Feminist Frequency Removes Fan Art From Tropes Vs. Women Banner
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
JimB said:
Because that's being completely ridiculous and outrageous for the sake of argument.
You obviously know that holding an elevator is absolutely no comparison to using somebody's artwork for months, yet, you bring it up for no reason other than a petty non-nonsensical argument.
I'd certainly like to think it's obvious since I've explicitly said so; but if you keep insisting that "common decency" is some concept so self-apparent that you don't need to back up your claims except by virtue of your having declared them so, then my conscience troubles me not at all for trying to call attention to how open to ridicule the assertion is.The Lunatic said:
Okay, but why would she choose to use fan art for that one particular image and no others? It's not fan art across the board, it's not even half-and-half. It's one character out of the entire bunch. How does any narrative fit that scenario better than "simple mistake?"Sonichu said:
Do you have an actual argument about why an artist shouldn't be paid for the use of their service?JimB said:
Well, she sort of has to. If she wants anyone to take her seriously when she critiques games, surely we would want to know that she actually plays them? Would you trust a vegetarian's review on a steakhouse? Would you trust any product review from someone who never actually used the product? No? Then you shouldn't trust a critique on games by someone who, from all the evidence provided, does not want to be associated with them and does not even play them.Bara_no_Hime said:
Don't change the subject. I have said, what, three times now? exactly what I am talking about, and whether someone I don't know offered to pay someone whom I have no proof wants to be paid and some evidence that at least implies she doesn't is not and never has been what I'm talking to you about.The Lunatic said:
Yes. That is the official story. It does not say she tripped over that image due to its prevalence and the multiple copies of it; it does not say anyone else claims to have done so either. It says they found it on many other game sites, one of which included that image among many official images from the game. That is all it said, and your deliberate exaggeration of that statement into an implication that they couldn't possibly have avoided using it, or your outright (and as far as I can tell, utterly false) statement that anyone who supports her has made a similar claim, are not only ridiculous but manipulative in such a clumsy fashion it kind of offends my intelligence. If you are so deeply upset at Ms. Sarkeesian for what you insist is a lie, then it seems downright hypocritical of you to misrepresent her position in order to "prove" she's lying (though for the record, proof does not work the way you seem to think it does).Sonichu said:
Two things, Sonichu.Sonichu said:
First, you have directly quoted a definition (not all of them, but one) of the word "many" as well as several synonyms for it, so there is really no excuse for your insistence that "many" means "commonplace." It doesn't. It refers to a number that the speaker thinks is large. It does not refer to frequency, nor proportionate amount; for instance, if six people died in a car crash, I would say many people died despite six not even being double digits, nor a useful fraction of the world's population.
Second, I have said before and will say again that I have never once in my life gone looking for an image of Princess Daphne, nor even cared about Princess Daphne or the video game franchise she comes from (I have forgotten its name and keep wanting to call it "Dragon Age," which I know is wrong but my brain is stuck on it). I have never played the game, looked at art, or read fan fiction about it. The last time I saw an image of Princess Daphne prior to her appearance on these title cards (and even then my eye skipped over her out of boredom and disinterest; the only characters I ever remember on it are Ms. Pacman and Pauline) was back in the late nineties, when magazines like EGM were still relevant to the gaming industry. Please quit using me as support of your position. It's like arguing that since an arachnophobe who's never left Arkansas has never seen an image of a Goliath bird-eater, Goliath bird-eaters do not exist.
I am honestly not sure whom you're condemning here, since your pronouns and verbs keep switching between singular and plural within that sentence, but the more I think about it, the less I'm sure I care. I have already told you once, in very explicit language, that I am not arguing about Anita Sarkeesian, that I do not care if she benefits from my arguments, and that I do not even believe it's fair to say she is benefiting from my arguments given that there's almost no chance she's aware of them. This is not about Anita Sarkeesian. I am arguing against you because you offend my sense of fair play. You are making illogical and unprovable statements, then insisting they are their own evidence of an unprovable stance you seem to have held long before this discussion ever came up. You are not examining the available facts to create a theory, but rather are beginning from an existing prejudice and using your confirmation bias to declare the facts justify your prejudice. That is not how evidence works; it is how hate speech works.Sonichu said:
Logically, the only thing you have footing to say is that you cannot prove her story and that she has not proven it to you. That is all the evidence supports, and if you'd said that, I'd have had nothing to say to you because statements like "I agree" would probably get me mod-slapped. Instead, you are arguing that you have proof someone you have never met nor spoken to is lying, which means you have personal and specific knowledge of what this stranger knew and when [he/she/they] knew it. Unless you're telepathic, you don't.
