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

[ms_sunlight]

The smallest asteroid in the universe is made of mushed peas and speaks French.

Prove me wrong.

Yay! You've discovered what is known as "the problem of induction". It's the first thing taught on the first day of every Introduction to Philosophy of Science in every college everywhere. What they ask on the second day is, "Given the problem of induction, how can we know anything?" There are a lot of answers to this, a lot of approaches, some of which we call "science".

Unfortunately, the very fact that you used this argument shows how ignorant you are (unless you actually are teaching an epistemology or philosophy of science course). Fortunately, ignorance is the starting point on the road to learning. I heartily recommend the classic What is this thing called science? by A F Chalmers. Have fun!

 

[itsthesheppy]

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.

You do have some fucked up morals. At least you're right there.

You see the thing is, killing Russians in Call of Duty is a little bit different than beating up Sarkeesian because:

1) It's very unlikely that playing call of duty will motivate someone to go wage a personal murder-war on all Russians, because that's highly impractical. Sarkeesian is one woman; an easier target for an enterprising douchebag.

2) This is a fairly progressive community, compared to most, and there's been something like 40 pages of raging debate over her. Some of it somewhat nasty. We don't see the same targeted towards "Russians".

3) In Call of Duty, the Russians are aggressors. They're combatants and you are defending yourself; you're not just shooting civilians in the streets, as the focus of the gameplay. Sarkeesian is not an aggressor; she's a singled-out target.

There's a reason that Stalin was (allegedly) right when he said that the death of one is a tragedy, but of a million is a statistic. We find it much easier to focus our emotions around an individual than a group; it's easier for us to contextualize. It's easier to get angry at an individual, or to focus our ire on one. In your example, it;s the choice between "russian soldiers" or "Anita Sarkeesian"... I think it's plain which of those two groups would find itself at greater threat, having a game made painting them as a target of aggressive violence.

 

[Eveonline100]

I'm going to assume it is until I've seen evidence otherwise.

The smallest asteroid in the universe is made of mushed peas and speaks French.

Prove me wrong.

I'm going to make some assumptions about you as a person, and please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm guessing that you are academically successful, and you're especially good at math or physics or something along those lines. I'm also going to guess you're fairly young, either high school or college age. And I have a hunch that one day you're going to be very successful in your chosen field, because you have a strong analytical mind and there aren't enough of those. And I respect your way of thinking because I used to think the same way. So believe me when I say this is friendly advice, and I do not intend to insult or demean you.

Logic is a very powerful tool for deriving conclusions based on given premises. But like all tools, it is only useful in situations specifically designed for that tool. Life has too many variables, most of which you can never determine, to observe it using only strict deductive reasoning. Over time, you notice patterns in how the world works and assume these patterns are consistent unless you have reason to believe otherwise. For example, you can't prove with 100% certainty that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, but you live your life around that assumption, and you don't run tests every night to make sure the sun will rise, because this is a pattern you've observed your entire life and you have no reason to believe the pattern has broken. In situations where you don't have enough data to use pure logic, you need to decide what is the most likely explanation that fits what you know about the situation, at least until you're given reason to believe your explanation is wrong.

Let's look at the facts here. Anita Sarkeesian spoke out in criticism of the video games industry. In response, a large group of people sent her violent threats, vandalized her web-site, revealed her personal information online, created pornographic images of her, etc. This pattern has repeated itself many times, the most recent high-profile case being Jennifer Hepler. If you expand out from video games, this scene has occurred throughout most of human history. There are places in the world today where a woman can be publicly beaten for speaking out against her husband. Note that it does not work the other way.

The most likely scenario here is that the people attacking Sarkeesian are motivated by misogyny. They believe women are meant to be controlled, and they are frustrated that Sarkeesian refuses to be controlled by them. Since they cannot physically attack her, they take every effort to threaten and dehumanize her until she shuts up and stops saying what they don't want to hear. You are correct that I can't prove this with absolute certainty, and I'm sure some people are motivated more by general hatred than by pure misogyny. But this explanation fits the pattern, and it is the best way to describe what is going on, so it's the explanation we should assume until something contradicts it or a better explanation comes along.

good post you know I still remember reading in english class how Anne Bradstreet's friend was exiled from her community for daring to publish written poems(which in turn was used to voice her opinions which was VERY common amongst writers for that period of time). What bugs me the most is that happened in the fucking 1700s how(why) is that 300 years later we are basically doing the same thing(sort of Anne's friend was actually sent away from home while what going on here is basically publicly harassing her but both are trying to do the same thing which is to keep her quite). I really do wonder if we will ever be able to eliminate prejudice in our society truthfully at this rate i really do wonder if we as a society ever really improved in terms of gender(and for that matter racial equality). To be fair we(The USA) at least doesn't passing openly racist and sexist laws but still though i wonder if as a culture we have improved though?

