As a Brit, the hell happened America? There is bile against video games here, but no way near enough to launch a political career out of.
LostGryphon said:Ya know... I was going to go into a long-winded post attempting to rationally discuss my grievances with Miss Sarkeesian 'criticism' and drawing redundant attention to Bob's startling continued dalliance with hypocrisy...but then I read all of the comments. So, instead, I'll go into a long-winded griping/concern trollish rant.
It's the same people.
It's the same people, over and over and over and over again, repeating the same points, on either side of the 'debate.'
The same self-important snark.
The same righteous indignation.
The same smarmy, thinly veiled insults. (You know who you are.)
The same smarmy, direct insults. (The mods know who you are.)
The usual suspects. Each and every thread. And I guess I'd be considered one of them by this point.
Can I make a sincere appeal here?
Can we all just... I don't know... not be complete and utter jackasses to one another for one day? Just one?
How about an entire day on these forums with vaguely polite or light-hearted discussion? Or, failing that, perhaps dialogue that doesn't contain so much in the way of petty ad hominem bullshit?
Please?
You all do seem like nice enough people. Well, most of you, with few glaring exceptions that fill me with a strong sense of pity, more so than anything resembling anger or irritation. I'm sure you've all got the capability to be level-headed and decent to one another.
This includes you, Bob.
Maybe swallow the hate for a bit, take a step back, and look at yourself? Maybe? Please? I'd like to be able to watch your videos again, as the movie reviews and comic stuff was quite interesting/entertaining, for the most part, without constantly having your ridiculous tweets cropping up in the back of my mind.
Rant over.
TL;DR: Lost is weary of impotent forum warriorizening and would like to hug many of you.
Thanks!delroland said:You're silly.Signa said:Well, call me silly, because I draw a lot of parallels between the Jack that was described in this video and current-day "antagonists"
Liking videos is scary? Let me tell you about this great horror series from the 90s called Siskel and Ebert. I definitely wouldn't watch it before bed. There are some other good video liking shows on now like Tosh.0 or @ Midnight, but they aren't as good.Zontar said:That's.... pretty scary. This video is far from brilliant. It's a stretch to even call it insightful, and that's with the assumption of interpreting it as a follower of his pretty radical ideology instead of a rationalistic perspective.
(Basically what I'm saying is the video isn't very good in quality and the only people who will like it are those who already agree with it going in. Especially for those of us outside the US where the very existence of the notion of 'gamers' debunks one of the most fundamental premises to his rant. I dare not call it an argument because that would insult the art of debate, and also imply that Bob was willing to respond to anything which he doesn't agree with in a civilized manor)
Jumplion said:You reduced storytelling in games to "The bad guy does something bad..." and then bemoaned how others, as you perceive it, look "too deeply" so to say to find things they believe are sexist. This viewpoint does not allow us to look critically into our media.
She's not being sexist. Especially considering that she considers the song to be equally creepy when sung by either gender, just with different connotations. Because there are different contexts and connotations to people when we look at their gender, ethnicity, orientation, etc... When a man is harsh and commanding, he's "the boss". When a woman does so, she's "bossy" or "bitchy". When a white NFL player is aggressive in celebration, he's "pumped". When a black NFL player is aggressive in celebration, he's a "thug".Not even close, I'm saying Anita Sarkeesian is sexist.
http://youtu.be/GpDnr2s9yxQ?t=1m34s
Listen to this clip and tell me she's not sexist (Up to 2:15, or fuck if I care watch the whole video)
Regardless of all that, she does not express "bigotry" towards men in that clip, she merely notes that, when looked at a certain way, the song can be expressive of a possesive relationship mentality that is a whole 'nuther topic all together.
