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.
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.
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.
The topic, which you might get if you read the summary, is that she's received credible death threats. Do you think it's okay for people to receive death threats when they say something you don't agree with? E.g., was it okay when they put a price on Salman Rushdie's head?
I do not personally know of any specific corroboration of this event. However i personally know one female who has told me that she's seen harassment at her job in the game industry. A large number of other females that i don't personally know have reported being harassed either while working in the game industry or while playing games. (Not to mention in a lot of other situations not involving games at all.) A number of males have corroborated a number of those accusations. Joss Whedon was told he should kill himself because he retweeted Sarkeesian.
So either there's a massive conspiracy to create the appearance of problem where this is none, or women get harassed a lot, as do a lot of men that try to support them (though usually not to the same degree.) And the problem seems to be exacerbated when they try to get involved in gamer or geek culture. (Or at least i am more aware of it in that case.)
Which means that there's plenty of circumstantial evidence supporting her statement. I'm certainly willing to accept it at face value unless there's some hard evidence presented to disprove it.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
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.
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.
Okay. Suppose that's true. This justifies graphic torture/death threats?
I've watched her videos too. I think her main problem is that she's a bit of a perfectionist—e.g., her criticisms of The Hunger Games (the book) are valid, but unnecessary: the book is more than good enough, even if there are things that could have been done better differently. But this particular video seems pretty accurate based on my experiences of video games. It's hard to find games I'm willing to play, because I am not willing to play through scenes like the ones depicted in her recent video.
Now, having said that, do you feel that I too should suffer death threats and threats of torture, or is the correct response simply to explain why you disagree with me, or why your experience differs from mine?
There's this relatively conflation of negative female stereotypes and feminists among MRA types that helps drive this. So they like to take all the bad things old-school misogynists about women, and pretend it's just true of (all) feminists.
"Emotionally manipulative liars" is one of those old school stereotypes about women, and so AC here takes that typification, and extrapolates it onto Sarkeesian without any sort of evidence to bear out that she's actually like that. It's sad that some people become tentatively aware of gender issues, and immediately turn that into overwhelming sexism.
She has 114 thousand followers on twitter, 150k subscribers on YouTube and whenever she puts out a video it gets picked up by Kotaku, Polygon/Verge, Destructoid, etc.
Publicity stunt? Not fucking likely.
After Elliott Rodger, even if it's a freak occurrence, one would hate to be the exception to that rule given that life is on the line.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Really? She insulted a whole gender? I'm male, and last i checked she hadn't said anything that insulted me. And that's aside from the whole point that death threats are an entirely different kettle of fish from just insults.
"I disagree with your argument, your points are stupid and you are an idiot" is not the same as "I am going to come over to to your house and rape you and kill you."
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Or, you know, you might do a little introspection on the fact that a criticism is not an insult, and perhaps there are more than a few grains of truth in what she might have to say.
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
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.'"
Huh. I'm male, and I didn't feel insulted. I am also concerned about the issues she raised, and support her exploration of them, although I do not always agree with her conclusions. Why is it "insulting the entire gender" to say "gosh, you might want to consider whether using dead female bodies posed in necrophilic-erotic positions is really a healthy or appropriate thing to do." Personally I find it insulting to my gender that the creators of the game thing I would willingly tolerate such imagery. Essentially what the game producers are saying is "men are brutes with no compassion, let's pander to that." It's disgusting and insulting.
And, of course, she didn't do that. She insulted some common lazy writing and setting shortcuts that are used in fiction that also (sometimes) happen to be rather sexist.
There's no war on men, and in her latest series(I can't remember her older work perfectly, I seem to recall it's true there too, but let's keep it recent) she never makes even one even vaguely oblique reference to men as a collective. Not one. Neither positive or negative. She talks about assumptions of male audiences a bit, but that's clearly in reference to the thought processes of the developers.
Don't mistake this as an endorsement of her points all being correct, just none of them are this gendered insult strawman you're using to excuse inexcusable behavior.
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.
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.
I watched some of her videos last night. I don't see where she insulted a gender at all. At most, she takes game developers to task for using cheap, clichéd tropes about women as decorative or damsel in distress because they want an easy (or lazy) shorthand for character development or to get a cheap emotional response from the gamer.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
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.
The amount of actual evidence out there that Sarkeesian has been willing to lie about threats is zero
Please present it. I don't think you can.
How is someone supposed to present evidence of no evidence? The OP cannot find any existing evidence that Sarkeesian has lied or is willing to lie about threats. I suppose they could present their search result pages, but that doesn't actually prove anything.
As for evidence of the threats, here's a post she made on twitter highlighting an example of a specific threat
Did you ever notice that in every commercial the dad is the stupid one?
That the white guy is always the burglar?
That the mom is always the smart savior?
I am really ok with the fact that men are not the weakest and stupidest characters in a video game.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
It's reasonable to expect all people to refrain from credibly threatening the lives of others.
I'm not insulted either. Mostly because, like you, I'm male.
That's not the gender she insulted...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I know, like those damned jews pissing off the Nazis, right? Or maybe those black people pissing off the KKK by voting.
Sometimes thousands of people can just have shitty beliefs then do shitty things.
Take your just-world bullshit and shove it.
I personally have been somewhat critical of Sarkeesian, but hearing this really makes me feel bad. I would never want anything like that to happen to anyone, and I hope things get better for her. Even if I think she's a bit nutty she should have the right to speak her mind without threats of violence.
once more into the breach
If any member of the gender is not insulted, the entire gender was not insulted. And honestly, the idea that an appreciable subset of members of the gender would feel insulted by her videos is insulting to the gender, because it is an actual gender stereotype, directed at all members of the gender. Whereas her videos did not engage in gender stereotyping at all, but rather criticized specific game tropes in a way that was entirely compassionate and respectful of that same gender. IOW, she did not say "these tropes work on men, so men suck." She said "these tropes work on men, and promote an attitude toward women that is unnatural and not normal for men." So I would say she's being a lot more generous toward the gender than you are.
