Jimquisition: Toxic

[SamTheNewb]

Hate and criticism are two different things. Hate is what you feel when something isn't to your taste and is a more immediate reaction, criticism, is how you reflect and explain your hate and is more of a gradual conclusion. Too much hate, and not enough criticism makes for a muddled, ill aimed, poop cannon of a message.

Reducing toxicity isn't about becoming so jaded that we don't care. It is about sorting through the hate and formulating proper criticisms from it.

The question isn't if we have too much hate and toxicity, the question is, why can't people come to properly formulate their criticisms out of their hate. Perhaps it is because we feel like we need to have the community come to a consensus about their hate, when in all honesty everybody will have different points of criticism for the same thing. Or perhaps people are too lazy to rationalize their hate. Or perhaps there is simply too much noise on the internet to allow the rationalized criticisms to show up and get traction on the internet.

 

[timeformime]

Hate and criticism are two different things. Hate is what you feel when something isn't to your taste and is a more immediate reaction, criticism, is how you reflect and explain your hate and is more of a gradual conclusion. Too much hate, and not enough criticism makes for a muddled, ill aimed, poop cannon of a message.

Reducing toxicity isn't about becoming so jaded that we don't care. It is about sorting through the hate and formulating proper criticisms from it.

The question isn't if we have too much hate and toxicity, the question is, why can't people come to properly formulate their criticisms out of their hate. Perhaps it is because we feel like we need to have the community come to a consensus about their hate, when in all honesty everybody will have different points of criticism for the same thing. Or perhaps people are too lazy to rationalize their hate. Or perhaps there is simply too much noise on the internet to allow the rationalized criticisms to show up and get traction on the internet.

For as irrational a medium as the internet, that was an incredibly rational argument. You're right, there isn't much proper criticism around these parts.

Laziness probably is a big part of it.

 

[SashaGris]

I really don't think people are getting more angry, for starters. In second place, people saying that anger should be directed, controlled, employed in some sense or capacity must be saints who have never been enraged.

Now, for some clarification: People were just as angry some years ago, and then 40 years ago, or a hundred. The real issue, I think, is technology and this era of instant communication we live in. People were just as angry and numerous in relative terms before our times, we just never heard of it. If you were playing a game and became enraged at it, you would go to your desk and start writing an angry letter. When you were about half done, your anger would have probably ebbed, and you would be able to rationalize the issue at least a bit more than before.

That can't be done anymore, there's no cool down period. You get enraged, and rage blinds people, there's no directing or doing anything with it except venting it, and the venting is right there at your fingertips. The game makes you angry, you basically alt-tab and go to a forum, your blog, twitter, tumblr, reddit, and who knows how many other sites more, and you post your enraged comments in all of them at the same time. Someone is bound to "hear" about your outrage.

Please don't suggest that people control their emotions, specially the "burst" ones like anger, that's just wishful, utopic thinking. Humans have been trying for millennia and we are still at square one. Second, remember what your parents or grandparents have surely told you at least once before. When someone is angry, you ignore them. An angry person doesn't know what he or she is talking about, literally. It's been scientifically proven that anger gives you tunnel vision and it overrides many of the more rational areas of the brain. Let them vent, calm down, and then try to rationalize the issue. Of course that cool down period might be quite long depending on the person.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

Although toxicity is something that is by no means unique to gamer culture, there is definitely a trend towards negativity and excessive skepticism among gamers. Now I'm not saying to stop being skeptical, it keeps us all from vegetating and allows us to direct our anger as Jim discussed. But I've definitely noticed a trend in many gamer circles where it's "cool" to hate on everything the moment it comes out. Every time a new console, smartphone, game, etc is announced there's always several people all racing each other to hate it first, competing with each other to have the most reasons as to why it sucks even though no-ones had a chance to try it yet. It reminds me of the kind of people this Apple vs Samsung war attracts, with people blindly supporting one or the other and hating the other with the utmost venom. Being in love with a brand / product / service is a beautiful thing, it helps you, it helps the company, etc etc etc. Hating something on the other hand does nothing. It's ok to dislike something and have your reasons, but blind, malicious hate wastes your time and contributes nothing to the greater community.

