Controversial Tropes vs. Women in Video Games Series Comes to an End

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
maninahat said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
maninahat said:
[snip]
You haven't demonstrated how Lewis' law is circular logic, you've instead given an alternative example of circular logic that doesn't represent the meaning of Lewis' law. Lewis was simply pointing out the irony of how criticisms of sexism attract sexist remarks. These sexist remarks simply add to the proof that there is sexism in the first place; if there wasn't any sexism, then people wouldn't leave self-demonstrating sexist remarks.
You make an assertation which you leave unsubstantiated, what for? I can just reply with, no you're wrong - and it would hold as much merit as what you wrote.
I simply used proof by contradiction. You can't rationaly construct an argument like Lewi's did. Assumption that any opposition to action justifies the action. I'll give you even simplier example:
I take your wallet,
you punch me in the face,
I tell officer that me taking your wallet was justified because... you punched me and your wallet is necessary to take ammends from,
for my bleeding nose.

Do you really expect that officer would go with 'Oh ok then, carry on!'
What you did there is still a distinct thing from what Lewis is saying.

Here's a more accurate comparison:

I complain that people punching others in the face.
Someone hears what I say and punches me in the face.
The fact that I've been punched in the face demonstrates my complaint that people are punching others in the face.

And in the case of Lewis (or Sarkeesian), its just as simple:
She writes an article complaining that there is sexism.
People read her article and leave sexist remarks.
The fact that people have left sexist remarks proves her observation of there being sexism.

Punching me in the face may have been overreaction and unjustified, but setting up an argument that it
justifies stealing your wallet is just an attempt at very poor circular logic.
So to work this back towards Lewis or Sarkeesian, it now sounds like you are arguing that no, even though the sexism feminists are subjected to is bad, it totally doesn't justify them writing about sexism.
Congratulations on proving yourself wrong with your own example.
Now read it. Wait, something's wrong. Lewis said justifies not demonstrates. Here lets correct it. Oh no, circular logic happens :S

Either way. I am pretty sure that what you 'argue' is what Helen ment. Still she was wrong even on that.
Going by your example, with this little mischevious ;) 'demonstrate' misquote. You can't derrive anything from it either. Only that someone punched you in the face. You COULD be right (people are punching others in the faces and this is one of these people)
BUT
It could also be that this 'someone' just heard you, thought it's a cool idea and punched you. Had you never gave the idea nothing would have happen. At this point both hypothesis are as good. Thus cherry picking one without substance of any proof to back it, is irrational.

Got it now? There isn't logical way to defend Lewis' lapse.
Wait, how does switching "justified" for "demonstrates" change anything? If someone punched me, it would justify my complaints about the punching. If someone punched me, It would also demonstrate my complaint about the punching. Being pedantic about the verb does nothing to disprove the observation that there is some punching going on. I didn't mention the motives behind the punching, just that it is happening in the first place.
 

Smithnikov_v1legacy

New member
May 7, 2016
1,020
1
0
bartholen said:
Chapter I: The 90's. "Video games will make your children satanists!"
Chapter II: The 00's. "Video games will make your children murderers!"
Chapter III: The 10's: "Video games will make your children misogynists!"
Chapter IV: The new 20's: ???
The real joke is that the same people from I and II not only tried to insist they were suddenly our allies when III came along, but anyone who didn't lockstep with I and II were now cultural marxist beta cuckold snowflakes AND enemies of gaming.
 

Ninjamurai

New member
Mar 28, 2015
13
0
0
Smithnikov said:
The real joke is that the same people from I and II not only tried to insist they were suddenly our allies when III came along, but anyone who didn't lockstep with I and II were now cultural marxist beta cuckold snowflakes AND enemies of gaming.
Eh, I would hazard a guess that I & II were mostly older people or people completely disinterested in gaming as a whole, who to this day are still older &/or disinterested in gaming as a whole. While this doesn't necessarily disqualify them from being cultural marxist beta cuckold snowflakes AND enemies of gaming, I would still hazard a guess that the majority of I & II either kept holding their beliefs or just forgot about such gaming controversy.

I'm a little confused at the part of "...anyone who didn't lockstep with I and II..." Did you mean this in like, if you don't lockstep with saying gaming causes Satan & murder then you are an enemy of gaming? Because even the weirdos who berate you for not being Skeptical? & Rational? enough wouldn't willingly agree with "Gaming causes Satan & murder" no matter how conservative they are.
 

infohippie

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,369
0
0
Nazulu said:
I don't get those of you wondering why she was attacked, it's like you're all new to the internet. Do you really think it's just Anita who was attacked? Anyone who goes into politics cops threats and vile shit, and Anita was literally trying to poke the hive so it's her own fault.

