Flash Game Makes Players Beat Up "Tropes vs. Women" Creator

ElPatron

New member
Jul 18, 2011
2,130
0
0
itsthesheppy said:
Those russians, germans and "A-rabs" weren't specific individuals with names, social security numbers, and home addresses.
Even worse. They are a group of people which can be found anywhere on the world and easily targeted.

Excuse me for my fucked up morals, but arbitrary killing of people of a certain group is worse than physical assault on a single one.

TheKasp said:
1: She chose games as her targets.
2: She is a feminist.
3: She is a woman.
4. She is a feminist woman that claimed that undressing a female is sexist.

She is doing the "all sex is rape" campaign against herself and this time it's not even a misquote.

blalien said:
If you act on your hate by sending rape and death threats, then you are a misogynist.
Semantics time. If I act on my hate like you just described, but my targets are (say) exclusively gay men, how am I a misogynist? Not every rapist targets women.

How do death threats against men do not qualify as misandry?

How does rape (which is usually considered to be more about power than sex, sometimes leading heterosexual rapists into raping men) imply misandry/misogyny or any other kind of discrimination?

You keep using that word, etc etc etc
 

Fr]anc[is

New member
May 13, 2010
1,893
0
0
Please stop feeding the trolls. This isn't relevant to the overall debate. One random asshole made a shit game and it took care of itself.
 

Dogstile

New member
Jan 17, 2009
5,093
0
0
Is anyone surprised? One of these "beat up x" games pops up every time somebody is cool to hate on. I mean, is it even worth reporting on at this point?
 

Megacherv

Kinect Development Sucks...
Sep 24, 2008
2,651
0
0
Hey guys

Host the series on here

She can afford to pay you to do it surely :p
 

blalien

New member
Jul 3, 2009
441
0
0
ElPatron said:
blalien said:
If you act on your hate by sending rape and death threats, then you are a misogynist.
Semantics time. If I act on my hate like you just described, but my targets are (say) exclusively gay men, how am I a misogynist? Not every rapist targets women.

How do death threats against men do not qualify as misandry?

How does rape (which is usually considered to be more about power than sex, sometimes leading heterosexual rapists into raping men) imply misandry/misogyny or any other kind of discrimination?

You keep using that word, etc etc etc
Dude, you can't just cut out one sentence out of context and go, "Where's the rest of your statements supporting this?" The majority of sexual assault and threats of sexual assault in our society are done by men against women. The vast majority of the people threatening Anita Sarkeesian are men. It is obvious in this particular situation that threats of rape and murder were the first resort for a group of men who became frustrated at a woman they couldn't control and who dared to criticize their hobby. You have to actually look at the world and think about what goes on in it, not just look up the strict dictionary definition of each word in a sentence.

To answer your questions, yes, if you are particularly targeting any group of people for violence, then you are acting out of bigotry against that group. And I suppose it is theoretically possible that there exists an equal opportunity rapist who goes for any victim without regard for gender. But that is clearly not what's going on here.
 

ms_sunlight

New member
Jun 6, 2011
606
0
0
Lumber Barber said:
That's still not misogyny. They won't hate a woman who doesn't agree with her.
No, they won't hate a woman who knows her place and doesn't contradict them. It's still misogyny.
 

Matt_LRR

Unequivocal Fan Favorite
Nov 30, 2009
1,260
0
0
Tenmar said:
Matt_LRR said:
That's a lot of words spent answering a question I didn't ask.

You did come close to touching on something important to my question though, and acknowledging that you can't respond, I'm going to address it.
Never say I can't do something. Cause realize that there is a major difference between having a conversation between two people to which are both lay people and unless we want to go back to the whole "you have to have a degree to be qualified" then that is only going to divide us from actually having a conversation that we should be more focused on our opinions and feelings. We aren't fact checking here. If you want me to actually do the research then I'm gonna need the time to actually do it.

Also, I really don't believe that having a degree makes you the only authority to talk about the issue. Especially when I know a lot of people who get their master's degrees and they still don't know jack shit about the degree they studied so hard in. Nevermind forget it all when they actually get a job that has nothing to do with what they studied.