 

[Ramzal]

If people are dumb enough to give her 150,000 dollars when there are -way- more causes than video games that actually need that money, they by all means, lets let kids in Africa starve so we can have more women with long sleeved shirts in a false reality.

 

[Frission]

Game of the year.

And to everyone who is saying that he proved that idiot youtube bloggers point, Newgrounds proved OUR point by blamming the game. This whole thing is about censorship and silencing anyone who disagrees with your opinion. Free speech has become a great inconvenience to the left wing, and there is a massive global push to be done with it in the name of security and "just being nice", and its gotta stop.

Shut up with the argument of "but free speech !". Very rarely do people defend a right or cause that doesn't benefit them. You are probably not someone who altruistically wants to defend the rights of "free speech" for these sort of people. This is harassment and the equivalent of sending a death threat. This does not count as a free speech issue.

You just use free speech to defend the fact that whoever made this is trash and I guess, that you also secretly or not so secretly agree with them.

Also read some goddamn newspapers, because you're an idiot for believing in a conspiracy theory.

Captcha: magic decoder ring

 

[Eveonline100]

That's it, I am making it my personal mission to wipe out the entire fucking Hominid family.

Can i join at this rate i'm starting to wonder just how excatly anybody could do this in this day and age what the fuck is this the 50s?

I have to ask, why is this such a shock to you? I want a detailed answer.

Truthfully i expected this to have die down(think about this kick starter incident start what 2 weeks to month ago i actually forgot about it till now). WHat does surprise is the level of effort that went into this. Again think about it writing a angry post can be done in under minute designing, programing, have to render the art work and to post a game online that takes a lot of time so have this level of hate/harassment means that well this is something where i expected sexism was openly practiced, and enforced otherwise known as the 1950s (Even though women being treated and expected to act subservient to men has being going on for centuries). Come to think about, i guess that does neatly sum up the vast majority of the internet in a nutshell. I really do wonder when exactly move to a point in time where the races/sexes are truly equal. To sum up in a nutshell initial shock caused me to write a post in haste which now thanks to the benefit of me thinking logically about the whole situation i now realizes that the internet seems to be stuck 1950s era in terms of treatment towards minority,women, and homosexuals. Out of curiosity when/what do think will cause society to be gender/racial equally.

 

[blalien]

Or, maybe they think that asking for $6000 to make more of the same videos she already makes was bad enough, but that because she made a big deal about a bunch of idiots making sexist comments, she got over $150,000 to buy herself a few new cars and still have the $6,000 for whatever the heck she needed it for in regards to the actual videos. Frankly, if she doesn't do something actually worthwhile with all the money people threw at her, then she deserves a significant portion of all the hate she's been receiving.

$6,000 is a perfectly reasonable amount of money to request for doing research, purchasing AV equipment, and making quality videos. The $144,000 she made on top of that was completely out of her hands, and I don't know why people keep blaming her personally for the money she received. I completely agree with your other point. I hope she donates the majority of that money to charity, but we should withhold judgment until we find out what she does with it.

 

[lacktheknack]

Game of the year.

And to everyone who is saying that he proved that idiot youtube bloggers point, Newgrounds proved OUR point by blamming the game. This whole thing is about censorship and silencing anyone who disagrees with your opinion. Free speech has become a great inconvenience to the left wing, and there is a massive global push to be done with it in the name of security and "just being nice", and its gotta stop.

And here I was, thinking it was the INTERNET who was trying to censor the blogger.

Actually, no it wasn't. It was never "about" censorship. You're just on a censorship crusade (the last time I saw you, you were furious about your lack of free speech, which is an utter joke) and are grasping at anything you can tangentially connect to your point of view.

Think I'm projecting? Then try posting something on censorship that's A. relevant, and B. level-headed.

