You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 04:40:40 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?  (Read 13586 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SethalaTopic starter

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #250 on: November 03, 2014, 04:09:05 PM »
This. So much this. When femininity is seen as a way to attack, demean, and insult someone, what does that tell you about how the speaker thinks of women? On a related note, the anti-Sarkeesian camp tends to hate "social justice warriors" and use that term as an insult too. When you're hating on the idea of a just society, and the willingness to fight for this... what does that make you?

How much of this is the speaker's internal thoughts about women, and how much is simply repeating the language they've grown up with?  I can call someone a "fucking asshole" pretty easily (hopefully not when they're close enough to hear, of course!), but does that mean I think they're having sex, or that their posterior is somehow prominent?  No, it's because, through hearing the same terms used for people that the speaker has an intense and often anger-fueled dislike for, I pick up that these are terms used to describe someone that I'm angry at.  The same could be said of pretty much any swear word, in any language, ever.  If someone's in a community that often uses words like "bitch" or "cunt", and starts using those words, does that suddenly mean that this person is misogynistic?  Does that change if the person is female, or if they continue to use the same language when women are present?

Hm... I seem to be going off topic myself, unfortunately.  If you'd like to continue, Ephiral, would you mind opening another thread?

Offline Braioch

  • Devil. Mad Scientist. King of Debauchery. Brat Prince. Duke of Snark. Warlock of Orgies.
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2009
  • Location: Michigan
  • Gender: Male
  • Imfinewhydoyouask? Canyoutastetime?Ican
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #251 on: November 03, 2014, 05:01:25 PM »
I must say, it does look like there's a conscious decision not to engage with consortium11's points about anti-English-ism and ableism which certaqinly seem to be the same.  It's easy to say that "saying faggot makes you a homophobe" and I would previously have agreed.  But I think the comparison is strong, and further that bad teeth jokes don't make people anti-British.  As such, it looks like people are cherry picking his argument a little and refusing to engage with it fully, which furthe makes it look like they can't actually refute it.  Just sayin'

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm currently convinced by consortium11 and I have alliteration on my side.

There are a lot of factors that go into that kind of talk anyways, and to make the immediate leap of logic that they're -ist is knee-jerk, so I'm with you and Consortium on this one. One such thing is that for some people it's a matter of habit or knee jerk, others it might be that they don't necessarily find the word offensive because they don't mean it in that sense, (I still say something is 'gay' out of sheer force of habit) and for others it's simply a matter of using one term to 'talk shit.' (Being called a faggot in games has thus far made me reply with something akin to 'and watch this faggot wipe the floor with you')

Language is important and the usage can show a lot into a person, but to immediately jump to a conclusion based on a superficial understanding of the context and the individual leads to overreaction and deep misunderstanding.

Onto the topic of her videos...

From the research I've done, the woman has next to no experience in video games and has even been recorded saying something along the lines that she doesn't like video games nor does she play them. So there's strike on in my mind, you shouldn't represent something you barely know anything about. I've seen that apparently we're not supposed to mention the video game footage for whatever reason so I'll skate over that. The other issue I've had is her Kickstarter, which boasted more videos, better quality, etc etc.

Then....nothing, there were a handful of videos, not near the amount she promised and I'm sorry, the videos quality never improved.

In short, her series already starts off on a bad track and makes her look like someone who doesn't know what she's talking about and the Kickstarter thing makes me look real askance.

That aside, the content of the video seems a bit dramatic and overdone, she's painting this grand image of an entire sub-culture and hobby that seems aimed at turning women into cutesy, sexy little backdrop figures for the he-man straight male to feel all awesome and on top. She uses Tropes like it's supposed to show a trend of some sort of internal misogyny in the culture, when tropes are nothing more than stereotypes and broad descriptors for characters, settings and situations. She seems to ignore that male characters are troped just as hard in games, that literally every type of character in games falls into some sort of trope, but focuses solely on the female ones, which is odd to me....also smacks of cherry picking.

Which is another thing she does in those videos...

Also, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that the videos prove the case that games are sexist and the gaming culture is too. Heck, in the past few years we've watched more and more games that are incredibly inclusive coming into the fold, becoming incredibly popular. Customizing your character is a thing, female protagonists are popping up everywhere in a myriad of forms, even female NPCs are showing up in important places and having effects in a plethora of different ways. She's claiming that games are minimizing women and objectifying them, meanwhile the industry has been rapidly moving away from that particular habit rather effectively in the past few years.

In other words, her videos failed to convince me of her point due to shady behavior, cherry picking/misrepresentation, a lack of proper information to back her claim up and essentially that the industry and the members itself of the culture have been proving the point of those videos wrong.

There. I brought the topic back, do I get a cookie now?

(better be something with chocolate in it darnit)

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #252 on: November 03, 2014, 05:36:24 PM »
Where's your other avi?  The guy eating a lolly?  Bring that one back.

Don't you defy me now, Braioch.

Offline mj2002

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #253 on: November 03, 2014, 05:59:05 PM »
The fact is that most bigots aren't the type who'd go as far as to commit a hate crime. But even having stereotypes in your head and being willing to call people such hurtful words makes you a bigot. Maybe not a virulent, extremely hateful and dangerous bigot, but still a bigot. And if someone uses homophobic insults, I'm willing to bet they have other patterns of behavior that make them bigoted.

If a person is cruel enough to use insults that they KNOW have probably been used against a specific social class in order to oppress them, and they still don't care because they just need to use that insult, they're bigots and they're terrible people as well. Many of these insults come with harassment, with abuse, with beatings in the life of a queer or non-white person.

This makes no logical sense whatsoever. A bigot is someone who is intolerant of other people, their opinions, etc. As one dictionary puts it;

Quote
:  a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Using a racial slur, homophobic slur or as you put it "insults that [people] KNOW have probably been used against a specific social class in order to oppress them" is of no particular importance without any sort of context in which it is said. You personally can have a whole lot of connotations/experiences with such words, but other people may have different ones. Especially when it comes to swearing or cursing, it happens so often that the original meaning of the word used is wholly unrelated to the intentions of the person. Are you going to related the phrase "Fuck you!" to sexual intercourse every time it's being uttered? I surely hope not, because 'fuck' is such a generic phrase that it can mean a whole array of things. Again, without context it is meaningless.