Matt_LRR said:
Tenmar said:
nice loaded question.

That is its own ticking time bomb that blows up on me no matter how I answer cause it makes the logical leap that admitting there is a problem in the first place.
The fact is, the question wasn't loaded, because I was asking you if you understood why the creation of women-only spaces is not anti-feminist. Feminist theory asserts that a problem exists. Answering the question does not require you to agree with feminism on this issue (though you should anyhow), it requires you to understand why advocacy of minority safe spaces (but not necessarily majority safe spaces) squares with that particular assertion of feminist theory.

Because it's true that, on the surface, it appears like the creation of women-only spaces is antithetical to the idea of "equal rights", but contextually the creation of such a space is actually seen as either an unfortunate necessity of circumstance or as an actual interim step towards creating spaces that do hold men and women in equal regard.

I bring this up, because among the most common complaints of Ms. Sarkeesian's work has been to attack her understanding of feminist perspectives, and virtually ever criticism of the sort I've seen so far (including both your personal attacks onher arguments in the Bayonetta video, that destructoid article, and that "College Graduate" video, have been launched from a lay perspective that fundamentally misunderstands what feminist theory actually says, and how feminist theory underpins the specific claims Anita makes in her work.

-m
You are right that on the surface it does run contrary to equal rights. But on the other hand there was a reason that women did fight to be treated to be equal to that of men. Yet the issue comes towards that of safety and security comes the question of if there "is actually a problem?" that does warrant that trade of liberty for that security. Personally I will disagree with such a notion and while we all know that molestation is bad, violence is bad, the hard truth is that there are a lot of bad things out there that affect us. However it is up to us to be vigilant and also understand that we have a code of laws that empower people to stop such acts and also punish people who decide to violate said law based on our philosophical standards that are constantly changing.

However do note the action to solve a problem does not always relate to the quantity of the problem. As sad as this maybe for me to say this and this is coming from a person whose father was a police officer there is only so much crime you can prevent. It is up to the people to uphold the law and understand the consequences. You can't actually have a certified system and when it comes to urban areas where populations are extremely condensed and considering the various cultural standards other countries have there are going to be victims due to people being uneducated for their own personal heritage from their family where these people do not treat people as equals. That's the sad hard truth. However to then point to video games and ignore the economic situation, cultural, and individual heritage is a bit off. Especially when we make the cultural jump from applying more western standards and how we understand the world to other countries like Japan and India. Wouldn't their definition of feminist theory be quite different than our own? Or is it really meant to be a universal theory that should be applied regardless of the religion or culture?

But I think the reason that I try and ignore your statements is that more or less I find it to be a non-issue from the actual heart of the issue which is the actual development of video games. I mean we can bring up all these assholes who make flash games as kneejerk reactions with all the conspiracy of a scam but that doesn't really get us anywhere. Neither does a project that analyzes the characters but outright ignores the logical extension of her stance which is the question, "are video game developers making games for fun, or are they actually sexist pushing a sexist agenda?". As black and white it is that is the logical extension. Cause you can't really give a pass if you firmly beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt to all the game developers and artists if you think they are causing or promoting sexism to which I would argue has actually gone down much like violence as a crime.

Call me a bit ignorant but I honestly can't look at a game like Duke nukem and say that Gearbox Software is sexist because of some feminist theory that is based on the treatment of women. I can't look at Shigero Miyamoto and say he's a sexist cause of his depiction of women with Princess Peach as a damsel in distress and even when she gets to be the protagonist she uses the powers of emotion to save the Mario Bros gets as much complaint despite the narrative offering a reason that there was a magic artifact explaining why she has those powers.