Also Anita did more than just talk about games, she was spreading Marxism everywhere she could, and it really shows in some places, and even the media started spreading bigotry. Don't forgot she was in time magazines top 100 influential people, and so it's why the anti-SJW's haven't gone away yet. I've been trying to ignore it all for awhile now though so I don't know if it has changed much, but I doubt it has.

I tried watching that first video but gave up halfway when I couldn't see it heading toward any actual point. All I took away from it is that deer guy doesn't know what neoliberalism is. Care to point out what any of it has to do with Marxism in any form? If you mention "cultural Marxism", though, I'm going to ignore you because that isn't a thing that actually exists beyond tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorists.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
]
Nazulu said:
erttheking said:
Here's a thought, instead of just expecting people to dedicate twenty minutes of their time, how about you actually make an argument instead of just falling back on the arguments of others? Videos are supposed to support your argument. Not act as a substitute. You talk about people wasting your time, yet you're asking twenty minutes of their time, when writing out an argument would take you five tops.
And you can read my post again as well. I said what I found and then showed where I got some of that information. I made it very simple.

It should also be very clear I'm not looking for an argument (because why would I waste my time arguing? I'd rather a conversation, instead I get accusations and smart assery) because clearly I said in my post that I wasn't up to date on what has been recent.

If you can't be fucked looking at the video's which clearly say in the titles of where I got my info from, then you are clearly not someone that's worth the time. If I can do it then everyone else can, and I'm mostly busy. Are you saying people here should just believe my words instead of looking where I got my evidence? Here's a thought, Think.
Yeah, you utterly missed the point of what I was trying to say. Namely, write a point of your own and don't just fall back on someone else's.

You said that you wanted people to watch the videos, but you don't want an argument? Then why do you want people to watch the videos? Your purpose with your post is very confusing.

Yeah, the problem is that I remember one of those videos from way back when. It's garbage. So rather than trying to sift through them, wasting MY time, I'd rather you just say whatever it is you're trying to say, instead of being condescendingly passive aggressive because people don't want to give up half an hour of their free time just to understand the basic stance of your views. You want me to think? I want you to perform the basic standards of an argument. When someone asks you a question on how Anita is spreading Marxism, can you really not just answer the question? At the VERY least, can you put time stamps so we don't have to look through the entire video for just one point?
 

the December King

Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,580
1
3
Oh my FUCK

You are all better than this, if you think about it.

So smart

But such suckers. Your buttons got pushed.

Let her pass, if you like

But talk, about the points she was right in bringing up.

Don't credit her if you like

Martyrdom sorts itself out in the end.

Men aren't the bad guys

But some people who happened to be men might have been.

This message was brought to you by The Decemberking, about 65%
Rum, the rest %.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,433
2,246
118
Country
United States
infohippie said:
I tried watching that first video but gave up halfway when I couldn't see it heading toward any actual point. All I took away from it is that deer guy doesn't know what neoliberalism is. Care to point out what any of it has to do with Marxism in any form? If you mention "cultural Marxism", though, I'm going to ignore you because that isn't a thing that actually exists beyond tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorists.
That's that part that kills me. I mean, technically speaking, Cultural Marxism is an actual framework for media criticism, but the jokers making videos railing against the concept go full blown "they want the destruction of western civilization" conspiracy theory on it.
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
infohippie said:
I tried watching that first video but gave up halfway when I couldn't see it heading toward any actual point. All I took away from it is that deer guy doesn't know what neoliberalism is. Care to point out what any of it has to do with Marxism in any form? If you mention "cultural Marxism", though, I'm going to ignore you because that isn't a thing that actually exists beyond tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorists.
I picked the wrong video, it's after the time she first brought it out :p

The point that I was going for in the video is it shows straight off the bat she's dishonest, thinks it's stupid that you can't be for equality without being a feminist, and then shows she brings up patriarchy, white privilege and how women don't have as much choice in society. I have to find the other one where she clearly states what Teal Deer ranted here, with the communist outlook.
 

RedRockRun

sneaky sneaky
Jul 23, 2009
618
0
0
She's no different than the reactionary soccer moms and Senate fossils from the 90's who thought that listening to Marilyn Manson and playing DOOM could turn ordinary kids into sociopaths. The only major difference I see is that the wannabe censors of yore were right-wing, and those today are lefties. The self-righteous, "You can't be trusted to do what's best for you," mentality remains unchanged however.
 

Pseudonym

Regular Member
Legacy
Nov 4, 2020
802
8
13
Country
Nederland
I feel old. (even though I'm really not old at all) This project has been taking a long time and has sort of marked an era in certain circles of gamers to whom it mattered very much what Sarkesian said and did. I remember a time when every new episode of her would get posted somewhere on these forums and discussed at lenght. It's been years since she started this project.