The same goes for racial or homophobic slurs. It is all about the intent behind it and the context. If you start judging this sort of language without taking context into account (ie, making blanket statements about phrases), you're wasting your time. You may call people insensitive for ignoring historical connotations, but that doesn't mean that they're bigoted. The use of such slurs does not equate 'regarding or treating the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance', it's that simple.


Offline Braioch

  • Devil. Mad Scientist. King of Debauchery. Brat Prince. Duke of Snark. Warlock of Orgies.
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2009
  • Location: Michigan
  • Gender: Male
  • Imfinewhydoyouask? Canyoutastetime?Ican
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #254 on: November 03, 2014, 06:25:59 PM »
Where's your other avi?  The guy eating a lolly?  Bring that one back.

Don't you defy me now, Braioch.

It was a popsicle actually ::)

This makes no logical sense whatsoever. A bigot is someone who is intolerant of other people, their opinions, etc. As one dictionary puts it;

Using a racial slur, homophobic slur or as you put it "insults that [people] KNOW have probably been used against a specific social class in order to oppress them" is of no particular importance without any sort of context in which it is said. You personally can have a whole lot of connotations/experiences with such words, but other people may have different ones. Especially when it comes to swearing or cursing, it happens so often that the original meaning of the word used is wholly unrelated to the intentions of the person. Are you going to related the phrase "Fuck you!" to sexual intercourse every time it's being uttered? I surely hope not, because 'fuck' is such a generic phrase that it can mean a whole array of things. Again, without context it is meaningless.

The same goes for racial or homophobic slurs. It is all about the intent behind it and the context. If you start judging this sort of language without taking context into account (ie, making blanket statements about phrases), you're wasting your time. You may call people insensitive for ignoring historical connotations, but that doesn't mean that they're bigoted. The use of such slurs does not equate 'regarding or treating the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance', it's that simple.



Yeah, that'd be a bit like saying because of my earlier examples of some of my language, you could say that I am either or could very well be homophobic.

Offline SethalaTopic starter

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #255 on: November 03, 2014, 06:54:22 PM »
So, to try and get it back on topic...

I found a post by someone who heard a podcast where Anita was invited to be a guest, and it kind of called her out on not being able to answer what should have been a rather basic and obvious point of criticism for her.  The entire post is here.  It includes a transcript of the podcast when the question was asked, and while it's rather hard to follow with almost everyone stuttering as they try to answer the question, I think it's a rather interesting read.

The question itself is simple: ""'Violence in videogames leads to violence' is something the videogame industry has rallied against as a whole for years now. So why, when you replace the word "violence" with "sexism" is it so widely accepted?"  Since it seems one of Anita's main narratives is that sexism in games affects people and encourages them to be sexist, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that she'd have at least some kind of answer to the question.  Yet her first reply was "I'm sure this question is being presented in good faith but it's a fallacy", without any description of why it's a fallacy, or any other attempt to answer the question.  I'm very curious to see what those supporting Anita's videos would say to the question.

As an aside, during the interview, it seemed the hosts were having a very hard time asking her questions, constantly stumbling over their words, and essentially going out of their way to assure her they weren't trying to offend her, as if they were afraid of asking her a simple question.  I've never listened to them before and I have no idea if this is just how they talk, or if they acted differently around Anita, but it made me think that there's some sort of fear keeping people from criticizing her at all.  I know a few very outspoken people (such as ThunderF00t) have made videos about her, mostly combining their criticism with thinly-veiled insults, but I don't think I've seen any sort of moderate discussion about her video's content from any sort of gaming website.  Do you think there's some sort of concern from journalists and such that there would be some consequences if they tried to criticize her points?

Offline Shjade

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #256 on: November 03, 2014, 07:04:13 PM »
I could say that, but it'd be making a fairly big leap.

It'd be more on point to say you're insensitive - you're doing something "out of habit" that a fair number of people find pretty insulting because you're inured to it. You're not even thinking when you say it, you just say it.

Likewise, it's a leap to assume someone's a misogynist because they casually call people fucking cunt whores, but not so much to make note of the kind of company they keep to think that's "normal trash talk."

"I don't hate women! I just don't mind hanging out with people who think it's cool to sound like we do."

Not exactly a great impression either.

My favorite for this particular line of thinking is "jew." Not even an insult on its own, right? You can call someone a jew and mean, sincerely, they are a person of jewish heritage. No problem. Not a "bad word."

And yet, in some gaming circles I've been part of over the years, there have been people who used it as a slur - even as a verb at times ("He jewed me out of that last round with chip damage."). I'm not jewish, myself, but couldn't help feeling highly uncomfortable around such people for that casually uncaring attitude, what it said about them and their values that they would talk that way apparently without even considering how it sounds. I almost hoped one of those guys would slip up and say "nigger" the same way - as if it's just some term they can use in casual trash talk to describe someone they didn't like in the moment - because it would've been amusing to see how well that went over in a room half-populated with persons of color who, I suspect, would not have been as permissive about that term as they were about others that didn't apply to themselves.

Context does, indeed, matter. Who's reading what you're writing is part of that context. Disregarding that says as much about you as it does about people who read into what you say that you might not have meant.

On topic! Braioch, I believe several pieces have been done to point out Anita's Kickstarter timeline is average compared to the majority of Kickstarter projects, particularly ones that get greatly overfunded which, statistically, tends to indicate projects will take LONGER based on how much more money they get than expected (given they then end up feeling obligated to add new stretch goals/compensate for that extra funding somehow, which leads to more planning/execution time, which leads to delays, etc.). In other words, the Kickstarter timing only looks "askance" if you're expecting it to.

If you'd like to see what real Kickstarter fishiness looks like, might I suggest you check out the FleetCOMM kickstarter, a game development project started by RogueStarGamez (if that name seems familiar, he's one of the louder voices in GG and one of those guys who likes to accuse Anita of scamming people). The game was slated to release in 2012.

It still hasn't been released.

The last update was in 2013. Correction: the last comment from MercenaryGames (RogueStar) was in 2013.

