agree more than we disagree. I think we both tilt at the same problem, albeit from different angles. I can understand your initial comment better now, in the context of the specific statement it addresses.

            I wouldn’t let that factual inaccuracy slide either and I don’t want to perpetuate it, so I’ll be careful at how I choose my wording in future. She has a degree. Period. The fact that she has a degree is an academic endorsement. I apologise for stating otherwise.
            Glad we also agree that what said endorsement is worth is up for debate. IMO, it is not worth much, given that (serious, academic)flaws are allowed in her masters thesis and a degree is still awarded.

            I do think everyone should be able to have an active voice in media critique. How seriously we take them should be based on reasoned analysis of their stated views and available work, not on whether they have some the specific and ‘correct’ degree. I’ve seen people use this trick to keep pushing up the academic entry requirements for taking someone seriously. It sucks and it stifles public debate.

            That said, the above point cuts both ways.

            If you’re going to keep referring your degree as a source of legitimacy (as Anita frequently does), then you’d better expect people to take you at your word and to look at the quality of work behind it.

            I read her masters thesis (before she removed it from her website) and was left scratching my head as to why anyone thinks this is an argument for her credibility. I think it undermines it, if anything, for reasons I have already covered. It also shows a lack of development as one can see the same flaws in her current work.

            But crucially, I don’t think this stops her from being able to make the occasional valid point. I also wouldn’t use this as a reason to shut down the conversation. I think even the shoddy work of someone you consider a bare-minimum effort hack can encourage constructive debate.

          • belarus2

            There is just no winning with you, is there? She’s got a MASTERS in this subject. You’re really reaching if you just start desperately criticizing the entire subject and/or the school she graduated from. Concede the point. She has an academic background. She is educated about communication. She has studied her subject. She has information and knowledge.

            And you have also acknowledged she can express an opinion without being run out of her home, hopefully, so good job.

          • Bacchus

            I don’t really know what you want me to say? I’ve witnessed several conversations shut down with words to the effect of ‘Well she (Anita) has a Masters Degree so this validates her view over yours’. So I got curious.

            It (her MASTERS thesis – ooh, capitals) was up on the FF site before she took it down. I looked at it, didn’t think it was up to much and therefore I personally don’t give the degree much weight. I don’t see how that’s particularly desperate?

            I wouldn’t want anyone to think she hasn’t got academic qualifications and it was wrongheaded of me to state otherwise, which I will refrain from doing in future.

            i just don’t give those qualifications that much merit, given (what I perceive as) the low quality of the work involved in getting them. That’s my position. if you’ve seen Anita’s thesis and have a different view I’d be happy to hear it. I’m not looking to win in the sense of being in some debate team competition. I’m more interested in learning via a free exchange of views/ideas etc.

            Which is why I can value both Anita’s right to put her work out there and the conversation around it, without uncritically fawning over the work itself.

      • Guest

        Yes, the most educational part was the Buffy the Vampire Slayer spreadsheet.

    • Kiltmanenator

      To anyone disagreeing with this sentiment, please point to one instance of an anti-FemFreq critique that Sarkeesian has responded to without calling it sexist.

    • retrogradesnowcone

      she wrote her master’s thesis on pop culture portrayals of women. how exactly does she not have an academic background appropriate for this area of criticism?

      • Hugh Briss

        Her “master’s thesis” is terrible. It contradicts itself multiple times and there are serious errors varying from grammatical to logical scattered all over the place throughout. I’ve read that paper and it’s where facts go to die.

      • merri

        By making a conclusion, then seeking examples of it, instead of coming to conclusions based on extensive research and observation. By making *causal* claims about the pathological etc., effects of specific media, on people, and using phrases like “evidence shows,” while citing extremely unreliable, or simply useless, sources/anecdotes.

        Somehow, the claims continue to go ignored, and many cling to the idea that her work has merely been criticism. There are a lot of baseless claims in there, and she seems very adamant in not engaging with any criticism of her own criticisms, let alone those specific claims.

        There’s a reason that processes like “peer review,” and such exist, and that’s because paper qualification means little on their own, especially when method is
        not just questionable, but outright objectionable. Also, what do those qualifications have to do with ludology? A master art historian is a very qualified person, but I wouldn’t assume they were also qualified in analyzing artists’ psyche etc.

        Also, that thesis was not particularly laudable.

    • tuym wuystah

      I bet you were part of that misogynistic “not your shield” compaign, weren’t you you dirty bastard – you’re just a silly sock puppet, shoo!

      • jk

        the wrath of a SJW presented with logic, thanks for depicting the stereotype :)

    • tuym wuystah

      “Most of all, this SJW shit is grossly ILLIBERAL. Liberal values include treating people as individuals, not as stereotypes (BRONY MRA DUDEBROS!!), freedom of inquiry (SHUT DOWN ALL COMMENTS, ACCUSE ALL CRITICISM OF BEING BIGOTRY), valuing education (SHE HAS NO CREDENTIALS, GIVE HER AWARDS) and having a healthy respect for others’ sexuality (VIRGIN SHAMING, HAR HAR HAR).”
      Well, the political spectrum is, after all, a big ball of wibbly wobbly, and people having this image of it being more like a thermometer certainly may be amazed by how easily an ideology bent slightly too far can turn into its own polar opposite – but I think that’s kinda what happened here, too.

      There are different definitions and versions of what “liberal” means, and while one type of liberalism is viewing the world through the lens of rationality and enlightenment values, free of imposed dogma or tradition, things like fervent support of “disadvantaged classes”, making naive statements about violence and guns or being overprotective of violent criminals are what have been heavily associated with “liberals” for decades, as well.
      Imo, these types are as much liberals as people who disbelieve in God because they don’t like church bells are atheists – sure as hell goes against every value espoused by the smarter section of the demographic, surely don’t get to claim a seat in any subgroup BASED on the values, but “where they stand on the issue” is still “on that riverside” :)

      Anyway, irrelevant semantics, sorry :o

    • nop666

      “And I say this as a liberal, a queer person, a person with Women’s Studies courses under my belt”
      LOL. Yeah, sure.

    • youreallythinkso

      Thank you for your amazing post. I’m sure she would label you as being brainwashed by patriarchy for being a male though lol.

  • incogneto224

    What brave and selfless souls these men are… fighting for their right to criticize Anita for making money off the social justice crowd by making money off of the MRA crowd.

