Kickstarter Video Project Attracts Misogynist Horde

[runic knight]

I never claimed "every poster was some sort of deep gamer." Clearly not every single person targeting that girl was a gamer. But the ones who were (and, arguably, the majority were) demonstrated something poignant about the state of current gaming culture; namely, that while there are gamers who have moved past the sexism and the justifying subtle sexism, there are plenty that haven't yet. This is only magnified when looking at discussions on actual gaming forums (and for the sake of making sure the argument isn't made again: I'm aware not everyone in a gaming forum is necessarily a gamer; that's besides the point).

Let's be honest: sure, a lot of the people posting could know absolutely nothing about games and could have just commented for the sake of trolling, keeping up the "patriarchy," etc; but it's just as likely (based on the nature of many of the comments) that a majority were in fact knee-jerk reactions from gamers. Getting upset over the fact that I didn't explicitly name every other type of person who might have spewed hate is frankly missing the point and the result of a myopic look at the overall message. Rather than get defensive, try looking at the big picture and debating its merits/lack thereof instead?

But that is just part of the problem. You're looking at the vocal people. Now, we've already gone over that some are probably trolls, or people fighting the battle because it relates to women, rather then any care for games. We've gone over that she kicked the bee's nest in spamming 4chan and that it is misleading to say the least to point at the response she got as one concerning gamers when it more likely fits that of the personality of 4chan.

Now, lets remind people of the other aspect: you're looking at the vocal. You are aware there is usually a big difference between the number of views something gets and the number of ratings/comments. That is generally because people watch, probably go "meh" and carry on. The people polarized, strongly biased or strongly emotional will reply. And in far, far greater numbers then the rational, the disinterested, and the milder opinions in both directions.

The reason I am calling this point up is because it is used, by you and her, as a form of support of the argument. There is made an argument as such, as near as I have seen.

Premise: If Male gamers respond badly to the proposed feminist video, it means they are not ready for a discussion on the matter.
Input: Youtube comments responded with vile and hatred.
Therefore: Gamers's aren't ready.

The premise is flawed and you point at the youtube comment section as meeting the condition of the premise, when it doesn't, exactly.

The comment section, as I have explained, is not limited to gamers and have now also mentioned relatively devoid of most center opinions. A section left to the vocal to be loud, and one set up to receive the angry horrors of a rattled cage that is 4chan. So an open wall for people to spew hate, created to receive hate. You would be better trying to convince me the streets are filled with shit by pointing at a septic tank and going "well, look at all the shit there, must be an epidemic."

It just is not compelling when you look at it. It comes of as an attempt to force justification by making a controversy. this in turn makes me question it's relevance at all.


And that is the problem. At this point it isn't even the damn topic, it is the tactic used and the argument attempted to justify itself. I can't even get into what issues I have with the topic itself because I have to dig through a wall of shit that is the argument itself.
Now, like I said before, you could do this with any controversial topic. Religion, politics, race, gender...It doesn't matter. The mere fact you CAN do this with any of them is not a sign the "majority of the participants of group A can't discuss the topic", it is a sign someone messed up and doesn't understand how to prepare a compelling argument.

Here, I'll demonstrate. Lets do race.
1. We'll make a vid saying we want to discuss race in media.
2. We'll spam it across a white nationalist website's forum.
3. We'll them let them bombard the comment section, take a screenshot and point at it.
Therefore: Obviously, white people just can't discuss this topic at this time, am I right? And before you mention it, intentionally choosing a place that represents the worse part of the group to antagonize is exactly what she did with her video. 4chan is well know as the asshole of the interwebs and where a lot of horrible trolls live.

The problem with this is the same that plagues the news media in painting games as the cause of violence. There is so much missed for the sake of creating a simple, easy to work with sterotypes. They look at the loud ones as examples of the whole. Much like how Westburo is not an example of Christians as a whole, neither are a page of hate on youtube examples of gamers.

For crying out loud! 65% of households play video games, with 2/5 of the people playing as women, the rest, I assume, male (not sure how transgendered and the like were accounted for doesn't change much for this point). That is 39% of the population, of the whole American nation's population in this example, that are male gamers. I don't think youtube spam is the proper way to get a feel for a demograph that is 120 MILLION PEOPLE and growing. The sheer bravado of you, her, or anyone to think otherwise is beyond compare. You want to make an argument about the majority of the male gaming community, you go about it the right way and take into account that this is not just the loudmouths, the trolls and the youtube commenter. You can not in good reason or conscious point at the vocal as a representative of the whole. THAT is the mindset of a bigot justifying their belief, it is confirmation bias and I will be damned if you try to tell me it is somehow valid.

