Slashdot Mirror
Anita Sarkeesian, Creator of "Tropes vs. Women," Driven From Home By Trolls
Sonny Yatsen writes: Anita Sarkeesian, the creator of Tropes vs. Women — a video series exploring negative tropes and misogynistic depictions of women in video games — reports that she has been driven from her home after a series of extremely violent sexual threats made against her. Her videos have previously drawn criticism from many male gamers, often coupled with violent imagery or threats of violence. The Verge story linked has this to say: The threats against Sarkeesian have become a nasty backdrop to her entire project — and her life. If the trolls making them hoped for attention, they've gotten it. They've also inexorably linked criticism of her work, valid or not, with semi-delusional vigilantism, and arguably propelled Tropes vs. Women to its current level of visibility. If a major plank of your platform is that misogyny is a lie propagated by Sarkeesian and other "social justice warriors," it might help to not constantly prove it wrong.
Is awful. Her "points" are silly, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was a sham put on by her to get more attention.
Is there anything to corroborate this? Sounds like great publicity.
Yes the subject is uncomfortable and no she isn't completely correct. Her arguments open to plenty of valid criticism that the female gender is not always misused in video games.
The problem is and will always be a reactionary subset of people who cannot be peer pressured into behaving like sane human beings on the Internet. You don't respond to a feminist critique by sending her death threats.
Trolling against her proves many of her points. Many take trolling as a sport to revel in their anonymity, but the threatening comments are extreme.
(https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/504718160902492160/photo/1)
In my opinion, her videos are, in places, poorly researched with many leaps of logic mixed with heavy opinions. But, they still contain very valid points and can be civilly debated.
Evolve, people. At least keep the trolling to a respectable severity.
Hopefully the lessons are not the ones that surfaced in this story...
It seems to me that the first few comments made to Slashdot about this story is indicative of the problem at large. The first comments (made by anonymous cowards) immediately conjectured that Sarkeesian is to blame, that she concoted the death threats as a publicity stunt.
You must ask yourself honestly : Why is it, when faced with stories like this, is your first instinct to claim that the woman lied or made it up?
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
I don't say this as some male mysoginist. I say this as someone who watched their videos hoping for what was promised in her over-hyped Kickstarter: A real exploration of themes in a historical biased industry.
What I got was the same old feminist bleating that dominates the discussion. It's shallow, reductive, and, in many cases, insulting to those of us who are fighting for true equality and recognition.
Oh my god, who the hell cares?
Toxic trolls versus shrill SJWs. If we're lucky, they'll annihilate each other and the rest of us normal folks will be left in peace.
Her entire career is based on being harassed. She is a bit like Westboro Baptist Church that way.
There are people (both men and women) who are truly in an exposed position and are being harassed without having provoked it, my sympathy goes to them.
As for Sarkeesian, the best thing we can do to reduce her harassment is to ignore her. The less focus that is drawn to her the less she will be harassed.
Unfortunately she might need to get a real job then and I doubt her personality will allow for that.
Someone, somewhere said something mean on the *internet*, you say? Do tell!
There will be lots of sexist comments here that will receive high scores as insightful and interesting. Always disappointing to read the comments on this topic. Hopefully there's one genuinely decent comment that doesn't explain how women are really the sexist ones and that men are under attack.
I think this woman is a liar and an attention seeker, but she certainly doesn't deserve that sort of attention. An violent mob is morally repugnant, a self promoting professional victim is simply a pitiful individual.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If this is a publicity stunt, then she has a lot of free time or lots of help in creating accounts, posting crap and the imagination to sound completely different in every post.
But as far as the death threats, I wouldn't take them seriously. It looks like they were made by a bunch of cowardly dorks from their parent's basement and wouldn't have the guts to even talk to this girl - or ANY girl, for that matter - let alone actually harm her. And posting their crap, they are actually helping her case.
The shame about this situation, other than the harassment Sarkeesian had to personally endure, is that she and her defenders will never have to address serious criticisms against her work and game journalism at large. Diminishing the real merit of those criticisms by lumping everyone together as trolls, as the Verge has done, is simply going to encourage more trolling by playing into the narrative that the media is playing favorites or operating with an agenda that should be outside the scope of journalism.
That is what /. keeps telling us. That we're hated and we're all rapists too. Seriously who the fuck keeps putting all of the man hating stories on /.
Fuck /. and fuck beta. I think I'm about done with this shithole after what? 15 years?
Way to go /.
Can we split the definition of trolls?
I mean, trolling in my experience is playful, like feigning ignorance in order to induce a reaction from someone else who is being completely serious. It is harmlessly "messing with someone."
But this unrelenting cyber bullying is something different altogether.
So can we call them cyber bullies instead of trolls? They make trolling not fun.
And of course they are all posting as "Anonymous Coward."
I think Slashdot ought to consider that some articles, especially those about anonymous internet trolls going open loop, might be set to not allow anonymous posting.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
Obviously such behavior is abhorrent, but it doesn't do to claim that most people that fit in any category are psychos publicly and then be surprised when a few people exibit the behavior and say essentially: See that proves it!. I could easily say all republican are, or all democrates are $INSERT_VOLATILE_CLAIM and then act surprised when a few of them behave that way and say "See! I told you so!", and it would be a similiarly foul conclusion.
News flash: A lot of people who play video games are immature and / or kids, and a subset of them will behave in this manner when provoked.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from this, assuming it happened as described, is: "Hey, this is what happened". Anyone surprised it happened doesn't understand the human race at all. It was pretty much guaranteed to happen.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
When was the last time some woman wrote a single line of code ?
You must ask yourself honestly : Why is it, when faced with stories like this, is your first instinct to claim that the woman lied or made it up?
Come on, we all know why it is. Just fucking tell them. Tell them that it's their first instinct because they don't want to believe that they could be part of the problem, however slightly. Tell them that they don't want to believe that people they know and call friends are actually acting like complete shitbags. Tell them that you know that they've been hurt, that they feel worthless and useless and powerless, and that you know they feel more powerful and thus more worthy and useful when they make someone else feel even worse about themselves.
And then tell them that the only way that they're ever going to feel better is by helping to create a world where we don't just shit all over one another. Because you've got to tie it into their self-interest.
Naturally, most of them won't listen right away. But perhaps eventually, after continuing to try making the world shittier as a way of making it a nicer place to live, they will start watching where they shit.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
the stereotype of gamers, and men in general, are perpetuated.
Stereotypes exist for a reason folks. Keep giving reasons to use them.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
This is EVERYWHERE amongst gaming circles right now, it's really hit the goddamned fan.
There's this line drawn in the sand and both camps are insisting you MUST be either on side A or side B, there's no middle ground.
Let it be known, trolls threatening people or harassing them is lame, it's stupid and they deserve mockery. No one should have to endure that.
The vast vast majority of the politically correct camp, arguing for equality are certainly correct.
However,... much like religion and many other things in life, there are hardcore fundamentalist type nutcases hijacking things. Pushing it to the extreme.
