Jimquisition: Accepting the Isms

[longboardfan]

Oh yes, normally people wouldn't give our misogyny and rape threats, but once you spam 4chan all best are off!

Gimmie a break. Really? Really?!

May want to word that better. I have no idea what you're going on about here.

And the whole thing about sex-positve and sex-negative doesn't mean diddly squat unless you actually understand feminism in the first place. I can tell you that giving someone rape threats is NEITHER sex-positive or sex-negative.

You're focusing on the trolling and not the actual discourse. This is where you'll lose the argument, because many points have been made against the way that Sarkeesian judges pop culture without research or contextual thinking. You keep ignoring that for the sake of "omg but people said they'd rape her". You're giving the trolls a serious input into the debate, and that is why your logic is flawed. If you think that anyone who attacks Anita Sarkeesian with "get back to the kitchen" or "suck my dick" is to be considered seriously, you're gonna have a hard time debating with people who actually have arguments against her. In fact, you haven't really argued against those points at all. You've argued the non-important points of the trolls.

Also its a funny thing, there seems to be a lapse of 'intelligent' discussion in any regard to Anita. Most of the discussion I see is pettiness shrouded in self-righteous smugness.

Yet, you've not really engaged in any points. You're just judging people's points and trying to tell people that Anita Sarkeesian was attacked because she's a woman. You haven't actually argued why you think she's right, or why you think those who disagree with her are in the wrong.


You're calling people self-righteous and smug while patting yourself on the back for pointing out that trolls scream.

Quit concentrating on the screams of trolls and 4chan lurkers and join us here on the topic of the "Isms" of gaming. State your point.

Thank you AzrealMaximillion, I was going to just keep ignoring the stupid from Quadocky and Jim Sterling's bizarrely out of place and factually incorrect comment about her, but you definitely stepped up and broke his arguments into dust. I didn't see any irrational discourse about Anita going on on Youtube, except in her highly suspect comment sections. All the videos I found broke down her arguments and pointed out the factual errors. That's why I said that I can't take any arguments about sexism and games written by women seriously. Every time I read one of their articles, I feel like a complete lack of research is being done, and that they're only doing it for the money/attention.

I think this comment might explain this irrational support of Anita by gaming journalists on this article I found on a Forbes article on "Do Gaming Journalists Need to Grow Up?":

"And, if I may be so bold, the Anita Sarkesian Kickstarter, which journalists flocked to defend her without considering that her past videos have shown a lack of research on the topics covered, and she clearly had the means to make a webshow on her own dime. I recall a lot of journalists then writing off the dissenting opinion holders as sexist, and a few articles written on the subject seemed more like messages you'd find in forums to draw comments. Not to mention a few seemed almost copy-pasted between each other."

 

[the spaciest]

OK so that whole misogyny in Skyrim thing totally passed me by (ironically because I was playing Skyrim?) so I realize I'm going out on a limb here... Is it really sexist for a game set in a generic fantasy world (for "generic fantasy" read "The Dark Ages with dragons and magiks") to contain a quest where a woman is humiliated for her wanton ways with men?

Isn't that a basic failure to acknowledge that in different portions of the world and at different times*, morality has taken many different forms and things that may seem unacceptable to a contemporary Westerner, would be completely normal.

* not to mention completely made up worlds

I just find the suggestion that all narratives must conform to the current umm.... Moral current, to be just a little absurd and more than a little heavy with the ban-hammer of censorship.

It's interesting that feminists are so vocal about what they consider to be misogynistic in the media, and yet if I were to pick out just a tiny portion of the glaringly misandric mechanisms present in culture, most people's first response would be.... "Hurr durr, what does misandric mean?" That's because the inverse of sexism against women has been so sublimated, even the victims are blithely ignorant and will probably go to great lengths to chastise me for even suggesting that it's a two way street.

What an incredibly fucked up world we live in.

 

[Quadocky]

May want to word that better. I have no idea what you're going on about here.