And that's perfectly fair. Good luck with your hunt. Personally, I really can't care about this controversy. I have no idea why an official image of Princess Daphne presumably sitting but also somehow floating in midair to show us her ass and thong is fair game, but a fan image of the same thing isn't. If anything, I'd say fan art is at least as valid for this specific project, since it illustrates how fans see the characters the video games industry creates and depicts (though you'd need the usual caveats about how many samples are required to form an accurate average), but whatever. I'm sure it will take all of six seconds to find another image of an anatomically freakish princess in a teddy showing us her ass.Sonichu said:
The first thing she says in the video is, "Have you ever noticed?" That at least heavily implies the opposite, whereas someone who argues, "This has happened in the past, so it is happening now," is trying to make available facts fit what he already believed before those facts appeared.Sonichu said:
I have no idea what making money has to do with anything. Am I supposed to be condemning Ms. Sarkeesian for making money? Because people kind of need money in order to live.Sonichu said:
EDIT: Incidentally, is there a minimum amount of time I should wait before responding to one of your posts? You've edited the last one three times that I know of. It's getting awkward trying to keep up.
Until and unless you have examined every single website in the world, you cannot say this thing does not exist on the web. You can only say you have not found it. That is why there's such a taboo against expecting people to prove a negative: it's nearly impossible to do. You are arguing that one person conducting three web searches is all the evidence required to speak about the sum totality of everything that exists on the internet, and that's just fucking goofy.Sonichu said:
No, because to be blunt I don't really care that much. 11 of the 12 character images used in the banner were official; only one was fan art. FremFreq says it was a mistake and changes it, Tamara Gray accepts the explanation and the apology, and they both move on. This seems like an incredibly simple, straightforward situation. Why are you so heavily invested in proving it's some kind of grand conspiracy? Your doggedness is really kind of fascinating.Sonichu said:
Yes. Until and unless you do that, saying that the websites the official statement refers to do not exist is nothing better than crass supposition.Sonichu said:
Given where you've snipped my sentence, I'm not sure you comprehend what I was saying. You claimed that Anita Sarkeesian entered this project from an assumption made prior to any specific knowledge of the phenomenon she's describing. I think her phrasing heavily implies that her knowledge of the phenomenon she's describing led her to her conclusion.Sonichu said:
I...what? Are you even talking to me, or about anything I've said at this point? I have no idea how you could have possibly arrived at that conclusion from anything I've actually said, so are you even still talking to me?Sonichu said:
Let's be serious, it's been over a year and a half since the Kickstarter. In that time she has produced 4 of the promised videos, which were all supposed to have been completed 15 months ago, according to her own Kickstarter page. Exactly how much time does she need to produce said videos? Since she has finished the Kickstarter, I have produced over 50 videos of varying lengths, upgraded my recording equipment, etc, all while working 40-80 hours a week. She, on the other hand, has produced 4 videos and done numerous paid for speaking engagements, interviews, etc., with no other discernable work going on.Madmonk12345 said:
So, I ask, seriously, to every Single Anita Sarkeesian Apologist out there... How long past the original promised delivery date are you people willing to go before you say it has been too long?
When there are people who put out more videos in a week, of similar length and at least the same production levels, and she can only get 4 out in 12 months (since the first came out in March 2013) with her believers falling to worship and kiss her feet for getting that many out... well, you guys who staunchly support her are pretty well whipped.
Providing 501(c)(3) documentation is as easy as giving the corporation's tax ID number. Then the persons asking for the 501(c)(3) can look it up on the IRS's website. Wow, that's soooo hard to do.Madmonk12345 said:
As for showing what she spent it on, technically she would only have to show the original $6k asked for. However, a recent interview has her saying she does have an Elgato Game Capture HD that she claims to be using to capture game footage... but, well, we already know a lot of the game footage shown, at least the games being played, has been taken from LP channels. Cut scene footage? She might have recorded that on her own. It's impossible to tell with cut scenes if they came from her own recording or a LP channel.