If you're a gamer who keeps your finger on the pulse, be it forums, podcasts, news articles, etc, you may have noticed there always seems to be someone, somewhere looking for a reason to find a flaw with what is being said, specifically to the political correctness of it. Something being said is offending someone. It honestly comes across to me like there's some kind of merit badge for being the most guilty, "No,.. no it's *ME*! I'm the one most aware of these issues and *I'm* the most offended on behalf of X Y or Z demographic"
These people then go on to belittle others and they are endlessly finding new ways to be offended, they've been labelled "SJW's" and honestly I hate to say it but it's a fitting description for some of these people.
I listened to a recent Eat-Sleep-Game podcast about 6 months back and one of the people on that, who is, well infamous for his excessive guilt tripping (mainly of himself) was discussing something regarding a game with a fellow journalist, something was said and he basically said something along the lines of "well that was clearly due to racism" (or sexism or homophobia) or some such. The problem was, what was said wasn't, it had nothing to do with it, it was completely off the cuff. You could basically hear the person he was talking it with do a o_O wtf. (sorry I don't recall finer specifics) This endless race to be *THE* best person and endlessly thinking about X Y or Z agenda.
I don't know where the line gets drawn, it seems any little thing is promoting "rape culture" or sexism or some such. I don't want to offend people, I genuinely, honestly do not want to - I don't want to be ignorant and just point and laugh or say stupid things. However I feel like the goalposts are constantly moving. What's not sexist according to politically correct group A, may be a "trigger" for politically correct group B and therefore I'm some kind of scum.
I really tire of reading my twitter feed and feeling guilty, or feeling like I'm supposed to feel guilty about something or other.
This post may read like I'm either condoning the actions of the idiot harassers or at least sympathising with them. I'm not. I can say I feel frustrated posting online for fear that *something* I say will offend someone, I'm expressing the frustration through anxiety, keeping my mouth shut and avoiding discussion about the topic. I'm not exploding at people, I'm not threatening, I'm hot even REMOTELY condoning the behaviour of those attacking others. I'm simply saying both sides aren't perfect.
It's not often I post using anonymous on slashdot but on this topic, I have no choice, because it seems, you're with or against us, I can't begin to argue in any way that hey, maybe both sides are being a bit nutty, unless I outright 100% admit, NOPE YOU GUYS ARE 100% RIGHT AND THEY ARE EVIL or some such. Honestly this is now worse than politics.
I've got no doubt this post will offend someone somehow, there's no intention to, I don't take delight in offending whoever you are, I'm sorry it offends you. All I can say is, I'm not surprised someone, somewhere is offended, that's life, you can't be everything to everyone.
God help us slashdot, please take note of dupe news articles though and please let us only discuss this particular event the once this month, I can't take much more of this, it's killing the internet.
This is terrible, naturally. No one should be threatened for political or social views. Let's hope the coppers bust these people so they can explain themselves in front of a judge.
That being said, her videos are frankly awful. Her mile wide inch deep 'analysis' is really stuck at a first semester undergraduate level. She once did a video analysis of christmas songs and went after songs like 'I saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus' and 'All I Want for Christmas Is You' as being creepy and anti-feminist respectively because, in the latter's case, a woman shouldn't need a man to be happy.
But I do know that the way most SJWs wield it would, in a civilized society, result in civil and criminal action for defamation. Most of it is just a way of saying "you disagree with me, therefore you are a bigot." That isn't harmless speech. You are attempting to destroy someone's stance for the non-crime of a disagreement.
The fact that these threats have been made is more than enough to prove her point. Not all of us men are bad, but there are plenty of stupid males that I have known that add fuel to this fire and show that there is at least some truth to it. It is my fellow men like these ones that really make me mad, and I wonder why any of them would treat a woman like this. I do think that some feminists go over board since some think all men are bad, however there are perfectly reasonable ones as well who get harrased and threatened like this poor lady.
market shJar3. Red
Because she has a history of lying and being manipulative, and making up exactly these types of attacks on her.
And of course they are all posting as "Anonymous Coward."
But of course. No one wants to risk getting Eich'ed or doxxed because they don't toe the SJW/leftoid/women-as-perpetual-victim line. And yes...I'm posting this with my username. I'm sure some extremist feminist will dox me as has been seen to be the "best defense is a good offense" approach to dealing with said transgressions in the Zoe Quinn case.
Damn I feel foolish now I've RTFA, she's complaining about YT trolls, there's no actual violence. One person posted a death threat with her address attached. Everyone from climate scientists to Exxon executives get that sort of shit continuously, it's (sadly) part of being a public figure.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Yes, even don't send them death threats.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think the Tropes vs Women series does a good job of highlighting a cultural problem, one that especially shows up in comics and video games. The series make me think a lot about how I handle female characters in my writing. So I give Anita Sarkeesian a good deal of credit. However, some of the claims she makes are also either false or strawman (strawwoman?) arguments and I can understand why that upsets a lot of people. It did eventually cause me to stop watching her videos.
But that is as far as I would take it. I mean someone on the net disagreed with me, so what? I would never threaten another person, man or woman, with violence because they have a different view on the world and how video games should be designed. That is completely idiotic. The people who are behind the threats against Sarkessian are horrible people and should be prosectuted (by the law).
But most people's immediate reaction is to going to be to doubt the pure innocence not of "the" victim", but "THIS" victim. The cynicism is based within the very specific context of a specific situation, not in the general context of "sexuality".
The fact that this makes slashdot rather than the mass censorship of reddit/4chan troubles me.
No, really. I'll probably be banned just for mentioning her, but I think she's the one stirring all the hate due to her scandals with the gaming press.
and that sort of coarseness, misogyny, etc is part of the reason why.
Anyway, checking the links, it's not clear if the threats are a result of her video and stances vis-a-vis the gaming community, or just some whacko obsessed over a cute woman.
I think this over-the-top PC trend is mostly shallow self-crongratulatory (or self-flagellating) mental masturbation - and the groups engaging in it are in their own feedback loop, in frenzied agreement with each other. It's like blaming domestic volence on old silent movies where the good guy saves the woman ties to the railroad tracks.
BUT
Threats and intimidation are wholly unacceptable responses to pretty much *any* idea or (non-violent) opinion or position. Such a response to something that might seem shallow and silly is not only unacceptable, but has the unintended consequence of giving credibility to the silliness.
Somehow, when she wasn't logged in on twitter she was able to screencap the rape threats within 12 seconds of it being made, without getting a notification.
I found her Youtube channel about a month ago and watched a number of her videos. They were informative, entertaining, and well written. I didn't see anything that I disagreed with and thought she was spot on in many cases. It is ridiculous that she has to suffer abuse for just stating the obvious, that there flaws with the way women are depicted in media and video games.
Anyone who gets so defensive about a video game they didn't develop or take any part in really needs to re-evaluate their mental health.
Hey, why stop with games? Why not just eliminate everything we don't agree with from every form of art? It'd be a hoot! That way everyone is happy! Of course, we get some REALLY fucking boring art, but hey, at least everyone is happy!