In a a non-sarcastic tone: A post on 4chan does not warrant abuse. Saying it was trolling is a complete cop-out because even IF it was, it doesn't mean it was correct or right of them anyway. (Mostly it just reeks of victim blaming.)

You're focusing on the trolling and not the actual discourse. This is where you'll lose the argument, because many points have been made against the way that Sarkeesian judges pop culture without research or contextual thinking. You keep ignoring that for the sake of "omg but people said they'd rape her". You're giving the trolls a serious input into the debate, and that is why your logic is flawed.

This again? Her research is her own, the context is her feminist perspective. Does that make sense? I did not ignore it, I already basically said is she is correct in her currently published works. In my opinion saying she CRITIQUES pop culture without research or context is blatantly false. I will get to the 'trolls' in a bit here... but before that, I notice you seem to use the word judge instead of critique. You seem to put quite a bit of imagined authority in her hands. Unless you are quite literally thinking she is rendering judgments like Jesus during the Rapture "YOU LIVE!, YOU DIE!"

If you think that anyone who attacks Anita Sarkeesian with "get back to the kitchen" or "suck my dick" is to be considered seriously, you're gonna have a hard time debating with people who actually have arguments against her. In fact, you haven't really argued against those points at all. You've argued the non-important points of the trolls.

I don't know if I will blow your mind by saying this, but the people who said those things AND MUCH WORSE, were actually serious about what they were saying.

Yet, you've not really engaged in any points. You're just judging people's points and trying to tell people that Anita Sarkeesian was attacked because she's a woman. You haven't actually argued why you think she's right, or why you think those who disagree with her are in the wrong.

You're calling people self-righteous and smug while patting yourself on the back for pointing out that trolls scream.

Because she was attacked because she is a woman? Because those who disagree with her can't seem to do it without accusing her of being a scammer or underhanded in some way? Because those who disagree with her are indeed wrong in most cases given that they seem to revolve around personal attacks based on her integrity rather than developing a decent understanding of feminism and understand how it applies in context of her perspective and critique?

Quit concentrating on the screams of trolls and 4chan lurkers and join us here on the topic of the "Isms" of gaming. State your point.

The point is: Its like watching a bunch of racists argue whether or not white people can be racist while hanging a black man for looking at a white woman.

Pardon the morbid comparison, but that is basically the depths of wrongness I keep encountering in relation to Anita when people are just so keen on discussion about her.

 

[Quadocky]

Is it really sexist for a game set in a generic fantasy world (for "generic fantasy" read "The Dark Ages with dragons and magiks") to contain a quest where a woman is humiliated for her wanton ways with men?

It's interesting that feminists are so vocal about what they consider to be misogynistic in the media, and yet if I were to pick out just a tiny portion of the glaringly misandric mechanisms present in culture, most people's first response would be.... "Hurr durr, what does misandric mean?" That's because the inverse of sexism against women has been so sublimated, even the victims are blithely ignorant and will probably go to great lengths to chastise me for even suggesting that it's a two way street.

Its mostly misogynistic, and why should a FANTASY game conform to incorrect stereotypes of the 'ye olden times'?

Also that is because there is no such thing as misandry. At least, in terms of comparison to the blatant misogyny that still exists. Saying its a two way street is completely disingenuous in terms of mainstream culture.

 

[RJ Dalton]

The reason we don't have our Huck Finns is because we started off as a completely commercial medium and haven't really had any Renaissance in terms of deep content. It was awesome when our media became capable of dealing with complexities, but even then, we sought parity more with blockbusters than art films, because we already had commercial distribution in place.

That's actually a pretty good point. I therefore have nothing to add.

But again, you've stepped out of your own hypothetical where you attempted to shame a group of people who aren't doing things to explain why it doesn't happen. The point being more that people kneejerk to things like your hypothetical claims of political correctness ( a rose by any other name...) or the people who immediately accuse those who point out bigotry or offense with claims of bans or trying to strip away offensive material.