    • Megamatics

      There’s an inherent difference in the projects, I would say this was a more political piece rather than an intellectual one. It encroaches itself more into the social sciences to establish merit. Anita’s Project was an Intellectual Piece that is being destroyed by politics and feminism. She’s failed to deliver any real work to her backers, and it’s fairly easy to throw out her arguments as they hold no water due to the political nature. If Anita wanted to be taken seriously she would of used the scientific method to construct her viewpoints, not already unsubstantiated arguments that a certain kind of person would agree on.

      She has yet to answer ” How any of the thing’s she’s mentioned at all contribute to Sexism”. It’s all been “I find this to arbitrarily make fun of women so it is sexist”… If that is the case than just about anything that calls to gender or sexual preference would be sexist. It would be sexist to be a feminist in that case, do you not understand the implication of that ? Extreme lunacy.

  • Sasha

    Gizorama.com confirmed dishonest pieces of shit. Thanks for letting us know.

    YOU CAN’T SPEAK BADLY ABOUT ANITA! SHE’S A WOMAN, THAT MEANS IF YOU CRITICIZE HER YOU’RE A MISOGYNIST!

    • Liam Lambert

      Probably because of the rape threats. It’s not something most people have to deal with, ergo they can’t imagine how they would actually react to someone telling them “I hope you get cancer and AIDS at the same time”.

      Jesus, somebody even made a newgrounds game where the aim is to punch Sarkeesian in the face until she bruises. If someone did that to me you’d better believe I’d disable comments, even if it did unfortunately drown out any constructive criticism.

      Also, dishonesty comes from stating dishonest opinions. I didn’t do that, I believe everything I wrote here 100%, just like Owen and Aurini believe in what they’re doing. We’ll just have to agree to disagree I’m afraid.

      https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sarkeesian+rape+threats&rlz=1C1CHFX_en-GBGB553GB553&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=SCH7U7eFNsjeasrbgvgO&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAw&biw=1680&bih=925#imgdii=_

      • smudboy

        Most online rape/murder/death threats are completely innocent, especially if they’re repetitive. Do you honestly think rapists or murderers would telegraph their behavior to a public figure? Has Anita gone to the police? Is this really an issue?

        I’m sorry your skin is so thin. If someone made a game about me, I’d be fairly impressed that my message was impacting them so much. However, to block, delete and disable comments stifles the conversation. Anita is beyond reproach. She literally doesn’t understand any of the criticism coming her way. She is biased and living in her own world. Like most feminists.

        • Liam Lambert

          “Most online rape/murder/death threats are completely innocent, especially if they’re repetitive.”

          Yep, telling someone you’re going to rape and murder them certainly has no negative effect on them whatsoever. I rarely throw professional courtesy to the wind, but kindly go fuck yourself.

          • smudboy

            If you’re a public figure reaching millions, attacking gamers — gamers — who are usually young adults, you’re damn right you’re going to get a lot of feedback of various kinds.

            If you’re not used to the internet by now, kindly log off. If you seriously think half the stuff people say on here is true, you are deluded.

          • Liam Lambert

            “I think Princess Peach is a bad role model for women”
            “I’m going to rape you and piss in your eyes”.

            Yeah that’s some really fair discourse there. Not actually intending to rape someone doesn’t make it any less hurtful to say. If I told you I was going to rip off your mother’s head, scoop it with a melon baller and use it as a jar for my Werther’s Originals, you wouldn’t exactly be my best pal now would you?

          • smudboy

            Sticks and stones buddy. I’ve heard worse in a grade school recess decades ago.

            But keep swearing. I’m sure you’ll intimidate me.

          • Trash talk has a place, and it’s in-game. Maybe a deluge of rape jokes is funny in an all-male setting, but women make up almost half of the gaming demographic in this day and age.

            1 in 5 women have reported to being victims of sexual assault in the U.S., and desensitizing people to how serious and really traumatic it is is a part of the problem as far as I’m concerned.

            If you’re so comfortable with just saying whatever,

          • smudboy

            Anita ain’t “in game”. There is evidence of her not even being a gamer, liking games, stealing footage, and not delivering what she promised. She’s an opportunist. And when she makes uneducated, flawed, biased videos, telling anonymous young adults what to think, like there’s some secret organization of men subjugating women? Of course people are going to be angry.

            http://youtu.be/gqJCCnued6c
            http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html
            http://anongamer.tumblr.com/

            Welcome to the internet. Anonymity and anger rule. Just see Liam’s discussion with me above, simply on not agreeing with him. Of course, he’s generally rather daft in general, commenting on people’s dress as if that has something to do with the validity of their views. He wants them to make their video, but he’s okay with you wanting to shut them down? Ah huh.

            If I’m so comfortable with saying whatever…?

          • I get it, man; really, I do. I mean that the intensity of these inflammatory comments just seems…like a bit much.

            She probably IS an opportunist. Some women are gross. A ton, in fact. And I think her game looks like it could potentially suck. But if I made a movie about all the crap that I think sucks, I’d have…well, I guess I’d have the movie that these guys are trying to make.

            And if it gets funded, I will watch the crap out of it. So I guess they’re doing something right…using the controversy they’re creating to generate attention.

          • Memnos

            “And I think her game looks like it could potentially suck. ”
            lol haven’t you noticed that her game was the Exact thing that she was advocating against…Just with the protagonist being a woman

            and the narrative being quite shallow

          • Aurini

            For the record: I am disappointed by the amount of rudeness that occurs in comment sections on the internet, and I’m outright disgusted by anybody who types criminal threats – as if typing it on a digital medium is somehow different than doing it in person!

            That said, ‘smack talk’ in video games is vulgar and uncouth, but it should be taken in context. When one 13 year old yells at another “I’m going to rape you,” it’s vile behaviour (and a sign of a poor upbringing) but it’s not a legitimate threat. Complaining about uncouth 13 year olds on a private server is like walking into a dive bar and complaining about the amount of swearing.

            The solution isn’t to legislate a ‘mono culture’ where distinct phrases are deemed to be offensive in all scenarios, and any off-colour joke is a fireable offence, regardless of where or to whom it was uttered (it’s an utter injustice that a family man lost his job over a harmless dongle joke). The solution – which we *already have* – is to take it on a case by case basis, and to continue to prosecute people who make threats that are beyond the pale.