Though she has managed to manipulate the inevitable* death threats far better than he ever did.
* It's the internet. You'll get death threats from "Christians" if you argue on the internet about evolution v creation. You'll get death threats from American Football fans if you argue that soccer is a better sport. You'll get death threats if you argue that New York pizza is better than Chicago pizza. Who would have thunk you'd get them if you pick a topic close to the heart of teenage boys.
bitch needs to man up and stand her ground
A femme-butchy?
So is she femme curious, or butch curious?
Really? Your reponse is "everyone does it so we shouldn't even try to change it"? An extension of the "everyone else does it" defense that every kindergarden child can tell you won't get them off.
It's not the community of gamers that's objecting. It's the small, virulent subset that sees it as an attack on themselves. The ones who can't conceive their attacks are exactly the problem and prove her right by doing what they do. People who say "what should you expect" are the enablers.
"Suppose you were an idiot..... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeate myself."
Threatening a misandrist social injustice warrior is not misogyny.
Shit, I've been threatened online. It wasn't misandry. So stop making this a fucking gender thing and treat it as the simple stupid criminal behaviour that it is.
I'm sick and tired of reading bullshit from 4th wave "feminism" hate monger SJWs such as Anita Sarkeesian about how, because some "bros" acted like pigs to them in college, all men and everything "male" is horrible and evil.... until proven otherwise, and even then, under tight surveillance. It's 100% the same as telling a black person that "they're one of the good ones".
I totally get that people struggle for identity in their 20s, and it's easier to dedicate yourself to the "cause" of feminism rather than getting off your stupid tumblr bullshit and going out to do some REAL work to improve the world, but hey, at least you're a snowflake.
Meanwhile, internet trolls from 4chan make "credible" death threats, and this poor little blogger needs to flee her house (please, send ad clicks and or bitcoin!)
Posting AC for obvious reasons.
Yes, but that argument kind of falls apart when the only people mentioning 'all women are untrustworthy' are the people defending her, and many of those casting doubt on the claims explicitly point out they are doing so because they believe evidence she has done so in the past.
Are gender inspecific -- anyone who has ever spent time in the CSR trenches of any online gaming service can attest to that.
The difference between Ms Sarkeesian and everyone else who has to deal with the flood of ichor is that the rest of us realize that most trolls are teenagers in mom's basement with no ability to actually follow up on their threats.
If I could leave work every time I took a call from some kid threatening to "eff me up the ass with a rusty chainsaw" because he can't get onto one of our servers, I would never be at work.
Ms Sarkeesian has the privilege of being able to monetize her discord, while most everyone else who has to deal with this has to grin and bear it.
I enjoyed and agreed with almost everything she says in her video, but at the same time couldn't help but noticing how much makeup she is using! Not complaining though ;)
I would *so* love to get together a study to interview the people who are attacking Ms Sarkeesian.
All this name-calling, back and forth, doesn't solve anything. I completely don't understand the violent, angry response at all. I suspect many people don't. I believe it is so important to find out why those people feel threatened and what it is they think they are accomplishing, with their attacks.
I doubt that this problem can be solve by further attacking people who already feel, rationally or otherwise, threatened. We need to understand what's going on here.
Kevin Dobson is impotent not important!
Who are *these people* who cannot be provoked? People that play video games? Are we really going to say that we cannot even talk about video games now without signing our own death warrants? Is that your point?
Take her work at face value or call it part of a conspiracy - all she's doing is speaking into a camera on the internet. Ms. Sarkesian is *not* a legislator, she's not out there suing companies and telling them what to do or what not to do. She's just stating her opinion and raising what she considers issues with the messaging of video games.
WTF is wrong with you?
I think the threats against her are retarded. The only way to kill her is to stop giving her attention. She would shrivel and die if no one listened to her nonsense.
It is just random pandering to sjw, that has next to do gaming. Case and point;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRSaLZidWI
So, she has provoked harassment by critiquing development trends, and because she criticized HER critics, she's making a career out of being harassed.
And apparently I'm supposed to ignore her. Why should I do that? She seems to think that there are people waiting for a niche genre, and apparently a lot of people agree with her. That's easy sales, why shouldn't I be interested in that perspective?
She's a feminist advocate and a video director. She's SUPPOSED to seek attention you nitwit.
Like Jim Carrey being an attention seeker because he's advertising his movies. Well, no shit. Maybe you should call him and threaten to kill him for overacting.
But I haven't seen anything that indicates she's a liar. Everything she's said is either a plausible claim or a defensible argument. What makes you think she's lying? About what?
No, you should be differentiating between trolling and practical jokes, not trolling and bullying. There's no difference on the internet, if you're not paying attention to your victim trolling puts you on the side of a bullying mob of assholes regardless of your intent.
Is there anyone here who makes death threats against someone they don't know personally (and who would know if it was or was not a joke), and does not expect them to go to the authorities, or expect a knock at their RW door by people with badges and a warrant?
I mean, really? If so, I think they think they've uploaded their brains to a video game. Sorry, guys, the RW *always* wins.
mark, whose duaghters and son would probably be able to track the poster to their home for the cops... oh, or
since it's over the wire, the FBI?
These are no longer 'trolls' - they are criminals committing criminal harassment.
Two kinds of /. articles keep my killfile topped up: those about global warming (deniers), and those with "men's rights advocates" who engage in victim-blaming. Neither sort of person's comments are worth reading.
Related: it's dumb that we're limited to 200 friend/foe relationships. I ran into that limit earlier this week and had to spend an hour trimming out users who don't post any longer.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Seriously, if you think this inane whining about "video games are doing " ____"
bullshit is a problem, you need to go to a war zone where people are dying.
THEN you will understand what a REAL problem is.
The above goes for the idiots who "trolled" the woman who is wasting time caring ......
about how women are depicted in video games. I suppose that stupid cunt didn't notice
any of the films which have been made in the last 100 years, or the existence of porn,
or strip clubs, or any of the rest of it. It's REALITY, and one thing about reality is
that it will never ever be completely pleasing to ANYONE. But only idiots and whiners
complain about it. Adults make their own part of the world as good as it can be within the
limitations of the resources available to them and ignore the bullshit they cannot change.
Overall, it's a fairly safe group to criticize.
I'm sure the FBI agent that is right now being assigned to investigate the death threats she received will agree with you completely.
My hobby does not hate women; The vast majority of people who play video games do not hate women. Please, Sarkeesian's of the world, turn your attentions to the people who do.
The vast majority of gamer's don't hate women, but they do love escaping into their power fantasies, where they are tough, strong and desirable and where females (you know, the other 50% of the planet) are treated as objects and she has called you out for it. If this isn't the absolute stark truth, then why is it even a story? There are plenty of nut jobs on the Internet that are ignored by everyone because they are crazy and nobody cares what they say. The fact that she is getting all this negative attention from misogynistic bullies shows just how utterly correct she is. She is telling the truth and that scares people.