Okay, I should clarify the way I use the term "political correctness." I use it as a term because it is convenient and there's no other term that quite gets at what I mean. Admittedly, there are people who use it as a boogeyman to defend their whatever-it-is-they-don't-want-to-own-up-to, but how people use the term is not my problem. It's like the way Sucker Punch uses the term "femenism" to try and redefine it's panty shots to deflect criticism. That's not what political correctness is.
Nor is political correctness an actual awareness for the history and feelings associated with things like racism, sexism etc.
No, political correctness is changing words around in the hopes that people won't notice that you haven't really changed the meaning, or the people using our fear of being offensive to try and shame the world into changing to suit their desires. My opposition to this doesn't come from my belief that things were better back in the days of minstrel shows and when it was legally and culturally acceptable to beat your wife so long as "she deserved it" and you didn't do any "permanent damage." No, my objection is that it's a way that people disguise the problem to avoid actually discussing and dealing with it. We dress up offensive material in "politically correct" words, which for some reason makes it okay. Meanwhile, the people who actually do think about it and do see it for the bullshit it is and call it out get buried beneath the foetid mass of plebeians who are looking for any excuse they can to create controversy over something that doesn't conform to their specific wishes for the world, often with the former providing fuel for the latter, after the latter has twisted the fuck out of the original intent.

Actually, now that I've set that down into words, I'm not entirely sure what I was objecting to in Jim's video, because my final conclusion on this is pretty much what Jim was saying, as far as I remember. We need to stop being afraid of the -isms and accept that people can be offended and, rather than turn it into just pointless bickering, we can use it as a springboard for meaningful discussion. I was probably latching onto some minor point or statement he made and, in expanding on it, went out of context. It happens. I blame my schizophrenia. Or possibly the pink-bearded leprechaun river-dancing on my coffee table. It's hard to focus with that kind of a distraction.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

In a a non-sarcastic tone: A post on 4chan does not warrant abuse. Saying it was trolling is a complete cop-out because even IF it was, it doesn't mean it was correct or right of them anyway. (Mostly it just reeks of victim blaming.)

Never said it was right, but when you spam 4chan, the reaction that Sarkeesian got was expected due to the reputation of 4chan. And to be honest, its hardly "victim blaming" when the victim initiates the reaction. That's like felling sorry for the black guy who gets beaten at by the KKK after he moons them during one of their meetings. This is one of the instances where the phrase, "she asked for it" is honestly too true to ignore.

Me:You're focusing on the trolling and not the actual discourse. This is where you'll lose the argument, because many points have been made against the way that Sarkeesian judges pop culture without research or contextual thinking. You keep ignoring that for the sake of "omg but people said they'd rape her". You're giving the trolls a serious input into the debate, and that is why your logic is flawed.

This again? Her research is her own, the context is her feminist perspective. Does that make sense? I did not ignore it, I already basically said is she is correct in her currently published works. In my opinion saying she CRITIQUES pop culture without research or context is blatantly false. I will get to the 'trolls' in a bit here... but before that, I notice you seem to use the word judge instead of critique. You seem to put quite a bit of imagined authority in her hands. Unless you are quite literally thinking she is rendering judgments like Jesus during the Rapture "YOU LIVE!, YOU DIE!"

Here you go with the red herrings and such. I'm sorry, but her barely researched "critiques" are pretty flawed. Anita Sarkeesian takes a backwards approach to finding sexism in forms of media. She starts off with the conclusion that whatever she's talking about is sexist and then uses cherrypicked points to try and prove it. My problem with that method is that she automatically labels the subject sexist rather than explore the possibility of it being a subject with some sexist aspect. She labels subjects as completely sexist and at points has admittedly judged things she hasn't completely looked at(like when she called a Kanye West music video sexist and openly said she didn't watch the whole video). I'm not rendering her judgments as anything more than half baked criticisms.

There's also a major issue of transparency of opinions in her online works, but I'll get into that later.

I don't know if I will blow your mind by saying this, but the people who said those things AND MUCH WORSE, were actually serious about what they were saying.

