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:
I'll give it a watch. I was wondering when she would be dialling these things down.

A lot of people have argued that if there wasn't such a shit storm around her videos, she would have faded into obscurity. I argue the Lewis Law in that its these shit storms that demonstrate their relevance in the first place.
You can't use fallacy as an argument in dicussion, so called Lewis Law is an example of poorly thought out circular logic,thus irrelevant in determining something being 0/1.
I'm curious how you think Lewis' Law is circular logic? Anita Sarkeesian is aware of sexism, makes videos about sexism, and people respond to them with sexism. Anyone witnessing these sexist responses can agree with Sarkeesian that the sexism is a problem.
 

Jamcie Kerbizz

New member
Feb 27, 2013
302
0
0
srpilha said:
I read the first 40-ish replies to this thread this morning and then left for work feeling that maybe I should continue to not visit these forums because really.

Came back because I thought I could post something useful and I'm quite glad to see some others already did. Well, a couple more than the one or two up to that point. Phew. Cheers Smithnikov, Hawki, Darth Rosenberg and Gethsemani.

So let me be one more to wonder at all the shit Anita Sarkeesian has received. What's the bottom line, here? Why are people saying she shouldn't make or have made those videos? The only logical possibilites I could come up with are:
. EITHER they affirm that there is in fact _no_ sexism in videogames (nor in pop culture, media or in society in general);
. OR they affirm that there _is_ sexism in videogames, BUT that it should not be discussed at all ever, for reasons that have remained unclear at best;
. OR they affirm that there _is_ sexism in videogames, AND that it _should_ be discussed, BUT CERTAINLY NOT LIKE THAT, and then fail to provide any solid justification for this or any concrete alternative that would show how to do it properly.

So yeah. It's kiiiiinda hard to take that side against her.

Oh, and for those mentioning the cordial, well-thought and rational responses to her videos: I'm sure they exist (although I haven't seen one - but that's probably on me), and they definitely _should_ exist. But the sheer quantity of violence she has received reaches a point where it becomes irrelevant whether those attacking her are a majority or a minority: they become, in actual objective fact, a very real and _significant_ problem.
Just watch Troy https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLrOm_M6dSSmCun7ijgg9Dw (game developer's) videos if you didn't see one.

It's one of the more recent ones I believe one of the very few worth watching at all (if for anything I'd thank Anita that people like Troy became vocal).

Problem with this 'situation' from start was that Anita was not engaging such people (she still doesn't) as they were destroying her narrative and exposing true intent.
She was engaging people who just either aggresively and mindlessly attacked her or aggresively and mindlessly supported nonsense she perpetuated. Fanning the flames, fabricating non existent threat to herself and exposing existing cases of wackos that set their sights on her etc.

As sad as it is people who took apart her videos and confronted them with facts are bland. BORIIIING.
They aren't attractive to either side. With their calm argumentation and 'colluding with the enemy!' way of engaging the topic they don't get traction with people who are interested in fighting it out. Nor they of course have any appeal to people who traded critical thinking, individualism and logic for social media friends/groups fads, collectivism and identity politics.
 

Jamcie Kerbizz

New member
Feb 27, 2013
302
0
0
maninahat said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
maninahat said:
I'll give it a watch. I was wondering when she would be dialling these things down.

A lot of people have argued that if there wasn't such a shit storm around her videos, she would have faded into obscurity. I argue the Lewis Law in that its these shit storms that demonstrate their relevance in the first place.
You can't use fallacy as an argument in dicussion, so called Lewis Law is an example of poorly thought out circular logic,thus irrelevant in determining something being 0/1.
I'm curious how you think Lewis' Law is circular logic? Anita Sarkeesian is aware of sexism, makes videos about sexism, and people respond to them with sexism. Anyone witnessing these sexist responses can agree with Sarkeesian that the sexism is a problem.
That's easy. If you think that it isn't circular logic (because you attack the fact it is circular logic, knowing it is circular logic) you actively prove that it is circular logic. Thus I am right and Lewi's Law is circular logic.

Got it?

EDIT:
Should I add a few more layers of Lewi's Law to it for you or that will suffice?
 

OldNewNewOld

New member
Mar 2, 2011
1,494
0
0
Captain Marvelous said:
Ah, Anita. I remember her talking about Batman's cape managing to cover his butt from the player with it's butt covering powers, as designed by Rocksteady. (A butt that I've managed to see plenty after playing Arkham Knight 3 times. And I'm sure I'll see more during my fourth.) About how male asses are intentionally covered or hidden in some way, because it isn't appealing to the male gamers. She apparently didn't try very hard, or never even managed to play as Nightwing, who has a better ass than Batman anyway. (See my Avatar) And then there's this gem.


The point is, it doesn't seem like Anita ever really tried. She has a valid point, but her examples are piss poor. I do agree with her though. More capable female characters (And more capable A.I. companions period) would be great. And I'd personally love to see more vulnerable male characters. This actually reminds me of the time in Skyrim when Farkas, a werewolf who helped me kill a dragon, refused to proceed through a dungeon because of his fear of spiders. Definitely one of my favorite moments in the game.

[hr]

Never played Bioshock Infinite or The Last of Us, so I can't comment on the inclusion of Elizabeth or Ellie in the video, but it seems the users on The Mary Sue are a are a bit peeved by the inclusion of the two characters. Hell, the way The Last of Us is described by one of the comments sounds exactly like what Anita wants by the end of the video.
If we're talking about asses, no ass in the video game industry can come even close to Snake's ass. That thing is perfection in a digital form.