It all just seems like looking for ghosts where none exist and undermines the integrity of the video game industry who I'm pretty certain doesn't actively hire people who are sexist or are actively misogynistic. I'd rather allow developers to freely create the content they want and then once published be critiqued on how to make the game better and not have to actively in the mid development process appease a player base that could cause financial harm to the company and their deadline. Cause the way I see it is that people are trying to relate all these tragedies(cause that is what they are) and somehow have that tragedy affect the industry that doesn't actually have any relation to it at all yet now have to walk on eggshells and limit what they want to create cause of a sensitive subject of what is actually a loud minority.

P.S.

Matt, are you feeling okay man? I know these topics can get emotion but I've noticed you get quite negative in these topics. I mean "acknowledging I can't respond"? Really? That's a pretty low blow here cause it puts my intelligence on display and on judgement. Rather have a conversation with you than have you judging me. I don't do that crap to you cause I use these forums to have a discussion by sharing our thoughts and feelings on the subject. Neither of us are talking from some authoritative standpoint or talking as if our opinions are facts.

Also, "attacks"? Sorry but I'd like to think of them as dissents. You don't see me saying she is a bad person or any of that crap. Heck in a previous post on this thread I defended her cause he project as much as people want to think is a scam, isn't a scam. I'm sure she's also a nice person that I could get along with. But saying I attack her is a stretch from what it actually is, a dissent, a disagreement. I'm not actively trying to stop her project either but simply voicing my disagreement on her views or as of late how one sided the publishing of actual reasonable dissent gets buried in the tabloid trash where some asshole with a conspiracy somehow gets more attention and where you have the news section that should stick to the facts instead of making logical leaps that cause there is a dumbass attack from a random flash animation means that the video game industry is sexist. It's the same logical fallacy that exists when she herself used the youtube comments to critique the video game industry as sexist. That completely ignores the actual work of the video games and the employees involved in creating said video games and if they are in fact sexist and just jumps to the conclusion that the video game industry is sexist.

I mean by the same logic I can say that liberals and conservatives are "sexist, racist, homophobic and other slanderous terms I can't think of at the moment" because I saw an opinion piece on Fox News and Huff Po where all the commentators made lewd and nasty remarks. I see the same crap in politics and even candidates at least focus on the other candidate and people directly hired by the candidate instead of random forum posters when it comes to the smear. It's that logical leap that Anita made and Funk made that is a problem.

Sorry sidetracked, it happens a bit with so many issues thrown in. But I should be more concerned about you Matt. I like you man, you are a good person but when it comes to these kinda of issues you really come off as negative or questions the other person's intelligence as if they shouldn't say anything at all and just let conversations go one sided. Really shuts down communication or becomes some contest where it stops being about the subject and becomes an ego contest where no one actually gets anywhere. Cause sometimes the best way to take some posts is to just take their opinion as opinion and see where they are coming from. Sometimes deciding if a person is right or wrong doesn't really matter but understanding what exactly they really care about when it comes to the issue.
Before I respond to any of that, I want to note that when I said "acknowledging you can't respond" I was referring to the fact that you said you had to go and wouldn't be able to comment.

That is, "with the understanding that you aren't around to comment". That was in no way intended as a slight against you at all.

-m
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Tenmar said:
Treblaine said:
I will say this is not a scam yet. Who knows, she may make the best and most insightful documentary ever with this $160'000 into this.

But if she does not. If she endlessly delays, puts out something short no effort badly researched piece and it emerges that she has blown most of the money on flippant luxuries... THEN it will be a scam.

$160'000 is based on a promise that it is for a video series about sexism in video GAMES, not stating the obvious that "hurr, trolls exist". If she doesn't actually spend it on the video series about the subject in question, then it is a scam. BUT ONLY THEN!

Right now it is a HUGE promise that she still has some time to deliver on... or return the money.

I wonder if she is woman enough to follow through with her commitment.
I got one second to post and I'd like to respond to this and this is coming from a person who is taking the stance that this project is quite unneeded.

1. Her project in itself is not a scam. There will always be some section of people who will take any stance. The project in terms of revenue was a critical success and regardless of what happens to the project itself be it defined as a "success"(yes this will be relative) or a "failure"(again relative) or an actual failure(as defined by that in she doesn't actually produce the project at all with zero content).