Thank you, this is the third time that you've pointed out that people are insanely callous on the internet. I'm out of gold stars. But seriously, the irony of how you claim that I'm giving her an "imagined authority" when she says her critiques is really too funny. Especially when coupled with the fact that you keep giving the words of trolls and people who aren't making intelligent discourse much more authority than they warrant.

Just a thought, quit bringing up the troll opinion because its not helping your point. To be real here, I don't even know your stance on this, its not clear and you've yet to state why you're defending Anita Sarkeesian. You seem to be defending her from trolls, not intelligent points.

Because she was attacked because she is a woman?

By trolls, not by people who have points. If you can't accept the fact that people have legitimate gripes with her, why are you even arguing?

Because those who disagree with her can't seem to do it without accusing her of being a scammer or underhanded in some way?

That's fine, but you're not arguing my points against her very well. I'm also not calling her a scammer or underhanded. Haven't done so at all during this back and forth. I'm questioning her ability to critique something without ignoring context completely. Are you debating me? Or do you wish you were debating trolls? Because you don't seem to have a handle on what I'm talking about and keep wanting to drag the conversation to something it has nothing to do with at the moment.

Because those who disagree with her are indeed wrong in most cases given that they seem to revolve around personal attacks based on her integrity rather than developing a decent understanding of feminism and understand how it applies in context of her perspective and critique?

And you have no proof of this at all. You're ignoring people who are making an attempt at civil discourse over and over. Now please stop this nonsense of skirting around what I'm talking about.

Quit concentrating on the screams of trolls and 4chan lurkers and join us here on the topic of the "Isms" of gaming. State your point.

The point is: Its like watching a bunch of racists argue whether or not white people can be racist while hanging a black man for looking at a white woman.

Pardon the morbid comparison, but that is basically the depths of wrongness I keep encountering in relation to Anita when people are just so keen on discussion about her.[/quote] Yet you've still ignored all of my points and only established that the majority of people you seem to be paying attention to can't make a well mannered argument. You've also proved that neither can you.

 

[Quadocky]

Never said it was right, but when you spam 4chan, the reaction that Sarkeesian got was expected due to the reputation of 4chan. And to be honest, its hardly "victim blaming" when the victim initiates the reaction. That's like felling sorry for the black guy who gets beaten at by the KKK after he moons them during one of their meetings. This is one of the instances where the phrase, "she asked for it" is honestly too true to ignore.

No, that is called blaming the victim.

Hence the morbid comparison previous. Really this is a problem. The lack of awareness is astounding.

I don't even understand what points you want me to argue against given yours are not so much apparent to me besides:

1. Her criticisms are flawed.
So what? What makes Anita special in this regard? The only answer I have is that she applies a feminist perspective and that seems to rile a certain group of people up so badly that they make this entire thing a controversy. By comparison Yahtzee states much more dire things about video games as a media in his reviews (not very flattering at all, especially considering he makes fun of the people who play them in doing so, and no its not done ironically.)

2. She 'was asking for it'
...No. That is disgusting.

3. She assumes sexism in her critiques beforehand.
???? I don't see this.?????

4. Prove it
Do you wish for me to compile a rouges gallery of ill repute? I generally don't have the constitution to read such things without delving into bald contempt. The thing is, even if I did, I don't think it matters given what the controversy was in the first place.

5. They are trolls!
So? Why should we tolerate anti-social behavior in any case? They are not a force of nature, they are human beings (most likely grown men) committing anti-social acts. That is reprehensible and disgusting.

6. You are ignoring civil discourse.
Oh, I thought I was being rather polite. Many pardons.

7. Red Herrings and such
Uh... its just a critique? That is all I am saying. There are tons of them out there. The word choice of judge was odd to me is all.

8. Did I miss all your points?

If I did please point them out plainly to me in a concise manner so that I may offer my piece in response.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

snip

If you didn't get my point by now, go back and read my posts again.

If you still don't get my point, you're not going to, and I really don't feel the need to repeat it when you can read it.

