Feminist Frequency Removes Fan Art From Tropes Vs. Women Banner

[V8 Ninja]

"Her rendering of famed animator Don Bluth's character Princess Daphne is so professional looking that we honestly thought it was official art used in the marketing of one of the dozens of Dragon's Lair remakes and ports that have been released over the past 30 years," Sarkeesian wrote. "Compounding our confusion, Tammy's image is used on many video game sites and forums without proper attribution to the artist and without indication that it is fan art. It was on one of these sites that we originally found the image which was grouped with many other official images of famous female gaming characters."

"It looked like the original character and other people stole it, so it was OK for us to do the same!"

While I understand the intended meaning behind Sarkeesian's words, her phrasing makes it sound as if she's giving a backhanded apology.

Also, looks like this is another entry on the "Reasons People Shouldn't Trust Anita Sarkeesian" list...

 

[ShakerSilver]

Not only is it not need to have a "personal interest" to critique something,the video doesn't even disprove what it think it does. Not that it's relevant in the first place.

Why do you insist on this to be relevant?

Why critique something you don't have any interest in? What's her stake in the betterment of female portrayal in video games if she doesn't enjoy games to begin with? Of course she doesn't NEED to have an interest in games to critique them, but it's hard to find that critique credible at all when the person doesn't care for the medium, even to the point of not doing enough research and presenting factually incorrect material.

 

[Goliath100]

Why critique something you don't have any interest in? What's her stake in the betterment of female portrayal in video games if she doesn't enjoy games to begin with? Of course she doesn't NEED to have an interest in games to critique them, but it's hard to find that critique credible at all when the person doesn't care for the medium, even to the point of not doing enough research and presenting factually incorrect material.

Why do she need to be egocentrically motivated? Do you have something that isn't an ad hominem?

 

[JimB]

Of course they're not analogous. That is entirely the point. I am demonstrating the absurdity of your claim of "common decency" by creating situations which fit the criteria you have established and applying them. Either your criteria or your term need modification.

It just looked like deranged rambling and completely misunderstanding.

Words mean things, The Lunatic. I will thank you to quit insulting me for assuming that the things you say are what you actually mean. If you did not mean that the rules are so clear-cut and absolute, then it would seem you use the term "common decency" the way people in internet arguments usually use the term "common sense:" in order to avoid having to explain or back up a position by claiming you have universal support that only people who are intellectually or morally deficient could have any trouble grasping. It's a dishonest tactic, and of the two of us, I am not the one who introduced it to this discussion.

Why critique something you don't have any interest in?

How do you define the word "interest," ShakerSilver? Because she seems to have spent a lot of time and money on a subject you claim she has no interest in.

What's her stake in the betterment of female portrayal in video games if she doesn't enjoy games to begin with?

Maybe she would like to enjoy games, and thinks fixing female characters will help her to do so. Who knows? She speaks publicly on the topic; go ask her instead of asking a bunch of people who have never met her and have no way of testifying as to her motivations.

 

[The Lunatic]

Words mean things, The Lunatic. I will thank you to quit insulting me for assuming that the things you say are what you actually mean. If you did not mean that the rules are so clear-cut and absolute, then it would seem you use the term "common decency" the way people in internet arguments usually use the term "common sense:" in order to avoid having to explain or back up a position by claiming you have universal support that only people who are intellectually or morally deficient could have any trouble grasping. It's a dishonest tactic, and of the two of us, I am not the one who introduced it to this discussion.

I'm just saying how it looked. I'm sorry you take offense to that observation.

And yes, I think paying for services is pretty clear cut and absolute.

You used a service, you pay for said service. Especially if it's your mistake in the first place which caused this.

I have said this a few times, if you're not quite getting that, I can't really help you with further explanation.

 

[ShakerSilver]

Why do she need to be egocentrically motivated?

Are you implying that critique of a medium by someone who has little to no experience with is more credible than critique by someone who has a substantial amount of experience with said medium?

Do you have something that isn't an ad hominem?