Others have pointed out that many of the games in that photo were games that already appeared in her Kickstarter video. Did she buy them again?Madmonk12345 said:
As for if she's played them? It seems fairly obvious for some of the games, she hasn't. She has facts wrong. She misinterprets story meaning (if there is any), or willfully sends out a misinterpretation to her target audience. Her explanation of Dinosaur Planet, a game hardly anyone ever did play, is filled with falsehoods, lies by omission and creative editing of the Dinosaur Planet trailer and the StarFox Adventures scene to push her agenda. Unless we're supposed to believe her when she said Dinosaur Planet was 'all about Krystal and her quest to save the world' with some throwaway, unimportant second playable character that was inconsequential to the story and could be easily only mentioned in minor passing? Should we also believe that Princess Peach/Toadstool is always a damsel in distress, simply because Anita said any game where she isn't can be ignored (which is called Confirmation Bias)? I mean, with Smash Bros. for the DS and Wii U she will have appeared in 84 games, I think... maybe 83. But, we can discount the 45 or so games where she is a playable character, because Anita says they don't count. Nevermind that this constitutes over half her appearances over the decades (IE the majority). We can also discount the games where she isn't playable, but also isn't a damsel in distress (around another 20-ish), because Anita said so. But we can focus on the minority of games she has been in where she is the damsel in distress, because those are the only games that matter, according to Anita.
If she made 0 videos to date, people could say she was conning her backers. In fact, the only reason the video series really got started was because her backers started asking questions when the deadline for the delivery date passed. Being as she had already spent 6 months not making the videos and instead was parading herself out to all the speaking engagements and media interviews she could, it's not hard to speculate that she's much rather be doing that over making the videos. In fact, she still is doing that over making the videos in a timely manner. After all, the speaking engagements are money she hasn't gotten yet, not money she already has. Why make the videos people already paid for, when it is far more profitable to keep playing the professional victim and retell the story of how the big bad bullies on the internet hurt her feelings-- and don't worry, she has lots and lots of screenshots to show just how mean the internet really is!Madmonk12345 said:
She's dragging the video series out to keep herself relevant. After the series is complete and basically forgotten about (if we go by how horribly researched the first 4 have been), her ability to make money at speaking engagements will dwindle and disappear. She can't let that happen if she wants to continue her career choice as a professional victim (and, yes, making money by claiming victimhood over and over again is the very epitome of a professional victim). She won't get nominated for awards in a industry she has literally no place in after the videos are finally done. She won't have the media wanting to interview her after the video series is complete. She's going to drag this series out for at least the next 2 years in order to stay relevant.
She trolled the internet and won. She's just continually trolling it now to see how much more she can win.
From what I gather, Tamara's fanart is not sold. She simply posts it up on DeviantArt or something. Any art she is paid for comes through the place she is employed.Andy Chalk said:
Therefore, she isn't profiting from the fanart, so your question is moot.
Agreed. She is outrightlying in at least one of the statements. But, like any good marketer, she will at the very least bend the truth to make it appear she has a leg to stand on when trying to tlk about an issue, if not outright lie.Gindil said:
For the exact same reason that anyone with a cause doesn't actually want that cause to be fulfilled. Because it makes them irrelevant.Gindil said:
Radical feminism tends to make mountains out of molehills simply to keep itself relevant in today's Western societies. It doesn't matter that over 99% of the men on the planet aren't rapists, we have to 'teach men not to rape.' It doesn't matter that domestic violence (something that doesn't just happen to women, mind you) statistically is a semi-major problem only in the poorest of people, they've made it into a gendered epidemic that only affects women in all ranges of life, equally. Etc. Hell, in the UK, getting into a shouting match with a woman is considered domestic violence, fer chrissake.
It's like race relations. People like the Reverend Al Sharpton don't actually want racism to end. Why? Because then Al Sharpton would fade into obscurity. If the world suddenly woke up tomorrow and everyone had no care about anyone's race, what would Al Sharpton have? What about the Black Panthers? Etc. They'd become irrelevant overnight. They do whatever they can to continue to polarize the issue at every opportunity, simply so they have a reason to be in the public eye.