CriticKitten said:
Madmonk12345 said:
https://businessfilings.sos.ca.gov/frmDetail.asp?CorpID=03587383&qrystring=FEMINIST+FREQUENCY
I'm posting this early on in hopes that the thread doesn't devolve into endless discussion of whether or not Feminist Frequency is a nonprofit or not, or how she's lying about it etc. etc.
The link goes to official proof from government databases on the status of Feminist Frequency as a nonprofit. Nothing to debate about.
Good try, but her being registered as a non-profit doesn't really mean much of anything. Under the letter of the law, one can apply for 501(c) tax-exemption status in the US and still hold events which raise money, provided the funds are raised via certain means or through certain avenues.
A tax-exempt group may raise funds through means not directly related to their operation, as well as raising money for "educational purposes", and there are other ways as well.
If it counts in the eyes of the law, then how is it not a not-for profit? What other jurisdiction is there? How is it a lie for her to say that she is?
Also, she isn't making "profit" from her investment. No ads on the videos, etc. Even if you take the position that she "stole the money", it is most certainly not going for profit, and instead is going into several Anita Sarkeesian and feminism-shaped holes in the ground where it will produce videos, tears of assholes(in which I'm not including you, just to be clear), and endless vitriolic debate(for better or worse).
Madmonk12345 said:
The belief that Anita Sarkeesian is a fraud has been rebutted fifty thousand ways from Sunday to the point that it can be easily used to derail any productive discussion.
Out of genuine curiosity, how has it been rebutted "fifty thousand ways"?
Especially when we have recorded audio of her in the past saying "I'm not a gamer", and how more recent audio, she claims that she's "always been a gamer" (which is an obvious contradiction). I'm truly curious how people can claim that this argument has been "rebutted" thoroughly when I've never once heard a good explanation as for why she made those two contradictory statements. I mean, doesn't that sort of end the debate right there by demonstrating that she's at least been partially dishonest about her own history?
Not that I think it matters if she considers herself a gamer or not, mind. I'm just honestly wondering how anyone can pretend that it's an open-and-shut case when the evidence suggests otherwise.
I was referring more in the legal sense, not in the "Did she tell a lie ever" sense. ie "Anita Sarkeesian is a con artist who was a professional victim for mad cash"(a little exaggerated, but I've seen crazier) or "Anita Sarkeesian's misusing the money for her personal benefit because nefarious reasons!"(slightly harder to rebut). Which do have many, many, many rebuttals, from the fact that no one could have predicted how crazy the harassment would get to the fact that I mentioned earlier in this thread that it's an almost unfalsifiable claim for Anita to meet given the fact that the label fraud is attached to her and the large sum of money involved.
I'm not touching the actual vid's content until I do some more research (or, more likely find the preexisting rebuttal if there is one and investigate that one's sources to see if it's valid; no point reinventing the wheel, after all.)
I can give my perspectives to the idea that she is not a gamer, if you'd like; The quote from the video that she actually said those things states that she doesn't consider herself a fan of video games, or a part of the fandom at that time. This is different from not playing games; many people play video games, but do not consider themselves gamers, espsecially given the stigma tied to its stereotypes(some justified, some not). Gamer is an identity, not based on amount of play time; if she says she's a gamer, she IS a gamer. This means she can not be a gamer 3 years ago, and be a gamer recently.
Any standard higher falls into the casual gaming trap, which also has stock rebuttals. My personal favorite is the fact that casual as a definition has been slipping outward to include games that women play as they begin playing them. At first, simulation games were considered hardcore, but then came the Sims and other games women liked to play, and it became considered casual fare. Arcade games used to be considered hardcore, but now that everyone has arcade games in their pockets, those aren't considered hardcore either; they're "just casual mobile games" now. Point and click? Myst made it popular(and gender neutral, not that that was an issue back then), so now its casual fare. "Casual" has become a term to gate-keep who is and isn't appropriate in the community, and that apparently includes women.
In general, when I hear "casual", I think "future hardcore". If we were more accepting of them many of the problems associated with them would disappear. A big problem among so designated "casuals" is that they are very uninformed about gaming; it cannot possibly help that there are few places in the gaming community that don't regard them with a stigma for good information, so in general when those people run into our reviews websites, our communities, they walk away. There are no "casual reviewers" that these people follow to make informed purchasing decisions, often nothing but the iOS ratings page, leading gamers to blame them for the purchases of the games they don't like, causing a feedback loop.
Sorry to give an anecdote, but my little half-sister used to play tons of DS games, including some hardcore(I guess) content in , but after growing up no longer considers herself a gamer, thinking it more for children and considers it a time waster. I suspect I may have been partially to blame; whenever we played together, I was always frustrated because she wasn't very good and mocked her for it sometimes. If I came up to her today, and asked her if she was a fan of gaming, she would say "not really". Does she still play games? Yeah. Was she a gamer before? Absolutely. Might she gloss over the in-between time if she became a gamer today? Almost certainly.