Do you have an actual argument? You only seem keen on questioning everything I say and rebutting points with "it doesn't matter" or "it isn't relevant".

How do you define the word "interest," ShakerSilver? Because she seems to have spent a lot of time and money on a subject you claim she has no interest in.

That's just it though; her interest in video games was only apparent when she was required to actually research the material for her video series. Prior to this, there's evidence that states that she didn't care for video games at all.

 

[Goliath100]

Are you implying that critique of a medium by someone who has little to no experience with is more credible than critique by someone who has a substantial amount of experience with said medium?

Yes. Experience of the medium do not equal ability to critic. That's why so many game reviewers sucks.

That video can't get the term "gamer" right. What right do they have to declare someone a "not a real gamer" (If that was a possibility)?

Do you have something that isn't an ad hominem?

No, I don't

 

[ShakerSilver]

Are you implying that critique of a medium by someone who has little to no experience with is more credible than critique by someone who has a substantial amount of experience with said medium?

Yes. Experience of the medium do not equal ability to critic. That's why so many game reviewers sucks.

I'd say that the reason reviewers suck is is because of just that: not enough experience with the medium.

But it seems that you and I have very different opinions when it comes to the credibility of a game critic, so I don't see the point in this discussion anymore.

 

[Goliath100]

snip

I wanna show you something:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jMpeYiya8s
That is how a good critique of Sarkeesian looks like, so...:
Why do you use this petty video only designed to create a "detestable other" you can hate?

 

[ShakerSilver]

snip

I wanna show you something:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jMpeYiya8s
That is how a good critique of Sarkeesian looks like, so...:
Why do you use this petty video only designed to create a "detestable other" you can hate?

The video was designed to shed light on her relationship with gaming. I use it because I think it shows that she is not fit to critique the media solely based on her experience of the medium.

 

[Goliath100]

The video was designed to shed light on her relationship with gaming. I use it because I think it shows that she is not fit to critique the media solely based on her experience of the medium.

The video I used shows Sarkeesian's inability to be an effective critic. The video you used was exactly what I said.

 

[Davroth]

I don't get why you'd post about how you are protected by fair use against the fan art artist and now it's a tragic mistake all of the sudden...

I can't speak for anyone on the FF team but I don't think it's unreasonable of them to defend the legal basis of their position while at the same time acknowledging that it's not cool and doing something about it. If anything, I think that's a pretty decent approach to take - as the saying goes, just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should.

What I'm saying is that they initially seemed to be aware of it and didn't want to do anything about it because they were within their right to use it due to fair use, and now they take a 180 on it, suddenly stating that they didn't know. The Escapist ran a news story about it but a few days ago.

This new blog post seems like not much more then damage control to me. They ran danger to loose face here. Unlike with the very likely lifted let's play footage. Which, I guess, will be chalked up to tinfoilhat conspiracy either way, evidence or no evidence.

 

[ShakerSilver]

The video I used shows Sarkeesian's inability to be an effective critic. The video you used was exactly what I said.

I'm sorry you took the video that way. I personally didn't see it as an attack on her, and even the author goes to say that he does not endorse attacking her in any way.

 

[Goliath100]

snip

1) We do have a term for someone who plays but don't care otherwise, you never guess what it is.
2) You do know that Angry Birds is a game?
3) Trivia question: Who is the protagonist of GTA: Vice City?

I'm sorry you took the video that way. I personally didn't see it as an attack on her, and even the author goes to say that he does not endorse attacking her in any way.

Do I really need to quote Batman Begins at you?

 

[ShakerSilver]

I'm sorry you took the video that way. I personally didn't see it as an attack on her, and even the author goes to say that he does not endorse attacking her in any way.

Do I really need to quote Batman Begins at you?

Excuse me?

 

[Goliath100]

I'm sorry you took the video that way. I personally didn't see it as an attack on her, and even the author goes to say that he does not endorse attacking her in any way.

Do I really need to quote Batman Begins at you?

Excuse me?

"Actions is what that define you".