If gaming is so squeaky clean and there isn't any truth in what she has to say, why wouldn't you welcome shining a bright light on the industry and behavior of gamers? She is 100% correct in all her analysis, and I'll even go farther and say what she hasn't said, that the hobby is crawling with shit bag women haters who can only have some self-esteem because they are bullying others.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I was cool with everything she said in the video until she mentioned Earthbound. Don't fuck with Earthbound; that game's my jam.
I did not actually do much research beyond internet searches of official (.gov .edu or legitimate news) websites, and I am not a psychologist, but here are some thoughts.
Some think she is doing this to herself, some think this immature men behaving with irrational hatred, but I think this is more like the statistics of a large population. She is a public figure in gaming and some would say a public figure against gaming. According to USA today article back in 2012 there are 212 Million gamers in the US. Through various articles I found that 4% to .2% of the population is mentally ill with violent tendencies. This is roughly 424000 potentially violent people with mental disorders. Then use whatever reasoning you like for Anita to grab their attention in a negative way (Tribalism, misogyny, or that "Anita is a phoney.") Death threats, credible ones, were inevitable.
You gotta be fucking kidding.
HAND.
The world is in need of a technical solution to extreme trolling. It's a social problem, but it's significantly exacerbated by the internet, web,etc. Something like a spam filter is in order, where one could set the level of accepted negativity, and it should give the user confidence that *serious* threats were being passed through or dealt with. I don't care enough to start a company, but I'm just saying, there's a business opportunity here...
Thank you, Slashdot, for all the years of awesome tech news. As of today, I will no longer be checking this website or supporting any of your advertisers by purchasing items directly through ads place here. Slashdot has rushed too willingly to the arms of the feminazi. What used to be useful and meaningful links is now littered with, well, crap telling men that they're evil, useless, and so on. I for one believe in equality of the sexes, and putting down one sex to bring up the other is NOT EQUALITY. May you join Digg.
You're free not to care about certain discussions, but for decades there have been discussions about the power of media and how culture is employing it and whether this is actually a good idea.
Incidentally, it is possible, when millions of people are in communication with one another, to work together towards addressing several problems at once. So why don't you get on with solving murder while Sarkeesian focusses on the negative portrayal of women in various media such as computer games? You may even cooperate with one another at some point, but for now I suggest you work with whoever is fixing racism, or domestic violence.
That's one hell of an echo chamber you've built for yourself. Do you own a pair of Zaphod Beeblebrox's glasses as well.
Dear God,
I've never asked you for anything. Literally ever. But I'm asking now:
Please let it become known that she threatened herself for attention.
Anon
By that weak standard any death threat against a creationist makes creationism "true" and proves his point. This is a stupid irrational response by people. Death treat or rape threat do not prove a point. facts and evidence demonstrate or at least consolidate a point. She does not have that. Her video have been shown to be ill researched and she ignored fully what went against her point. Still threatening her only proves there are idiot which get a kick of threatening other people. It does not prove at all anything about videogame and damsel in distress.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I've not followed her a lot, but what I've seen is not misandrist - what has she done to be misandrist in your mind?
The reason this is a gender thing is that it's women writers and speakers who are receiving sexualized threats whenever they say something that a subset of men find objectionable. It's not often the other way around. If it was, this wouldn't be a 'fucking gender thing', but as it turns out, its almost exclusively women that face this experience and it's almost universally when they talk about the portrayal or men or women in movies or books or games or whatever.
People are trying to treat it as stupid and criminal, but unfortunately (predominantly men it seems) are trying hard to minimize it is as being serious or even suggesting it's all crafty witch's illusion (Burn her!)
But when some teenage boy is acidic towards women, it's "Damn, gamer culture is to blame, and we need to re-engineer the thoughts and feelings of gamers everywhere, using social bullying."
Well that's the problem, if it only were just A boy you would be correct. There is widespread racism, homophobia, and misogynous behavior in the gaming community, and yeah, there needs to be a change.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Some of the "problems" can be attributed to someone not wanting their personal information to appear in a screen capture. Given the death threats involved, I couldnt' blame them. You never know when threats might become real.
Never heard of her or her series. I just checked it out and appreciated/agreed with some of it. The last time someone did me that kind of favor, I read with relish the "His Dark Materials" trilogy. Congrats, trolls. You've made it to the big league...I mean the Catholic League.
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.
What I don't understand is why we're down on the "Save the Princess" games when yeah, there's much worse stuff out there to be dealt with. A lot of people mention GTA, but how about games like good ol "Duke Nukem." Yes, DN3D is old, and we all know that the newer game was bad from a gameplay aspect as well, but seriously the intro scene has got to be the biggest piece of sh** even.
If you've got stuff like that out there, going after "Mario" is kinda like trying to bandage up a papercut when you've got a gunshot wound to the head/chest.
p.s. I don't agree that "save the princess" is inherently bad to the point that it should be eliminated entirely. Somebody needs to be saved, after all. It's more that it's generally lopsided in favour of helpless female "props" and male protagonists. Maybe we need more Princess Fiona types that can kick ass in their own right
Oh noes, a content producer made a six figure lump sum for several years work - she must be criticized for not representing the games industry in its entirety, using a small set of unrepresentative examples to represent the whole - clearly she is open target for vicious criticism.
The games industry aren't content producers, never make any money and so are definitely blameless in the content they produce and should not be subject to negative criticism of any kind because so doing makes you a hate-baiter who is insulting the people that consume the content.
Her videos aren't about how gamers hate women. They are how women are commonly portrayed as sexual targets or victims in the games industry, to the point that it has a whole forest of tropes associated with it. That isn't because women are hated, it's that game designers seem to think without sexual imagery that appeals to men, they wouldn't sell as many games. Which is usually true only because big games tend to actually suck and they need to be visually appealing. There are plenty of games which are neutral or otherwise fine - but there are too many (big sellers) in which women exist only for the aesthetic appeal of men.Do you have any evidence of her saying that gamers are haters? Or have you conflated criticism of people involved in making games you enjoy as criticism of your group and therefore of you? That would be a little foolish, I think, so I hope that's not the case.
Incidentally, there are plenty of other people tackling the news, film and religious groups - so you don't have to worry that Sarkeesian is alone. I'm going to be frank - some of the ugliness that comes out of the gaming and tech industry is pretty damned ugly. If you want to see what women get for criticizing men in a religious-based discussion then you might look to Jen McCreight,Greta Christina, Aayan Hirsi Ali, Maryam Namazie. They tend to get death and rape threats for pointing out that the religious (and irreligious) cultures are still too infused with misogyny. It's not all that different than with the game industry, only gamers have less excuse than religious people because Assassin's Creed 2 is not a central part of (most) gamers' identity.
This is a woman who has been caught lying about this kind of thing in the past. She's getting criticism, she doesn't like it, or know how to deal with it; so she makes up stories like this. She's done it before. She's been caught. Don't buy into this woman's attention whoring.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
And why do so many care what this woman thinks? Can't she just be ignored like every other person with an unqualified opinion?
she's hiding out with male friends, and the majority of those "authorities" that are going to protect her are male? Way to go, strong woman who doesn't need men.