My position on her right now is: 'meh'. She makes some good points and some bad points. She is certainly very bad with giving examples. (I recall she said at one point that the movie titanic was from the perspective of a man) But ultimately I find her more mediocre than infuriating, contrary to the many people who have been unbelievably upset about her over the years.
 

CyanCat47_v1legacy

New member
Nov 26, 2014
495
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
Smithnikov said:
WeepingAngels said:
Anita went looking for trouble, found it by attacking gamers and it's the gamers who are the assholes?
Considering she got treated worse than this guy...


..yea, I didn't buy into this line that she was somehow the anti-christ of gaming. She's just another hack to me.
She picked a fight and some gamers called her out, most of which were calm and rational. As you can see though, more gamers than not are being chivalrous and throwing other gamers under the bus to protect her. The gaming press turned against gamers too (they only shot themselves in the foot). It was even speculated that she faked some of the threats against her to rally support (and her donations). How the fuck can anyone still be defending her?

I don't know who Micheal Savage is but he must be someone you disapprove of and want to see him get some Social Justice, fired and shamed perhaps? That's how it works right? You know, I think all that shit destroyed this forum and it will never recover.

Well whatever, I can see that you guys are still in the self loathing mode so I don't care to go on with this.
Where is the proof that she faked those threats? speculation does not equal fact. You can speculate that say, the GOP were behind the kennedy assasination, but that does not make them guilty. Why? because speculation that is not supported by evidence proves nothing. Innocent until proven guilty is the principle of a state of justice. The opposite is the mark of a police state. You can speculate all you want, try to place the blame elsewhere, but the simple truth is that some times people who identify themselves with the same group as you do immoral and criminal things in the name of said group. Freedom of speech does not protect someone from rebuttal or criticism, but it does protect them from violence or the threat thereof as a response. Isn't gamergate supposed to support freedom of speech?
 

CyanCat47_v1legacy

New member
Nov 26, 2014
495
0
0
I echo what Jim Sterling said back when the flame wars about this subject were relevant: The haters made Anita famous. She was a grain of sand in the desert of the internet and the haters decided to build a god damned pyramid around her. The people who sent her death threats have only themselves to blame. This series would barely have been watched, mayeb not even funded at all if people hadn't raged about it. Does she say stupid things? Definately! Do i agree with her type of feminism? Not really, no. Would i sooner support her side of the argument over the loutmouthed mysoginists threatening to kill her? Definately yes. The haters brought attention to her and made her look good by comparison
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
trunkage said:
Sorry, I want to digress. Just checking on your opinion of Sargon. I have issues with what he says (mainly that he's a massive hypocrite) - but worst youtuber? There so much crap out there... I need to know.
Yeah, I was pretty hyperbolic. However, Sargon definitely qualifies as one of the "serious" youtubers that I respect the least, partially because he's a hypocrite, partially because he keeps this air of intellectualism about himself (naming yourself after an ancient conqueror/tyrant) but fucks up every step of the scientific method and a lot because he's your average anti-social justice dude who has a lot of opinions on feminism, equality movements etc. but consistently spouts nonsense that shows he has no idea what he's talking about. In that regard he's a posterboy for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

He's not as bad as say straight out neo-nazis, Klaners or similar that also find their way to youtube, but he's got an undue amount of followers listening to his hateful, ignorant stuff, which he likes to pretend (or believe) isn't hateful and ignorant but actually sort of rational and just.
 

Ninjamurai

New member
Mar 28, 2015
13
0
0
There is at least one difference between Anita Sarkeesian & her die-hard supporters, and Jack Thompson & his die-hard supporters. Anita didn't exactly try to *force* change, at least not by law like Jack did. I see a lot of Anita's detractors using flawed comparisons to quickly get their opinion past. (Though there are also some (semi-)supporters who are using flawed/imperfect comparisons & reasons as well...)

If you want to inform people that her videos are bad, you need to do a better job than barely saying anything. (You also have to not say too much, or else you'll sound like a crazy person (For example, when talking about how her videos may be objectively bad, don't start talking about Cultural Marxism, or else you will look like a crazy person even if you have good intentions...))

Sure, Feminist Frequency could cause negative change to gaming via their influence, but influence can't be changed by screaming & stomping. You need to be calm & reasonable, even if you think your opponent is not. Jack Thompson wanted to cause change to videogames by brute force, so that everyone would have to live by his rules. Even if the worst ideas out of a Fem. Freq. video was applied to games, at least they would have been applied by misguided developers, and not because the government forced them to.
 

webkilla

New member
Feb 2, 2011
594
0
0
So... it took her HOW many years to produce a dozen or so videos, and half of them were half the length they were supposed to have been?

Best 160K$ paycheck ever
 

webkilla

New member
Feb 2, 2011
594
0
0
Ninjamurai said:
There is at least one difference between Anita Sarkeesian & her die-hard supporters, and Jack Thompson & his die-hard supporters. Anita didn't exactly try to *force* change, at least not by law like Jack did. I see a lot of Anita's detractors using flawed comparisons to quickly get their opinion past. (Though there are also some (semi-)supporters who are using flawed/imperfect comparisons & reasons as well...)