EDIT: Dunno why it didn't quote the post when I first posted this.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
maninahat said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
maninahat said:
I'll give it a watch. I was wondering when she would be dialling these things down.

A lot of people have argued that if there wasn't such a shit storm around her videos, she would have faded into obscurity. I argue the Lewis Law in that its these shit storms that demonstrate their relevance in the first place.
You can't use fallacy as an argument in dicussion, so called Lewis Law is an example of poorly thought out circular logic,thus irrelevant in determining something being 0/1.
I'm curious how you think Lewis' Law is circular logic? Anita Sarkeesian is aware of sexism, makes videos about sexism, and people respond to them with sexism. Anyone witnessing these sexist responses can agree with Sarkeesian that the sexism is a problem.
That's easy. If you think that it isn't circular logic (because you attack the fact it is circular logic, knowing it is circular logic) you actively prove that it is circular logic. Thus I am right and Lewi's Law is circular logic.

Got it?

EDIT:
Should I add a few more layers of Lewi's Law to it for you or that will suffice?
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.
 

Jamcie Kerbizz

New member
Feb 27, 2013
302
0
0
maninahat said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
maninahat said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
maninahat said:
I'll give it a watch. I was wondering when she would be dialling these things down.

A lot of people have argued that if there wasn't such a shit storm around her videos, she would have faded into obscurity. I argue the Lewis Law in that its these shit storms that demonstrate their relevance in the first place.
You can't use fallacy as an argument in dicussion, so called Lewis Law is an example of poorly thought out circular logic,thus irrelevant in determining something being 0/1.
I'm curious how you think Lewis' Law is circular logic? Anita Sarkeesian is aware of sexism, makes videos about sexism, and people respond to them with sexism. Anyone witnessing these sexist responses can agree with Sarkeesian that the sexism is a problem.
That's easy. If you think that it isn't circular logic (because you attack the fact it is circular logic, knowing it is circular logic) you actively prove that it is circular logic. Thus I am right and Lewi's Law is circular logic.

Got it?

EDIT:
Should I add a few more layers of Lewi's Law to it for you or that will suffice?
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!'

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.
 

lionsprey

New member
Sep 20, 2010
430
0
0
i would just like to remind everyone that she is only a thing because people pay attention to her.
 

Jamcie Kerbizz

New member
Feb 27, 2013
302
0
0
lionsprey said:
i would just like to remind everyone that she is only a thing because people pay attention to her.
It's true but not accurate. I mean people like her and Jack Thompson aren't the only ever in existance, which tried to prowl on gaming and scam out few bucks. However, only these 2 drummed up sufficient mass media support to make money out of it and garner public attention. Ok maybe there were more but 'computer games are training murderers' and 'computer games are training misogynists' are the 2 largest con campaigns, which mass media funneled as 'worth discussing because theses are such huge problems... and besides... think of the children!' :D
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,184
173
68
Wintermute said:
I'm glad this is finally over. I'm tired of this new trend where every game protagonist is a woman and it's all about women.
Question: what the heck do those two things have to do with each other?
 

Wintermute_v1legacy

New member
Mar 16, 2012
1,829
0
0
CaitSeith said:
Wintermute said:
I'm glad this is finally over. I'm tired of this new trend where every game protagonist is a woman and it's all about women.
Question: what the heck do those two things have to do with each other?
I don't know. I wasn't being serious.
 

Jamcie Kerbizz

New member
Feb 27, 2013
302
0
0
Wintermute said:
CaitSeith said:
Wintermute said:
I'm glad this is finally over. I'm tired of this new trend where every game protagonist is a woman and it's all about women.
Question: what the heck do those two things have to do with each other?
I don't know. I wasn't being serious.
You probably just played one of thousands murder simulators that hampered your grip on reality! :S
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,184
173
68
Wintermute said:
CaitSeith said:
Wintermute said:
I'm glad this is finally over. I'm tired of this new trend where every game protagonist is a woman and it's all about women.
Question: what the heck do those two things have to do with each other?
I don't know. I wasn't being serious.
Goddamn it! Poe's Law got me again...
 

Quellist

Migratory coconut
Oct 7, 2010
1,443
0
0
Hawki said:
I've never got the hatred for Sarkeesian. If she says things that you disagree with, presenting arguments that you find disingenuous...well, that's fine. But how does that equate to the vitriol and harassment she's experienced? With all the claims of "social justice warriors" "ruining gaming," it seems that the actual snowflakes are the ones who fight against the 'evils' of 'social justice.' Yep. Can't have a feminist commenting on gaming, otherwise it'll be ruined.

I mean, looking at this video, I do disagree with her arguments and conclusions, but so what? I disagree with someone - I disagree with someone every time I come to the Escapist. Doesn't mean I'm about to go on a tirade against them.

But on a related note, I haven't played Infinite, but if Elizabeth can open tears through worlds, why doesn't she just dimension hop to Paris and stay there or something?
This basically. I didn't like what she said so *Shrug* and walk away. It's not like her having an obnoxious opinion was going to change the world...
 

kinokohtake

New member
Apr 28, 2017
1
0
0
So we have legit Nazis, Alt Righters, people like Sargon, JonTron, and a whole slew of other hateful racists but everyone is going to make it a point to attack a woman who pointed out sexism exists?

This is why the video game community is a fucking pathetic joke.
 

Jamcie Kerbizz

New member
Feb 27, 2013
302
0
0
kinokohtake said:
So we have legit Nazis, Alt Righters, people like Sargon, JonTron, and a whole slew of other hateful racists but everyone is going to make it a point to attack a woman who pointed out sexism exists?

This is why the video game community is a fucking pathetic joke.
Amazing first post! Bravo.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
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.