2. Gonna repeat myself here but the only way she can truly fail is that if she doesn't produce the project at all. She can certainly somewhat fail in many other ways such as messing up by actually turning her non-profit into a profit or running out of revenue halfway through the project itself. But failure does not instantly institute that the project was a scam.

3. To be defined as a scam would mean that revenue for said project is being used that does not result in producing content for the project at all. To that the only people who could and should demand financially transparency are the investors and the journalists to keep her honest.

4. I think more people when it comes to this project are more concerned about the integrity of the project given her past and present failure to actually grasp or understand the content of the games she has critiqued and going to critique.
Well when is never? Is a year too long? 13 years? She could always say "this is such a big project" and like fusion power stations, it'll always be "just around the corner". She is bound to no timetable, no deadlines, nothing.

Yes, where is her financial transparency. Not necessarily needed on a $6000 project but now she has a small fortune. There are people who REALLY need that kind of money for much more important things, how do we know she isn't blowing it all on goofballs and cigarettes?

And of course, money cannot buy quality. Though it might be a self serving rationalisation circle jerk of her preaching to the choir about how women ever being seen sexually is bad and never ever EVER giving a rational and solid explanation WHY this is in itself bad. But maybe that's what almost 7000 people paid almost $160'000 to hear.
 

ElPatron

New member
Jul 18, 2011
2,130
0
0
blalien said:
The majority of sexual assault and threats of sexual assault in our society are done by men against women.
This is like playing chess, I knew you were going to say that.

I called on you because you're using very broad accusations and honestly, I hate it when people do that. So I extrapolated your claims and take them silly enough.

I hate using analogies but here it goes. Just because there is friction between men and women during gender issues you should not attribute to malice what can be just stupidity. Not everything is a crusade. Not everything is misogyny.

Analogy being deployed: that same logic means that if I have to fight a person of another race, doesn't mean any of us is an actual racist. We were just stupid people escalating the situation because we had fun being confrontational.

Plus, since it is estimated that in the US only about 52% rapes are reported, it's arguable that most female-on-female/male-on-male rape is not even reported. Not only that, you can't imply that male-on-female rape is an effect of misogyny for reasons I have stated above.


ms_sunlight said:
No, they won't hate a woman who knows her place and doesn't contradict them. It's still misogyny.
"Everyone step back! I'm a professional mind reader and armchair psychologist and I can understand exactly how people are trough the internet..."

If the person in case was a man he'd still get hated. Come on! It's the typical pretentious douchebag with college education shoving in our faces how much smarter she is because she went to college and reads a lot of "cultural" things because he/she is a very knowledgeable person. Who cares if it's a man or a woman? Being a woman only adds insult to injury because in the internet there are a lot of men that quickly assume misandry.

If I was the typical uneducated dickwad that strolls around the internet, I would use my powers of Armchair Freudian Bullshitter and assume she is a heterosexual woman with penis envy that licked a lot of pussy during college and decided to hate men after reading a bunch of books about feminism.

Of course, I am a *little* less judgmental and I don't actually think she hates men. I just think that she's another person taking advantage of a *real issue* to jerk her own ego off.
 

Blade_125

New member
Sep 1, 2011
224
0
0
Lumber Barber said:
blalien said:
Lumber Barber said:
I hope you stop using the word "misogyny" like that. It would be misogyny if they hated all women this way, but they don't.
They just hate her.
They hate her because she's a woman who had the gall to speak for herself and criticize their beloved pastime. You can turn your head sideways and squint and maybe come up with a reason to dislike Anita Sarkeesian, but none of those reasons could possibly justify the numerous threats and endorsements of rape and violence against her. Whatever mild annoyance or disagreement these people might have had with her were amplified a million-fold because she happened to be a woman who is not currently making them a sandwich.
That's still not misogyny. They won't hate a woman who doesn't agree with her.
They don't hate other women, they just hate her. That is your stance?

Why do they hate Anita? Because of what she said.

Then maybe the next question you should ask is why do they hate what she says?