          • Eshto

            “Maybe a deluge of rape jokes is funny in an all-male setting”

            Yeah that’s what us guys do, we sit around threatening to rape each other. We’re hardwired for that, dontcha know.

            SMDH

          • Knightwing19

            I’ve been in all sorts of male dominated situations, (teams, clubs, etc) and NEVER have we ever sat around talking about raping anyone.

            This idea of all men are rapists is just as ridiculous as the knuckle draggers thinking a woman’s place is in the kitchen.

          • Memnos

            Priceless!

            oh and buddy…… be prepared when i come :D

            ugh, for the slow people /s

          • luci_fer

            Er. She said rape jokes being funny in an all-male setting, not rape threats… and yeah, maybe not you personally, but many guys do. She said trash talk has it’s place, and it’s in a game. I played Eve-Online (not all male, but largely male) for years and things like “you got raped!” was common parlance.

            A friend of mine got banned from a channel for saying he’d rape me. He walked into the channel and said something like /fluffle rapes [charname]. He only really meant it as a silly kind of hello. I know that sounds weird, but he did. It was that normal. (and, at the time, I wasn’t remotely bothered. I was like, dude, why did you ban him?)

            I’ve even had it said to me as a compliment. “She RAPED that typhoon.” I took it as such, on the awesome abilities of my guns.

            I’m not trying to smear the Eve community by saying they bantered about rape; most of the people I played with and encountered (and shot) were genuinely nice guys. I never really took the banter and normalisation of the word particularly seriously or directed against me, as they were also using it against themselves.

            But then again, I’ve never been raped.

            And the normalcy of using the word in games doesn’t excuse an actual out of game threat of rape directed at an individual specifically to scare them because you hate them and what they’re saying.

          • Hugh Briss

            Humor is never funny when you analyze it later. Context is important. “Rape jokes” is a vague phrase that lacks context. Feminists pull this wool over the eyes of people all the time; it’s how they attempt to get what they want. Talk about a sensitive and offensive action that someone would never want to be viewed as having committed using vague terms that can be used to implicate someone as being involved in or condoning the performance of that act without having to level a direct accusation or needing proof that the person is anything like that.

            That’s the sole purpose of “rape XYZ” terms. They’re there to allow feminists to imply that men are a bunch of rapists even though statistics prove the vast majority of them didn’t rape anyone. When someone feels accused (as these terms are designed to make them feel) they have a human instinct to defend themselves; by making the grossly fallacious claim that defending oneself proves the implicit accusation, the feminist can mentally bully many people into going to great lengths to prove that they’re not part of the mythical rapey group.

            This is made even easier using the pivot of terms that imply feminists espouse concepts that inherently good people would not want to fight against, thus the terms “social justice” and “equality” being bandied about. If you’re a good person, you’re anti-rape and pro-justice and pro-equality…except that’s not really what today’s keyboard cowgirl Tumblr feminists want. They want to do whatever they please while everyone else caters to them. They’re rebellious kindergartener children whose mental growth was stunted by finding a manufactured system of self-delusional thought where they can do no wrong and everyone else can do no right, and if anyone disagrees they have a big fat lexicon of bogus pseudoscientific terminology to make it sound like they’re smarter than everyone else and that they’re on the right side of the moral coin.

          • luci_fer

            Eh…?

            Yes, it is vague, but a rape joke is a joke that has rape as part (likely the main part) of the joke.

            But it’s a descriptive term, not a feminist conspiracy…

            (and yes, context always matters)

          • Hugh Briss

            “Rape is everywhere” is a modern feminist trope.

          • Lawrence Newman

            “but women make up almost half of the gaming demographic in this day and age.”

            There are games and then there’s Farmville and Candycrush. The 50% split thing is a lie. I’m betting that over 75% of playstation and xbox games are bought by men or for men.

          • RoelSchuring

            I hate to inform you but, but the methodology isn’t known so that statistic doesn’t fly to the subset of gaming being criticized. For all we know only 10% of women play AAA games. The problem with that statistic is that we don’t know how they got it and don’t know what they count as gamer, for all we know it could be someone that plays 5 minutes on the bus once a week.

          • I’ll acknowledge that. There’s too much leeway in the definition for gamers.

            I think, to some degree, those Candy Crushers might be the new wave of gamers. Mobile games are really evolving and attracting a whole new crowd.

          • merri

            Those stats are derived, especially regarding gender, largely from the mobile and social media (famville, baker story etc.) markets. That is a completely separate market. The “core” games market, that is dedicated consoles and gaming appropriated computers, was measured at about 9% female. I forget exactly which year that was, but between 2010 and 2013.

            It would be like saying the “beauty products” market is about a 50/50 split, but that would be ignoring the fact that lipstick and similar cosmetics are bought by 90%+ females, while counting soaps and shampoos to average the stats.

          • Cat Blade

            Why are xbox and playstation the staple for being a gamer? I own both (I’m female) but I also own every handheld, every Nintendo system, and a PC. You sound stunted. Xbox and Playstation? Really? That’s the definition of being a gamer, hm?

            There are video games on iPads now. And there are newer consoles being introduced to the market. Sorry that your lifetime achievement award for being the world’s biggest COD fan becomes less and less impressive everyday. Maybe you need to branch the fuck out.

          • Lawrence Newman

            I should have also included PC along with consoles. Congratulations, you’re a minority. My main point still remains, that the vast bulk of consumers of AAA games are male. You can whine about that all you like, but it’s still true. The more femalecentric games are on handhelds, mobile phones and on social networking sites, because they’re the games girls are more likely to play. It boils down to the fact that most profit comes from games bought by males or for males.

          • luci_fer

            I don’t think anyone is saying otherwise that the bulk consumers of AAA games are male. We know this. It’s part of the problem. They are not only male but the target demographic is 14-19 year old males.

            (So both me, a woman, and my partner, 40 years old, both become ‘minorities’ in that respect. Though he is an elitist PC gamer who will complain in a different non-gendered direction – that having to develop cross-platform dumbs-down games for console tards).

            But the main point remains that the original statement wasn’t 50% of the AAA mainstream titles were women. The original statement was almost half of the gaming demographic. (I think it’s around 47%)

            This means the market is widening. And yes, most of the profit comes from games that are frighteningly expensive to produce and that cater to a very small, very safe demographic who are fairly uncritical and undiscerning about things like narrative sophistication and well-developed characters. And quite happy to just see repeated versions of the things they like. So it’s relatively low-risk to do this.