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 wonder what else will surface in this story?
http://i.imgur.com/zHPLIan.jpg
Oh gosh, look the screenshots of her evidence tweets came twelve seconds after the tweets themselves, from someone who was not logged in and hadn't done a search.
Almost as if she'd created the account, threatened herself, logged out, hit the back button on her browser, and taken the screenshots just in time for the release of her new video. Never you say? What motivation could she possibly have to pull such a damselling fraudulent stunt you ask? Maybe the over €150,000 of donations she got last time perhaps?
Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. Death threats break the law and can be punished by jail time. Whether you agree or disagree has no bearing on that.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
How about we agree that stereotypes of any sort in fiction hurt people, and not let that be a fucking excuse for this case of stereotyping real people.
When your a man..
Man up, Harden up, Just get over it. thats what the cops tell you.
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
If you insult a whole gender, getting insults back is kind of expected.
Yeah, but did she insult them back? As far as I know, the insults are entirely one-sided here.
If you find depictions of hookers being abused and murdered, or the dead bodies of women posed seductively, as life-defining, you are not typical. And while I do feel for you, the right thing to do is start redefining your life now, not just accept that where you are at the moment is where you must always be. We all experience some fucked up shit when we are growing up. It doesn't have to define us.
Yeah, and thus we throw those who go too far in jail. This is kinda how living in a society works. There are limits.
I don't care if they think rationally or not. Death threats are not acceptable. The people sending them are some really low scum. And we rational, level-headed people should work together to make sure the angry irrational people don't gain any more ground.
Actually she has a history of lying.
Remember her Bayonetta video? She took it down after being called out by people becuase she had never even played the game before analyzing it; she went off the trailer and box art.
And then there was the whole calling herself a gamer when right before that she said she had no interest in games and would not want to play them.
And of course her common tactic of misrepresenting quotes from game industry people if it'll further her agenda.
No, my worldview really does allow for a little flexibility when stakes are extremely high.
Let's just all agree that Sarkeesian is not Hitler. She posted videos with opinions.
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.
This shouldn't be part of being a "public figure"....it lessens us as humans, and as a society....It's depressing, horrifying, and wrong, in any way, shape or form. There should be zero tolerance for threatening to abuse a person, sexually, or emotionally, or otherwise, even if the comments are made as "trolling". The fact that anyone sees this as acceptable for anyone to receive is scary to me...
Why would you think it's acceptable? Whether in jest or not?
-merlyn
I'm not defending the quality of her reviews, but some points are both relevant and good.
But near as I can tell the "no interest in games thing" doesn't have any source besides being mindlessly repeated by people who hate her. I'm going to guess you saw someone say that and assumed it was true.
Even the comments on this post seem to be s demonstration of Lewis's law.
Yes, and this is gender stereotyping, and if you read more feminist writing, you will discover that feminists are just as opposed to the stereotyping of men in these commercials as they are the stereotyping of women.
There's a huge leap from "men are not the weakest and stupidest characters in a video game" and "brutal depictions of violence against women," and "the use of scantily-clad female corpses as decoration." If men were being depicted as weaker and stupider than women in the game that would also be gender stereotyping.
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.
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.
The reason people suspect these are the persons who actually do stage publicity stunts and abuse. See Zoey Quinn. The biggest harm by persons like her is that persons like Anita get suspected. With so many liars around it's not easy to believe people without first checking the facts. Posting as anonymous because if you immediately don't jump into the self flagellation bandwagon you're going to get massive public shitstorm poured on you.
Foolish people must be provoked with pointing the fallacies in their thinking and she's doing an excellent job, this doesn't mean she should be getting death threats.
I think the issue most people have with her "work" is that for every "[hooker] being abused or murdered" there are orders of magnitude more men being abused and murdered. When Jack Thompson brought up all the killing in video games and said they were bad he was run out of town. Slashdot and the whole of the gaming community rejoiced. But now that the focus is on women it is all of a sudden something worth considering.
Also the fact that she deliberately does these things that are possible in a game but not encouraged or central in any way and paints them as centre-points to the narrative.
I agree that this kind of behaviour is wrong and should be discouraged by power of law. However I can not agree with a "zero tolerance" policy as that kind of thing always ends up being a disaster one way or another. So far as this case goes it does seem a little silly to abandon your home if it was only a single death threat, although the inclusion of a home adress puts it up a notch.
I'd really like to see more troll exposing shows on TV and such. I've seen some clips where reporters have gone after people who posted what they thought were anonymous insults and threats. I think it'd make a good Cops type show.
You are free to criticize her, you are not free to issue death or rape threats. It's that simple.
I'm a professional game developer and a life-long gamer, so perhaps it's fair to say that I've got as vested an interest in videogames as most. I've got fond memories of many "saving the princess" games, which of course she takes issue with. Is that really worth such outrage?
I'm fine with having our industry challenged from time to time. For example, there are worse things in gaming than a "save the princess" plot device, but let's face it, feminist issue aside, it's a horribly cliched trope that could stand to be re-examined. Even if you don't agree with her, I think she raises some interesting points of discussion. I'm watching some of her videos right now actually, and am actually finding them fairly interesting. A direct quote from her video:
This series will include critical analysis of many beloved games and characters, but remember that it's both possible and even necessary to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of it's more problematic or pernicious aspects.
It takes a certain moral fortitude to listen to criticism of something you care deeply about. Game developers deal with this all the time when a reviewer writes a scathing review of the game you just spent the last two years of your life working on, or when gamers casually dismiss the problems you've spilled blood and tears to solve. It's really hard to put your ego and indignity aside and ask how you could have improved your product rather than lashing out at the one criticizing your work.