He's since tried another Kickstarter for a DIFFERENT game and an IndieGoGo, and still sells $20 packs for the as-yet-unreleased game.

That is what "askance" looks like. In case you were wondering.


Edit: Sethala, she answers that question in one of her videos. As I recall it boiled down to "Violence is an overt, illegal action. Sexism is a subtle, hard-to-prove mindset. Comparing games affecting them both equally doesn't work."
« Last Edit: November 03, 2014, 07:10:41 PM by Shjade »

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #257 on: November 03, 2014, 07:10:14 PM »
Intent matters, it is in and of it'self silly to think saying a hateful word makes you hateful. If this was true then all comedians are racist. Loise ck is a homophobe, becous he says fag openly. Despite the fact he makes clear, it was just a word people used when he was growing up. It's not meant towards Gays, but actually meant to insult any one he finds acting Queer. (Another word thought of as homophobic. But really means odd or out of place. Which is why most homophobes did use it.)

How about Mencia, whom would openly make fun of Mexicans. Is he.... Racist to himself? Dun dun dun, raceception.

What if I was talking about the history of abuse most (Most.) Black slaves suffered from a majority (Yes, as in not all.) Slave masters. What if my below examination of history offended you?

A point of subject people refuse to recognize is that not all were treated bad, and though today African americans have integrated into society. And lead successful and or happy lives. Back when they were freed, their freedom did more harm to them then good. Many taking advantage of their ignorance to society, in order to take their money and lands. Not to mention, the fact that some simply found life easy'er at the hands of some one whom provides for their labor. Im not saying slavery is right, but I am saying at the time, they were case by case either to inexperienced in the real world to make the American dream a reality for them. Or, to indoctrinated by their slavery, and there by to reliant on being fed, or told what to do. (In other words. A lot had Stockholm.) Does it make me racist to see and understand the historical significance of it? Does it make me racist to point and say, not all were evil, that is jaded to think so. Does it make me racist to openly say the word, Nigger, means an ignorant or otherwise lazy and good for nothing person. And was only turned to be use on black people for the popularity of said slur. (Which is why today it is wrong.) Or to explain the difference between the similar word Negro, which actually means Black in spanish. You can call any one a N word. Even me, since I am lazy, and often good for nothing. :P .

Is it offensive for me to tell you that in reality not all slave masters were bad people. And that not all slaves were happy with their freedom?

Case in point, it's not the slur that makes the man, but the man that makes the slur. Just because I said something, doesn't make me something hateful. It just makes me an idiot. (Unless the person is obviously being... Hateful.)

Bitch: A word people would immediately find offensive towards women. In spite of the fact men can be called one. Am I a sexist if I called someone a Bitch? Am I hateful? Nope. Bitch is my favorite slur to call someone whom is pissing me off or otherwise being ignorant. So excuse me while I slur like Jesse Pinkman.

To find a word offensive immediately without further examining the intent behind using said word is well... Wrong. It will make you look jaded. I will end this off with an example.

Dumb Cunt. 1. A woman who acts like she doesn't know a thing, therefore making a conversation totally impossible 2. A woman that constantly does stupid things. Those are the urban meanins behind that word. Though I will argue, because Cunt is a word used to offend both men and women. (Europe would call a man a cunt.) That this slur applys to both men and women.

Totally I am a sexist bigot, for saying the word, even if the intent was explaining the meaning. Forget intent, the second you hear an offensive word, drop all your kind intent, point, and say Sexist! Biggot! Homophobe! Without even trying to understand what a person is saying. I understand a lot of what I said is easy to determine as not sexist, or racist, etc. But, the point is you cant just stop and immediately call some one a sexist, if you didn't even stop to try and hear what he or she had to say. Im not saying it's right to say hateful things, but saying them doesn't mean you are bad. It just makes you ignorant, and having a bad personality trait to say something hateful to hurt. (Unless the person is all "Fuck all deez niggas, I gonnas shoot the next I sees...."  Then, please do. call them out like no tomorrow.) My opinon, if you really think a person is a homophobe for saying Faggot. Then your Jaded. And need to work on that. Sorry if I offend, that's not my intent. Just, try not to view things so one sided and angrily.

Now, I will end this off by qoating the above post:
Quote
I could say that, but it'd be making a fairly big leap.

It'd be more on point to say you're insensitive - you're doing something "out of habit" that a fair number of people find pretty insulting because you're inured to it. You're not even thinking when you say it, you just say it.

In the end, forget anything I had to say and at least take this in to heart. This is far less jaded then saying they are hateful people automatically by saying something socially ignorant or controversial. (Pluss, I am like that, Im to used to the word Bitch. >_< Dam you breaking bad!)

Can we get back to what's the real topic? This is about Anitas videos. About how we feel they are right or wrong. Not feminism, or social beliefs as a whole. Id hate for this to turn into another Gamergate hate frenzie between feminists beliefs and those who find third wave feminism wrong. Because, its not that I hate Anita for her views. I hate her because she is an ignorant opportunist who spins the truth. And spills toxic beliefs hatefully vs all men. As well as gamers. This is Not because of one, or two things she has to say but because all of it is just jaded... And put together is saying all men want to hate on women, and abuse them digitally. Essentially, she is a sexist. Who spits on everything that is good about feminism. But, because she is a women, who says she is a feminist, she can not do wrong. Take Thunderfoots statements into account. "What if we flipped the script and a man was spilling this garbage? He'd be laughed off stage." I just wish people like her would be laughed off stage. Because while they say men are indoctrinated to do wrong, they are saying jaded things, teaching women to hate. Or otherwise fear men.

 For every well worded and fair feminist like Emma Watson, or The Factual Feminist. There is 3 anitas, ruining the face of an otherwise good cause.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2014, 07:20:09 PM by Garuss Vakarian »

Offline Braioch

  • Devil. Mad Scientist. King of Debauchery. Brat Prince. Duke of Snark. Warlock of Orgies.
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2009
  • Location: Michigan
  • Gender: Male
  • Imfinewhydoyouask? Canyoutastetime?Ican
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #258 on: November 03, 2014, 07:24:26 PM »
A lot of people's nervousness about addressing her openly and neutrally is that anyone who gets near that tends to get attacked by a very rabid and...well, borderline insane group of fans. (Not ALL of them, I'm not going to generalize and say all of her supporters are like that, I'm talking a very vocal section of them) Anyone who gets near asking her any hard questions ends up on the hard end of these vocal groups and it's understandably intimidating for some people.