I have yet to hear a SINGLE rational objection to her critique of video game genres. Lets's play a game, called 'spot the hate-mongering'. Which is it:
1) "Women are often portrayed as helpless and passive in common video game tropes."
2) "Jews are filthy money grubbers, who are out to take over the world."
Now, one of theses statements is ignorant, racist hate-mongering. The other is a neutral observation of a fact. I don't expect you to correctly identify the one that is actual hate-mongering because of your prior posting, but for the sake of the game, give it a try.
Calling what she is saying 'hate-mongering', illustrates that you are TOO FUCKING STUPID TO BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK EVER AGAIN. So, please for the general quality of life on the planet earth, run your balls through a meat grinder and french kiss a wood chipper.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Or the world might be a better place if there wasn't such an investment in ridiculing those who protest.
Been done to those who speak for minorities, unions, religious groups and more.
I'm sure it's at least as old as the Bible. The Old Testament, not the New.
It is evident from your posts here that you have some personal issues to deal with.
It is NOT normal to lash out with a vitriolic tirade of graphic sexual threats under ANY circumstances, much less being "provoked" by inflammatory speech. It is sick, and it should not be tolerated or even expected in a peaceful civilized society.
You don't let a thief go or belittle the victim because the door wasn't locked at the time or there were no bars on the windows so a break in should have been expected. You don't defend a rapist and blame a rape victim because she wore a bikini to the beach on a hot day. And yoy certainly don't threaten someone with grave injury or death because what they say offends you. Actions of this sort are those of sick, twisted people...not always evil people as they could be victims of their upbringings, but sick people who need help nonetheless.
Come on, we all know why it is. Just fucking tell them. Tell them that it's their first instinct because they don't want to believe that they could be part of the problem,
Or...or....people are just fucking tired of EVERYTHING having to be about narrative/progress/social justice, and we just want people who have made their lives about such things to get some kind of new hobby/career, and stop destroying everything in the name of ideology.
Well, she did kind of cherry-pick the most violent examples. I also doubt she'll really explore the side of gaming that is positive towards women, because she has a specific agenda...and it's not the betterment of the gaming community. That being said, she doesn't deserve threats and harassment; no one does. It's sad that her critics can't have a rational debate, and resort to violent threats. I'm hoping there's a full investigation. I think it's become easier and more acceptable to be a troll. Personally, I think more forums need to push for a cleaner community. If you can't discuss a game's merits and failures in an adult manner, you should be banned permanently with your IP blocked. There were portions of her latest video that I did agree with. Sadly, she followed the typical failure of modern journalism. Instead of showing both sides of the issue, highlighting her stance, and allowing the reader/viewer to choose their own, she opted to only show one side. I could describe a cup of coffee as being brown, staining your teeth, and having sediment floating in it. While that description is correct, it only shows one half of the issue. She’s transferring the burden to the viewer, and I feel that is wrong. By repetitively showing the most extreme examples of violence towards women, she’s able to whip her audience into a frenzy and polarize the situation. Talking about the “violence in games” as a general concept, she’s pushing the assumption that all games are violent and that the industry is ruled by misogyny and patriarchy. Granted, there is misogyny in the industry, so she does have valid points. I just have problems with how she’s presenting it.
You haven't offended me, and I don't think you're scum. Honestly, it's a bummer you're worried about being seen that way. I'm a man, and I'm seeing a lot of the same articles/tweets/etc you are. They don't make me feel guilty though, they make me outraged. I don't identify with the trolls here. When I hear about them it's like hearing about radical jihadism. Radical jihadists are usually young men, but that doesn't put me in their camp. So why would I feel guilty? I feel outraged because we're doing something about radical jihadism (regardless of our effectiveness), but I don't see what's being done about these online harassment campaigns.
As far as over sensitivity goes, I haven't seen much of that, but it makes sense to me. It's probably happening. I certainly wouldn't want to be accidentally associated with misogynists. As a member of the privileged (male) class, it's easy to take the privilege for granted. The default assumption isn't that you're pro-feminism, so you've got to prove it a bit. If that's inconvenient, irritating, or boring, sorry about that. If the misogynists vanished (or diminished to, say, American neo-Nazi levels), then we could all get on with things and relax about this issue a bit.
I'm worried that I see a bit of false equivalence* in your comparison of the feminist vs misogynist divide. Let's be clear here, there's cultural debate and shifting norms and people are speaking out against certain parts of our society. All of that is true, but only one side of the issue is engaging in a scorched earth hate campaign. It's like the Pro-Life people who bomb abortion clinics or the KKK burning a black church. It doesn't matter where you stand on issues of reproduction or race, we all need to condemn those behaviors. Really there are never 2 sides. There are always many sides. Still, I think we should all try not to be on the side of the hate crimes.
I don't have the solution, but we need to make the internet a safer place for women. It's the right thing to do, and we'll all be richer for it.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
there flaws with the way women are depicted in media and video games
You realize this a call for cultural censorship of the totalitarian type? Anyone who values freedom will fight her (and you) to the death.
Because there have been so many instances of these SJW types lying and cheating to further their cause: faking getting doxxed, viciously attacking people that don't agree with them, lying about getting mugged for donations, having sex for publicity, attacking people who objectively sum up facts and so on and so forth. The only thing indicative of a problem is that this group of people still has any credibility left.
Trying to frame this as "she's only getting attacked because she's a woman" is disingenious and a pretty good example of the underhanded way some people try to shut down discussions.
Almost 100% are purchased by a woman, so I'm not sure how guys giving women bigger breasts in a video game are somehow misogynists.
But then you probably hate all of the women getting boob jobs, but that's okay, right.
Yes yes, the latest wave of feminsim is all about censorship. "Shut down everyone who disagrees with us." We've seen that often enough in the last few days.
That's a good reason to remain anonymous: SJW types are radicals who viciously attack anyone whose opinion they don't like.
What we don't know:
- Is this real or fabricated?
- If real, is the person behind it a male?
etc, etc, etc
Never heard of Anita before and I will promptly forget her name now.
Owww, owwie, ohhh, ouch, umph, it hurts...
No, can't see it. If we remove stereotypes, there would not be a lot of fiction left in the world.
A lady in Lincoln Nebraska made up worse, and later admitted to it. She went so far as to fake a kidnapping and torture. She cut slurs into herself and claimed she was tied up for being gay.
http://journalstar.com/news/lo...
I haven't watched this gal's TED talk or any of her videos. I really don't see why anyone would get mad about a person making an opinionated video anyway. Maybe that is why I find it hard to believe that people are making crazy threats against the author of some opinionated video.