It's not like I'm really expecting the general public to restrain from criticism and outright name calling, but I seriously wish it wouldn't devolve to the level of death threats.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Mod this up please...
I would rather have people spend less time finding ways to be professionally offended.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
I think a poster on the escapist forums but it most succinctly: "The gaming community is being bullied for profit".
The gaming community is being singled out for being misogynist, over the film/tv industry, over the music business, over religious groups, because they are a relatively easy target who won't put up as much of a fight. While it's almost certain that Sarkeesian has received threats, let's be honest, they do not carry anywhere near the same weight as those which would come from, say, a religious group who was called out for being conservative. Gamers also lack the PR money to respond, which would be readily available to entertainment companies. Overall, it's a fairly safe group to criticize.
I'm sure that misogyny exists in video games, but no more (and I would argue to a lesser extent) than that seen in general society and other forms of entertainment. Yet Sarkeesian and her backers have launched what amounts to an internet crusade against the most counter-cultural -- and I would argue visibly progressive -- media industries.
Her videos present selectively chosen examples from several video games, purporting to show that games are actually hateful towards women. Many of us have played several of these titles, and can judge how exaggerated such claims are. Indeed, using Sarkeesian's techniques, it would be perfectly possible to go through these games and more, and selectively picks clips and examples "proving" that games and the gaming industry promote animal cruelty.
Yet no-one makes the animal cruelty argument about video games. And the reason is I think obvious -- The misogynist argument makes more money. Sarkeesian has been backed to the tune of $150,000 to makes these videos. Sites like Kotaku generate huge ad-revenue from the inevitable click-bait headlines which follow from these exaggerated claims. The more games who take the bait, who defend their hobby from these accusations, the more revenue goes to the people making and promoting them.
This does not represent a genuine feminist movement. This represents a business model. Gamers are being singled out and bullied -- over religious conservatives, over music video directors, over corporate policies towards women -- because gamers are an easier and more lucrative target. Gamers are "hate-baited" with very, very ugly accusations painting them as haters of women, so that their predictable responses can be farmed out to ad-servers and marketing firms. Bullied; for profit.
I've played video games since 1990; I do not hate women; 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.
May the Maths Be with you!
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.
If you mean in the sense that you can understand what makes religious extremists irrationally angry about some perceived slight, or what makes a mass murderer kill so many people, then sure.
Often "understand" is taken to mean that you believe there's a rational line of thought behind it. But I hope you mean you understand that some people do utterly despicable things for irrational reasons, and you have some idea what their triggers are. If so, I can get agree with that, I suppose.
That's very interesting. Of course, so is this: http://i.imgur.com/zHPLIan.jpg
Because video games do not have "brutal depictions of violence against men?"
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
What people should do is join their communities, use their communities instead of laws to fix the issues in their communities and be as responsible as they can be for their families, their friends and their neighbors.
Is this not exactly what Sarkeesian is doing? She seems to have garnered significant influence with notable game makers in the community.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Again you are completely missing the point she was making and the point of this slashdot article. The point she was making is that women in the games she's reviewing are uniformly depicted in these sexualized death poses and sexualized death scenes, and men are not depicted that way. That is gender stereotyping. And the point of TFA is that whether you agree with her about this or not, it's not a reason to threaten her and her parents with torture and death.
Nope.
I don't really get how you could even get that from my response.
Of course it's not the entire community. However this behavior is exactly the same when gaming was claimed to induce violence, turn people into murderers, take drugs etc.
That's some projection there. I'm just pointing out history in such matters and it's foolish to not expect what has traditionally continuously happened in history.
If you don't have proper expectations, you can't reduce your risk,nor come up with proper counter measures. Being reactive often doesn't work in public (again history), you need to be proactive. Assuming you're a geek/techie/nerd, you would fail at applying ISO 31000 properly without having proper expectations.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
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.
You're bullying, Mellon. It's like this:
A. Tell me something you love.
Maybe you love the Bible. Maybe you love science. Maybe you love The Last Unicorn, by Peter Beagle.
B. Find something in it that you could make an unseemly story about.
If you love the Bible, get the story about the guy who had sex with his daughters.
If you love science, get the story about alpha silverbacks and how they dominate the society.
If you love The Last Unicorn, get the story about the red bull pushing unicorns into the sea.
C. Now accuse the fuck out of a person.
"If you love the Bible, then you define incest as life-defining, and you're not typical. You need to redefine your life, right now."
"If you think science is true, than you believe that controlling women is the Natural Order. You need to rethink the merits of science, and redefine your life, right now."
"If you get your rocks off watching the Red Bull dominate unicorns, you're not typical. You need to redefine your life, right now."
Forcing YOUR interpretations onto others is psychic/emotional violence, and it's also the behavior of a bully.
It's too bad that some teenage boy somewhere has rushed into Anita's damsel-in-distress gambit, but gamers everywhere and gamer culture are NOT the problem. Attack that kid, DON'T attack gamers as a culture -- which is what she's been doing.
Have you seen ye olde XKCD, where if a boy does poorly in math, it's "Damn, you suck at math," but if a girl does poorly in math, its "Damn, girls suck at math?" Well, the same here, but in reverse, and then further, socially embraced: When women are acidic towards men, it's "Damn, you're an aggressive individual." 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."
What does the Malaysian Republican Army have to do with this?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Or almost as if someone was tweeting constantly (if the screenshot were taken 30 seconds earlier, it *also* would have been 12 seconds after the last tweet).
Almost as if someone were sent a link while they weren't logged in to twitter, and took a screenshot.
Now, nothing's impossible, but you'll need a hell of a lot more evidence to show this was staged. And speaking with such certainty based on such flimsy evidence just makes you look like another troll.
Last post!
Cool - it's not an issue for you. You don't agree with her point. Your response appears to be "that's not important to me." That is a perfectly acceptable response.
Can we agree death threats and rape threats are not an appropriate response?
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?