Well she's already been around for a little while. I have my doubts but I do hope that happens.CaitSeith said:It's not double standard. They are different scenarios. But you know what? I bet in 4 years few people from the general public will remember that Sarkeesian's death treats were such a big deal (the same way Thompson's and Atkinson's are remembered right now)Magmarock said:And this is some how okay. It's not okay to threaten anyone, it's the double standard that I have an issue with.CaitSeith said:Pretty much because he has received death treats for doing much more than just criticizing videogames (like making laws to declare motorcycle clubs as outlaw organisations). You must haven't been paying much attention to Australian news in 2010.Magmarock said:Okay bob, I have written down in a text document my thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian and Michael Atkinson. I withheld posting it in the forums because it was a little while since I wrote it and it didn't seem as relevant.
now it seems more relevant then ever. When I compare Michael Atkinson ( a man who actually succeeded in censoring and banning games) with the likes of Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkeesian; I have a lot more respect for Atkinson. The man was wrong about many things but he was also transparent.
When people compare Jack to Anita what they're doing is point out that the harassment that Jack received was okay and no one cared but when Anita gets it, it's suddenly bad.
No one cared when Atkinson received death threats at his door step, but when Anita get's a few angry emails from some internet trolls everyone terns themselves inside out. It's a bullshit double standard Bob and it's not okay.
I am a gamer Bob and I don't like Anita Sarkeesian. I think she's disingenuous, liar and a con artist who seeks attention. However, I have never spoken to her nor have I made any attempt to talk to her. I have nothing to say to her and don't even consider her a gamer. Her presence on websites such as this is what I find the most troubling.
One final point I want to make is the customer is always right. If gamers don't like something then all we have to do is stop funding it. Remember Bob, gamers are keeping you employed, but who is keeping Anita employed.
Gamers scarier than bikies: Michael Atkinson [http://www.news.com.au/technology/gamers-scarier-than-bikies-says-michael-atkinson/story-e6frfro0-1225830886493]
PS: Gamers don't keep Bob employed. His audience does (and I'm pretty sure there are not only gamers in it).
Yeah she pretty much in that clip ignores the possibility that the woman could be a creep or a stalker and just goes "Ohh maybe women deserve better" but as soon as a guy sings the song it's always stalkerish and creepy. *bleh* That "woman can do no wrong" bullcrap needs to end in the media the song itself btw is not gender situated it's actually gender neutral. It's made so a person can sing their love for their significant other and enjoy the holidays.Mikeyfell said:Jumplion said:You reduced storytelling in games to "The bad guy does something bad..." and then bemoaned how others, as you perceive it, look "too deeply" so to say to find things they believe are sexist. This viewpoint does not allow us to look critically into our media.
I was referring to this
http://youtu.be/5i_RPr9DwMA?t=6m34s
Seeing sexism there is silly. That pimp is a bad guy. Was Anita expecting him to be a perfect gentleman
She brought up the "Dastardly" achievement earlier in the video, and yeah that's sexist, I don't think anyone would argue with that.
But then she goes and ruins it by being stupid.
Everything else you said was so far off base it's not worth responding to.
Except this,
And I'm still not going to respond to it, I'll just let you ruminate on what you said.
Shocking, and you should apologize to literally everyone, including your parents.
She's not being sexist. Especially considering that she considers the song to be equally creepy when sung by either gender, just with different connotations. Because there are different contexts and connotations to people when we look at their gender, ethnicity, orientation, etc... When a man is harsh and commanding, he's "the boss". When a woman does so, she's "bossy" or "bitchy". When a white NFL player is aggressive in celebration, he's "pumped". When a black NFL player is aggressive in celebration, he's a "thug".Not even close, I'm saying Anita Sarkeesian is sexist.
http://youtu.be/GpDnr2s9yxQ?t=1m34s
Listen to this clip and tell me she's not sexist (Up to 2:15, or fuck if I care watch the whole video)
Regardless of all that, she does not express "bigotry" towards men in that clip, she merely notes that, when looked at a certain way, the song can be expressive of a possesive relationship mentality that is a whole 'nuther topic all together.
