Lady Bits Kickstarter by Liana Kerzner

[StatusNil]

Never said there was a conspiracy. Just that there was a whole lot of idiots getting worked up over something that turned out to be nothing.

Pardon me for not taking your diagnoses of idiocy as entirely authoritative, seeing as you judge the great FF saga to be "nothing".

The sad truth is that a couple of charlatans managed to thoroughly poison the entire industry conversation with their ill-founded alarmism, something Jack Thompson never managed. Ms. Sarkeesian made the Time Magazine list of "The 100 Most Influential People In The World", for crying out loud. Industry leaders kept tripping over themselves in their rush to invite her to preach to their employees for non-disclosed sums, and there was even that "Games Industry Ambassador" farce, with a worshipful Neil Drunkman slobbering over her.

It's pathetic. They tried to do movies, TV, music (misogynist Christmas songs!)... but only the self-hating games industry fell for the Stern Nanny trope. And we're probably only starting to see the effects of this little caper, with years of total blandout and Diversity Kittens preachiness pitched at toddler level to follow. After all, this is the Slow Business.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Never said there was a conspiracy. Just that there was a whole lot of idiots getting worked up over something that turned out to be nothing.

Pardon me for not taking your diagnoses of idiocy as entirely authoritative, seeing as you judge the great FF saga to be "nothing".

The sad truth is that a couple of charlatans managed to thoroughly poison the entire industry conversation with their ill-founded alarmism, something Jack Thompson never managed. Ms. Sarkeesian made the Time Magazine list of "The 100 Most Influential People In The World", for crying out loud. Industry leaders kept tripping over themselves in their rush to invite her to preach to their employees for non-disclosed sums, and there was even that "Games Industry Ambassador" farce, with a worshipful Neil Drunkman slobbering over her.

It's pathetic. They tried to do movies, TV, music (misogynist Christmas songs!)... but only the self-hating games industry fell for the Stern Nanny trope. And we're probably only starting to see the effects of this little caper, with years of total blandout and Diversity Kittens preachiness pitched at toddler level to follow. After all, this is the Slow Business.

You know, you keep saying things, and all I keep hearing is "video games are too fragile to endure the same sort of criticism every other form of media gets". It's embarrassing that some gamers think so little of their chosen media that they think it's been "poisoned" because a mild feminist made some criticisms industry execs agreed with.

It's "let's send Jack Thompson death threats because he says games make people violent" levels of pants-on-head stupid, except about someone with no actual power and who isn't seeking to get legitimate authorities involved.

 

[inmunitas]

The streisand effect doesn't require an organized effort, so debating over the definition of group is irrelevant to whether or not it counts as the streisand effect

Like it or not, the negative attention Sarkeesian received caused her to gain more funds than she was asking for, as well as spread her message farther than it would have gone

Aka

The streisand effect

Negative attention does not equate to an attempt to suppress information. So no, it is not the Streisand effect.

 

[inmunitas]

The streisand effect doesn't require an organized effort, so debating over the definition of group is irrelevant to whether or not it counts as the streisand effect

Like it or not, the negative attention Sarkeesian received caused her to gain more funds than she was asking for, as well as spread her message farther than it would have gone

Aka

The streisand effect

Negative attention does not equate to an attempt to suppress information. So no, it is not the Streisand effect.

"The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet."

You're right that hundreds of thin skinned men so distraught that a woman wants to include more women jn video games that they send her death threats isn't technically censorship

But they DO want her to remove the offending material from their safe space

And, in turn they got her more attention that she would have originally received

It's fun to watch revisionist history happen in real time

The publicizing of her work wasn't an "unintended consequence", it was deliberate. So again, not the Streisand effect.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

The publicizing of her work wasn't an "unintended consequence", it was deliberate. So again, not the Streisand effect.

Are you suggesting that hundreds of people decided to harass Sarkeesian and Feminist Frequency so that they could help signal boost TvW?

You do realize why people harass others in the first place, right? You know, the whole "getting people to shut up and back down through fear"-thing?