This isn't just me nitpicking over the portion of people who posted negatively who weren't gamers. This is me pointing out that what you got was a fraction of a fraction of a fraction who weren't even all gamers. Saying they represent ANYTHING pertaining to the 60% of gamers that are male is nothing short of bullshit.

I do not think I can make it any more clear then that. This is a matter of form I am arguing and the topic on this one could be sexism or jello pudding and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference why it doesn't work as presented. You can not support the claims about the gaming community in the way that has been done. Not with any degree of intellectual integrity on the matter. I will add that one of the reasons we can't have a civilized discussion on the topic is because of cheap bullshit argument claims like this meant to lump people into groups and paint stereotypes. This happens on both sides, and I have a habit of calling bullshit when I see, regardless which "camp" is doing it.

To be slightly fair here though, you could use the response she got as a support for a claim 4chan being a sexist hellhole. You'd still not be fully correct, trolls and Men's power jackasses and all, but at least you'd be far better off in terms of the response supporting the premise here.

TLR
I'll make this short. There are over 120 million male videogamers, according to the basic data I found at the drop of the hat. Saying hate on a youtube channel, on a video that got just over 150 thousand views (not isolating for gender or gamer/not gamer status)and was spammed over the anus of the internet somehow represents that 120 million with any degree of legitimate value is wrong. It is not good logic, and it is not good ethics.

 

[Brainstrain]

Good to see this gaming feminism thread has made it 35 pages with civility.

 

[minuialear]

Premise: If Male gamers respond badly to the proposed feminist video, it means they are not ready for a discussion on the matter.
Input: Youtube comments responded with vile and hatred.
Therefore: Gamers's aren't ready.

The premise is flawed and you point at the youtube comment section as meeting the condition of the premise, when it doesn't, exactly.

I didn't say it universally applies to all gamers, or that the Youtube people were all gamers and thus were only representative of that demographic. But enough of them clearly were, to the point where they demonstrated a serious problem in the gamer community. But more importantly, the issue was magnified by the number of gamers (yes, gamers; not just random guys) who responded to that vocal bunch by excusing ("They're just 4chan"/"Well she doesn't really deserve the money, so I can understand the anger") or by ignoring their behavior (for a majority of cases, probably either believing that an event where someone is violently threatened simply for expressing a desire to express their opinion isn't worth commentary, or otherwise implying that the event was a non-issue). This seconond not-so-vocal group being just as important to my argument as the first, if not more so, because it's the most troubling of the two(from my perspective).

In other words, you're still zoomed into a small part of what I said (i.e., the part about the violent vocal group) and am making a big deal out of it, rather than looking at what I said as a whole (which included the not-so-violent group whose reaction was nevertheless very problematic and symptomatic of a lot of issues within the demographic).

Should I read the rest of this post, or is it all based off this argument?

 

[TheUnbeholden]

Wow. Talk about one sided journalism. For a rational view of why people are against this that isn't just picking youtube comments and calling it news, here:

A) People can throw money wherever they like and support the projects they feel are important (and in this case, it is)

B) Don't point to a video of some asshole making ridicule of said project as an argument.

A) totally agree with you there. I disagree with him there at that - people can do whatever the fuck they want with their money

B) I disagree with. He makes a very valid point at the fact that this project is completely pointless. If you don't know who are bad female characters are in games, you have not played games. It is an issue, and everyone who is not misogynist knows it's an issue. But this idea is just a massive waste of money because the documentary is pointless - it's going to be, to use your words, some asshole making ridicule of obviously bad characters as an argument. This isn't going to sway anyone, this isn't going to inform anyone, this is just people pointing out obvious stuff that's been said 100s of times before.

It's an argument because this article is ridiculously biased towards it, it gives the impression of 'if you disagree with the documentary you're misogynistic'. When in reality, many might disagree because the whole thing is stupid. It can and has been done for free, many times, many have done, for free, a better way of addressing the issue. It's just a massive waste of time and money - time and money everyone has the right to throw away, as it is other people's right to disagree with the project and call it a waste.

Exactly what I was thinking when I read the article. The article seems to completely miss the point of what the actual problem here is. It's not the usual random/stupid youtube

Actually I would say that most of the actual commenters are naive (rather than hateful, misogynistic) and mostly children... or are joking, or simply hate kickstarter for good reasons but attack it in a bad way.