            Publishers are going to go low-risk rather than high-risk; even if there’s an opportunity to cater to a wider playerbase and potentially increase the profit.

            Developers want to be creative and innovate, but this is a constraint.

            The obvious down side to this is that it stifles creativity and innovation (for an example, try looking MMOs still afloat post WoW). There are some up sides. 1. people are paying attention now to things like story, narrative and character representation (Sarkeesian is actually evidence of this) 2. a lot of innovation is happening under a punk ethic in the indy scene, where the financial risk in publishing aspect is less of an issue 3. more women are getting into gaming over time, increasing diversity and reducing the stigma that games are only for children or sad basement dwellers.

          • Lawrence Newman

            And how does any of what you said justify the need for feminist lies and propaganda from the likes of Sarkeesian?

            “who are fairly uncritical and undiscerning about things like narrative sophistication and well-developed characters.”

            Can you be any more sneering and pretentious.

          • luci_fer

            Probably.
            But really, what 14 year old gives a shit about stuff like that?

          • luci_fer

            Nope. Farmville and Candycrush are games too.
            They’re casual games, and crap, but still games.
            Breaking it down further into things like genre or platform would be interesting, and you may well be right on your 75% state on consoles.
            But it doesn’t mean that the statement in incorrect or a lie.

          • Lawrence Newman

            I’m sure Sarkeesian will find some way of interpreting Farmville and Candycrush as er mer gerdz patriarchy/sexism.

          • Lawrence Newman

            “1 in 5 women have reported to being victims of sexual assault in the U.S”

            Well if the definition of sexual assault keeps getting wider and wider every day, I’m not surprised. There’s a difference between saying you have been sexually assaulted and actually being sexually assaulted.

            Over 50% of American boys are genitally mutilated legally. And that’s not an allegation, it’s a cold hard fact. SJW’s like Liam here don’t bat an eyelid at that. They’re more interested in acting like total manginas and worshipping at the altar of feminists’ invented grievances.

          • “There’s a difference between saying you have been
            sexually assaulted and actually being sexually assaulted.”

            …said every rapist, ever.

            You know, I am way too up on my rape stats, friend. We can dance all day on your insensitive WC. For the sake of argument, let’s just say that most of you normal people don’t shout out rape threats like you mean them, and I’ll continue to ignore people who do.

            In regards to your claims that the definition keeps changing, that goes both ways? Do you not watch the news, dude? What about that Montana judge who gave the teacher 30 days in jail after that little girl killed herself? And what is your vested interest on seeing a tighter definition? Sure, there are opportunists and liars. But until you’ve been taken advantage of, it’s not personal, and I think that’s where your perspective is coming from.

            I don’t mean to get riled up about it, but damn.

          • RoelSchuring

            The point being made here was that being pinched in your butt that one time can be seen, and is commonly seen, as sexual assault, but it’s far from rape.

          • Hzle

            Exactly right – and one must question the motives of those who want to confuse the issue by using the term “sexual assault” instead of being more specific.

            Should a pinched bottom really be classed as such? Several women I didn’t know did the same to me (some time ago alas) and other things more outrageous in bars – but it never occurred to me to go to the police about it, or claim that I was scarred for life.

            So do we want different laws for men and women? Or should I have screamed blue murder and tried to get those women locked up?

            Complex business, equality….

          • Agreed. And I appreciate how civil you’re being. ;)

          • Hzle

            You see this is the kind of bad argument that you see the whole time in gender politics:

            “…said every rapist, ever”

            Argument by ad hominem or unrelated/implied insult.

            “You know, I am way too up on my rape stats, friend”

            Argument from authority (and patronising too)

            “In regards to your claims that the definition keeps changing”

            The definitions DO keep changing. Making it difficult to know what is being talked about. The people who thrive on this imprecision are dishonest political types who want to confuse the issue

            “what is your vested interest on seeing a tighter definition”

            Does there need to be a vested interest? See my previous paragraph.

          • merri

            “”There’s a difference between saying you have been
            sexually assaulted and actually being sexually assaulted.”

            …said every rapist, ever.

            Well, so would also say non-despicable people. I’ve also said that, and I’m certainly no rapist. The context was my bipolar ex being extremely upset at my legal recourse in obtaining my uniforms and other belongings from our apartment, and she spouting anything she could to keep me from having something as basic as work clothes.

            I don’t think generalizing here is going to help anybody’s argument.

          • Hugh Briss

            Your implicit accusation is unwarranted and unacceptable. Get the fuck out.

          • Knightwing19

            I hate to inform you but women don’t make up half the gaming demo. That article you’re pulling that from is full of mistakes and omissions.

            The problem here is that you’re focusing solely on the comments of a few and no civilized person thinks that type of attitude is okay and no one here is defending it.
            People like Liam here refuse to talk the real issue which is the corruption of gaming journalism and the indie dev scene because it exposes a truth to the gaming community they don’t want you to know. And if that wasn’t true and no one here is defending vile comments then why continue to bring them up as a smoke screen?
            As a women you should be outraged by this and I know many are as I’ve been getting tweets hourly since Monday in support against Zoe Quinn and Anita because there are tons of women daily that really go through abuse and harassment and the actions of these gaming journalist, Anita and Zoe Quinn are marginalizing it through their words and actions.

          • You’re probably right. The article is most likely outright hokum. http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/esa_ef_2014.pdf

            Maybe my initial reaction to some sort of wild comments about rape were overly sensitive. But I come equipped with the hormones to back up my overreaction.

            Can I ask you a question? Why is that you care so much? Are you a woman? Do you know a lot of women journalists? Does gaming journalism really provide you with a huge source of vital news? I’m not trying to downplay something that’s important to me, but I also just don’t care that much about this particular event. And it baffles me that so many people do.

            People–not just women–are more and less corrupt in varying degrees constantly. I just can’t see getting so invested in this tiny blip of slightly stupider bit*&es in the world. They have erupted, but they will recede. And so it goes, sir.

          • merri

            “Why is that you care so much? Are you a woman? Do you know a lot of women journalists? Does gaming journalism really provide you with a huge source of vital news? I’m not trying to downplay something that’s important to me, but I also just don’t care that much about this particular event. And it baffles me that so many people do.”