From personal experience being targeted by a pathological liar, I can say that some women really do make up crazy crap to get attention. It blows up in their face sometimes, like the one who targeted myself and a few of my high school buddies, and the woman in Lincoln. Sometimes they get away with it. Unfortunately there is actual violence happening too. Every claim should be treated as real until disproved, and if the claims were bogus, the liar should be punished. If the claims are true then obviously the bad guys deserve punishment. The one who made false police reports about myself received no punishment, but I'm content that karma will reward her throughout her life. My friends and I were the victims, and did nothing wrong. We told everyone about what happened so she will never live it down.
Also from the tweets "I want to drink blood from your C***" Seriously, who says that? I am inclined to think its a fake. But it would be best to actually prove it, or catch a seriously dumb and violent nut.
And what the hell is wrong with BIG BOOBS? I like BIG BOOBS. I don't feel ashamed about that. Nearly 100% of boob jobs are received by women, are they misogynistic cause they also like BIG BOOBS?
She is a hater and you are a hater. I love BIG BOOBS and love always is stronger than hate.
Anyone who values freedom will fight her (and you) to the death.
Ahh, so because I didn't disagree with her and think that there are indeed flaws in the way women are depicted, I deserve to die too? Do you even have a clue as to how childish and overly dramatic you appear with comments like that?
every problem is a nail.
If the only tool you have is outrage about mistreatment, every problem is mistreatment to be outraged about.
Seems interesting that all those who can only make a name for themselves by pointing out injustices, always seem to find it?
and those most outraged, always seem to find the worst case to be outraged about?
for without it, they'd have nothing. No drama, no recognition. No ad support. No speaking engagements. Definitely no press mention.
If this were some oil exec pointing out the health benefits of oil spills, his "cause" would be ignored because of blatant self interest.
tragedy miners, victims, the outraged however, are rarely questioned. No such thing as drama queens, Munchausen by proxy, or White Kights/Ladies according to the defenders.
Skepticism needs to go both ways, or it's merely suspicion at best and deliberate sabotage at worst.
I found her Youtube channel about a month ago and watched a number of her videos. They were informative, entertaining, and well written. I didn't see anything that I disagreed with and thought she was spot on in many cases. It is ridiculous that she has to suffer abuse for just stating the obvious, that there flaws with the way women are depicted in media and video games.
Anyone who gets so defensive about a video game they didn't develop or take any part in really needs to re-evaluate their mental health.
Wait.. are you talking about Anita Sarkeesian getting defensive about a video game she didn't develop or take any part in? Or, are you referencing some other person or instance that you forgot to include in your comment?
I have yet to hear a SINGLE rational objection to her critique of video game genres.
Thunderf00t made videos full of them. So many of her points were absolutely ridiculous. You can't have meaningful relationships with random background characters who are women? You don't say! But you can't do that with the male background characters, either.
You must ask yourself honestly : Why is it, when faced with stories like this, is your first instinct to claim that the woman lied or made it up?
Because I watched her presentation about the death threats she was receiving and the best example she could come up with was uncredible echo-chamber shouting from 4chan.
I have no doubt that she receives hate mail. She makes a living by criticizing popular entertainment. However I also do not believe she has made anyone mad enough to pose a real threat to her life or property. And I don't subscribe to the assumption that because she's female she's easily frightened by obviously on-credible threats (like the ones from her presentation).
That leaves the most likely explanation as she's making a mountain out of a mole hill for the publicity (it apparently works as her presentation regarding her hate mail and the surrounding publicity is the only reason I know who she is).
Now, if the news was that she's been taken into protective custody by the police, that the police have begin an investigation to track down the perpetrator of a specific threat against her, or that she was actually attacked or harassed prompting the move. Then it'd be a different story. When it's juts her saying she received threats and decided to move, well I'd be more inclined to believe she was actually frightened if she didn't stand to gain so much form the publicity.
Is there any evidence that this abuse is anything more than the antics of a single, obsessive, autistic, 15 year old boy?
Just wanted to get some basic facts established before considering this story to be anything more than a quarrel between fools.
Are you seriously trying prove your point with a false dichotomy and then calling me stupid? Really?
How about her call to Lego to remove any facial hair from their characters because showing men with facial hair is bad.
How about her call for companies not to show men playing with their sons because that is bad.
How about her claim that testosterone is bad.
Police report or it didn't happen.
The problem with Anita is that she made her subject/focus the negative aspects of gaming, rather than the good aspects and what changes she would like to see.
When you approach a subject from a negative prospective you automatically put people on the defensive. You're less likely to get people to see your point of view that way.
She would be better off promoting those games that do show strong female characters and story telling. Highlight what makes them good examples and then talk about what changes she would like to see in the industry as whole.
I can't help but question how serious these death threats really are.
After all, we're hearing about them from a person who thinks that talking about something is the same as doing something. That's why she's making a bunch of videos complaining that she doesn't like how video games depict women - she thinks that if she talks about it enough, the entire world will magically bend to her will and stop liking things that she doesn't like. For comparison, if she really wanted to make a difference, she would lead by example: take that $150,000 Kickstarter and make a video game that depicts women properly. But she'll never do that, because Anita Sarkeesian doesn't even play video games. (Why would she? They're misogynist!)
You want to know what really is misogynist about the video game industry? A female indie developer has to sleep with game "journalists" to build fake hype for her locally-hosted webpage, while a male indie developer could just pay them.
I just watched her Lego video. I missed the spot where she called on Lego to remove facial hair from their 'minifigs'. Can you point me to the timestamp where she makes the claim?
Wait.. are you talking about Anita Sarkeesian getting defensive about a video game she didn't develop or take any part in? Or, are you referencing some other person or instance that you forgot to include in your comment?
I'm writing about anyone who gets so defensive that they make death threats, you know, the topic of this thread.
http://www.videogamessuck.com/... http://kotaku.com/death-threat... http://kotaku.com/5904367/anot... http://www.develop-online.net/... I'm sure all of you Social Justice Whiteknights modded 5:Insightful want to line up to support these men who received similar threats and insults, right? I would link donation pages, but unfortunately those people are busy making their living making video games instead of being professional victims, so there are no pages. Somehow, women are the only people who can be victims in this industry—I wonder if it's your internalized misogyny that makes that the case. Women are always victims, because they are weak and vulnerable to men, who have "power" am I right? "Poor women, they will never get a break" is an EXTREMELY misogynistic statement, and it's what the majority of the upvoted comments are stating. I hope the disgusting irony does not escape you. Where's Roberta Williams' donation page? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Professional victim that scammed people of $150k is back for more money.
Apparently people are dumb and she likes to fleece them.
Liberty.
To "Anita Sarkeesian is out of money, lies again to get more well-intended naive people to give her money for nothing".
http://i.imgur.com/zHPLIan.jpg
You have got to be shitting me. His "critiques" basically boil down to "I dislike that one 30 second example from your 30 minute video, therefore everything you say is a lie".
Thunderf00t is the perfect example of the kind of Internet intellectual who thinks that "critical thinking" is memorising lists of classical logical fallacies. Ed Glaser is spinning in his grave.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
You have got to be shitting me. His "critiques" basically boil down to "I dislike that one 30 second example from your 30 minute video, therefore everything you say is a lie".