Alright, let me paint an image for you, the future of game developers over here having the boot of the all powerful corporate publisher's boots on their face as they laugh maniacally as they hold your favorite titles hostage as the dissolved companies' employees are reduced to soulless husks making cheap F2P browser games and ironing out MMS bugs. Meanwhile overseas Japan refuses to bring decent games over while the trash keeps piling on the shores as it smells horribly over here. To top it off, their most popular franchises are slashed and burned in exchange for games designed for the "COD audience".

That my friend is why we are negative and skeptical.

 

[Ryleh]

Although toxicity is something that is by no means unique to gamer culture, there is definitely a trend towards negativity and excessive skepticism among gamers. Now I'm not saying to stop being skeptical, it keeps us all from vegetating and allows us to direct our anger as Jim discussed. But I've definitely noticed a trend in many gamer circles where it's "cool" to hate on everything the moment it comes out. Every time a new console, smartphone, game, etc is announced there's always several people all racing each other to hate it first, competing with each other to have the most reasons as to why it sucks even though no-ones had a chance to try it yet. It reminds me of the kind of people this Apple vs Samsung war attracts, with people blindly supporting one or the other and hating the other with the utmost venom. Being in love with a brand / product / service is a beautiful thing, it helps you, it helps the company, etc etc etc. Hating something on the other hand does nothing. It's ok to dislike something and have your reasons, but blind, malicious hate wastes your time and contributes nothing to the greater community.

Alright, let me paint an image for you, the future of game developers over here having the boot of the all powerful corporate publisher's boots on their face as they laugh maniacally as they hold your favorite titles hostage as the dissolved companies' employees are reduced to soulless husks making cheap F2P browser games and ironing out MMS bugs. Meanwhile overseas Japan refuses to bring decent games over while the trash keeps piling on the shores as it smells horribly over here. To top it off, their most popular franchises are slashed and burned in exchange for games designed for the "COD audience".

That my friend is why we are negative and skeptical.

I'm not entirely sure we're talking about the same thing here. I'm talking about people hating on every new game and/or piece of technology before it's even come out.

Whats more I'm implying that we should support the good games rather than hating on the bad games in order to stop your image from happening.

 

[Tenkage]

[Deleted Post...but only because I want to....]

 

[Drummodino]

God damn that dance. So good.

 

[Drummodino]

You are a fuggin idiot Jim, a pathetic sad little idiot who is proof that gaming journalism is a sham. Oh by the way escapist, I know you said I am not allowed to critize your "breadwinners" but can I ask why, if he is allowed to comment on what he see's, why am I not allowed?

It is sad, but the escapist is a cespool of coruption, Jim, please have fun cleaning out Anita's crevices with your tounge, as you have nothing better to do with it, I am done, this place is not a place to find real news. Shame too, now the only person who I can trust is Yahtzee.

You forget that these forums have rules. The most important of these is "don't be a jerk". These rules don't apply to the videos that content providers upload. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant - those ARE the rules. This is why personal attacks on people (such as what you aimed at Jim) are not allowed in the forums.

 

[thehorror2]

I am deeply ashamed at how quickly I "got" the joke of the stinger in this episode.

 

[nuttshell]

Even if you are talking to a group that doesn't exist like Moviebob a few months ago and still didn't dare to critisize Anita, you made me laugh unexpected and left me positively amused. I find myself awaiting your next episode with delight and that hasn't happened in quite some time.

 

[1337mokro]

Snip

I didn't strawman your argument, you said that she totally deserved what happened to her. If you didn't include rape threats with that, you should have specificed, because there was no evidence against you supporting them, and while there wasn't much to say that you DID there was more to suggest that you did than you didn't, so frankly what was I supposed to think? Also I find it kind of interesting that you claimed I used a strawman argument and then proceeded to make massive generalizations about feminists and "white knights". And apparently I'm the latter and I should be ashamed...for some reason.

That would be an interesting argument against me if I had spent even a dime on her videos. I did not though, so I don't see what that has to do with me. Also I won't say that that is sexist. I will just say *Citation needed.