            Well, what’s happening is frauds like Anita, probably in order to placate some particular crowd or demographic, are actually seeding themselves in the industry in such a way that they are “consultants” of certain games/game studios. Someone like Anita, to whom it is apparently okay to treat men as background decoration in a scene of a game, but not the women, are expected to influence the design, art, and writing of games. She’s a “consultant” in the sequel to my most anticipated game of all time, Mirror’s Edge 2.

            The protagonist is a strong, overall bad-ass female, and I don’t see how Anita’s input could possibly bring anything positive to the character, story, or gameplay, considering her pension for double-standards.

            That’s one reason. Another is that these “social rockstars” are the only industry females that receive any mainstream attention, and they do so with extremely insignificant contribution to the industry. One of my favorite, brilliant game devs, Corrine Yu, is not a known name. She’s responsible for some of the only good stuff that’s in certain places of the triple-A industry these days, in my opinion. No, the merits of her work would not put her in any influential position, but a two con “artists” do so.

            Thirdly, this is a $25 BILLION industry, ANNUALLY, and if you take into account the entire “core” gaming market, it’s probably double that. These games “journalism” outlets carry quite a bit of influence, and provide quite a bit of promotion. Industry connections are necessary thing in practically any industry, but these petulant bloggers, posing as journalists, take things way too far- it’s incestuous how their business operates.

            Lastly, if you look at some of the dirt digged up in the past few weeks, it seems that some of the larger entities of the indie games sector are also behaving the same way. Indie games are an extremely beloved area of gaming, so when you see this kind of crony behavior, to this degree, in this sector of gaming, you’re going to have a lot of passionate people going apeshit.

            While yes, corruption is constant and wide, but remember, this is a creative, artistic medium; naturally, people are going to be outraged, especially when the purveyors of this medium start outright insulting their partisans, consumers, participants, fans, etc.

          • Hugh Briss

            You accused someone of being a rapist for not agreeing with you. That’s not “overly sensitive,” that’s vile and extreme. You chose to be a provocateur rather than have a discussion. The fact that people are responding to your questions even after you accused a commenter of being a rapist shows that they are either more forgiving or just stupider than me.

          • dan

            it must be nice to live in a fantasy world where being a “victim” is accepted as being strong and empowering while taking responsibility for your own actions is reviled.

          • Dude, what are you even talking about? All I’m hearing is this strong repulsion for women. Which makes me feel so bad for you–you must have no positive women in your life. Or pay a lot for child support.

          • If you hate women so much, being gay is totally cool now. But we’re all just people. There are definitely some awful and jaded men out there, but I don’t assume that all of you are terrible.

            @cat_blade:disqus, is it just me, or is there just way more woman bashing going on here than actual discussion?

          • ZoulKyud

            Ironically people do get jaded by the people trying to spread supposed “equality”. it is very possible for bad women to bad things to good men and often happens. Also when feminist are mocking men for prostate cancer, drinking glasses with “male tears” and says its all ok. A lot of respect gets lost. Honestly masculinity in a male is not a bad thing. Feminism has spilled over and men are mocked for even being men nowadays.

          • ragething

            specific women, not all. divisive women, just like divisive men, need to be lit up with the brightest light.
            It is just you.

          • Hugh Briss

            You’re the woman who called someone a rapist here for not agreeing with you.

          • Hugh Briss

            “you must have no positive women in your life. Or pay a lot for child support.” Way to go, you insulted someone’s ability to find a mate along with their status as a father. That really proved that you’re a level-headed person who isn’t at all here to stir up some shit, eh? /s

          • Hugh Briss

            Parroting the “1 in 5” stat automatically destroys your credibility, just like the “77 cents” stat. How many times do these things have to be shown to have been derived via grossly broken methodology and therefore false before people stop using them?

          • tuym wuystah

            “but women make up almost half of the gaming demographic in this day and age.”
            It’s funny in a mixed setting, as well :)

            I mean, maybe in your social circles, the women are way too aroused by rape jokes to laugh at them, but if you look around that doesn’t really apply to the population at large :)

            “1 in 5 women have reported to being victims of sexual assault in the U.S., and desensitizing people to how serious and really traumatic it is is a part of the problem as far as I’m concerned.”
            Then why do you see mixed groups of lighthearted alright people sitting in bars, universities or podcasts comfortably sitting around on couches and all making and laughing at rape jokes as if were nothing? Are all those women in the “80%” and should feel guilty for betraying their sisters or something?

            Hell, if anything, I’ve observed that the women in such groups are often more enthusiastic about rape jokes than the guys. Two examples that just sprung to mind, from the Friends In Your Head podcast, on one commentary Teague makes some joke about rapists chasing women or something like that and then immediately goes “eh, nah, forget that” over the sound of the female podcaster bursting into laughter. In another one, one female commentator kept talking about she’d rape James McAvoy in a dark alley, or that if she got raped she’d say “is it in yet”.
            And those are just the kind of typical occurrence i’ve seen time and time again. Sorry, but this uptight, serious image of your gender that you’re painting here isn’t universal, at ALL.

          • Knightwing19

            Again no source. This could be a 12 year old kid being an internet tough guy for all we know.

            Keep that shield up!

          • Karall

            Yes, Anita receives harassment. But no more than any famous person on the internet. And another thing she receives a lot of is legitimate criticism, but she writes it ALL off as misogynistic trolling even when there are civil people with legitimate points.

          • Hugh Briss

            The word of the day is “credibility.” There’s a distinct lack of it involved in Internet threats. A guy threatened to kill me and set my workplace on fire because I wrote a blog post he didn’t like, so I dug up his family’s names, his property records for his personal address, and the phone number for law enforcement right down the road from his house, then I proceeded to ignore him completely. Nothing came of it, the harassment stopped, and I’m still alive and well with my blog post intact. Until someone actually does something IRL, internet harassment can be easily dismissed as first grade playground behavior with zero actual intent to follow through.

          • Kiltmanenator

            There are plenty of thoughtful critiques of her work that do not include rape and death threats.

            I have yet to hear her respond to any of them. She only signal boosts the negatives.

          • tuym wuystah

            Not necessarily your best pal, maybe not even your pal at all (Ah’m nahdyerpal, *pal*), but then again I’m not in my best friend-making mood when wiping coffee spit from my monitor, so yea :)

          • Eshto

            Have you ever Internetted before??? EVERYONE who puts themselves out there in public on the Internet gets these. Most of us just learn to ignore them (or report the seemingly legit ones to the police); rather than actually use them to promote ourselves. FFS are you an adult??