 

[II2]

I think this video actually acts as an apt visual metaphor for this whole ongoing saga:
NSFW, btw...

A Wil Wheaton dickastrophy of viral scope. Even if you run from the dickery, you end up interpolated into the mess... Even if you keep clear, inevitably all the cacaophony echoing all around you is only going to feed the monster, which at this point is at once all of it and encompasses Anita, the trolls, the abuse, the support, the dissent, the skeptics, the people who post on internet forums and... me, I guess.

I didn't even have a horse in this race.

While opposition and support typically come to anyone who treads on divisive issues, Anita is a rare person in the volume of both. The interwebz have shown her both the fist and the palm, as few get to experience firsthand.

This last incident might not be the worst, in a list of bad things, but her busted pus does make a good front page thumbnail for keeping people's attention. See what I mean? Can't even run an 'is-what-it-is' news story without feeding back into the monster in the video.

---

But for all that jawing, what DO I THINK? What OPINIONS do I hold?

I think the topic is a worthy one for discussing, but I don't think Anita is worthy of discussing it, because she isn't likely to actually explore the issue. She has a very focused, narrowly attuned view of things that will (likely) produce a series of videos adequately addressing social-feminist issues that arise when enjoying 'problematic' entertainment, as she has been doing, but now in - what most would consider - an unenviable position of having detractors and supporters both scrutinizing you and your output. The mad bank an vague accountability probably make it a bit easier to soldier on, though.

The things she finds 'problematic' I don't, typically. Though individual mileage may very, that's among the biggest problems with her work - that she has not adequately communicated what her core beliefs are and why she feels that way. It's like pointing out structural flaws on the building of society, without establishing what foundation it should have. She's a feminist, ok - that can mean a thousand things at once, or not. That kinda ambiguity creates misconceptions and lets people get away with straw accusations on the possibility that they could be valid as left undefined. Is she a Simone de Beauvoir kinda lady? Carole Pateman? or perhaps more of a Camille Paglia fan (I doubt it, but what do I know, she hasn't said). What are her foremost, central tenets and concerns and what would she have done about them? It would be useful information...

---

This post has been brought to you by sleep deprivation and temazepam withdrawl.

 

[BRex21]

I?m going to edit out the parts relating to our misunderstanding as they aren?t really relevant anymore.

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.

So, what is the infringement on liberty in the case of creating a safe space for women? Let?s go with the subway example some more. Given that the use of such safe spaces is voluntary, not mandated (that is, women may choose whether or not they wish to ride in a car that has been deemed ?women only?) Where is liberty being infringed?
Women are being given an option that allows them a chance to travel free from the threat of sexual assault. Men already travel free from the threat of sexual assault. That would seem to be generating liberty, rather than infringing it ? not to mention making the state of being more equal between men and women.

I just wanted a chance to pick this argument apart a bit:
I'm going to swap this over to universities, simply because of the alleged rape and sexual assault epidemics going on there, its also one of the most blatantly anti-equality environments. Women, the minority (IE the largest segment of the population) need special protection from men, ie the majority (the smallest segment of the population), so women get crisis centres and womens centres and all kinds of women safe zones. Since there are legitimate uses for these spaces it makes sense. Where it becomes anti equality is the circular arguments that spring out of them IE the existence of women safe spaces is needed because men are dangerous... i mean why else are there all these women safe spaces.
In a Canadian university (St. Francis) recently tried to open a mens centre and was met with campaigns like this: ( http://www.springerlink.com/content/h4038x61400l8273/ ) not the argument that men dont need centres like this because they don't have mens rights campaigns. IE men don't need protection because men never needed protection in the past, and men would turn in to "douche bags around a ps3" without female supervision. This is actually the perfect example of why men need a mens centre to get away from the belittling and controlling behaviour of campus feminism.
But it gets better! Studies of sexual assault and rape across campuses have been finding shocking rates of male victims and female perpetrators. Studies like this one: http://www.springerlink.com/content/h4038x61400l8273/ were done all across campuses in the United States and found that among the women "Almost 1 in 10 respondents (9.3%) reported having used aggressive strategies to coerce a man into sexual activities. Exploitation of the man's incapacitated state was used most frequently (5.6%), followed by verbal pressure (3.2%) and physical force (2%). An additional 5.4% reported attempted acts of sexual aggression."
In the wake of these studies the US government has redefined what "rape" means to include situations where a woman is sexually assaulted but to omit situations where a woman forces full blown intercourse on an unwilling man, The argument being that erections equal consent. In fact, with the new law, If a drunk woman climbs on top of an unconscious man HE is violating HER. The US government has also been butting heads with the supreme court to pass legislation to end due process for men, and only men, accused of crimes against a woman.
So the state of affairs isn't so much about protecting women, as it is about protecting women while stripping away the rights of men and completely ignoring them when they legitimately need help. So I am aware this is a loaded question, but in a situation like this are you simply turning a blind eye? or do you honestly believe that men being raped is inconsequential or otherwise undeserving of protection?