"imprecise" meaning completely misconstruing things in a way to imply an outright untrue thing.
"Not a gamer" and "not playing one specific genre" are so far separate as far as concepts go, that I can't imagine a scenario where it could even theoretically be considered a relevant criticism.
I'm now going to knee jerk you as a shithead whose willing to see past some serious levels of dishonesty when it justifies your own opinions.
Also ...
I would rather have people spend less time finding ways to be professionally offended.
In no way states that I think we must stand and prevent her from doing what I think is wrong. I only stated that I would rather she not do it.
It was a single line clearly written. So either you never read my post and just attacked "because", or ...
You could find no way to attack what I said but really needed to attack anyway and just attacked me for for stuff I was very clear that I did not say.
This is not a very efficient way to get to the truth of a thing. I am leaning toward the assumption that getting to the truth of the subject here holds no real interest for you.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
What exactly are "MRA" types?
That doesn't in fact answer the questions raised in the image. In any case, I believe a healthy dose of suspicion is justified given this sort of carry on - don't worry, it's only a few seconds long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
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.
Anybody that would consider her being a hate-monger is out of touch with reality.
"Old man yells at systemd"
First nasty starts 3m. Person who took the screenshot could've copied the link, send it to another device (like an iPad) because it's way easier to take a screenshot on an iPad (IMO). As for those tweets, of course they could've been sent out by a bot; are you living in the previous century?
Perl Programmer for hire
Sure, they should act - by rationally and calmly debating her points with facts, counter-examples, and sound logic.
Do you really believe that death, rape, and dismemberment threats are acceptable responses to somebody saying something that "kinda maybe hurt your feelings, a little bit, but not really, because their comments weren't even directed at you?"
It's funny that so many here keep whining about Sarkeesian being "professionally offended" - she seems far less offended by the stereotypes of women that she's criticizing than the people responding to her criticism with, "Oh yeah? Well I'll fucking MURDER you and your WHOLE FAMILY." Which person is the thin-skinned one in that calculation, again?
That doesn't in fact answer the questions raised in the image
Did I miss anything?
Last post!
The only thing you're doing here is throwing up random objections that aren't really objections, or indeed relevant, aka critical theory. You say could have, might have, maybe, I can't really say much else. It's not direct evidence, but in light of her track record it certainly is enough to start probing a bit deeper. And that track record is the reason for suspicion, no other.
I have the feeling that we shall find out the truth soon enough.
I'm still fuzzy on what constitutes a "credible" vs. non-credible death threat. Specific details?
If it is phrased as a joke, then it is not credible. If it is an impossible scenario, then it is not credible. "If you don't shut up I'm going to send a bunch of Cardassians to your planet!" Or if they admit they don't know where you are, then it is not credible. "If I knew where you lived, you'd be toast!"
You can get the whole thing from the semantics of the words "credible" and "non-credible," by checking if it is non-credible. If it has something as mentioned above that makes it "non-credible," then it is not credible. If it doesn't contain only of those things, and is just a threat, without anything to discredit it, and it contains claims of having access to you, such as knowing your address, then it is clearly credible.
Note that "credible" doesn't say, "actually planned and they're at the door" or anything like that. If it is not non-credible, then it is credible; if they make it sound like they might really do it, then that is clearly and indisputably a "credible" threat. But if you can't tell, then it is credible as a threat.
Dictionary gives "able to be believed; convincing." And: "capable of persuading people that something will happen or be successful."
Synonyms are: believable, plausible, tenable, able to hold water, conceivable, likely, probable, possible, feasible, reasonable, with a ring of truth, persuasive
A threat such as, "I know where you live in Sometown, Somestate and I've been tracking your location and I'm gonna [felony] and [felony] you!" Clearly plausible as a threat; you'd have to know independently if they are or are not stalking you in order to determine it. But the claim itself is that they are stalking you, so the stalking part is plausible, and if they are stalking you, then the rest is even likely.
"You're so lame, if I met you I'd totally [felony] you." Not very plausible as an actual threat.
Damnit. I was going to use some mod points, but I feel like I need to respond here.
Yes, a lot of men die in games. It's not really up for debate.
But when women die in games, they die as props or as a kind of sick joke (and it's usually a really unintentional joke, honestly). It's more a reflection of our attitudes at large about what a woman is worth than something solely limited to games per se, but that doesn't make it okay to have it in games.
I'm a (veteran--13 years, 3 companies) game developer, and I watch each of her videos with a lot of interest. She's not trying to make me feel bad, she's trying to make me pay attention to what I'm doing. I make games to entertain people, not to make a broad swathe of the population feel bad.
I'd like to stop using women as props in our games. I'd like to see more women as protagonists or just interesting characters in general. If there's a good reason to show a woman or a man dead in the game, that will still be okay. But when it happens, I'm going to be running through a little checklist in my head from now on. Was it necessary? Does it advance the game? Is it really a crucial bit of atmosphere, or could we do without it? Would it just be a good idea to hold off on showing this bit of violence given what we know about rape statistics and the deaths of sex workers?
From my perspective as a game developer (even though I'm a programmer), she's not blunting my ability to tell a story, but honing my desire to focus on the important parts of a story and make it better for everyone. This is criticism that the industry needs, and needs to respond to if it wants to be credible in the world. AAA games are huge and expensive to make. We can't afford to be sloppy with our storytelling any more. Players are interested in next generation graphics and AI and all that fancy stuff, but we need more strong critique and scrutiny to bring us up to the next generation of narrative and storytelling that I think they also desire.
(And to the trolls that seem to be lurking in the thread, do you notice how two people can have a discussion without it devolving into name calling and threats? There's zero need for any of the shit she's had to put up with. Adults can have discussions.)
Because it's sexist to respond to market forces? Save the prince games won't sell as well as save the princess. Due to undisputed skew in the gender of gamers.
Of course you dismiss Laura Croft, due to all the discussion of polygons/tit.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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!