You know, you don't really come off as very sympathetic when you basically just said that everyone who disagreed with you was a moron. Frankly I don't even like her videos, the sheer amount of hate towards her just feels unjustified towards me.

Again I never said everyone who disagreed with me was a moron, this must be a habit of yours cause you seem quite good at this. I said everyone who just assumed I was in support of rape threats when I never mention those specifically nor does the video this comment was made on ever mention those kind of threats, have their own little agenda they have to work out so to them it was a nice little mistake on my part to assume I didn't have to specify the obvious.

"OMG I didn't even have to read the rest of your post because you are a horrible scumbag"

You can disagree with me and be a perfectly intelligent person, however 6/6 people that messages me all went on about the rape threats and not once addressed the actual point in my video. They were far to busy telling me how big of an asshole I was for supporting those people that threatened her.

In fact one of them, namely you, were the first to allude that I am in support of rape threats, that when I said she deserved the toxic response that I was somehow saying it was all right to threaten people (hyperbole + strawman) and then went on to address not a single point I made after that single sentence, congratulations you replied to a post you read for about 5%!

You want to know the funny part? I never even considered those threats as actual replies or comments. These don't factor into what I consider responses of any community, no matter how foul mouthed the hate mail gets there is a special category for when they cross the line into threats. I automatically filter those out into a separate category called human scum.

This really is all I have to say about this and will say about this because it's quite a pointless argument.

Though isn't it nice that she could use those threats to make a bigger profit than if she had just gotten the regular hate mail. Not to mention it gave her a nice platform to dismiss real criticism with as "hate" or "trolling".

Always look on the bright side of life! Dadum, dadum, dadum, dadum!

 

[Gindil]

A video where Jim explains that anger is not bad and wants us to correctly focus it, to use it as a tool more appropriately?

Holy crap, Jim IS Palpatine... it isn't a galaxy far far away in distance, it's far away in time. Jim is the future emporer of the Empire we'll inevitably form...

Jim, I agree with most everything you said. Though I'm hesitant to relieve CEOs of the lion's share of responsibility when the buck generally does stop there.

Hold it... This is the same Jim Sterling who made the "Dude Bro" episode which consisted of an entire strawman.

This is the same Jim Sterling who, on Destructoid, decided to say that two BF4 posts represented modern gaming.

This is the same Jim Sterling who continues to talk about Anita as "the one that spoke up" while ignoring ANY and ALL evidence that she's been dishonest about her presentation and what she stated was her mission.

And this is the same Jim Sterling who looks down on EA for their blatant dishonesty while ignoring Anita's.

It's truly sad when someone can be such a blatant hypocrite and people believe a demagogue over actual critical analysis.

 

[Gindil]

Hang on! Hang on!

What we saw was people pouring toxic on a woman who in the end totally ended up deserving it. Making nothing but a meandering, disjointed, contextual jumbled clip show where she points at things and says "Look at that.", no discussion of the effects it has or the possible reason behind it's use. No just a fancy clip show really. Kind of what TVtropes does but in video form.

Now was the toxic bile deserved at first? No, it was mostly knee jerk manchildren crying about their toys being shown in a bad light. Are they deserved now? Completely because it ended up being nothing but a biased clip shows that regularly insults gamers as a whole and men specifically multiple times by insinuating these types of people are nothing more than cavemen mentality idiots that can feel exactly 3 emotions, anger, shame and arousal.

Not to mention the blatant plagiarism where footage is used from other people without even crediting them. If I pulled shit like that I'd be expelled from the university.

So can we stop playing up Sarkeesian as anything but a lazy fraud with a feminist agenda? Are we done with the white knighting Jim?

PS: I have watched what has been released of the series so far and found it severely lacking in substance, discussion and depth.

PPS: Also goodbye Phil Fish!!!


Misguided rage is the nasty side effect of the rage turbines over heating. Sadly it is also something we can get past and we should just do so. You can't put out the rage fire but you can suffocate it by taking away it's oxygen, your attention.

EDIT: Can't believe I actually have to say this specifically but seeing as 6 people already had their heads explode when reading this post I am going to do it anyway. I had thought it to be unnecessary but hey, guess I gave people to much credit for being reasonable, faith in humanity adjusted back to -56 points.