          • Knightwing19

            Where are you quoting that from?
            A journalist shouldn’t just quote without including the name of the person who said it. Come on that’s journalism 101!
            Again you hide behind the truth with bullshit.

          • Knightwing19

            By calling these guys morons for wanting to have a more complete story demonstrates that you can those like you are no different than the hordes Anita claims are harassing her.

          • Cat Blade

            He needs a thesaurus. He’s confusing the word “innocent” with “insincere.” Sure most of those threats are insincere. They are not innocent. And he definitely needs to go fuck himself.

          • Hugh Briss

            Dude, you are off your rocker something fierce. Perhaps you would benefit from dropping your ideology and using common sense and logic.

          • tuym wuystah

            “Yep, telling someone you’re going to rape and murder them certainly has no negative effect on them whatsoever. I rarely throw professional courtesy to the wind, but kindly go fuck yourself.”
            It often doesn’t, and sometimes even has a positive effect (amusement, arousal etc.). It can also have a negative effect or be taken seriously which is why I don’t condone that, but just saying, said negative effect would generally be diminished a lot if the idea that it’s just trash talk, “nasty words on a screen”, not to be taken seriously and just one of those standard things you’ll encounter on the internet, as opposed to the horrible sign of oppression to be feared and taken at face value.
            Just saying :)

            I mean, I’d say if the “writer” doesn’t mean it seriously (not expecting to be taken seriously), and the reader doesn’t take it seriously (knowing it wasn’t meant that way), I’d really go as far as calling it innocent – but the fact that some will take it at face value and some, even if not literally, still use it to express genuine malice, makes it all kind of shite.
            In addition to your own attitude on how to look at this kind of thing, There’s also a difference between a clearly over-the-top, “expressive” kind of threat that’s fun to read, and the creepy, angry and mean-spirited kind that sounds like it just might be “meant genuinely”, and take a slightly thicker skin to enjoy.

            Just a couple of nuances I thought you might’ve missed :)

        • abellen

          It doesn’t matter whether it’s on the internet or in the street, threatening rape or murder isn’t acceptable anywhere or anytime. Again, it doesn’t matter if it’s ‘just a joke’ or a genuine threat, it just isn’t an acceptable thing to say. I’m all for a debate, but when someone’s counter argument is a threat, it’s disgusting. Threatening somebody is never innocent. Condoning threatening is just as bad, even if you’ve never done it yourself.

          • smudboy

            While I agree threats aren’t acceptable, their digital form can also be dismissed, like any email or tweet. Click, delete.

            What Anita can’t dismiss are real forms of criticisms in the form of videos and blog posts. She hasn’t commented or responded to any of them. There are hundreds of them, with views in the hundreds of thousands on youtube.

            These people are not threatening Anita. These people are gamers and some are women developers; some are cultural and media critics, like Anita. Anita is one of the most biased “gamers” I’ve ever heard, touting the Patriarchy for some evil, and how the depiction of women in games is just, never, ever, good enough for her.

            Here’s just a small sampling of the arguments held against her; but nope, she can’t comment or refute them, because she receives so many death and rape threats! If they were serious, she’d have reported them. Till then, she’s playing the pro. victim card, and profiting from it, while white knights come to her rescue. (As if a strong, independent woman couldn’t deal with such baseless…emails.)


            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk5F-S_hI

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRSaLZidWI

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Ju-1I1DTU

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWtJpHys_xA

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee8RgbS9ESE

          • Eshto

            Anita loves fake rape threats, it’s how she promotes herself.

          • Knightwing19

            You’re right it’s NEVER acceptable but it’s just as rampant from Anita’s side of the fence as it is the other side. It shouldn’t be used as a shield to hide the truth behind.

            We can agree that there are assholes that are going to take things too far on both sides of this discussion. The mature responds is to acknowledge that and move on to the more important matters which will hopefully in the end help combat the few vile losers on either side.

            The fact that Anita, Zoe Quinn and the gaming media like Liam Lambert are using these few bad examples to shield people from the truth should set off red flags to their professionalism and the validity of their argument. I probably get more vile tweets from their supporters than they get from any of the “misogyny nerds” or “misogynists hit squads”.

            NOTE: These names/intended insults like “some morons” or “misogyny nerds”, “misogynists hit squads” are coming from people claiming to be victims of abuse & insults online. For victims they sure can spew the vile can’t they?

          • Hugh Briss

            Isn’t it so convenient that these threats appear at just the right time to distract people from the real issues? Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian are in cahoots. Zoe needed to take the heat off of her, so Anita crafted this damselling opportunity. It’s not rocket science, it’s social science. These threats are a case of “police report or it didn’t happen.”

          • tuym wuystah

            I find your lack of shading disturbing… threatening violence on the street is COMPLETELY INACCEPTABLE, as they end up looking like possible, immediate precursors to actual violence, and have the power to traumatize and intimidated as well as provoke fights and counterattacks.
            Even outside threatening violence, coming up to someone on the street and starting talking shit to their face is generally a very bad idea and can escalate really easily – exceptions, in both cases, being specific areas or social circles where that kind of thing is common and mostly doesn’t lead to violence.

            On the internet, it’s… a common thing that doesn’t lead to violence and is known to be either powerless or not meant seriously. It can’t lead to escalation, doesn’t immediately create a heated situation or serve as a possible precursor to violence, and the “effect” it has is severely dampened by the distance, anonymity and general depersonalization that comes from reading text on the screen rather than watching an actual person with a mobile body say it to your face.
            On the internet, threats aren’t escalation or danger, they’re nasty words and trash talk – more severe forms of the typical “violent language” we all use in day to day life, like saying “this makes me wanna fucking punch him, I’m gonna eviscerate that fucker, etc.” without meaning a word of it.

            Even if still generally unacceptable (it is acceptable within certain environments were most participants are comfortable with that kind of thing), putting it on the same level as street threats is just hair raising.

            “Doesn’t matter” if it’s a joke or meant seriously? Really? Doesn’t fucking matter?

            Never innocent? Well, it can be quite innocent if you mean it as a joke and expect it to be understood that way, even if “misguided” or “stupid”.