Sarkeesian has done video series on the tropes in popular media, too. She can't cover all the bases, and she's picked games this time around because she likes playing games.
I don't think that other media have been left out of criticism at all. (The Bechedel test, for instance, was first meant to apply to movies.)
But let's pretend you're right; let's pretend that the game industry--the industry that I work in and that pays my rent--really IS being singled out.
So what? It's GOOD for the industry. We NEED this criticism. If this industry and this medium were the only one that could legitimately hold its head up and say that it was less sexist, that would be great. If you look at it purely financially, I think it would be a huge boon. It's a relatively small change in behaviour that could drive a fairly large change in market.
Economics aside, it would be amazing if this industry were on the forefront of driving cultural and social change towards a more equitable society. Sexism is a real problem everywhere I look. I've been working as a programmer in this industry for 13 years. I've worked with 3 female programmers that I can remember. THREE. They were all exceptionally good at their jobs, too, and deeply nerdy gamers. But only three. It's a sad number. It makes no sense.
I watch Sarkeesian's videos and I enjoy them a great deal. She's INCREDIBLY repetitive on the point that you can still enjoy something while seriously critiquing its flaws. (I think she's said it in every single video she's done.) She's made me really think about the things I see in the games I make as well as the games I play. Whether or not she's 100% correct, every single time is not actually the point--she's just trying to get to think about the media you consume, and that's important.
I don't really think your point has much merit. I don't think it's true, and even if the community were being singled out, I think the community will come out ahead in the end. I think you've got to go a lot further and show a lot more evidence to claim that gamers are being bullied by some vast conspiracy.
Watch the videos. When video games show violence against men, the men are not half naked in sexual poses.
What I am saying is that the world is controlled right now by politically correct, professionally offended people. Everything everywhere is a stereotype.
You do realize that "politically correct, professionally offended people" is a stereotype, right?
I don't agree with all of Sarkeesian's criticisms, and find much of her analysis doctrinaire and tendentious, but for all of that her work or something like it is clearly needed, as evidenced by the backlash against it.
She isn't being "professionally offended": she's engaging in legitimate, deep analysis of an important artistic medium. Even granted that I disagree with some of her theoretical positions, he work has tremendous value even at the level of raw empiricism. Her episode on "the damsel in distress" trope is a compelling argument that sexism makes for very bad art, and that the way women are used in a large number of video games is lazy and stupid.
In a well-ordered world she would be getting a PhD for work of this depth and quality. And again, in case you missed it: I don't particularly agree with a goodly chunk of her theoretical frame, and she often says things that I think are simply wrong. I would love to see a cogent, relevant critique of her positions, but people who are driven by simplistic stereotypes of "professionally offended people" are making that impossible. There is so much noise that any rational discussion is simply impossible to maintain.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
"I'm going to murder you at your house, 123 Broadway Avenue, Littletown, Missouri 22817 at 9:17am on August 31, 2014, using a sawed-off 22-gauge shotgun loaded with..."
Well, that is essentially the level of detail (including her home address) which was included in the threats, so even by your overly detailed requirements for "credible", yeah, they were credible.
You conflate having an opinion with "forcing" it on people.
1. You have an opinion ...
2.
3. violence!
Notice the whole claim of "violence" is predicated on the word "forcing," which in this case is a verb. Notice the complete lack of action though. So just from that we can see it is a false accusation; the only action taken was giving his own opinion. But you lie, and claim he took an action to "force" his opinion on you. But you're not forced to believe every opinion you hear; that is silly, and shows a misunderstanding even over the word opinion. Then you double down on the lie, by claiming the "force" not only exists, but was violent.
But when women die in games, they die as props or as a kind of sick joke (and it's usually a really unintentional joke, honestly). It's more a reflection of our attitudes at large about what a woman is worth than something solely limited to games per se, but that doesn't make it okay to have it in games.
Men die in the same way! And in much more gruesome and jovial manners. I think when this occasionally happens to women and it's considered more important is more of a reflection of our attitudes of men's lives being less important than women's than any negative view there is of women. You can't honestly believe that male video game characters do not die in heinous ways more than female characters. You don't think it's interesting that you find that totally normal for men and something that needs to be stopped for women? Women cannot be the same part of a narrative as a men unless they can actually be put in the same part. Which according to Sarkeesian and yourself they cannot be because *reasons*.
I'd like to stop using women as props in our games. I'd like to see more women as protagonists or just interesting characters in general. If there's a good reason to show a woman or a man dead in the game, that will still be okay. But when it happens, I'm going to be running through a little checklist in my head from now on. Was it necessary? Does it advance the game? Is it really a crucial bit of atmosphere, or could we do without it? Would it just be a good idea to hold off on showing this bit of violence given what we know about rape statistics and the deaths of sex workers?
Given that we know men are far more likely to be murdered or die in war would it not be a good idea to hold off on this bit of violence? You can do what you want in your games. But when you're trying to tell other people they're being bad or "insensitive" based on the games they create or like to play you actually are trying to make them feel bad so that they stop.
The worst part about her criticisms is that she actually doesn't understand the tropes she's talking about. Or she just makes up new tropes. Tropes are pretty much a necessary part of storytelling. That's why we call them tropes. They've been around since the advent of storytelling. All stories are just rehashes and variations of old ones.
This is criticism that the industry needs, and needs to respond to if it wants to be credible in the world.
I really can't agree with that. Using her same irrational argument style you could paint that same problems onto any media. You think playwriting needs to respond to this criticism if it wants to be credible in the world? Shakespeare the misogynist! The gaming community tried to respond with the appropriate "you're going to have to do better" and explained why to her. She chose instead to focus on people making fun of her for saying stupid things. Everybody with civil disagreements went on and did their own things because she chose to ignore them and make a spectacle out of crazies instead.
This is criticism that the industry needs, and needs to respond to if it wants to be credible in the world.