 

[Harbinger_]

I'd like to say this is likely more on the gamer side rather than nerd side. I'd like to think that us nerds and geeks get picked on and bullied enough that we'd likely not do it to another.

 

[Pandabearparade]

I suspect I'm about to get flamed...

Why is this newsworthy? She has made a career out of troll baiting, getting trolled, and getting enormous donations for enduring such "abuse".

Know where the real sexism is? The kid gloves people expect her to be treated with. She's only getting trolled to about the extent one would expect a youtuber with her amount of viewership to get.

She posted a selection of "harassment" she had to deal with in the comments section. Go read it. This is a sample she picked herself to make her point. Count out how many comments are sexist, and how many are literate and reasonable. Frankly, the amount of reasonable comments seem to me to be far above the youtube average, which is sitting somewhere between lobotomized chimpanzee and mental patient after a pint of vodka.

She's a moron, her arguments are garbage, and the people white knighting for her are the real sexists for expecting a double standard of treatment. Go read Thunderf00t's channel, or the Amazing Atheist's. I'm not endorsing either of these two, but look at their comments on any controversial video. It will be just as bad or worse. Do they get news stories?

 

[lacktheknack]

I suspect I'm about to get flamed...

Why is this newsworthy? She has made a career out of troll baiting, getting trolled, and getting enormous donations for enduring such "abuse".

Know where the real sexism is? The kid gloves people expect her to be treated with. She's only getting trolled to about the extent one would expect a youtuber with her amount of viewership to get.

She posted a selection of "harassment" she had to deal with in the comments section. Go read it. This is a sample she picked herself to make her point. Count out how many comments are sexist, and how many are literate and reasonable. Frankly, the amount of reasonable comments seem to me to be far above the youtube average, which is sitting somewhere between lobotomized chimpanzee and mental patient after a pint of vodka.

She's a moron, her arguments are garbage, and the people white knighting for her are the real sexists for expecting a double standard of treatment. Go read Thunderf00t's channel, or the Amazing Atheist's. I'm not endorsing either of these two, but look at their comments on any controversial video. It will be just as bad or worse. Do they get news stories?

At some point, there's a line to be crossed.

For many (such as myself), this was the line.

 

[Krion_Vark]

I actually found this a few days ago and thought it brought up some valid points against Anita.


LOL at the Captcha: believe me

 

[Pandabearparade]

For many (such as myself), this was the line.

I'm not tolerating this behavior, but let's be real here. This isn't genuine sexism, it's trolling. People have edited Thunderf00t into porn, and shown pictures of The Amazing Atheist nude -- trolls like to cross lines, that isn't acceptable, but let's not pretend that her being trolled is some proof of how evil and sexist gamer culture is.

There is a lot of scum and villainy on the interwebs, but she's using the fact that she's trolled as a shield from genuine rebuttal to her piss-poor argumentation.

 

[lacktheknack]

We don't have a terrible misogyny problem on the internet or in actual real life. Tell you what, why don't you actively investigate all the people that were involved with creating that crap and actually get to know them. Find out what they do for their job, how much they get paid, and what organizations and groups do they actively dabble in. Yeah you are going to have to do some investigative work and violate the privacy of people but if you really and honestly think that there is misogyny on the internet then you should either prove it and then enforce our government to take legal action on those people or get involved politically allowing the government to enforce people be identified whenever they go online.

What... the... hell....?

...

If you say misogynistic things on the internet, THEN YOU HAVE MISOGYNISTIC TENDENCIES. There is no research required, there's no "getting to know", there's no deeper meaning, it is your unidentified self getting loose and saying the things YOU WANT TO SAY.

Honestly, some people...