 

[inmunitas]

You do realize why people harass others in the first place, right? You know, the whole "getting people to shut up and back down through fear"-thing?

I think on the internet there generally isn't much stratagem behind it, people just do it because they are impulsive arseholes.

 

[StatusNil]

You know, you keep saying things, and all I keep hearing is "video games are too fragile to endure the same sort of criticism every other form of media gets". It's embarrassing that some gamers think so little of their chosen media that they think it's been "poisoned" because a mild feminist made some criticisms industry execs agreed with.

Well, you said it. It appears that the infrastructure of video game production is too fragile to withstand raids by unscrupulous "non"profiteers exploiting particular societal imperatives, in this case rescuing women from nebulous "harm" (allegedly caused by, for example, portrayal of female characters as needing rescue). It's a case of a low status medium, with no defenders of sufficient standing to resist these kinds of mercenary attacks, as evident in the domination of what passes for a "critical establishment" by preening post-adolescent opportunists. It certainly is an embarrassment, but why should it be one to those who merely make the observation?

And once again, just because the feminism is delivered in a bored, robotic tone from the depths of a seeming sedative daze doesn't make "Everything everywhere in every context perpetuates pathological hatred of women!" a measured, sensible critique.

 

[Avnger]

You do realize why people harass others in the first place, right? You know, the whole "getting people to shut up and back down through fear"-thing?

I think on the internet there generally isn't much stratagem behind it, people just do it because they are impulsive arseholes.

Regardless of your attempts to handwave away any critical thinking on the motive behind the harassment, are you honestly trying to claim that the massive amounts of harassment isn't what lead Anita's work to become well known?

 

[CaitSeith]

You know, you keep saying things, and all I keep hearing is "video games are too fragile to endure the same sort of criticism every other form of media gets". It's embarrassing that some gamers think so little of their chosen media that they think it's been "poisoned" because a mild feminist made some criticisms industry execs agreed with.

Well, you said it. It appears that the infrastructure of video game production is too fragile to withstand raids by unscrupulous "non"profiteers exploiting particular societal imperatives, in this case rescuing women from nebulous "harm" (allegedly caused by, for example, portrayal of female characters as needing rescue). It's a case of a low status medium, with no defenders of sufficient standing to resist these kinds of mercenary attacks, as evident in the domination of what passes for a "critical establishment" by preening post-adolescent opportunists. It certainly is an embarrassment, but why should it be one to those who merely make the observation?

And once again, just because the feminism is delivered in a bored, robotic tone from the depths of a seeming sedative daze doesn't make "Everything everywhere in every context perpetuates pathological hatred of women!" a measured, sensible critique.

I don't know if to call Paw's Law here or not. But certainly the strawman at the end is a nice touch.

EDIT: Oh, I just realized who is the poster. My bad.

 

[inmunitas]

You do realize why people harass others in the first place, right? You know, the whole "getting people to shut up and back down through fear"-thing?

I think on the internet there generally isn't much stratagem behind it, people just do it because they are impulsive arseholes.

Regardless of your attempts to handwave away any critical thinking on the motive behind the harassment, are you honestly trying to claim that the massive amounts of harassment isn't what lead Anita's work to become well known?

I thought 'critical thinking' was the objective analysis of facts in order to form a judgment.

 

[inmunitas]

The streisand effect doesn't require an organized effort, so debating over the definition of group is irrelevant to whether or not it counts as the streisand effect

Like it or not, the negative attention Sarkeesian received caused her to gain more funds than she was asking for, as well as spread her message farther than it would have gone

Aka

The streisand effect

Negative attention does not equate to an attempt to suppress information. So no, it is not the Streisand effect.

"The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet."

You're right that hundreds of thin skinned men so distraught that a woman wants to include more women jn video games that they send her death threats isn't technically censorship

But they DO want her to remove the offending material from their safe space

And, in turn they got her more attention that she would have originally received

It's fun to watch revisionist history happen in real time

The publicizing of her work wasn't an "unintended consequence", it was deliberate. So again, not the Streisand effect.