Every AAA title made in the past 20 years disagrees with your assertion. Every AAA movies as well. Every AAA book. Unfortunately mass appeal appears to correlate extremely strongly with mass stupid.
Some people really aren't playing games for the story telling. Some people are. Games should not be limited to targeting only one of those groups.
You talk about trolls again like there has not been plenty attempts to discuss this in a civil manner. The reason Anita focuses on trolls is precisely so she can ignore actual criticism. She has literally ignored it all while waving her hands and screaming "look at all the hate! This is proof I'm right". A lot of us have seen this behaviour before and know that it has zero credibility.
Oh gosh, look the screenshots of her evidence tweets came twelve seconds after the tweets themselves, from someone who was not logged in and hadn't done a search.
Almost as if...
...she got a notification of the tweets aimed at her, viewed them without logging in and screen-capped it.
The level of paranoid thinking required to believe that it is more likely that a public figure like Sarkeesian would violate the law by faking threats of this nature than that an obviously hate-filled, fragile and easily offended group of nutjobs has a few members who are so over-the-top that they would actually threaten her speaks to a deeply deranged sense of the world.
Look at the discussion here on /. There are people who are absolutely incensed at her relatively mild and well-documented criticisms of some common features of video games. I personally find her theoretical approach a tad doctrinaire, but for depth and quality it easily exceeds the bar required to get a PhD from a decent school (I have a PhD--in physics--from a decent school, and have friends in a number of fields, so I've seen the standards of humanities departments up-close-and-personal.)
So what is more likely: that a large, irate, irrational, angry mob contains a few nutjobs who would go so far as uttering actual death threats, or that a well-known, widely respected, widely reviled public figure would go to such lengths to fake threats, putting her in a position of risk of discovery and criminal charges when it is inevitably found out?
Anyone who picks the second option as more likely is living in a paranoid fantasy of the kind that might lead them to, well, make death threats against a public figure they disagree with.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
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.
I watched one video, and it was 13 minutes of man hate. I'm pretty sure that saying testosterone is a negative trait is in fact insulting an entire gender.
And then there was the whole calling herself a gamer when right before that she said she had no interest in games and would not want to play them.
What she said was she had no interest in first person shooters.
Then some guy who thinks the "Only True Gamers" play FPS's and that FPS's are the "Only Real Games". Goes off on the internet and says "She's not a real gamer."
Then guys like you take that statement and run with it without checking it out, because you're already predisposed against her. "Some chick dares to criticize our Boyz Only Club for their tropes? Burn her!"
The gaming community is being singled out for being misogynist, over the film/tv industry, over the music business, over religious groups, because they are a relatively easy target who won't put up as much of a fight.
She is focusing on the gaming community.... OTHER people focus on film, TV, music, other groups. The gaming community is NOT being singled out.
In a large number of jurisdictions, "uttering a threat" and "uttering a death threat" are capital crimes completely separate from harassment, and as capital crimes, charges can only be filed by the authorities, and not by the affected target. This was a major case in the city I used to live in, as someone was given death threats repeatedly from the same source, reported it to the authorities, who ignored it, and then the person making the threats followed through on them. (cue rapid ass-covering on behalf of law enforcement and the psych ward of the hospital that had certified the threat-maker as stable and not a threat to anyone, even after they knew about the threats)
Markets can be sexist, making the response thereto sexist. We can maybe say that that's an example of sexism without animus or overt chauvinism, but it's still sexism.
Besides, Sarkeesian's critiques start from the proposition that video games are a creative art form, just as movies or books are. Movies, books, artworks aren't made to slavishly respond to market forces -- they're made because, to some extent, some artist or artists wanted to make them, and to make them in just the way they are.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Without criticising your script, Sarkeesian is a gender studies maven who stole much of her video material from other youtube channels.
It's likely that she would believe Linux to be a brand of moistened paper towel.
Ohh such muh soggy knees!
I'm still fuzzy on what constitutes a "credible" vs. non-credible death threat. Specific details?
Perhaps you were looking for a legal definition of the term?
As Ms Sarkeesian lives in California, State Penal Code Section 422 would apply:
(a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
"I disagree with your argument, your points are stupid and you are an idiot" is not the same as "I am going to come over to to your house and rape you and kill you."
..in some circles, actually, it is.
And what is the term we use to refer to a member of those circles? "The Defendant".
Did Brendan Eich receive credible death threats? I guess he might have, but I didn't hear about it and wouldn't condone it.
Did anybody offer Anita Sarkeesian a job as the head of Firefox? No, not at all.
With Eich, the debate was over a sort of flash-boycott over him becoming CEO, not his continued breathing.
When Jack Thompson brought up all the killing in video games and said they were bad he was run out of town. Slashdot and the whole of the gaming community rejoiced. But now that the focus is on women it is all of a sudden something worth considering.
That's some revisionist history there. Jack Thompson wasn't run out of town because he opposed violent games. He was run out of the legal profession because his conduct was unprofessional, uncivil, and harassing towards opposing counsel and judges. He made unsubstantiated claims against others, outright lies, and never responded to questions asked by courts.
For example, in Strickland v Sony, he was granted temporary permission to practice law (pro hac vice) in Alabama as his licensed state is Florida. Normally this is a procedural formality when a lawyer wants to take on a case in another state. Part of the pro hac vice application to the Alabama Bar specifically asks if the lawyer has had any disbarment proceedings (question 8) and any suspension proceedings (question 9) and to list them. Thompson responded "None, but please see the attached letter" to both. In the attached letter, Thompson described how he had been reprimanded 13 years earlier. Thompson however failed to mention that the case 13 years ago involved disbarment and suspension proceedings. Because of this and Thompson violated a gag order, Judge Moore revoked Thompson's pro hac vice status; he was no longer on the case. Despite being thrown off the case, Thompson continue to send emails and faxes to the court about the case for at least 2 years afterwards.