There's also the fact that a lot of media attention is painting people who aren't on board with what she's saying as exactly what she's speaking out against. There's a lot of media support for her, (for which I have issue with personally for other reasons, but that's not the topic here) and people are having a hard time getting fair coverage. People who are staying neutral are experiencing a lot of flak from people and it makes it difficult for unbiased news to address a lot of the events currently happening.

For the feminist point at the end for Garuss' point, if the moderate feminist are tired of people spewing vitrol and hate and completely hijacking their entire social movement, then they need to get on outing those people. Any other rights group, from GLBT to the NAACP would immediately band together and smack a radical group away from the limelight and refuse to be associated with them, denouncing their views. If the moderates don't want the radical taking over their discussion and their cause, it's time for them to get a voice and stop them, otherwise people are going to continue to view the movement as a bunch of bullying misandrists with a victim complex.

Offline SethalaTopic starter

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #259 on: November 03, 2014, 08:01:03 PM »
On topic! Braioch, I believe several pieces have been done to point out Anita's Kickstarter timeline is average compared to the majority of Kickstarter projects, particularly ones that get greatly overfunded which, statistically, tends to indicate projects will take LONGER based on how much more money they get than expected (given they then end up feeling obligated to add new stretch goals/compensate for that extra funding somehow, which leads to more planning/execution time, which leads to delays, etc.). In other words, the Kickstarter timing only looks "askance" if you're expecting it to.

I'd like to point out that her original Kickstarter promised 5 videos to be done in August 2012.  Her fifth video in the series came out in June this year, more than a year and a half after the initial promised release.  Yes, there are many examples of Kickstarter projects being late, but aside from a few extremely shady projects that are most likely scams, I can't think of any that took that long to produce only what their initial promise was.

Quote
Edit: Sethala, she answers that question in one of her videos. As I recall it boiled down to "Violence is an overt, illegal action. Sexism is a subtle, hard-to-prove mindset. Comparing games affecting them both equally doesn't work."

Would you say that playing aggressive games would be likely to make someone shout more?  That's another example of a "subtle, hard-to-prove mindset", but any tests trying to find such a link have been, to the best of my knowledge, inconclusive.  Besides, being "violent" is more than just "taking a gun and shooting anyone that gets in your way".  For instance, if a kid in school plays violent games, and the school bully starts making fun of him, is he more likely to punch the bully instead of walk away?  A violent mindset can definitely be subtle changes, but why has media been so intent on denying that and so willing to accept the same idea when it applies to sexism?

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #260 on: November 03, 2014, 08:12:04 PM »
So, to try and get it back on topic...

I found a post by someone who heard a podcast where Anita was invited to be a guest, and it kind of called her out on not being able to answer what should have been a rather basic and obvious point of criticism for her.  The entire post is here.  It includes a transcript of the podcast when the question was asked, and while it's rather hard to follow with almost everyone stuttering as they try to answer the question, I think it's a rather interesting read.

The question itself is simple: ""'Violence in videogames leads to violence' is something the videogame industry has rallied against as a whole for years now. So why, when you replace the word "violence" with "sexism" is it so widely accepted?"  Since it seems one of Anita's main narratives is that sexism in games affects people and encourages them to be sexist, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that she'd have at least some kind of answer to the question.  Yet her first reply was "I'm sure this question is being presented in good faith but it's a fallacy", without any description of why it's a fallacy, or any other attempt to answer the question.  I'm very curious to see what those supporting Anita's videos would say to the question.

As an aside, during the interview, it seemed the hosts were having a very hard time asking her questions, constantly stumbling over their words, and essentially going out of their way to assure her they weren't trying to offend her, as if they were afraid of asking her a simple question.  I've never listened to them before and I have no idea if this is just how they talk, or if they acted differently around Anita, but it made me think that there's some sort of fear keeping people from criticizing her at all.  I know a few very outspoken people (such as ThunderF00t) have made videos about her, mostly combining their criticism with thinly-veiled insults, but I don't think I've seen any sort of moderate discussion about her video's content from any sort of gaming website.  Do you think there's some sort of concern from journalists and such that there would be some consequences if they tried to criticize her points?

With my other point stated I must actually quote this. First off, now that I have looked at your post. Bravo for going back on topic! Any way, I understand where your going here. Often she is like this, on the Colbart report even. He asked her to name games. And she straw manned, beating around the bush by saying things like. "I could name you many games." But not actually naming anything. What she is really saying is, I can, but I wont. (Because she mostly, can not.)  The only game she ends up referencing is GTA, which in and of it'self is a not an example. Because every one knows it is a violent, blatantly evil game, which advertises it'self as such. A criminal simulator if you would, that rock star does in it's own ways however make a good series of crime drama from the perspective of a criminal. Namely Vice city, San andreas, 4 and 5 are good crime dramas. One two and three, were not very good in this regard. The one thing I give anita in her videos, is her pointing out how in the end of 3, he shoots the girl he just saved for being annoying. (I think hell just got cold... I agreed with one of her statements..) Back on topic, GTA is not a good example. Because it's her only example.

Now, her straw man fallacies as well as her inability to actually come up with any legitimate cases where games breed sexism. Is well known. In this, she states it's a fallacy to avoid the question. Not because she is right, or he is wrong, but it's the kind of questions she chooses to ignore. In her semenars. There is a sheet one must fill out, then her little posy of fellow feminists look through the sheets. When questions come up, they chose who comes on stage. Systematically grabbing those who support anitas claims, and shutting out those who don't. Not only is she a perfesional victim, but one constantly seeking to silence others. In fact, she had Thunderfoots twitter account banned! For something, so outrageous it's funny. "He put her in a one sided position." .... >_< Face wall! But, as one of Thunderfoots supporters said on twitter. Which is a well received post, that paints the colors of Anita and her supporters well. "To those who banned thunderfoot. Take in Tyrian Lanysters wisdom."