That's not actually what happened, or what he claimed. He used many clips from her videos. She simply made a number of stupid arguments in her videos that can't be overlooked. She could've also said that 1 + 1 = 2 somewhere in her videos and she'd still deserve lots and lots of criticism.
Thunderf00t is the perfect example of the kind of Internet intellectual who thinks that "critical thinking" is memorising lists of classical logical fallacies.
Does that actually describe him, or is that your own delusion?
You're welcome. Don't forget to watch criticism videos of her stuff as well, though. Most of those are NOT trolls, but people who have legitimate criticism and can't comment on the video since she turns off all comments on all of her videos (except the Kickstarter one that made her $150K, that is.)
This sounds like an argument of the form "if the KKK protests against it, it must be right." That's no different than "people disagree with me, therefore my cause is the good one." It is logical fallacy.
No, that is pretty much exactly what happened, unless you caught the one video where he made a relevant point rather than the dozen or so that I saw where he missed the point completely.
Part of the problem here, and it's also evident in the comment thread here, is that a lot of science-minded geeks don't understand the difference between the social sciences and the humanities.
You can understand an atom pretty much perfectly. You can understand a star at the level at which you can observe it, because you can treat it statistically. You can't really understand a war in the same way. There are so many aspect and so many levels that you can't really capture the whole thing at the level at which you can observe it.
The things that the humanities study are so inherently complex (because they deal with the human experience) that there is never going to be an exact theory which applies all the time. Instead, you come up with models (sometimes called "narratives") which try to capture generally what's going on at one level. If a historian is studying a war, they might focus on the general trends and forces in one theatre, and in doing so gloss over details which may contrast with that. Or they might focus on what happened in one town, and in doing so simplify some of the wider context.
That is what Anita Sarkeesian is doing with the video game landscape. In doing so, of course she is going to gloss over details, because there is no other way to understand the landscape as a whole. Chipping away at a few points doesn't invalidate the argument. Just because North America had a cold winter doesn't mean that the global trend is towards warming. Just because killing civilians is penalised in one particular game doesn't mean that there isn't a general theme of abused women being used as decoration in video games.
It's an exaggeration for comic effect, but it's only a slight exaggeration. What actually describes him is that he is a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. And yes, I've seen way too many Thunderf00t videos for my own good.
I don't know if you've ever been in an undergraduate-level critical thinking class, but the field is very, very different from what most people think. You know how you go into topology thinking it's going to be all Klein bottles and toruses, and what you actually find is weeks of open and closed sets and metric spaces? Well, critical thinking mostly isn't about logical fallacies. It's mostly about how to understand an argument. It's all about the Principle of Charity, diagramming arguments, and so on.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
She's a professional victim and loves all the attention she gets.
Gaming is not more than wanking neckbeards without lives pretending they are what they ain't, no matter how you dress it up.
Why anyone not utterly dysfunctional would want to be part of that culture other than to exploit it for pay is a mystery.
Does anyone else still remember this crackpot?
How is the scorn and treatment given to Anita any different to what was directed at him?
The only difference here is Anita's status as a professional victim and as a female.
A.S's "point" is that there is a malearchy running the world.
All THIS proves is that there are arseholes in the world.
Because if it doesn't matter if a woman is BUCK NAKED, then showing her tits on a daily newspaper is double not a problem, right?
Oh, except it isn't.
Why remains a state secret...
Look women wear revealing clothes to attract male attention. Unstated as to WHICH male the attention is wanted, but THAT IS WHY IT'S WORN.
And some people take it as an invitation TO THEM.
Hence, it's a risk to take, and a risk that doesn't need to be taken.
By definition, a feminist isn't for male equality, only in the progression of the female race.
It used to be claimed that women made 1/3 less than men, now it's 16% less (23% for management jobs). Yet, somehow, this is never noted as being an improvement.
If not, then who are you asking?
Or is it just sufficient that the poster has made a claim or statement you do not like therefore you feel better able to ignore them (and make yourself a hero into the bargain) by making as if they have done so?
Because I believe the GP knows that they an criticise her. But you are doing to them for it what you claim is done to Anna for it.
Demonise them and ostracise them, making them undermencshen.
How was she "Driven from Home"; did she post her address and other persona details somewhere easy to access? I get death threats on the internet all the time, none of these people know where I live, so who cares?
Those of us who started the worldwide gaming industry are fighting back against the 8 yo boys issuing death threats.
Steve Jackson, Wil Wheaton, people like myself who created this are having panels at DragonCon, PAX, and other cons worldwide.
No, it is not ok to be a misogynist. Ever.
No, it is not ok to issue death threats online. Ever.
Flame on, baby trolls who stew in hatred, we know how inadequate your sad pitiful lives are.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I belatedly realize that you were likely making a joke. I've noticed that both you and I have this "not sure if serious" problem at times. Perhaps I should make an effort to use emoticons wisely.
And that's to go loot a convenience store
I happened to watch one of her videos last week, and I do share the opinion of the first +5 poster: "her videos are, in places, poorly researched with many leaps of logic mixed with heavy opinions. But, they still contain very valid points and can be civilly debated."
Specifically, and though she clearly does make some points about the way most female NPC are limited to eye candy, her general attitude towards sandbox games reminded me heavily of the Dungeon&Dragons-bashing of the early 80's: "Can you imagine that? In this foul game players can invoke demons! What would be a better proof that it's a satanic plot to enroll our younglings in the Army of Darkness?" without, of course, ever explaining to the alarmed parents that a RPG allows player to do anything they can think of, and that if they don't have a particular interest in the evocation of demons there is no reason for them to do it (BTW at least in AD&D first edition I don' think there even is a rule about demonic invocations)...
In Sarkeesian's videos, it translates as "Female NPC have no agency": Well, they're NPCs - maybe she should figure what the word means. And yes, female NPC are often not treated in the same way than male NPC and when she explains that she has valid points - but it's maybe 10% of her discourse, 90% being "women are NPCs in video games, oh the humanity!".
She even goes as far as saying that no woman NPC is depicted having her own agenda and personality - hellooo, ever heard of Sarah Kerrigan? I'm still in love with her as are probably half of all male geeks ever born, and we have only seen her face!
Similarly, one of her points is that in Sandbox games the hero is allowed to kill female NPCs: does she even understand the concept of a sandbox game?
Or when RedDeadRedemption makes fun of the Pulp trope of rescuing a lady bound on the railway, she uses it as a proof of how vilely misogynistic the game world is, without even acknowledging the parodic intention.
and subject them to the very things they threaten...just for fun!
I mean, it's all just a game...right?
what a farce social justice is. c
You know what, you're right. It's awful to feel silenced, to feel like you can't express yourself honestly without being attacked. Try to imagine how much worse you'd feel if instead of simply expressing offense, the people who disagreed with you responded by posting credible rape / death threats. This is what it's like to be a woman on the internet, at least in gaming circles.