If you want to inform people that her videos are bad, you need to do a better job than barely saying anything. (You also have to not say too much, or else you'll sound like a crazy person (For example, when talking about how her videos may be objectively bad, don't start talking about Cultural Marxism, or else you will look like a crazy person even if you have good intentions...))

Sure, Feminist Frequency could cause negative change to gaming via their influence, but influence can't be changed by screaming & stomping. You need to be calm & reasonable, even if you think your opponent is not. Jack Thompson wanted to cause change to videogames by brute force, so that everyone would have to live by his rules. Even if the worst ideas out of a Fem. Freq. video was applied to games, at least they would have been applied by misguided developers, and not because the government forced them to.
She tried to 'force' change by positioning herself as a moral arbiter - as a judge of what is good enough, and what not good enough. Well, she tried.

As for why her videos are bad? My favorite example is her "women in the fridge" video, where she talks about games using plot devices consisting of women getting hurt or killed, as motivations for the player character to get mad/get even/go on a quest of vengeance as a bad thing.

The trick is that she just says that's a bad thing. At no point does she stop and go "You know, wanting to save and help other people is a basic human drive - that its mainly men saving women is a bit one-sided, but ultimately wanting to help other people isn't a bad thing" - no, in her videos it is 100% a bad thing, with nothing good in it. Thats part of why her videos are so bad.

Plus, in the same video, she applies deceptive editing of game footage, to make it appear as if certain games actually encourage players to kill their damsels and then just give a reward for it.

In one clip, you see an FPS game where a player character has to rescue his girlfriend who's been surgically grafted onto a monster boss that you have to fight. She shows you fighting the monster, and then cuts to saying something like "and then finally the game forces you to kill the damsel, because that's just what you have to do to continue in the game" as if the game is some kind of cold-hearted killed simulator.

what they left on the cutting room floor was a cutscene where the player character pleads with his girlfriend, wanting to cut her lose and save her, but the girlfriend insists that he shoot her because she cannot be saved. What's that? Female agency, choosing her own path? Ya, that kind of context is left out in a lot of Sarkeesian's videos. And there are tons of youtube vids showing this.

Another similar example was when Sarkeesian talked about one of the hitman games, and claimed that because you COULD kill some strippers and drag around the bodies, or stuff their bodies into ice boxes for hiding, then you as a player would not be able to not kill them and do that stuff with. Also showing montages of clips from games like Fallout New Vegas where a male player character shoots random female NCPs and whatnot - because hey... fuck context, just show that its possible to hurt women, amirite?

Never mind that in the same hitman clip you actually see a point score penatly for unnecesary killing of NPCs and whatnot.

She basically debunks herself in her own videos.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
12,294
1,486
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Too bad she already destroyed videogames. I know you think you were just playing a video game but you weren't, she already destroyed them. Oh, if only we had sent her more threats, we could have saved them from being destroyed by a few youtube videos.
 

Ninjamurai

New member
Mar 28, 2015
13
0
0
webkilla said:
There we go. It was a bit lengthy, but overall this post is a much better representation of "Feminist Frequency videos are bad, and here's why:" than what a lot of people usually say.

Pointing out holes in logic, deliberate manipulation, and how she ignores context without giving the benefit of the doubt is all a much better way of saying "Here's why you shouldn't take Feminist Frequency videos seriously."

Simply comparing her to Jack Thompson & then going on & on about SJW's and Cultural Marxism isn't going to help anyone, least of all you. Her videos are a majority of flaws & issues but because it became popular to just throw buzzwords straight-back at them instead of actually being thoughtful about it, her videos became somewhat popular & gained a group of people who defend them for no reason.
 

Ninjamurai

New member
Mar 28, 2015
13
0
0
Worgen said:
Too bad she already destroyed videogames. I know you think you were just playing a video game but you weren't, she already destroyed them. Oh, if only we had sent her more threats, we could have saved them from being destroyed by a few youtube videos.
I kind of wish they did destroy games, so I could instead focus on watching movies or something. I'm so bored with games right now.

But yeah, it's also important to remember what's going on around you. Her videos suck & maybe even influenced some games to suck (Probably not though), but in the end it's just video games. While it's fun to argue & to poke holes in other peoples logic, it's always best not to take it too far & become a zealot for your side.

This is what I was getting at when I criticized anti-Fem. Freq. people comparing her to Jack Thompson. If her shtick was to enforce Feminism by law or something, then there would be more of a point. But that wasn't what she was going for. There are similarities between the two, but just because Fem. Freq. has more followers doesn't mean she's as big & bad as Jack Thompson might have been.