Broich: I don't have much to say in response. You hit it on the money. Thank you for agreeing with my closing point.

Sethela:
Quote
I'd like to point out that her original Kickstarter promised 5 videos to be done in August 2012.  Her fifth video in the series came out in June this year, more than a year and a half after the initial promised release.  Yes, there are many examples of Kickstarter projects being late, but aside from a few extremely shady projects that are most likely scams, I can't think of any that took that long to produce only what their initial promise was

Yep, not to mention... Well. Heres sarcasm: Those are totally rad videos that totally cost 30 thousand dollars pure. She totally did not rip off her kickstarter supporters. *Smiles at the blank colored back drop, and her persistence to steal lets play footage.*

Quote
Would you say that playing aggressive games would be likely to make someone shout more?  That's another example of a "subtle, hard-to-prove mindset", but any tests trying to find such a link have been, to the best of my knowledge, inconclusive.  Besides, being "violent" is more than just "taking a gun and shooting anyone that gets in your way".  For instance, if a kid in school plays violent games, and the school bully starts making fun of him, is he more likely to punch the bully instead of walk away?  A violent mindset can definitely be subtle changes, but why has media been so intent on denying that and so willing to accept the same idea when it applies to sexism?

Exactly. Further more, games in fact do not promote, but demote violence as well as sexism. As I talked about the Guermerta hotel in fallout, there are many a quest or scene across gaming. In which violence against women happens. (Not exclusively, there is also hate on sexuality, and race.) But these games make it so that it is either sickening to look upon, or makes it so that you feel down right obligated to help. (Putting your character in the moral dellema of choosing between the good and evil, often points mainly towards good in these situations. You can be a dick, but it just feels to wrong to be one in these quests... in at least my playthroughs, I usually find my self obligated to take the moraly right stance. Even though, in most other occurrences I take a grey and ambiguous stand point. Such as being pro Templar in dragon age.)

As for violence. Games allows a good place to vent. Like a little rubber doll one squeezes. It is an odd perspective, but a real one. Killing things digitaly would more then likely make some one less inclined to do it in reality. Because they are venting that testosterone.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2014, 08:21:33 PM by Garuss Vakarian »

Offline Shjade

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #261 on: November 03, 2014, 09:56:08 PM »
I'd like to point out that her original Kickstarter promised 5 videos to be done in August 2012.  Her fifth video in the series came out in June this year, more than a year and a half after the initial promised release.  Yes, there are many examples of Kickstarter projects being late, but aside from a few extremely shady projects that are most likely scams, I can't think of any that took that long to produce only what their initial promise was.

Would you say that playing aggressive games would be likely to make someone shout more?  That's another example of a "subtle, hard-to-prove mindset", but any tests trying to find such a link have been, to the best of my knowledge, inconclusive.  Besides, being "violent" is more than just "taking a gun and shooting anyone that gets in your way".  For instance, if a kid in school plays violent games, and the school bully starts making fun of him, is he more likely to punch the bully instead of walk away?  A violent mindset can definitely be subtle changes, but why has media been so intent on denying that and so willing to accept the same idea when it applies to sexism?

For point one: http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/07/17/only-25-of-kickstarter-projects-ship-on-time/

For point two: I didn't make the claim, I'm saying that was Anita's answer. You'd have to ask her if you're trying to debate it.

Yep, not to mention... Well. Heres sarcasm: Those are totally rad videos that totally cost 30 thousand dollars pure. She totally did not rip off her kickstarter supporters. *Smiles at the blank colored back drop, and her persistence to steal lets play footage.*

Indeed, she totally did not. Given her supporters donated money for something they wanted, when they could clearly see the goal was already met, and kept donating by choice. I'm willing to bet if you ask her backers if they feel ripped off, they'd answer in the negative. There are almost 7000 people in that category, so I can't be positive, obviously, but I'd bet the vast majority at the very least doesn't feel that way (though they may be impatient about the release timing).

If you're getting upset that she "ripped off" people on their behalf when they're not even upset about it? That's...kinda silly. Or, oh, wait, maybe I misunderstood: did you donate to her Kickstarter?
« Last Edit: November 03, 2014, 10:00:16 PM by Shjade »

Offline Caehlim

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #262 on: November 03, 2014, 10:36:41 PM »
Garuss, to be perfectly honest, reading through your post (not the most recent but the one before) gives an impression of you being somewhat bigoted. I'm honestly not saying this in order to insult you but because I believe it's something you may want to consider.

When a discussion of prejudice leads to you automatically posting a long post which in multiple times and ways defends the use of slurs that target minority groups and then proceeds to a defense of slavery, it can really give the idea that you are okay with hateful treatment of minority groups.

As for violence. Games allows a good place to vent. Like a little rubber doll one squeezes. It is an odd perspective, but a real one. Killing things digitaly would more then likely make some one less inclined to do it in reality. Because they are venting that testosterone.

To the best of my knowledge, current studies do not support the catharsis theory of emotional release. The idea has been around for a very long time, supported by Aristotle in his book Poetics back in classical Greece and many other people since, however it doesn't seem to be scientifically supportable.

Intent matters, it is in and of it'self silly to think saying a hateful word makes you hateful. If this was true then all comedians are racist. Loise ck is a homophobe, becous he says fag openly. Despite the fact he makes clear, it was just a word people used when he was growing up. It's not meant towards Gays, but actually meant to insult any one he finds acting Queer.

This is seriously not okay and Loise's defence is something homophobes say, just like racists say "I don't have a problem with black people it's the n****s I hate."

Quote
How about Mencia, whom would openly make fun of Mexicans. Is he.... Racist to himself? Dun dun dun, raceception.

I don't know his body of work to comment upon.

Quote
A point of subject people refuse to recognize is that not all were treated bad, and though today African americans have integrated into society. And lead successful and or happy lives. Back when they were freed, their freedom did more harm to them then good. Many taking advantage of their ignorance to society, in order to take their money and lands. Not to mention, the fact that some simply found life easy'er at the hands of some one whom provides for their labor. Im not saying slavery is right, but I am saying at the time, they were case by case either to inexperienced in the real world to make the American dream a reality for them. Or, to indoctrinated by their slavery, and there by to reliant on being fed, or told what to do.