When people express offense, they're not trying to get you to feel guilty, generally speaking. They're trying to get you to consider the context and consequences of your speech. You can disagree with their assessment. You can also simply apologize and try to change your behavior, guilt-free. We all sometimes hurt other people without intending to, it's what we do once they've let us know they're hurting that defines us.
>Her videos have previously drawn criticism from many male gamers.
Male gamers? How about just "people" in general? As if bullshit can't be found out by women?
.
She played Tetris and Pacman and now she is a "gamer". Actually anybody can be an "expert" looking at You Tube Videos and poking Wikipedia around. :P Since she didn't made a bang as she want, now she curiously play the tropes that she hates: She is the "Princess Peachy" and want a Mario Police to save her.
I too was driven from home by trolls. And I am greately satisfied with their service: They charge a decent price and bring you quick an safely to your destination. The only min point is that they only drive by night a they have this little problem with sunlight. In any case I would highly recoomend the Troll Taxy Service, exellent IMO.
-- 29A the number of the Beast
Anyway, as fun as it was to watch you fail to construct an argument allow me to do the work for you.
Damsel in Distress, Part 1, Anita Sarkeesian
Double Dragon's opening vignette contains a woman being beaten and carried away - the male heroes must rescue her!
Double Dragon Neon starts with same vignette, this time in HD.
That's it. That's all she said. It's completely true. The plot of the game is to rescue a damsel in distress, who is shown right at the start. This is not undone by a credit sequence where after the bad guy is defeated by the guys, he sings a stupid song about how he wants the girl to be his girlfriend but the heroes were too awesome for him as he falls towards the girl who during a 7 second sequence punches him in the balls. Then you are treated to a screen with one of the heroes holding the damsel in a stereotypical hero pose. This does not undo the fact that the woman's only role in the game is to be kidnapped and rescued by the male protagonists, meaning it fits the trope.
How does this few seconds of animation wherein the damsel in distress has the bad guy defeated for her and then gets the last punch in for comedic effect, undermine Sarkeesian's point about it being a game about a damsel in distress again?
No, that is pretty much exactly what happened, unless you caught the one video where he made a relevant point rather than the dozen or so that I saw where he missed the point completely.
Since he was responding directly to clips from her videos, I seriously doubt that.
Part of the problem here, and it's also evident in the comment thread here, is that a lot of science-minded geeks don't understand the difference between the social sciences and the humanities.
Both are garbage, and neither are science. I require actual concrete scientific evidence before I'm willing to believe someone's silly narrative. When that is absent, I have no reason to take people's opinion pieces anymore seriously than anyone else's.
Just because killing civilians is penalised in one particular game doesn't mean that there isn't a general theme of abused women being used as decoration in video games.
Then she shouldn't make invalid points like that to begin with. Why didn't she show an example of what she was trying to demonstrate? Better yet, why doesn't she get a grasp on reality and realize she's playing a video game, and that males in video games are seen as being absolutely disposable? But add in some sex, and somehow it's 'bad.' I simply don't think she has a valid point to begin with.
It's an exaggeration for comic effect, but it's only a slight exaggeration. What actually describes him is that he is a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. And yes, I've seen way too many Thunderf00t videos for my own good.
I'm not seeing it. He made some arguments, and if you want to actually debunk them, then go ahead. Spewing forth buzzwords and attacking him won't do anything.
Well, critical thinking mostly isn't about logical fallacies.
Maybe not, but pointing out people's logical fallacies is perfectly valid.
It's mostly about how to understand an argument.
Yes, and that's fine. Maybe you don't understand Thunderf00t's arguments.
Both are garbage, and neither are science.
That the humanities are not science is obvious. To say that the social sciences are not science is crazy, and to say that they both are "garbage" is the bad kind of weird. Admittedly, it does help explain why you think Thunderf00t is rational.
Science limits itself to dealing with only things that are falsifiable and testable. This is precisely why science is so successful and reliable, because it limits itself to things that it can succeed at. However, some things that are important for humans to understand do not currently satisfy one or both of these criteria. For that, other methodologies are required.
Art is important. History is important. Music is important. Literature is important. Morality is important. Languages are important. The law is important. These things cannot be analysed with the same tools that you would use to analyse an atom, or a cell, or a galaxy, but they must be analysed nonetheless.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Look for Thunderfoot (or similar) on YouTube. He made a series of videos about Anita's criticism of the gaming industry.
He's sort of rough around the edges, but he makes some good points on her videos. He mostly criticises the modern ultra-feminist movement (of which Anita is a part of) and highlights how she cherry picks her examples while conveniently ignoring that male characters in gaming are also sometimes exagerated and oversexualised.
I saw some of Anita's videos and on the whole thought that she made a few good points, but on the whole she's really taking things out of proportion and pushing a bit too hard on the victimization button.
It's also a bit hard for the cynic in me to ignore that she's milking a lot of money out of the whole ordeal.
I have seen the video to see what the fuzz is all about.
For some reason, I can not understand why people are getting so enraged about the video at all. Everything presented seems to make sense. It seems that some people on the internet don't like analysis on subjects like this one.
It escapes my mind why some people would send death threats to someone reporting on issues like this. Are these Taliban's of the internet? Some people have really no moral compass. Do they also view their mother like this?
Really sickening.
Incidentally, where did you get her 'job' description from? Her Kickstarter says she'll play games and do some research and produce a series of videos to 'explore five common and recurring stereotypes of female characters in video games', when funding exceeded the initial ask the video series was expanded. She doesn't say she will perform academic standard research and present her findings. She used her previous series about women in mainstream media as an example of the kind of work she will be doing. So she's doing exactly what she was being funded to do.
To say that the social sciences are not science is crazy
No, it's accurate. Good science is rigorous, objective, and unbiased. Much of the research that comes out of the "social sciences" is a fucking joke compared to a field like, say, physics. And no amount of, "But being rigorous, objective, and unbiased is too hard!" will change that. Until this is fixed, they should not be called "science." You can continue researching them all you like, but don't insult science with such trash, and don't try to push through your crappy laws without real science backing you up.
Admittedly, it does help explain why you think Thunderf00t is rational.
No, it doesn't. But it's convenient for you to think that it does, so that won't stop you from thinking it.
Art is important. History is important. Music is important. Literature is important. Morality is important. Languages are important. The law is important.
X is important (which is subjective) != X is science. Most of those are not science.
OK, you didn't understand what I said. That's okay, so let's go through this again.
The social sciences are fields like anthropology, sociology, psychology, and behavioural economics. These fields are just as experimentally-based, data-driven, rigorous, and objective as biology.
The humanities are fields like art, history, music, literature, and culture. These are often informed by science, but they are not science. They are still important to study.
Anita Sarkeesian is doing humanities, not social science. If you pay attention to her videos, she does report results from social science, because this is part of the methodology. But she is not doing science, and she would be the first to agree with this.
Did that help?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Not necessary. I can think for myself ... been working on critical thinking skills for a lifetime.