During that same case, Thompson harassed the lawyers of Blank Rome, the law firm representing Sony. Now it's one thing to oppose counsel in court but he attacked the lawyers including the gender of one of the attorneys. He also accused the law firm of participating in pornography and killing of police officers.
In an unrelated case, Thompson went after Al Cardenas, a partner in Tew Cardenas by accusing him of pornography, racketeering, and other criminal activity. What was the relationship between Cardenas and Thompson? As crazy as it sounds, almost none. Beasley Broadcasting Group owned a number of radio stations, and Thompson had issues with their programming. Normally their lawyer Norman Kent dealt with Thompson, and his dealings led to the point where Kent sued and won $50,000 from Thompson for defamation. Beasley also had Tew Cardenas on their retainer for other legal matters. Kent and Tew Cardenas had no relationship other than they represented the same company on different legal matters. Al Cardenas was a partner in Tew Cardenas but did not work the Beasley account. The attacks on Al Cardenas started one week when Norman Kent was out of town and did not respond to Thompson's letters and demands immediately.
These are the reason why Thompson was run out of the legal profession; not his stand, but his conduct.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
Her complaint is rather that the brutal depictions of violence against woman in video games always seem to have clear sexual subcontext, while violence against men does not.
Which I think is a valid point, but then isn't this also the case in real life? So she's complaining that the games accurately reflect how things are (in many cases that she's referring to, in fact, to draw attention to that problem even)?
It's more like twelve thousand intelligent comments for every "threat". But keep waving your hands and ignoring criticism. I never said ignore threats; just don't pretend that the only criticism you've received are threats from "males defending their male privilege".
She hasn't debunked anything. Her videos are appallingly biased and the lack of objectivity in them makes them totally useless. The problem with her kind of "analysis" is that it can be used to legitimize any bias you could possibly dream of. I would love to hear how she debunks the fact that a million male characters die for every female character pretty much proves that deaths in videogames are not designed to "punish women's sexuality".
Mod this up please...
Not sure why. Most people on Slashdot should realize that screenshot of a web browser showing a page that says "12 seconds ago" doesn't necessarily mean that the corresponding message was created 12 seconds before the screenshot, but just that the page was refreshed 12 seconds after the message... and then the page could have sat, displayed from local RAM, for minutes or hours before a screenshot was taken.
Men die in the same way! And in much more gruesome and jovial manners. I think when this occasionally happens to women and it's considered more important is more of a reflection of our attitudes of men's lives being less important than women's than any negative view there is of women. You can't honestly believe that male video game characters do not die in heinous ways more than female characters. You don't think it's interesting that you find that totally normal for men and something that needs to be stopped for women? Women cannot be the same part of a narrative as a men unless they can actually be put in the same part. Which according to Sarkeesian and yourself they cannot be because *reasons*.
So if you watch the latest video, she does touch on that somewhat. I'm going to assume you haven't (or at least, that someone reading our discussion hasn't) and point out the salient bits.
First, that when men die in these games, they're generally an antagonist or actor that actually has a measure of agency. They're killed because they were involved in a conflict that revolved around more than just their gender or their victimhood.
Second, part of why you're gruesomely killing the men in these games is often justified by the violence that the men are (arbitrarily) enacting against women. The women die as props to show off how bad someone is in a wild caricature of evil. She's right in pointing out that violence against women is most often perpetrated by 'normal' men. A woman is FAR more likely to be raped by a friend or family member than a random bad man on the street.
Third, men die in ways that aren't overtly sexualised. Women die on beds in lingerie with their legs spread and their tits hanging out. They're still T&A even after brutal violence.
She's right that sexual and sexualised violence is used as a lazy shortcut to show how bad a person is. You can instantly justify murdering someone brutally (to bring it back to your complaint) if we've just shown them as hitting a woman or raping them. It's not the nicest cycle.
Given that we know men are far more likely to be murdered or die in war would it not be a good idea to hold off on this bit of violence? You can do what you want in your games. But when you're trying to tell other people they're being bad or "insensitive" based on the games they create or like to play you actually are trying to make them feel bad so that they stop.
The worst part about her criticisms is that she actually doesn't understand the tropes she's talking about. Or she just makes up new tropes. Tropes are pretty much a necessary part of storytelling. That's why we call them tropes. They've been around since the advent of storytelling. All stories are just rehashes and variations of old ones.
I don't think people have to stop doing anything. But I think they DO need to think about what they're doing, understand whether it's appropriate narratively, and make those decisions with open eyes. Speaking personally, for the first ten years of my career, I definitely didn't think about this stuff as much. Maybe I would've spoken up more about certain things if I had.
I understand that the word 'trope' actually has several meanings, but in this context, she's using the word 'trope' as 'cliché'. You DON'T need to write something that relies heavily on clichés. At the very least, you don't need to write something that heavily relies on the sorts of tropes that may be damaging to our ideas about women.
I really can't agree with that. Using her same irrational argument style you could paint that same problems onto any media. You think playwriting needs to respond to this criticism if it wants to be credible in the world? Shakespeare the misogynist! The gaming community tried to respond with the appropriate "you're going to have to do better" and explained why to her. She chose instead to focus on people making fun of her for saying stupid things. Everybody with
Is that a fact?
This is what she actually says - and is the only mention of testosterone in the entire thirteen minutes: (from her transcript)
They can start by deemphasizing the macho testosterone and the combat, and create universally appealing sets that include occupations and adventure scenarios for children of all genders.
I am struggling to understand how this is suggesting that testosterone is evil. She additionally - and correctly - notes how women do not appear in their advertising playing with lego. She most certainly does not suggest that fathers and sons playing together is a bad thing - she instead suggests that there is a very strong gender bias going on in the Lego world. And she is right of course - with an 18-1 ratio of male to female minifigs I fail to see how any other conclusion could be reached.