Your description of events, while overly generalized, is reasonably accurate. However I would say that you're missing the point when it comes to interpretation.

After generations of systematic abuse and pressure inflicting trauma upon a broad spectrum of the African American population, the ending of this trauma was not accompanied with sufficient assistance to overcome the effects of that trauma and rebuild their lives. The legal declaration of their new status did not end discrimination being practised against them and many were left with few or no options to actually integrate into the workforce despite having been granted the right to do so. 

Quote
Does it make me racist to openly say the word, Nigger, means an ignorant or otherwise lazy and good for nothing person.

Yes, you should avoid this usage as it is archaic and continuing to use it in this fashion supports racist values.

Offline SethalaTopic starter

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #263 on: November 03, 2014, 10:37:43 PM »
For point one: http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/07/17/only-25-of-kickstarter-projects-ship-on-time/

For point two: I didn't make the claim, I'm saying that was Anita's answer. You'd have to ask her if you're trying to debate it.

Indeed, she totally did not. Given her supporters donated money for something they wanted, when they could clearly see the goal was already met, and kept donating by choice. I'm willing to bet if you ask her backers if they feel ripped off, they'd answer in the negative. There are almost 7000 people in that category, so I can't be positive, obviously, but I'd bet the vast majority at the very least doesn't feel that way (though they may be impatient about the release timing).

If you're getting upset that she "ripped off" people on their behalf when they're not even upset about it? That's...kinda silly. Or, oh, wait, maybe I misunderstood: did you donate to her Kickstarter?

Point one: You're right, getting mad at her for "ripping off" her backers when most of them are complaining is a moot issue; quite frankly, it's one of the reasons I asked for it to not be discussed in this thread, and why I'll be dropping out of discussing it after this post.  I will also say that claiming she ripped off her backers, while it may be true, is little more than an elaborate ad hominem fallacy, and does nothing to discredit the actual points she makes in the videos.  (After considering things however, I do think discussion about how much she actually knows about games aside from her targeted research project can be a relevant discussion to the video subject, since knowing what she knows about gaming can inform us about why she made specific arguments and not others, so I'm fine with that being discussed.)

Point two: I was under the impression that the point of this board was to debate things ourselves, not just repeat what someone else said and then retreat behind saying "it's their argument, not mine" when it's challenged.  If you don't want to try and defend her words that's fine and I won't press the issue, but that still means my original question remains unanswered.

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #264 on: November 03, 2014, 10:49:51 PM »
No I didn't donate, nor am I upset about it. Your right that her backers don't care. Im just pointing out the fact, she obviously is not using the money for what it was meant for. Her videos. That in it'self is morally wrong. And, close to being down right illegal. Donations should go to the function or cause they are donated to, and the only reason she wont be in jail right now for stealing the money donated for her videos is because her fans will not bitch about it.  They feel it fits the goal, fine, but she could at least publically announce the rest as donations to a cuase or something. (Rather then the obvious: Keeping it in her pocket.) Can I prove it? No. But, if she really cared for womens rights she would have donated to an organization trying to help women in foreign countries. Point being, I don't really care but felt the low quality of her videos, in comparison to the amount of money she made, relevant. (Especially when she doesn't donate any kind of money to any cuases for women. And if she did, why not openly admit it?)

Further, it is mind bogling that she states so vividly, shes a gamer! When she has openly stated on a campus seminar, she hates games and would never play them.

Quote
That's...kinda silly. Or, oh, wait, maybe I misunderstood: did you donate to her Kickstarter?
I will finish by saying, I assume you meant that last part in jest. And not in mockery. Any way, will reiterate, no I didn't donate. Personally, I find it a insane thing to donate to. Why any kind of feminist will opt to donate to a "Tropes vs Women" Video series over a real cause is beyond me. But to each his or her own.

By the way, Mr.Repzion had a video recently on the Amazing Atheists channel. I think these Anita comments are very relevant, if you agree with her, and if you don't. Either way, relevant.


Quote
Garuss, to be perfectly honest, reading through your post (not the most recent but the one before) gives an impression of you being somewhat bigoted. I'm honestly not saying this in order to insult you but because I believe it's something you may want to consider.

When a discussion of prejudice leads to you automatically posting a long post which in multiple times and ways defends the use of slurs that target minority groups and then proceeds to a defense of slavery, it can really give the idea that you are okay with hateful treatment of minority groups.

Caehlim: Well I cant argue there. I did seem to be like a big fat bigot. I aint defending harassment however. And merely stating it is just as ridiculous to forget all a person has to say at the mere expression of a slur. When you let the word cunt,  be all you hear you may miss the point some one is trying to say. It's not entirely to excuse the use of profanity, merely saying a persons use of them doenst make them automatically wrong. Just offensive. So I will reiterate, simply, and to the point so that any of my tangents don't get in the way of said point: I was saying, don't forget the rest of what someone is saying. Just because a part of his or her sentence, was offensive.  IE: "That cunt hit me. I am pressing charges." Offensive yes, he called her a cunt. But, you shouldn't let the offensive language drown the fact, that he said she hit him. As someone who once considered being in law enforcement. I can tell you it goes a long way, to shift through the slurs and pay attention to what some one is really saying. Then there is some words, like fagot, which are by nature offensive. I personally, wouldn't want to use it in a conversation. But, A word like queer, is not offensive unless it is meant to be. And is not homophobic, unless the speaker meant it to be. To be queer, is to be odd or different. By that definition, I am a queer fellow. It is not and should not be an insult, unless the persons phrase was. "Your a queer." To some one, who is gay. That is a harassment, not the word, but who it was said to and in what tone.
 
  Edit: All in all I will admit, in retrospect to that previous post I lost sight of the point and went into a tangent. :P

In terms of a statement like "Your a newb you stupid bitch. Go to the kitchen." I will not advocate that. For there was no sensibility in the statement. Just bigotry. So I was not saying harassment is good, or slurs are ok. Im saying it shouldn't make you ignore anything else.