Anita didn't write every article about her harassment. The death threats from literal children got that done easy enough. And it was unintended to what they wanted to accomplish


Unless you're implying the far majority of her harassers were false flag conspiracy members

What? 'publicizing', making something well known, not 'publishing'. How do you think the would be harassers came to know about her work in the first place?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Well, you said it. It appears that the infrastructure of video game production is too fragile to withstand raids by unscrupulous "non"profiteers exploiting particular societal imperatives, in this case rescuing women from nebulous "harm" (allegedly caused by, for example, portrayal of female characters as needing rescue). It's a case of a low status medium, with no defenders of sufficient standing to resist these kinds of mercenary attacks, as evident in the domination of what passes for a "critical establishment" by preening post-adolescent opportunists. It certainly is an embarrassment, but why should it be one to those who merely make the observation?

And once again, just because the feminism is delivered in a bored, robotic tone from the depths of a seeming sedative daze doesn't make "Everything everywhere in every context perpetuates pathological hatred of women!" a measured, sensible critique.

I don't know if to call Paw's Law here or not. But certainly the strawman at the end is a nice touch.

StatusNil is the Ben Garrison of the escapist.

 

[StatusNil]

StatusNil is the Ben Garrison of the escapist.

Known largely for being maligned by trolls you mean?

 

[Avnger]

You do realize why people harass others in the first place, right? You know, the whole "getting people to shut up and back down through fear"-thing?

I think on the internet there generally isn't much stratagem behind it, people just do it because they are impulsive arseholes.

Regardless of your attempts to handwave away any critical thinking on the motive behind the harassment, are you honestly trying to claim that the massive amounts of harassment isn't what lead Anita's work to become well known?

I thought 'critical thinking' was the objective analysis of facts in order to form a judgment.

You are still trying to play semantic games instead of addressing the actual point. Do you have any evidence to refute the assertion that the harassment received by Anita was what lead to her formerly unknown youtube project to become the topic of news stories covering internet harassment and Anita speaking at a UN internet harassment-related event?

I'll keep playing ball with your obvious attempts to divert the conversation though:

"the process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion"

Information
1. Massive harassment was committed against Anita
2. The harassment was directly related to the feminism-framed critical analysis she was engaging in
3. The general purpose of harassment of this nature is to abuse someone into "going away" or stopping what they are doing

Now which is a more logical conclusion (if we're being intellectually honest):
A. The harassment was most likely perpetrated to try and get Anita to disappear or at least stop her work
B. IDK, My BFF Jill

 

[Ogoid]

3. The general purpose of harassment of this nature is to abuse someone into "going away" or stopping what they are doing

Is it, though? Because I can't see how that makes a lick of sense.

I mean, has there been any actual evidence, at any given point, that this was the case? Did anyone involved with the harassment in question actually say anything to that effect?

Because from where I'm standing, this looks like simply assuming their reasons, and putting a whole lot more thought into it than they themselves most likely did in the first place.

 

[Avnger]

3. The general purpose of harassment of this nature is to abuse someone into "going away" or stopping what they are doing

Is it, though? Because I can't see how that makes a lick of sense.

I mean, has there been any actual evidence, at any given point, that this was the case? Did anyone involved with the harassment in question actually say anything to that effect?

Because from where I'm standing, this looks like simply assuming their reasons, and putting a whole lot more thought into it than they themselves most likely did in the first place.

So what are their reasons? Mobbing is a very well-known and researched societal harassment type. Why do you insist on sticking your head in the sand over such a minor point?

edit:

 

[inmunitas]

You do realize why people harass others in the first place, right? You know, the whole "getting people to shut up and back down through fear"-thing?

I think on the internet there generally isn't much stratagem behind it, people just do it because they are impulsive arseholes.

Regardless of your attempts to handwave away any critical thinking on the motive behind the harassment, are you honestly trying to claim that the massive amounts of harassment isn't what lead Anita's work to become well known?

I thought 'critical thinking' was the objective analysis of facts in order to form a judgment.

You are still trying to play semantic games instead of addressing the actual point.

No, sorry, that was a quip.