Of course the rape threats, death threats and other assault or whatever else kind of threat you can think of is not warranted. It is never warranted to threaten anyone, however never in this video was the word toxic response used to refer to such absolutely disgusting things.

No the toxic response was one where people go mad with rage at perceived slights or single out a person to blame for all the faults in a production. Not once was the word toxic response used in the manner of actual threats, yet some people saw it as me openly supporting sending death threats to people making pointless videos on the internet. Well let me assure you that it was just your over active imaginations. I suggest not spending so much time online, you might learn that there exist decent people that don't approve of acting like despicable human beings.

The toxic response I was alluding to when I said it was deserved was about people calling Sarkeesian a fraud, incompetent, a swindler, a feminist propagandist, a pointless feminist version of TV tropes and so on. You know the regular hate mail that won't land you in fucking jail and turned out to be nothing but 100% accurate accusations. The kind of toxic response referred to several times during the video itself where developers were called frauds, hacks, conmen, liars and so on to let them know exactly where they screwed up? The kind of toxic response with the Jimquisition seal of approval?

Are we 100% clear on this now? Threats = Bad. Criticism and accusations = Okay. Or am I going to get a few more pointless messages railing at me about how I am a horrible person for supporting rape threats?

Actually, there's a NUMBER of legitimate questions to Anita Sarkeesian which Jim has been ignoring for quite some time.

You should look at her blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy for yourself - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7nO9F7okbo

So why would Anita's camp go to 4chan to troll? Why is it that when people let out information about the dishonesty of Anita, it's been deleted (Escapist had a thread deleted concerning how she used her backers for research)?

Why has it been found that she's also not a gamer, used trolls to make money, ignores critical analysis and criticisms, maintains a double standard based on gender, goes to prove her assumptions based on creationist research, makes money in private donations, and has only been interested in gaming since it made her money after researching it since 2012?

And when you actually look at the comments, you see maybe six comments that are "tits or gtfo" while most of them are negative criticisms like "Why do you need your Kickstarter money?"

Further issues are how she manipulated her Youtube page to funnel all commentary to her video.

Yet these are all valid questions to which NO ONE wants to answer. It's just "the comments were vile" based on assumptions that it was all white male gamers doing it. How about speaking up about the corruption on Anita's part? Or how blatantly obvious it is that most gaming press are believing more in cronyism than they are in an actual debate on the topic? (Directed more at Sterling)

 

[AuronFtw]

devs rarely respond to "venom" in any meaningful way.

Aside from retconning a shitty ME3 ending with DLC, admitting that D3 was a pile of shit, firing CEOs over simcity, and having almost all of the anti-consumer DRM stripped from the Xbone... yeah, aside from all that, venom hasn't done shit. Phooey on venom.

 

[Strazdas]

so i guess its time for toxic avenger to make a comeback?

a well placed rage is a powerful weapon, but like a true death ray, it is not something humans are capable of controlling yet.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

I didn't strawman your argument, you said that she totally deserved what happened to her. If you didn't include rape threats with that, you should have specificed, because there was no evidence against you supporting them, and while there wasn't much to say that you DID there was more to suggest that you did than you didn't, so frankly what was I supposed to think? Also I find it kind of interesting that you claimed I used a strawman argument and then proceeded to make massive generalizations about feminists and "white knights". And apparently I'm the latter and I should be ashamed...for some reason.

That would be an interesting argument against me if I had spent even a dime on her videos. I did not though, so I don't see what that has to do with me. Also I won't say that that is sexist. I will just say *Citation needed.

You know, you don't really come off as very sympathetic when you basically just said that everyone who disagreed with you was a moron. Frankly I don't even like her videos, the sheer amount of hate towards her just feels unjustified towards me.

Again I never said everyone who disagreed with me was a moron, this must be a habit of yours cause you seem quite good at this. I said everyone who just assumed I was in support of rape threats when I never mention those specifically nor does the video this comment was made on ever mention those kind of threats, have their own little agenda they have to work out so to them it was a nice little mistake on my part to assume I didn't have to specify the obvious.

"OMG I didn't even have to read the rest of your post because you are a horrible scumbag"

You can disagree with me and be a perfectly intelligent person, however 6/6 people that messages me all went on about the rape threats and not once addressed the actual point in my video. They were far to busy telling me how big of an asshole I was for supporting those people that threatened her.

In fact one of them, namely you, were the first to allude that I am in support of rape threats, that when I said she deserved the toxic response that I was somehow saying it was all right to threaten people (hyperbole + strawman) and then went on to address not a single point I made after that single sentence, congratulations you replied to a post you read for about 5%!

You want to know the funny part? I never even considered those threats as actual replies or comments. These don't factor into what I consider responses of any community, no matter how foul mouthed the hate mail gets there is a special category for when they cross the line into threats. I automatically filter those out into a separate category called human scum.

This really is all I have to say about this and will say about this because it's quite a pointless argument.

Though isn't it nice that she could use those threats to make a bigger profit than if she had just gotten the regular hate mail. Not to mention it gave her a nice platform to dismiss real criticism with as "hate" or "trolling".

Always look on the bright side of life! Dadum, dadum, dadum, dadum!

What was I supposed to take "More intelligent people are coming out to rip her videos apart" implying that people who liked her videos weren't intelligent as? Or "You can't win against feminists and white knights, they won't listen to you" as? Even if you don't outright say certain things, the way you word your arguments kind of does. Actually while it didn't specifically mention those threats it did mention how disgusting the backlash against Anita was, so you'd think you could understand why I'd have the rape threats along with everything else disgusting that's been going on in the front of my mind.

I went back and read your post and to be honest it just came off as the same justifications people have been using time and time again to justify the hate against Anita.

You said you supported the toxicity against her, and no offense, but off of this website I didn't see much in the terms of backlash that didn't directly descend into outright sexist territory. Was I suppose to automatically assume that you didn't mean that? You didn't leave much evidence to support that idea.

All right then, I'll reply to the entire concept behind your first post right now. The arguments against Anita have always been flimsy in my book. It's always been rather circumstantial evidence like the taken footage that somehow proves that she never played the games. Frankly I don't see the connection. Clearly she knew the game and what goes on in it, you can disagree with her assessment but I don't see how it proves she never played them. For all I know she put them in there as colorful filler, heck the Nostalgia Critic did the same thing with Roosterteeth footage. Should she have credited them? Probably, but still the "never played any of the games" is a massive leap. Plus even if people were right, even if people were right about every last thing that they said about her, I'd still find it hard to support them because frankly this "threat" that they're dealing with just isn't that big and they've responded to it with the same priority as a man who kills a fly with a flamethrower. Not to mention insulting men and gamers on a whole? I admit I never watched video three out of sheer boredom but I don't really remember that.

Well then I apologize you accusing you of supporting them, but like I said if you know a woman has been receiving a lot of toxicity, and you know among them are very well known threats, you should really consider being specific when you say that she deserves the backlash. You said that five other people came to the same conclusions so clearly it isn't just me.

Again, that's kind of making a jump to a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence, but even if it ended up being true, I have to say I have a hard time hating her for it because frankly backlash against her was so overkill that I really can't sympathize with the people who hate her.

And you want to know the sad thing? I think her videos are boring as Hell. Always have done since day one. I think her arguments are flawed too. But people can never seem to be satisfied by saying they don't like her arguments or think her videos are circumstantial, they have to discredit every last thing that she says, making claims based off of circumstantial evidence.

 

[josak]

Snip

I didn't strawman your argument, you said that she totally deserved what happened to her. If you didn't include rape threats with that, you should have specificed, because there was no evidence against you supporting them, and while there wasn't much to say that you DID there was more to suggest that you did than you didn't, so frankly what was I supposed to think? Also I find it kind of interesting that you claimed I used a strawman argument and then proceeded to make massive generalizations about feminists and "white knights". And apparently I'm the latter and I should be ashamed...for some reason.

That would be an interesting argument against me if I had spent even a dime on her videos. I did not though, so I don't see what that has to do with me. Also I won't say that that is sexist. I will just say *Citation needed.