There was one thing that annoyed me though - she kept on referring to Lego as 'Legos'. Americans. Please stop doing this.
First, your math is way off if you've got your comment/threat numbers that far backwards.
Second, if you actually watch her videos, instead of just the clips of them interspersed through thunderf00t's angry ranting, you'll find that yes, she actually does debunk them, and covers the "numbers game" you're taking about with your "a million male characters die for every female character" thing. "Random ninja being shot/chopped down in a fight" is not the same thing as "mostly naked woman splayed out on a bed with a knife in her as a prop". Those random ninjas? They're wearing masks and could just as easily be very flat chested women. Yes, that's sarcasm. I'm not suggesting that anyone actually believes that they're female, but really, there's no way of knowing, and their gender isn't related to why they're being killed, and the game would be the same if they were male, female, or genderless robots in costumes. The sad part? If they were intended to be female ninjas that you're mowing through? Instead of the full ninja armor/pajamas they're wearing, they'd be mostly naked.
Now take that nude female corpse on the bed, not even killed by the player - killed by the antagonist as a "see how evil he is?" prop. How many male victims are portrayed in the same way? No, the answer isn't "millions", it's "nearly never".
Your constant claims that she won't address these points are sounding like Fox News complaining that Obama won't fight the ISIS groups that he's currently bombing the shit out of.
I do not think that she is doing anything of value though. I think if she is worried about the women in her community they would be better served in other ways.
Perhaps, but as the GP pointed out she has become a significant figure within the community through the actions she's taken. This would imply that there is a significant portion that DOES think her work has value.
First, that when men die in these games, they're generally an antagonist or actor that actually has a measure of agency. They're killed because they were involved in a conflict that revolved around more than just their gender or their victimhood.
Completely false. Men die for every reason in video games. The fact that they are considered the main cannon fodder and leave every other type of deaths as a rounding error doesn't mean they don't die other ways as well. And you better believe that them being the targets is because of their gender. Could you just imagine how Anita would react to a game where you just gunned down women the whole time? Oh the misogyny!
Women in video games do not die in "sexualized" ways any more so than in other media. Plenty of movies feature strip clubs. Strip clubs are a real thing and, yes, they are sexualized. Are they for some reason off limits to a video game? Care to explain that?
She's right that sexual and sexualised violence is used as a lazy shortcut to show how bad a person is. You can instantly justify murdering someone brutally (to bring it back to your complaint) if we've just shown them as hitting a woman or raping them. It's not the nicest cycle.
So you are disagreeing with her and saying it is not done out of a hatred of women? And is there some reason why this "cliche" as you put it is off limits? You say it's lazy- who cares? It's not like every video game uses such a plot point. And I'd love to have it explained why games aren't allowed to use the classic heroic epic that has literally been used in every form of story telling since before the dawn of civilization?
I don't think people have to stop doing anything. But I think they DO need to think about what they're doing, understand whether it's appropriate narratively, and make those decisions with open eyes. Speaking personally, for the first ten years of my career, I definitely didn't think about this stuff as much. Maybe I would've spoken up more about certain things if I had.
You don't want people to stop.. You just demand they think your way and decide they shouldn't do it.. And stop. Passive aggressive much?
This is really just an appeal to tradition, and as such, it really doesn't carry much weight.
Not an appeal to tradition at all. You said things have to change; clearly they do not.
It's not a joke to be laughed off, this thing where a man is threatening to hit his wife so hard he sends her to the moon. I'm not sure why we think it's okay to glorify violence against women in video games.
Not a joke! Oh the misogyny! I'm sure you have no problem with similar "threats" of violence against a man.
I think that playwriting HAS responded to the changing times. I think that if we saw a play with the same sort of violence that's in games we'd be horrified. And I think that we can look back at stuff done in the past and see that things WERE misogynist and the product of their time.
You keep trying to police people by asserting your morals. I'm sure it will turn out great. Maybe you can get people to consider the violence in chess next.
And, as she's repeated so often, just because you're critical of something doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. Nothing is perfect. I'm just happy she's making these videos so I can recognise the bad stuff and think about it more.
Just because I'm critical of her and her shallow critiques doesn't mean I'm a troll.
I also think that philosophically, her ideas have merit.
They do not; they are sophistry.
She's making videos and putting her opinion out there, and it's up to us to watch the videos and make sense of her position, whether we agree or disagree.
Her opinion is not sacrosanct. I am perfectly free to call it as st
That screenshot might make a wonderful conspiracy theory if it wasn't full of obvious holes.
Why isn't she logged in? Because she didn't take a local screenshot, she probably used an ONLNE screenshot service (e.g., snapito.com)
Why wasn't there a search query filled in? Because she used a direct user link... you know, twitter.com/[user]
Why was the screenshot taken so quickly after the last message? Because she'd just had a previous 3 MINUTES of detailed information including her address and her parents address sent to her with threats of bodily harm.
Why only 10 tweets? Because the account was a throw-away. Who would deliberately write that type of harassment with an account they intended to keep using?
I love a good conspiracy theory, but quite frankly I could find more support for Hitler being a time-traveller from the future than the one your touting here.
The whole point of the video was to list the things that Lego is doing wrong. Did you not get that? If facial hair were not bad, why would she say that Lego should get rid of it? Lego did not decide that pink was "for girls". People like Anita did. Lego makes pink toys for the same reason that the store who sold Anita her sweater makes pink sweaters. Because that is what people like Anita buy. She is trying to lay the blame for her own behavior at the feet of Lego.
Sure, Lego sees their primary demographic as boys, and that leads to them using boys in ads, but this is the world we live in. She doesn't just ask Lego to start advertising to girls. She doesn't just ask Lego to start making toys that appeal to her view of what girls should want. She wants Lego to stop making toys that boys want because she finds masculinity to be offensive.
I watched it and just checked a transcript, she doesn't say testosterone is a negative thing.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC