Kickstarter Video Project Attracts Misogynist Horde

[newdarkcloud]

Whether or not this woman's videos are any good is an entirely separate debate (which I'm quite willing to have). The point is that is sheer volume of bile and vitriol thrown at her is completely unacceptable. Is saddens me to see the gaming community act like this. We were supposed to be the all inclusive group, but those days are long gone.

 

[Vault101]

Peace. Although I'm prob done here too - I don't get the impression that this guy is in the sort of mood where he's receptive to other peoples' viewpoints haha.

I have to go to bed soon, so my apologies for not backing you up further, but you seem to have got this. Enjoy...

I was about to say, don't bother

he's not worth the headache

 

[RJ Dalton]

Things are worse than fucking ever.

Anyone who says "things are worse than ever" as relates to anything obviously never lived in the fourteenth century.

What, you're not nostalgic for the era where rights, medicine, hygiene, literacy, and sewer systems as we know them didn't exist?

Now that you mention it, no, not really.

 

[RJ Dalton]

Things are worse than fucking ever.

Anyone who says "things are worse than ever" as relates to anything obviously never lived in the fourteenth century.

Then again, anybody who says anything today has probably never lived in the fourteenth century, so maybe I'm just talking out my ass.

You're right, I'm exaggerating. String me up, baby.

I'm more of a "death by angry monkies" kind of guy, really.

 

[lacktheknack]

...i'm not touching this with a ten foot pole...

Nor a forty foot one over here. While I'm not sure I'm a fan of the Kickstarter, I'm much less of a fan of the response.

I'm just gonna say haters gonna hate, mmmkay?

 

[Angryman101]

Call me a fool all you like, but you're the one trying to use a reductionist view of human motivations to prove a point about a highly specific social issue. What you're missing are factors that can determine someone's quality of life, including for instance civil liberties and independence. These might not make you objectively happier, but they all undoubtedly improve your life in some way.

Furthermore, your logic is fallacious in the sense that you claim absolute happiness is the highest motivator in human life, hence if it can be shown that happiness is lacking in one state of living compared to another, that state must be objectively better than the other. And if you're going to get all philosophical about the Kalahari Bushmen, I might remind you that you're currently posting on an internet forum, which means you have access to electricity, a computer, and income to pay for internet access. If you're going to continue to insist that happiness is the ultimate reason for doing anything, I'm sure someone else will happily unburden you of a luxury only 1 in 3 people in the world enjoy.

Do they? How do you know that? Maybe my life would be awesome hunting buffalo on the plains whilst riding a horse. I'm not trying to prove anything, these are just my opinions and views. Sure, they're more supported by science and studies than other views, but my point stands regardless.
And you misinterpret my statements. Objective views do not exist in nature. A happy tribesman would surely rate his life as subjectively better than a miserable modern corporate drone who has had his spirit broken by modern society, yes. Objectively? Objectively there is nothing. 'Better' stops meaning anything when you look at things objectively. They're just lives. Better only means something when you think of one thing as more beneficial or concurrent with your views than another, which means better is by default subjective.
Now, if I were to lose my electricity, my computer, my internet, it would make me unhappy because I have experienced it and have built a connection to it, just to lose them all. I don't want to be unhappy. They are 'mine', and I don't want to lose 'my' things. What does any of this mean to a bushman? All they know is the hunt, and eating, and family. They don't give a shit about any of this. But, introduce to them something that will give them a leg up, something that they think will make them happier? They'll be all over that shit. Because that drive to be happy is the prime motivator for everything.

 

[Angryman101]

It says that happiness, like a lot of our mental functions, is still primitive. Nature designed us to survive a special way (hunting/gathering) and we have happiness as incentive to live that life. Our brain gives us some nice chemical rewards every time we do something it thinks is right. Of course with our intelligence we have gone past the point of needing hunting/gathering and we're not getting rewarded as much for our actions because out body thinks we're doing something wrong.

The idea of advancement is that people think the current system is stupid, slow, and inefficient and that with enough knowledge and time they can do better.

In the end happiness is our goal, but we're looking for something better than the primal one we get from hunting/gathering. To tie this back to the feminism thing, cutting off more than half the population from helping achieve this goal is not a good idea.

We are slaves to biology, friend. Never forget that. To deny your biological motivations is to deny your nature, and that only invites unhappiness.
The idea of advancement is that people think that having this or that will help them achieve happiness, either directly or indirectly. Why invent the plow? 'Man, digging up all this dirt sucks. If I made something that could do it with half the time and effort, I could do so many more things with my time! I could plant twice as many crops and be twice as wealthy! Then I could get any girl I want, have a family, and be respected by everyone! Man, I'll be soooo happy.'
Etc.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Call me a fool all you like, but you're the one trying to use a reductionist view of human motivations to prove a point about a highly specific social issue. What you're missing are factors that can determine someone's quality of life, including for instance civil liberties and independence. These might not make you objectively happier, but they all undoubtedly improve your life in some way.

Furthermore, your logic is fallacious in the sense that you claim absolute happiness is the highest motivator in human life, hence if it can be shown that happiness is lacking in one state of living compared to another, that state must be objectively better than the other. And if you're going to get all philosophical about the Kalahari Bushmen, I might remind you that you're currently posting on an internet forum, which means you have access to electricity, a computer, and income to pay for internet access. If you're going to continue to insist that happiness is the ultimate reason for doing anything, I'm sure someone else will happily unburden you of a luxury only 1 in 3 people in the world enjoy.

Do they? How do you know that? Maybe my life would be awesome hunting buffalo on the plains whilst riding a horse. I'm not trying to prove anything, these are just my opinions and views. Sure, they're more supported by science and studies than other views, but my point stands regardless.
And you misinterpret my statements. Objective views do not exist in nature. A happy tribesman would surely rate his life as subjectively better than a miserable modern corporate drone who has had his spirit broken by modern society, yes. Objectively? Objectively there is nothing. 'Better' stops meaning anything when you look at things objectively. They're just lives. Better only means something when you think of one thing as more beneficial or concurrent with your views than another, which means better is by default subjective.
Now, if I were to lose my electricity, my computer, my internet, it would make me unhappy because I have experienced it and have built a connection to it, just to lose them all. I don't want to be unhappy. They are 'mine', and I don't want to lose 'my' things. What does any of this mean to a bushman? All they know is the hunt, and eating, and family. They don't give a shit about any of this. But, introduce to them something that will give them a leg up, something that they think will make them happier? They'll be all over that shit. Because that drive to be happy is the prime motivator for everything.

But you're quite fine with stating that the lives of feminists are not 'better' than they were forty years ago, despite the fact that in forty years many more women now enjoy the same privileges men do.

 

[Angryman101]

But you're quite fine with stating that the lives of feminists are not 'better' than they were forty years ago, despite the fact that in forty years many more women now enjoy the same privileges men do.

Uh...yeah, because they're unhappy. What's the point of advancement if people aren't happier? That's the point of my entire argument.

 

[newdarkcloud]

Whether or not this woman's videos are any good is an entirely separate debate (which I'm quite willing to have). The point is that is sheer volume of bile and vitriol thrown at her is completely unacceptable. Is saddens me to see the gaming community act like this. We were supposed to be the all inclusive group, but those days are long gone.

Its the normal ammount of shit, bile, vitriol, and other fluids as usual, except she stopped filtering comments. This is mostly just youtube commenters being themselves & even then i think i will go find the outside game forums that are hating on the kickstarter project & see how they hate on it.

You know, sometimes I forget the sheer amount of horrible, horrible people on YouTube comments. Even still, it doesn't make it any less of a problem. This kind of crap still needs to be corrected. I, for one, appreciate that stuff like this is getting more awareness than it used to.

 

[Furrama]

I agree with her somewhat, but why does she need $6,000 dollars to do this?

Compensation for time editing, revising, writing, upkeep of equipment and licences, research material, (books, games, and consoles, plus time spent playing), and almost half of it goes to taxes.

All that and she's trying to keep things looking professional, so a web cam and a crappy microphone probably wouldn't cut it. Also remember that her other series was funded by a magazine and her other scattered videos were funded by donations. She has awards and things for her work, so it's not like she came out of nowhere.

 

[Burst6]

We are slaves to biology, friend. Never forget that. To deny your biological motivations is to deny your nature, and that only invites unhappiness.
The idea of advancement is that people think that having this or that will help them achieve happiness, either directly or indirectly. Why invent the plow? 'Man, digging up all this dirt sucks. If I made something that could do it with half the time and effort, I could do so many more things with my time! I could plant twice as many crops and be twice as wealthy! Then I could get any girl I want, have a family, and be respected by everyone! Man, I'll be soooo happy.'
Etc.

Personally I'm hold out to making biology out *****. We have no proof that we can't free ourselves from it. Our nature is not a very good one, it gives us motivation to be clever but then it goes and punishes us for it. We're not a static entity. Humanity will change, and so will our nature. It's pretty much inevitable, and denying our current nature will help change it faster. That guy may have invented the plow for his own reasons, but it still adds to the goal we're trying to reach.

 

[Condiments]

But you're quite fine with stating that the lives of feminists are not 'better' than they were forty years ago, despite the fact that in forty years many more women now enjoy the same privileges men do.

Uh...yeah, because they're unhappy. What's the point of advancement if people aren't happier? That's the point of my entire argument.

What of this 'happiness' dissonance that bore the feminist movement in the first place? Clearly a host of women were unhappy with the limited station of their role in society for such an influential movement to be created. People willing to face the unbridled might of societies judgements, and willing to endure a reduction in "happiness" in the name of an ideal. You've even stated yourself the subjective nature of happiness. Its hard to quantify, and even harder to objectively compare such measurements between societies and time periods. "Happiness" and other basic motivations are fed by many complex factors and expectations that aren't easily translated out of our experience. We do ourselves a disservice criticizing entire segments of population, and civilization on such flimsy judgements. I've made many decisions in my life, and I doubt many of them have been on the simple basis of happiness. Life just isn't that simple.

 

[mrdude2010]

The dude's username is "boxxy is queen." No way anything intelligent is coming out of that mouth.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

But you're quite fine with stating that the lives of feminists are not 'better' than they were forty years ago, despite the fact that in forty years many more women now enjoy the same privileges men do.

Uh...yeah, because they're unhappy. What's the point of advancement if people aren't happier? That's the point of my entire argument.

Because what your reductionist view of the world fails to take into account is that you can still have problems, but they're problems you have more control over than you would if you lived with fewer privileges. What I'm saying is that there's a difference between being unhappy because you have a high pressure job and being unhappy because you're forced into being a housewife, because even if the former makes you statistically unhappier (which I highly doubt), the independence it offers is viewed by many as a significant enough factor that they would prefer it to being a full time cook, cleaner and baby minder.

The pursuit of immediate happiness does not drive the decision making of every person in the world, believe it or not.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Well, at least one genuinely good thing came out of this. I got to learn about the feminist frequency, and found out that I almost believed (somewhat) in the Straw feminist.

Also, I now know not to use "the girl in the refrigerator" trope without proper reasoning as why it is important besides the obvious.

Not much, but hopefully this whole thing will remind people that sexism is still a problem. (For both genders by the way, and not just the hate for women being a problem for just women & hate for just men being a problem for just men, but the hate they both get being a problem for both genders.)

 

[Angryman101]

What of this 'happiness' dissonance that bore the feminist movement in the first place? Clearly a host of women were unhappy with the limited station of their role in society for such an influential movement to be created.

I only got this far so I'll just reply to it.
Feminism as a movement to increase women's happiness has failed, and thus should be destroyed.
Also, I invite you to think about who really benefited from women gaining financial independence. Was it the women who have become less and less happy as years have gone by, or is it the corporate entities that control the country who enjoyed looking at a market that doubled in size?

 

[Angryman101]

Because what your reductionist view of the world fails to take into account is that you can still have problems, but they're problems you have more control over than you would if you lived with fewer privileges. What I'm saying is that there's a difference between being unhappy because you have a high pressure job and being unhappy because you're forced into being a housewife, because even if the former makes you statistically unhappier (which I highly doubt), the independence it offers is viewed by many as a significant enough factor that they would prefer it to being a full time cook, cleaner and baby minder.

The pursuit of immediate happiness does not drive the decision making of every person in the world, believe it or not.

Yes it does, you just aren't looking in between the lines. Women don't want to be housewives because feminism makes them think that is shameful, and they will be happy as man-jawed shark-eyed careerist women because they are men's equals, roar! Surely if career success makes men happy, it'll make me happy as well!

Personally I'm hold out to making biology out *****. We have no proof that we can't free ourselves from it. Our nature is not a very good one, it gives us motivation to be clever but then it goes and punishes us for it. We're not a static entity. Humanity will change, and so will our nature. It's pretty much inevitable, and denying our current nature will help change it faster. That guy may have invented the plow for his own reasons, but it still adds to the goal we're trying to reach.

You can make biology your ***** by assuaging it and using it to your advantage to make you happier. Taking away biology means taking away happiness. Is that really what you want?

 

[Jessta]

I really don't think sexism in games is nearly as big of a deal as its being made out to be.

1. Girls being hyper sexualized. So are guys. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing sexist in this, unless you think porn is sexist and you buy a porn game. The same holds true for movies, advertisements, art work, motha fuckin BOOKS. This is nothing new and the subject needs to die or move into self esteem grounds from sexism because that's what it is.

2. Girls filling cliched roles: While this is true, and it is also true for men. I don't think the men to argument quite covers this. Actually, this has been weakening as a topic altogether quite profusely lately and females have been filling a wider and wider variety of roles other than as damsels in distress, sidedrops, or eye candy. (I actually can't really think of nearly as many characters who filled these rolls as characters who filled other roles.)
BUT males are still mainly protagonists and females still more commonly rotate around that characters quest but why? well it's because the gaming population, while having a much much larger female gamer base, is still much more densely populated by guys so naturally companies have been targeting towards their primary companies. Females get games where they are the target audience as well, just not as many because there aren't as many women in the audience. I think that's pretty fair (also I think it should be noted a lot of games are based on the fantasies of their writers, who are also primarily men).

3. Ummm I got caught up in thinking about number 2 and forgot what I was going to put here. anyways, concluding statement, games aren't sexist and this really feels like she's just over analyzing a pretty simple situation.

and as ANOTHER side note, a P.S.S. so to speak, internet trolls say things that are out control mean and should probably learn to check themselves sometimes those youtube comments are more of an overreaction than the source content!

and as a side side side note, does anyone else feel like the news on the escapist has become a bit... low grade? I mean this article is literally 'there are angry people on youtube who are particularly beefed with controversial ideas' its not even discussing her views on feminism in gaming or anything like that.