Do you have any evidence to refute the assertion that the harassment received by Anita was what lead to her formerly unknown youtube project to become the topic of news stories covering internet harassment and Anita speaking at a UN internet harassment-related event?

...

Information
1. Massive harassment was committed against Anita
2. The harassment was directly related to the feminism-framed critical analysis she was engaging in
3. The general purpose of harassment of this nature is to abuse someone into "going away" or stopping what they are doing

Now which is a more logical conclusion (if we're being intellectually honest):
A. The harassment was most likely perpetrated to try and get Anita to disappear or at least stop her work
B. IDK, My BFF Jill

So by your logic this "unknown youtube project" just received "massive harassment" spontaneously?

 

[Ogoid]

which is putting more thought into it

1) whiny male trolls hate thing,

...Yeah, it's entirely your assumption that all the trolls were male; not that it has any bearing I can see on anything whatsoever.

send death threats to say they hate thing and want it gone

I'm going to repeat myself yet again - is there any actual evidence of them "wanting it gone", and acting on the frankly magical thinking notion that insulting someone over the internet would have that result?

Or could it perhaps be, as inmunitas so aptly put, they were, for all we know, simply immature and impulsive idiots who didn't put a single second of rational thinking into it?

2) "well, the trolls could have a variety of reasons for sending hate mail and death threats. you cant walk in those peoples shoes anymore than you can gods. we know nothing about their motives or reasonings so you cant say they wanted Anita to stop by sending her mountains of hate mail and death threats. for all we know they wanted her to succeed"

Well, yes, when you yourself put more thought into things than simply knee-jerking and defaulting to the simplest, easiest explanation based on nothing but your personal biases, you tend to come up with a more nuanced opinion on said things. No disagreement here.

Again, though, I was referring to the thinking - or rather, lack thereof - going through the heads of the people sending her abuse.

So what are their reasons?

Why do trolls troll?

I don't know, and I wouldn't care to speculate. I'm pretty sure there's nothing worth seeking down that road.

But if I was to venture a guess, I'd say their hostility probably stemmed from figuring her "criticism" would amount to nothing but weaselly-worded moral condemnation and baseless claims of societal harm the likes of which we've all been intimately familiar with since the 90's. Good thing she went and proved them all wrong about that, too.

Mobbing is a very well-known and researched societal harassment type. Why do you insist on sticking your head in the sand over such a minor point?

edit:

For one, because I think that's overthinking the hell out of a phenomenon with a much simpler explanation [http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/325/699/4fc.jpg]; and for two, I find that assuming other people's reasons and thought processes usually ends up saying more about my own than theirs.

 

[CaitSeith]

Mobbing is a very well-known and researched societal harassment type. Why do you insist on sticking your head in the sand over such a minor point?

edit:

For one, because I think that's overthinking the hell out of a phenomenon with a much simpler explanation [http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/325/699/4fc.jpg];

What to trust? A well-documented research with several sources and academic analysis? Or an Internet meme? Tough choice IMO.

and for two, I find that assuming other people's reasons and thought processes usually ends up saying more about my own than theirs.

The funny thing about that is how the most common (or at least louder) criticism about Anita isn't towards her arguments, but towards assumptions of her reasons ("she is a con artist") and thought process ("to her, everything is sexist").

 

[Ogoid]

What to trust? A well-documented research with several sources and academic analysis? Or an Internet meme? Tough choice IMO.

Or the time and again observed fact that people will, given the anonymity of the internet, act like dicks simply because they can.

But perhaps we should have a serious academic body look into that first - seems right up the prestigious Maximegalon Institute's alley to me.

The funny thing about that is how the most common (or at least louder) criticism about Anita isn't towards her arguments, but towards assumptions of her reasons ("she is a con artist") and thought process ("to her, everything is sexist").

I mean, I don't really recall saying either, but seems to me both are substantiated on her actual actions, producing a staggering 5 hours worth of video over 5 years with a greater budget than those of several actual feature films with actors and filming locations and all that jazz, and the substance of the so-called arguments she put forth, either in said videos or on any of her regally remunerated talks.