            Condoning just as bad? Um… no. Keep in mind that condone doesn’t even mean actively encouraging or supporting, it can simply mean as much as “yea well, whatever, it’s okay I guess”.
            Bad, sure, anywhere as bad as MAKING those threats? Lol.

        • Cat Blade

          Ahhhh so “true.” Most online rape threats are innocent. See, there are guilty rape threats and there are innocent rape threats and women should know the difference. pff pff pff pff

          …………………

          • smudboy

            It’s called ignoring them all.

            If someone wanted you raped/dead, do you seriously think they’d telegraph it? And if so, why wouldn’t the intended victim simply show that to the police?

          • Cat Blade

            Here’s a rape threat for you then:

            (I hope) someday you, or someone you love, may be raped. Brutally, violently raped. Years of therapy won’t erase the PTSD, the nightmares, or the damage to the psyche.

            And if an internet rape joke/threat upsets you – deal with it.

          • smudboy

            That’s not a rape threat. That’s a story.

            But your idea of how sticks and stones may upset people? You’re exactly right: Deal with it.

            But you’ll have to use reason and logic to reach me.

            If anything, I regard mental health as my highest quality. But please, keep trying to scare me with rape. It seems to make you feel better about yourself. #thesarkeesianeffect

          • While I can’t say I completely agree with everything you’ve said, @smudboy, I give you credit for your wit. Because that made me laugh.

            Thank you for not being a complete tool, and at least being open to polite discussion.

          • smudboy
          • Cat Blade

            I did use reason and logic. That was a threat. A realistic one.

          • smudboy

            I highly doubt a reasonable criminal would tell me their game plan, let alone the delusion you’ll ever violently rape my pet Chihuahua. She’ll tear your balls off.

            Unless it’s Saturday. Then, that would be interesting.

        • dodoking

          I just saw you on newstatesman loved your comeback

        • luci_fer

          …completely innocent? wtf?

          How can you innocently threaten to rape or kill someone?
          Let alone when it gets to point they try to find out your home address or threaten your family.

          Innocent.

          Jesus.

          Doing it is a deliberate choice to try and scare someone and shut them up, out of spite and cowardice (as they don’t tend to give their real name out first). There is nothing remotely innocent about it. Not having the intention to carry out the threat does not make the threat innocent.

          Maybe you wanted a different word to try and imply they wouldn’t actually go through with it. I don’t know what you were trying to say here.

          • StefanHeisenberg

            Because those who write them are trolls. They’re just there to get a response out of someone. Virtually everyone online, whoever has a large, detailed opinion, gets threats. It happens to everyone, including me.

            It is entirely innocent.

          • luci_fer

            Ok. So. Your argument is that trolls are entirely innocent, and mean no harm whatsoever.

            I think you wanted a different word, because that’s a contradiction in terms.

          • StefanHeisenberg

            No, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Trolls, like any other commenter, are just that; commenters.

            How many trolls have actively tried to kill those whom are giving death threats?

            How many trolls have police and the FBI taken seriously?

            You see, you need to have prove to the authorities that clear and present danger is real. Till then, it’s just some guy or girl typing on a keyboard.

          • luci_fer

            …What do you think a troll *is*? To varying degrees, a troll is trying to upset someone. On the more harmless end of the scale, that could just be riling them up. To the worst extreme (which this is) specific threats to come to kill someone when their home address has been released on the internet, is intended to cause genuine fear and distress.

            What part of that did you think was ‘entire innocence’? How would you do any of that accidentally, for example, which is the only way I can conceive of it being innocent.

            Like, as long as I don’t actually murder someone, anything I might do is innocence personified? You may wish to rethink your personal ethics.

          • StefanHeisenberg

            I don’t care for “personal ethics.” If someone is bugging you online, you a) report them, b) block them. Problem solved.

            We’re not here to police freedom of speech, but you have full control over reading or not reading what you want.

          • luci_fer

            “I don’t care for ‘personal ethics.'”

            Evidently.

          • StefanHeisenberg

            I don’t even know what personal ethics are. I think those are called morals. If so, then yes, I don’t care for ones subjective morality.

            I do, however, care for ethics, or, the law.

          • luci_fer

            Morals have the connotation of didactic dos and don’ts, and the association with religion (where our ideas of morality tend to stem from) so in general I prefer ethical over moral; but sure, it’s hair-splitting. Morals, ethics, principles; whatever term you wish to use, doesn’t really matter.

            The point being, trying to scare someone and cause them distress by threatening them is not an innocent act.

            It’s a malicious act, calculated on the knowledge that the recipient has no way of knowing your intentions. Yes, it’s unlikely to be carried out. But if you’re receiving many death threats, rape threats, threats of shootings if you speak in public, then it only takes the odd crazy in the bunch to try it for real.

            It’s that element of doubt that which is intended to scare people. Deliberate intimidation is hardly ‘innocent’.

            I don’t get why anyone would want to justify that kind of harassment, personally.

            Keeping in mind that there have been specific threats, including the recipients home address and targeting their families. Not just the typical internet nonsense of “diaf, die now plz, kill urself”.

            Re: caring about the law, in my country making death threats is not legal.

      • Hugh Briss

        Shill harder.

      • Kiltmanenator

        Oh, you mean like the death and rape threats Jack Thompson received?

      • merri

        “I’d disable comments, even if it did unfortunately drown out any constructive criticism.”

        Why? Because of a bunch of petulant internet-goers? I think comments like this — https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WuRSaLZidWI#t=541 (9:04)— were probably more of a threat.

        Also, she opens up comments in order to advertise the ugly comments, but closes comments in order to hide actual, logical, insightful criticisms of her awfully postured work, and does this to coincide with the releases of said work. For example, comments were left open on her Tropes advertisement, until the Tropes video actually released, whereupon she closed comments, and all the criticisms of her postured arguments, unfounded causal claims, and straight-up lies.

      • tuym wuystah

        “It’s not something most people have to deal with, ergo they can’t imagine how they would actually react to someone telling them “I hope you get cancer and AIDS at the same time”.”
        A lot of people on the internet actually deal with that on a daily basis – it’s background noise to them.