Maybe you think that they disagree with her opinion. That would be fine if it was simple disagrement. But that isn't the case is it.

Whenever someone disagrees this badly there is more to it than simple disagreement. I seriously doubt they disagree based on harm coming from her arguments.

I think maybe you protest too much, as you sure are pandering to make excuses for the stong reactions.
 

Mortons4ck

New member
Jan 12, 2010
570
0
0
What if Sarkeesian made that game, to prove a point?

Poe's Law people (o.0)

(ConspiracyKeanu.jpg)
 

Conn1496

New member
Apr 21, 2011
265
0
0
aba1 said:
I think the people community on Newgrounds in more impressive than this one as someone who goes to both sites regularly.
Well, you must be insane.
The people community on newgrounds is just a bunch of decent artists surrounded by ungrateful 10 year olds, or people who act as such.
Most of the people there have three opinions: "OMG AMAZING, LOLOLOLOLOL.", "It was OK, I suppose, but would hav been bettter with more *insert pointless addition here*.............." or "OMG, BLAM THIS CRAP, I COULD NOT COMPLETE IT so i rate 0, becUase IT'S CRAP!!!!!!!!!111!!! (also wud not work on my computer properly, and didn't load levels right, so CRAAAPPPP!".

Newgrounds is really not comparable to the Escapist. They just don't hold up. Newgrounds is just full of too many man-babies.
 

CosmicCommander

Friendly Neighborhood Troll?
Apr 11, 2009
1,544
0
0
OK, this is dumb.

But it still doesn't exclude the fact the woman is a hack. Coincidentally, I was just watching this:

 

frobisher

New member
Jul 7, 2010
34
0
0
Blade_125 said:
Lumber Barber said:
blalien said:
Lumber Barber said:
I hope you stop using the word "misogyny" like that. It would be misogyny if they hated all women this way, but they don't.
They just hate her.
They hate her because she's a woman who had the gall to speak for herself and criticize their beloved pastime. You can turn your head sideways and squint and maybe come up with a reason to dislike Anita Sarkeesian, but none of those reasons could possibly justify the numerous threats and endorsements of rape and violence against her. Whatever mild annoyance or disagreement these people might have had with her were amplified a million-fold because she happened to be a woman who is not currently making them a sandwich.
That's still not misogyny. They won't hate a woman who doesn't agree with her.
They don't hate other women, they just hate her. That is your stance?

Why do they hate Anita? Because of what she said.

Then maybe the next question you should ask is why do they hate what she says?

Maybe you think that they disagree with her opinion. That would be fine if it was simple disagrement. But that isn't the case is it.

Whenever someone disagrees this badly there is more to it than simple disagreement. I seriously doubt they disagree based on harm coming from her arguments.

I think maybe you protest too much, as you sure are pandering to make excuses for the stong reactions.

If they hate/fear/mistrust her for being a woman - and good luck with confirming that on personal basis - then it is misogyny. Watering down >2k years old definition into McLabel does nothing in terms of describing phenomenon.

If they hate/fear/mistrust her for engaging in certain activity it is either another -ism or there is no -ism invented for such case, probably because she is not "special" enough. Even "sexism" is not exactly convincing.

If they hate/fear/mistrust her because she brings PC world with make-believe science into segment of life that has been relatively free from them however... While methods used by our dear Internet Trollforce are not exactly subtle or tasteful, the issue itself is pretty familiar. When some politicians - cluelessly or not - defended ACTA a while ago, they've been basically buried under mountain of manure, courtesy of Internet. In both cases many people saw incompetent, hungry for attention, money-grubbing scammers trying to introduce some crap into their own enviroment. Guess what, instead of crying foul when politicians were melting in accumulated vitriol, many journalists described entire phenomenon as new generation getting territorial and saying GTFO.

That's what this entire "scandal" is as well. Loud, ugly, aggressive GTFO. Forcing diluted "misogyny" into equation feels like Unskippable: SWTOR - "to make sure people know Sith is evil, we also made him look like Satan".