Edit: Also, I don't use the N word. I was simply referencing it. :/ kinda regret doing so to be honest. Nor do I advocate slavery, I merely mentioned the fact that at the time it did more harm in the short term. In the long term, things are good. Basically things are deeper then the normal rights and wrongs. I probably picked the most controversial topic for that, but still. There was more to it then this is wrong, this is bad.

Edit: The colored red lines, is due to me accidentally saying He hit her. I meant, in form of point and sentence. She hit him. *_* I blame this sleepless night.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2014, 11:32:19 PM by Garuss Vakarian »

Offline Caehlim

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #265 on: November 03, 2014, 11:49:47 PM »
Caehlim: Well I cant argue there. I aint defending harassment however. And merely stating it is just as ridiculous to forget all a person has to say at the mere expression of a slur.

Agreed. Bigotry is all about letting one thing about a person shaping your entire impression of their character rather than treating them as an individual. It's all too easy to fall into the trap of doing this in reverse, judging a person over one bigoted remark and not acknowledging that they are an individual with a diverse range of opinions and character traits.

Quote
That is a harassment, not the word, but who it was said to and in what tone.

Agreed again. Although I do think that responsible usage of a word involves considering not just what you mean it to say, but also how it will be viewed by those who hear it. When someone says "John is so gay at this game. Oh I don't mean that he's homosexual, he's just a bad player" then it's telling other people that being gay should be interpreted in a negative way and reinforces harmful ideas.
 
Quote
Edit: All in all I will admit, in retrospect to that previous post I lost sight of the point and went into a tangent. :P

It happens to all of us.

Offline Shjade

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #266 on: November 04, 2014, 12:06:26 AM »
By the way, Mr.Repzion had a video recently on the Amazing Atheists channel. I think these Anita comments are very relevant, if you agree with her, and if you don't. Either way, relevant.

They're totally relevant! To a thread about bashing Anita. Not to a thread that's intended to be about her videos. Like, for instance, this one. That seems to have been ignored in totality in the last couple of pages, though, in favor of...well, your kind of posting. So have fun with that. I'm out, too.

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #267 on: November 04, 2014, 12:44:54 AM »
Hmm I guess it is off topic. Sorry.  :-[ : Though what I thought was relevant was her own comments on twitter. Not Mr Repzions comments on her.:

Caehlim: Glad you agree. And yes, as you said:
Quote
Although I do think that responsible usage of a word involves considering not just what you mean it to say, but also how it will be viewed by those who hear it.
The word in general can be enough to harass. Some words, even if the true meaning is not bad, should be used responsibly based on the negatives that society associated with them.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 12:47:08 AM by Garuss Vakarian »

Offline SethalaTopic starter

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #268 on: November 04, 2014, 12:50:17 AM »
Once again, I'd like to state that this thread is intended for discussion of the content of Anita's videos, not Anita as a person, or other things she's done outside of the videos, including what she's spending her Kicksterter money on.  I'm willing to say that discussions of Anita as a gamer are close enough to the topic and knowing her history (or, perhaps, lack thereof) with games can help understand her videos.  Videos commenting on her Twitter posts, however, are definitely off topic.

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #269 on: November 04, 2014, 12:55:03 AM »
As I said, sorry. I understand it was going off topic.

Offline Braioch

  • Devil. Mad Scientist. King of Debauchery. Brat Prince. Duke of Snark. Warlock of Orgies.
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2009
  • Location: Michigan
  • Gender: Male
  • Imfinewhydoyouask? Canyoutastetime?Ican
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #270 on: November 04, 2014, 12:59:43 AM »
Point one: You're right, getting mad at her for "ripping off" her backers when most of them are complaining is a moot issue; quite frankly, it's one of the reasons I asked for it to not be discussed in this thread, and why I'll be dropping out of discussing it after this post.  I will also say that claiming she ripped off her backers, while it may be true, is little more than an elaborate ad hominem fallacy, and does nothing to discredit the actual points she makes in the videos.  (After considering things however, I do think discussion about how much she actually knows about games aside from her targeted research project can be a relevant discussion to the video subject, since knowing what she knows about gaming can inform us about why she made specific arguments and not others, so I'm fine with that being discussed.)

Point two: I was under the impression that the point of this board was to debate things ourselves, not just repeat what someone else said and then retreat behind saying "it's their argument, not mine" when it's challenged.  If you don't want to try and defend her words that's fine and I won't press the issue, but that still means my original question remains unanswered.

-casually sidesteps the off topic going on in the background-

For the first point: I thought that someone would eventually bring that little logical fallacy into the mix mostly because I could sense the potential for it, alas. My point for bringing that into it is that by itself, it is in fact that very logical fallacy and deserving of being tossed aside into the garbage heap where it belongs. However. There is much to say about it when you add in her publicized dislike of gaming and subsequent denial of playing them and then turning around and placing herself as an insider on games, which is stretching the ability to believe her to a breaking point. As I mentioned earlier as well, her points are filled with obvious strawmen and she cherry picks like crazy.

That is the only reason I don't think her slightly sketchy behavior about the fundraising and video creation should simply be dismissed. However it's merely background coloring to the fact that her argument is weak. I mentioned the strawmen and the cherry picking already, and that's simply enough to cast her point into doubt.

Cherry picking AND Strawman example, which I believe someone made a video about but I'll spare you that as it gets a bit repetitive. In one of the videos she utilizes a clip of Hitman: Absolution, where Agent 47 (protagonist you play as) has to go through a strip club in order to reach a certain office to gain information to continue to the next level. At one point, you get to a room with two strippers who are doing their makeup and having a conversation about their boss, (whom is obviously a sadist and twisted for the record) and your objective is on the other side of the room. Now in her clip, while she goes on about how the girls are there to make the violence against women normal and even sexualized, Agent 47 walks up and beats them to death and drags their bodies around like playthings.

The Strawman comes in simply because that particular scene A)isn't necessarily going to happen as there is another path that doesn't bring you near those girls B)the game very actively punishes you for performing such actions. The entire game is built upon (and enforced by a point system) the principle of getting into an area and killing whatever target(s) that you were given at the beginning of the level. Even guards, police, what have you that serve as a barrier will count against you if you kill them, the penalty is around 4 times worse if you kill an unarmed civilian. Her argument being that a game that actively discourages you from brutally killing innocent civilians propagates the idea of normalizing and sexualizing violence upon women.