You know, you don't really come off as very sympathetic when you basically just said that everyone who disagreed with you was a moron. Frankly I don't even like her videos, the sheer amount of hate towards her just feels unjustified towards me.

Again I never said everyone who disagreed with me was a moron, this must be a habit of yours cause you seem quite good at this. I said everyone who just assumed I was in support of rape threats when I never mention those specifically nor does the video this comment was made on ever mention those kind of threats, have their own little agenda they have to work out so to them it was a nice little mistake on my part to assume I didn't have to specify the obvious.

"OMG I didn't even have to read the rest of your post because you are a horrible scumbag"

You can disagree with me and be a perfectly intelligent person, however 6/6 people that messages me all went on about the rape threats and not once addressed the actual point in my video. They were far to busy telling me how big of an asshole I was for supporting those people that threatened her.

In fact one of them, namely you, were the first to allude that I am in support of rape threats, that when I said she deserved the toxic response that I was somehow saying it was all right to threaten people (hyperbole + strawman) and then went on to address not a single point I made after that single sentence, congratulations you replied to a post you read for about 5%!

You want to know the funny part? I never even considered those threats as actual replies or comments. These don't factor into what I consider responses of any community, no matter how foul mouthed the hate mail gets there is a special category for when they cross the line into threats. I automatically filter those out into a separate category called human scum.

This really is all I have to say about this and will say about this because it's quite a pointless argument.

Though isn't it nice that she could use those threats to make a bigger profit than if she had just gotten the regular hate mail. Not to mention it gave her a nice platform to dismiss real criticism with as "hate" or "trolling".

Always look on the bright side of life! Dadum, dadum, dadum, dadum!

You said she deserved the response, the rape threats were part of the response, at best you should have considered your words more carefully, stop blaming other people because you were unclear.

It really doesn't matter what Anita did or said what maters is we are now talking about the issue she raised so she succeeded, several feminists are now consulting for triple A companies and people are being hired to ensure the sexist rubbish at least has some counterpoint.

We are finally going to see some good female characters in non indie games and that is great.

 

[josak]

Hang on! Hang on!

What we saw was people pouring toxic on a woman who in the end totally ended up deserving it. Making nothing but a meandering, disjointed, contextual jumbled clip show where she points at things and says "Look at that.", no discussion of the effects it has or the possible reason behind it's use. No just a fancy clip show really. Kind of what TVtropes does but in video form.

Now was the toxic bile deserved at first? No, it was mostly knee jerk manchildren crying about their toys being shown in a bad light. Are they deserved now? Completely because it ended up being nothing but a biased clip shows that regularly insults gamers as a whole and men specifically multiple times by insinuating these types of people are nothing more than cavemen mentality idiots that can feel exactly 3 emotions, anger, shame and arousal.

Not to mention the blatant plagiarism where footage is used from other people without even crediting them. If I pulled shit like that I'd be expelled from the university.

So can we stop playing up Sarkeesian as anything but a lazy fraud with a feminist agenda? Are we done with the white knighting Jim?

PS: I have watched what has been released of the series so far and found it severely lacking in substance, discussion and depth.

PPS: Also goodbye Phil Fish!!!


Misguided rage is the nasty side effect of the rage turbines over heating. Sadly it is also something we can get past and we should just do so. You can't put out the rage fire but you can suffocate it by taking away it's oxygen, your attention.

EDIT: Can't believe I actually have to say this specifically but seeing as 6 people already had their heads explode when reading this post I am going to do it anyway. I had thought it to be unnecessary but hey, guess I gave people to much credit for being reasonable, faith in humanity adjusted back to -56 points.

Of course the rape threats, death threats and other assault or whatever else kind of threat you can think of is not warranted. It is never warranted to threaten anyone, however never in this video was the word toxic response used to refer to such absolutely disgusting things.

No the toxic response was one where people go mad with rage at perceived slights or single out a person to blame for all the faults in a production. Not once was the word toxic response used in the manner of actual threats, yet some people saw it as me openly supporting sending death threats to people making pointless videos on the internet. Well let me assure you that it was just your over active imaginations. I suggest not spending so much time online, you might learn that there exist decent people that don't approve of acting like despicable human beings.