You're points are all over the place and really don't have a base. I don't know what to say other than I'm not going to continue this debate until you know what you're debating.

 

[Quadocky]

snip

If you didn't get my point by now, go back and read my posts again.

If you still don't get my point, you're not going to, and I really don't feel the need to repeat it when you can read it.

You're points are all over the place and really don't have a base. I don't know what to say other than I'm not going to continue this debate until you know what you're debating.

I wasn't so much debating rather than attempting to make the picture more clear as to why there was controversy

 

[WildFire15]

I've only just heard this from Kotaku, but it seems there's a handful of people suddenly kicking up stink of Tiny Tina in Borderlands 2 for apparently being racist (http://kotaku.com/5981171/borderlan...conveys-racism-as-some-players-think-[update])

One of the lines specified is "white girl talkin' like them urban folk!!", which I don't see how it's racist. It's not referring to anyone in particular and it's not aiming an insult at them either. It seems to be Caucasians suddenly feel that any even potentially slightest offensive thing whether it is or not is instantly racist and must be shot down. I've also noticed in these discussions it's only Caucasians who can be racist, which is ridiculous in itself.

There really is a problem with this. On the Titan Network forum, many fans of City of Heroes and debated what NCsoft's reasoning for shutting down City of Heroes is (my opinion? NCsoft seem to think they're so big and special that an MMO that brings in 'enough money to run the game but not to fill our wallets' isn't worth running so shut it down with no intention of selling) and the idea of how asian businesses expecting anyone 'below' them in a company to automatically respect them and that when Paragon Studios asked if they could buy themselves and the CoH IP out (as they could see NCsoft had no intention of continuing the game), NCsoft turned on them for their insubordination. The idea fit, but someone suddenly cried racist and the whole debate broke down as someone was desperate to be offended.

It truly is sad and I'm pretty certain it pushed a fair few people away from the effort to save the game/build a successor.

 

[the spaciest]

Is it really sexist for a game set in a generic fantasy world (for "generic fantasy" read "The Dark Ages with dragons and magiks") to contain a quest where a woman is humiliated for her wanton ways with men?

It's interesting that feminists are so vocal about what they consider to be misogynistic in the media, and yet if I were to pick out just a tiny portion of the glaringly misandric mechanisms present in culture, most people's first response would be.... "Hurr durr, what does misandric mean?" That's because the inverse of sexism against women has been so sublimated, even the victims are blithely ignorant and will probably go to great lengths to chastise me for even suggesting that it's a two way street.

Its mostly misogynistic, and why should a FANTASY game conform to incorrect stereotypes of the 'ye olden times'?

Also that is because there is no such thing as misandry. At least, in terms of comparison to the blatant misogyny that still exists. Saying its a two way street is completely disingenuous in terms of mainstream culture.

If you have a cock and balls between your legs, you should remove them post haste! You poor emasculated apologist!

/end ad hominem

Consider how often men are brutalized and killed in video-games and movies. And not an eyelid blinks.

When the victims are female, in most "entertainment media" the concession is made that "this is an exception" and that "we'll make this a drawn out, emotional thing, because - you know - women, they're umm important". Laughably, even with such concessions, the feminist whingers get on their high horse and complain about it.

Remember that shit film "Hostel"? Didn't raise that many eyebrows did it; but when a sequel was made that featured women - suddenly it was labeled "vile" and "torture porn" and there were calls abound, from feminazis the world over to drop the ban hammer...

Because, you know, reasons...

Apparently violence is only really reprehensible when women are in the firing line. Men are disposable - and not only that but men are the perpetrators of violence. The very term "torture porn" is suggestive that the theatres would have been full of teenage boys, fantasy-wanking over their glossy, tortured female counterparts...

What a fucking joke. I'm barely scratching the surface of the undercurrent of this endemic hatred of men - but consider this. Can we truly consider women to be strong, independent people, when every 2 seconds, some pathetic fuck has to ask for people to reign-in their shit, lest some whining ***** get offended.

My advice to women is to man the fuck up!