        And that’s THREATS – comments like “I hope you get aidscancer / a bus flattens your dickhole” are standard fare in general :D

        “Jesus, somebody even made a newgrounds game where the aim is to punch Sarkeesian in the face until she bruises. If someone did that to me you’d better believe I’d disable comments, even if it did unfortunately drown out any constructive criticism.”
        Why, was that game in the comments? :)

        Same thing was done to Jack Thompson and many others – Emmerich’s Godzilla movie wussed out on doing that to Ebert and Siskel, apparently. When the general understanding is that that kind of thing is just meaningless shite, basically, somehow it stops being a problem.

      • Hzle

        “somebody even made a newgrounds game where the aim is to punch Sarkeesian in the face until she bruises”

        There have been games like that where the target was George W Bush or Tony Blair right back in the time when those guys were in power. By your logic that would entail hatred of men.

        This is the big black hole in half the arguments here – somebody says something nasty to/about AS, so you infer hatred of women. How obvious does it have to be that this doesn’t follow?

        (even worse: if people see that game and shout “clearly misogyny!” it’s also not clear whether they do mean “hatred of women”, because the word has lost any distinct meaning)

    • merri

      “Bullshit. She has a proven track record of being a liar, I have no reason to believe her on this. She presented no proof of these threats whatsoever.”

      I don’t doubt at all that she’s been harassed quite a bit. That’s the nature of the internet and public figures, especially when they’re known solely for their criticisms of culture. I also don’t doubt that she would outright fabricate some of this stuff.

      She’s also capitalizing off of it though. Taking to twitter and literally making yourself a bigger target to the sociopaths because it guarantees donations to yourself and your business. It’s kind of disgusting considering how many other people have received the same treatment, but don’t have the added benefit of financial profit.

  • StefanHeisenberg

    “But when your
    job is, say, being a writer or content creator focused on gaming and
    tech culture, isn’t that sort of your job? You make money discussing all
    aspects of culture?”

    Funny. That’s exactly what Anita was doing before she went to Kickstarter.

    “Isn’t it far worse to seek funding for a
    project designed to attack and insult those who are trying to make
    gaming and tech spaces better for everyone.”

    It’s not designed to attack and insult those. As stated in the video and on the patreon page. They have been very clear on what they’re doing. You even quoted them that they’re not doing harassment.

    ‘You might disagree with the
    way in which Sarkeesian used crowdfunding to “buy games”, and you might
    dislike the quality of her videos, but to blame her for shutting out
    criticisms when most of them came in the form of disgusting rape threats
    is pretty pathetic.’

    The comments on her original youtube videos from her campaign were blocked and deleted. Now she just disables comments. To say that the thousands of comments to Anita, public or private, are “mostly disgusting rape threats” is ridiculous. Where did you get this information? Are you privy to her inbox? There are dozens of blog and video responses, critiquing Anita. She is beyond reproach. No one can dare question her, due to her pro. victim card. While such threats are mean spirited and vile, they’re innocent and the work of trolls; things easily dismissed. She hasn’t rebutted her detractors, and neither have many others. This would explain your opinion on the matter.

    If you would like to see arguments, of Anita, or the SJW in general, a simple youtube/google search will show hundreds of people voicing contrary, well thought out opinions. thunderf00t, The Amazing Atheist, Instig8iveJournalism, MrRepzion, KiteTales, etc., are some of the more popular ones.

    • Liam Lambert

      They can state that it’s not about attacking something, but that doesn’t mean I have to believe in their intent. If this was really a documentary about corruption in the games industry, why no mention of big publisher corruption, YouTuber corruption or the countless examples of journos who accepted shady deals and bribes in exchange for good reviews?

      As far as I can see, it’s a thinly veiled attempt to express distaste in “SJWs”, most of whom I view as people trying to promote good change in the industry. They’re welcome to do that, but it doesn’t mean I have to like it.

      • smudboy

        So you think they’re lying? Jordan has addressed various concerns
        http://youtu.be/UxLM1bYjPJc
        http://youtu.be/TzxDbXSGcIg

        If you haven’t noticed, it’s called “The Sarkeesian Effect”. That doesn’t necessarily sound like it’ll involve corruption in the games industry regarding big publisher corruption. It will probably talk about ZoeQuinn, and a few other issues.

        They’re doing exactly what they’re saying they’re going to do. Why would you assume otherwise?

        • Right? And for a one-time donation and then several subsequent monthly contributions, I know I can’t wait to continue not caring about this douche bag or anything that he has to say about anything, ever.

          I think this issue is as simple as if you care, awesome; if you disagree, cool. Just be relatively respectful to one another doing it. That’s me.

          • smudboy

            And that’s exactly what @Aurini and @jordenowen42 are doing.

      • dan

        Social justice warriors are just human parasites who leech off of others and piggy back their own self destructive narcissistic behavior off of legitimate causes to feel important and “special”.

      • Karall

        Because, it’s about SJWs specific negative influence on gaming. It’s not just about Anita though if that’s what you’re thinking. It’s a response to the whole SJW phenomena in game culture. I don’t know why you think they’re attacking anyone.

      • tuym wuystah

        “why no mention of big publisher corruption, YouTuber corruption or the countless examples of journos who accepted shady deals and bribes in exchange for good reviews”
        So let’s say it’s just about deconstructing Anita Sarkeesian and summing up everything that’s happened around her, that still has nothing to do with “attacking”.

        I’ll be honest, this is really the only aspect of the project (or GG for that matter) that I’m really invested in – not saying that general corruption doesn’t matter, but seeing these liberal smear articles and one-sided documentation exclusively supporting the horseshit side of the debate, is really the only thing that grinds my gears at the moment.

        So, let’s suppose the documentary will focus on that only, how is that a bad thing?

        “distaste in “SJWs”, most of whom I view as people trying to promote good change in the industry.”
        Well whenever they’re anything like Anita Sarkeesian, tell me, how is taking a bunch of things and falsely calling them sexist (while demonstrating severe tone-deafness and clueslessness about various premises of escapist entertainment), supposed to result in positive changes?
        And how is sweeping counterarguments and opposition under the rug a tactic that you’d like to see spread in the “industry”?

        And no, it’s not “thinly veiled”, it’s being openly stated. Jordanowen42 frequently publishes videos deconstructing those people’s arguments, and called the movie after one of those people. How is criticizing someone claiming to promote good change amount to an attack, though?

        You just accused them of “attacking” someone – and couldn’t back that up in your comment. Am I to suppose that this is the state you’d like to see “the industry” in, as well, committing and condoning a deluge of false accusations based on hunches and leaps of conclusion?