Likewise, she now faces the consequences of her own speech, none of which are legally binding or government supported.MaddKossack115 said:Anita, on the other hand, is challenging the CONSEQUENCE-FREE SPEECH
False; Anita made the decision to cancel her talk even after being assured the threat the school had received was not credible by the police. Many college campuses allow guns to be carried, typically in states with similar laws. She's been giving talks at length across the country for some times, she knows these laws exist. Refusing to talk at a previously planned presentation because of death threats she has allegedly been receiving this entire time because of a common firearm law she would have undoubtedly encountered before is disingenuous.MaddKossack115 said:The death threats against Anita can't be shrugged off when she had to cancel a presentation because the threat of a school shooting could've been carried out thanks to how guns weren't banned from the school she was presenting [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/138046-School-Shooting-Threat-Sent-to-USU-about-Anita-Sarkeesian],
False; The threat of posting an address of a public figure, or the address of a public figure's family with nothing more than words to back it up is not a credible threat. Considering Anita continues to make public appearances in well-populated spaces to this day, and much of her personal information can be found online through completely legal means with nothing more than her full name, it is laughable to asserts this had any more reason to 'drive Anita from her home' than any other anonymous death threats.MaddKossack115 said:and when she was forced to flee her own house after the threats to break in and murder her family proved all to real not to brush off as a sick joke or empty boast [http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/27/6075179/anita-sarkeesian-says-she-was-driven-out-of-house-by-threats].
GG has no membership, no leader, no organized methodology. It simply is. Trying to call out anonymous users who engage in bad behavior for no other reason than they used the GG hash tag is beyond impractical.MaddKossack115 said:At the very LEAST, the GamerGate members who DON'T support trying to outright kill Anita just to shut her up should call out any of their members who tried to do so, if only in a "GUYS!! Stop making US look bad!" motive.
You are being further disengenuous. We're not talking about whether or not a pimp is acting "realistically" in a game. Literally, just three minutes before your quote (3:50);Mikeyfell said:I was referring to this
http://youtu.be/5i_RPr9DwMA?t=6m34s
Seeing sexism there is silly. That pimp is a bad guy. Was Anita expecting him to be a perfect gentleman
¯\_(ツ_/¯And I'm still not going to respond to it, I'll just let you ruminate on what you said.
Shocking, and you should apologize to literally everyone, including your parents.
1. They do, there is actually a "Gamergate Harassment Watch" that actively seeks out people that make threats before they can get publicity.MaddKossack115 said:At the very LEAST, the GamerGate members who DON'T support trying to outright kill Anita just to shut her up should call out any of their members who tried to do so, if only in a "GUYS!! Stop making US look bad!" motive.
Why would it damage either? What happened to your stance on "personal responsibility?"DizzyChuggernaut said:For everyone claiming that Feminist Frequency is "ruining the gaming industry", I think you're being hyperbolic.
Feminist Frequency causes more damage to feminism than they do to gaming.
Well, no. They claimed to have found them based on some rather tenuous evidence and have declared that a victory.DizzyChuggernaut said:2. In Anita Sarkeesian's case, members of Gamergate have actually tracked down at least one of the people that sent her death threats.
I'm not claiming that Feminist Frequency is sabotaging feminism, rather they do more damage to the image of feminism than to the image of gaming.Zachary Amaranth said:Why would it damage either? What happened to your stance on "personal responsibility?"
You were outraged that people would hold the actions of individuals against gamergate. Why is this so different?
I'm not sure how compelling you'd find this https://storify.com/LadyFuzztail/gamergate-may-be-a-victim-of-a-false-flag-operati but it indicates a focussed effort on the part of some (not all) users of the Gamergate hashtag to stop harassment.Zachary Amaranth said:Well, no. They claimed to have found them based on some rather tenuous evidence and have declared that a victory.
We do. The problem is that we get dismissed, censored, and fought against whenever we do. This is an obnoxiously slanderous Scotsman fallacy used by the other side to dismiss the rational majority at every turn.MaddKossack115 said:\At the very LEAST, the GamerGate members who DON'T support trying to outright kill Anita just to shut her up should call out any of their members who tried to do so, if only in a "GUYS!! Stop making US look bad!" motive.