The toxic response I was alluding to when I said it was deserved was about people calling Sarkeesian a fraud, incompetent, a swindler, a feminist propagandist, a pointless feminist version of TV tropes and so on. You know the regular hate mail that won't land you in fucking jail and turned out to be nothing but 100% accurate accusations. The kind of toxic response referred to several times during the video itself where developers were called frauds, hacks, conmen, liars and so on to let them know exactly where they screwed up? The kind of toxic response with the Jimquisition seal of approval?

Are we 100% clear on this now? Threats = Bad. Criticism and accusations = Okay. Or am I going to get a few more pointless messages railing at me about how I am a horrible person for supporting rape threats?

Actually, there's a NUMBER of legitimate questions to Anita Sarkeesian which Jim has been ignoring for quite some time.

You should look at her blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy for yourself - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7nO9F7okbo

So why would Anita's camp go to 4chan to troll? Why is it that when people let out information about the dishonesty of Anita, it's been deleted (Escapist had a thread deleted concerning how she used her backers for research)?

Why has it been found that she's also not a gamer, used trolls to make money, ignores critical analysis and criticisms, maintains a double standard based on gender, goes to prove her assumptions based on creationist research, makes money in private donations, and has only been interested in gaming since it made her money after researching it since 2012?

And when you actually look at the comments, you see maybe six comments that are "tits or gtfo" while most of them are negative criticisms like "Why do you need your Kickstarter money?"

Further issues are how she manipulated her Youtube page to funnel all commentary to her video.

Yet these are all valid questions to which NO ONE wants to answer. It's just "the comments were vile" based on assumptions that it was all white male gamers doing it. How about speaking up about the corruption on Anita's part? Or how blatantly obvious it is that most gaming press are believing more in cronyism than they are in an actual debate on the topic? (Directed more at Sterling)

Probably because none of those things matter in the slightest even if they were not incredibly dubious in veracity none of them have anything to do with the actual point that was made by her and her videos. It's pretty pathetic that so many people are attacking her rather than her points, but the simple reason is they lost the actual content argument and are now just reduced to ad hominems and desperately raising any minuscule and laughably unimportant smear they can find to avid discussing the actual topic.

If you seriously think "she has only been interested in gaming since 2012" is anything but laughable as a critique you really are out of your depth.

 

[Xan Krieger]

Mr Sterling the problem your talk about Don Mattrick is that we didn't spray venom at him because he was the CEO of Xbox, we did it because he sprayed it at us first telling us all to stick to the xbox 360 if we wanted to still play xbox 360 games or saying the world is always online. Our venom was a direct response to his own dickishness, I don't think Microsoft wanted him to insult the consumers as much as he did and outright murder any chance the xbox one had of competing with the PS4.

 

[Gindil]

Probably because none of those things matter in the slightest even if they were not incredibly dubious in veracity none of them have anything to do with the actual point that was made by her and her videos. It's pretty pathetic that so many people are attacking her rather than her points, but the simple reason is they lost the actual content argument and are now just reduced to ad hominems and desperately raising any minuscule and laughably unimportant smear they can find to avid discussing the actual topic.

If you seriously think "she has only been interested in gaming since 2012" is anything but laughable as a critique you really are out of your depth.

Ah, the confirmation bias is out. Okay... Why is it that there's videos of people corroborating the research that she was only interested in video games in 2012?

She stated herself that in her talk with her students that she didn't play video games. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw

I'm not attacking her at all. I'm just saying she's one of the worst people to present an argument based on video games to which you haven't answered any of those concerns.

They do matter indeed. She has a background in marketing, not literary criticism. So her talking about tropes would fall under a discussion of Joseph Campbell. There's still the double standard of gender, the creationist method of research, the arguments that are ignored for more controversy...

The list goes on and on. So how about instead of throwing out words to dismiss the arguments, why not show why they're not true? The burden of proof that the gaming industry is sexist remains with Anita and she hasn't done it with the videos presented where she has plagiarized herself instead of presenting a valid argument with evidence and research to back it up objectively.