The cherry picking is that that is one section of the largest multi-part mission in the game, one, and one moment in the entire section of the largest multi-part mission in the game. The other sections are untouched, the rest of the game is not commented on, but that one mission in a slew of them is called upon and the context of the level, the mission, the game itself is not mentioned. She took it completely out of the context without batting an eye and tried to sell it to the audience.

And on a personal note, This just makes me wonder about her qualifications for talking about video games in the first place.

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #271 on: November 04, 2014, 01:13:03 AM »
Yes, and as I have brought up before, there is what she said about the Guermerta casino in fallout new vegas. As well as the Sex Trade scene in Watchdogs, where you free the women from an auction.

I will continue to watch this discussion. But, I feel there is not much left for me to say. Anitas videos are just gosh awful. Full of one sided cherry picked arguments that makes villains of an entire subculture, filled with sub cultures of said subculture. Not all gamers are good people, but a majority of us just want to play. And people like me, just want to find people with similar interests, and to not feel like an outcast for a while. I mainly take solace that she has very little attention. Sure, the news covers her. Twitter goes all nuts for her. But at the end of the day, her videos only have a around a hundred thousand  subscribers... It may feel like a lot. But, it is not.

(Edit: I understand subcribers are not views. But, a Subscriber is a meat and bone to a channel. Without them you slowly sink into obscurity.)
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 01:17:34 AM by Garuss Vakarian »

Offline Braioch

  • Devil. Mad Scientist. King of Debauchery. Brat Prince. Duke of Snark. Warlock of Orgies.
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2009
  • Location: Michigan
  • Gender: Male
  • Imfinewhydoyouask? Canyoutastetime?Ican
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #272 on: November 04, 2014, 01:17:18 AM »
Wait...the casino with both women and men on display?

..wut

Offline Caehlim

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #273 on: November 04, 2014, 01:21:02 AM »
That is the only reason I don't think her slightly sketchy behavior about the fundraising and video creation should simply be dismissed.

I think the mistake comes in believing that anything related to her as a person alters whether her arguments are true or false. This is a literal ad hominem fallacy. That doesn't mean that she shouldn't be criticized for any inappropriate behaviour, but it just shouldn't be used in determining the validity of her arguments.

Quote
Cherry picking AND Strawman example

I won't quote your full text because it's so long, but yes these are some real problems with her videos and really detracted from the issues she discussed. As I mentioned above, I believe she addressed some of this in her introduction and conclusion but it was just too far removed from the clips she was showing to really prevent it from damaging the credibility of her videos.

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
« Reply #274 on: November 04, 2014, 01:21:42 AM »
And I just said Im out! >_< I guess I am a liar. Yes, she cherry picked the Guermerta casino (The mobster one within new vegas it'self.) . I will quote what I had to say on some of her cherry picks.

Quote
She doesn't play the games she critiques, as well, she uses controlled methods to bring to light non existent issues. Putting things out of context, or even down right twisting scenes to fit her agenda, and her core audiences expectations. As an example, when she talks about Hitman Absolution. She spins it as though, the player is supposed to kill strippers (In the only strip club scene, in the entire game.) Saying we are supposed to find a perverse pleasure from desecrating them, by pulling their corpses around. When the game down right penalizes you for killing inocents/targets that ARE NOT YOUR MARK. Dismissing the key goal, avoid detection, and kill the boss in the other room. Or, look at her views of Fallout New Vegases, Guermerta casino. She said it advocates female slavery, and tells the players women are objects to be bought or sold. Dismissing the fact that every quest there in the casino, is primarily meant for the player to have the option to free the girls. The casinos ethics is displayed as vile, and evil. (As it should be.) The developers down right informing the player. "Hey look, you can be a dick. But these dicks, need to go. So this time, don't be so much a dick."

How about Watchdogs? She said the game developers, are advocating the sex trade. But in this one point in the game, the players are saving these girls from it. (She could have went into a Damsel in distress rant, but instead chose to twist the game so it is not noble. But vile.)

Look at her comments on beyonetta! A sexually open, and expressive women. Whom is strong, and a mother no less. (Anita Logic:Actual character development? Ya, lets keep that out. And slut shame her. *Goes on Twitter.* Remember not to slut shame this Halloween! Dress however you want!) Anita paints her as a symbol created by men for men, in order to sexually oppress women, to continue the patriarichal plan to have men view women as objects. When in reality, Beyonettas creator is a women!

 Then Anita is Saying that, Beyonettas character gets nude with this special move, and this is WRONG! (Dismissing the key factor: That as a witch, her powers were mirrored behind actual folk lore. Her power coming from her hair. Nor does anita understand, that in canon her clothes is part of her hair, and that she is nude because her hair is making a "Fuck You!" Dragon.... :( I want a fuck you dragon.) 

The number one thing that got to me was watch dogs. I didn't like the game, but she made a conscious decision, to instead of bitching about a complaint of hers that would have made sense. (Damsels.) She twisted it into something vile, because it would have been more controversial for her viewers.

Edit:
Quote
I think the mistake comes in believing that anything related to her as a person alters whether her arguments are true or false. This is a literal ad hominem fallacy. That doesn't mean that she shouldn't be criticized for any inappropriate behaviour, but it just shouldn't be used in determining the validity of her arguments.

True that. I don't agree with her videos, I don't think games are sexist. I do have a problem with her as a person, not hate I don't know her, just a problem with her opinions. But I cant tell her she is wrong, and I cant let my opinions of her effect that fact. That games have not been to good at making women in the past, and could have done better to make female characters. Games have gotten better however! Namely with games like Dragon Age: Origins. And the mass effect trilogy. Some what two, but only because I liked Aveline and Meril. Though Isabella was likeable, and my first love interest. Her character could have been done a bit better. Any way, point is. Anitas message is right in some ways, since all media can be better at portraying females, (AND: Also males.). But the methods she uses are wrong in every way.

Note: Could be better, is not me admitting it is currently, bad. Currently a lot of games have gotten better.

« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 01:34:04 AM by Garuss Vakarian »