The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[MaddKossack115]

Can you tell me exactly WHO in Anti Gamer Gate are "a Neo Nazi,many racists and sexists who go around bullying LGBT organizations and the like?" Like, with links showing the people making Neo-Nazi, racist and sexist comments? I'm not even being sarcastic, or anything - if guys like that really are running around Anti Gamer Gate, they deserve to be called out for their radical beliefs just as much as if they were running around Gamer Gate instead.

Ian Miles Cheong is a admitted Neo Nazi who is one of the vocal Anti GG members around,Samantha Allen wrote a article that is very hateful towards men.GaymerX was guilt tripped and in some messages outright coerced into denouncing GamerGate.Just read for yourself.It's pretty sickening.

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_14152252162148&key=81bbad36819532991d8639869d59381d&libId=d182373f-a10b-4ed6-8c77-638d53071edb&loc=http%3A%2F%2Ftechraptor.net%2Fcontent%2Fgaymerx-lgbt-gaming-convention-fire-gamergate-remarks&v=1&out=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FGaymerX%2Fstatus%2F519890536753160192&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dgaymerx%2Bgets%2Bbullied%26src%3DIE-TopResult%26FORM%3DIETR02%26conversationid%3D&title=GaymerX%20LGBT%20Gaming%20Convention%20Under%20Fire%20Over%20%23GamerGate%20Remarks%20-%20TechRaptor&txt=Yesterday%20the%20organization%20reported%20that%20they%20(GaymerX)%20were%20receiving%20hate%20mail%20from%20both%20sides%20of%20the%20issue%2C%20after%20one%20of%20t...

Ok, I admit that Ian Miles Cheong definitely shouldn't be an advocate for Anti-GG, even though, as far as I can tell, he's only in it to insult GG members instead of trying to argue what the points of Anti-GG really are in comparrison. Samantha Allen does seem a little extreme in her feminist arguments, but it seems more to be stretching the truth of how women are short-changed by men - it's not like she would call for men to stay out of gaming altogether, like some misogynists do when the bash feminists for being 'fake gamers' or whatnot. And as far as I can tell on the GaymerX tweets, he seemed to keep a cool head throughout the one Tweet post you had a link to, and even though a few commentators did get out of control, I didn't see GaymerX give in and then 'denouncing GamerGate' because he was 'outright coerced' into doing so. And to be fair, he personally sounds like what GamerGate as a whole keeps trying to claim they are - a gamer with legitimate concerns over gaming journalism who doesn't try to make erroneous "well this person can't talk about games because she does so with a feminist perspective" arguments.

Samantha Allen believes misandry doesn't exist,to me that's pretty telling of her mindset.

There were more tweets aside from the one I linked to but sadly got deleted and I don't feel like wading through hundreds of pages on the GG megathread just to find the archived copy.Before that one tweet though GaymerX put one saying they thought GG had some good points and that everyone should try to have a civil discussion.They got absolutely torn apart by several Anti GGers,one of which led a campaign to get them to "reconsider" their statement.

It was like watching a mobster intimidate someone first hand,of course you will never see their side denounce such atrocious behavior because it's "justified".

Well, assuming the context of "Samantha Allen believes misandry doesn't exist" is indeed a literal statement (as opposed to one quote being taken out of context), then yeah, she should probably stay out of the discussion too. But as for the Anti GG members harassing GaymerX, it honestly doesn't sound different from GG members harassing somebody else - they all just sound like a bunch of no-name reactionaries who aren't influential outside of the GG/Anti GG war, compared to the people with cool heads at both GG or Anti GG. I sure wouldn't think that harassing GG would've been 'justified', but I wouldn't think that harassing Anti GG would've been any more 'justified'. People making valid criticisms with backup evidence is justified, but a mob shouting it all down, whether from GG or Anti GG, ins't 'justified'.

 

[Belaam]

oh, good grief. Okay. Since you seem hell bent on spending pages on this, let's break it down, starting from the beginning:

this is OUR medium, not the feminists

I'm a feminist who has been gaming since [young]. It's far more my medium than yours. ... Not sure how in the world you think you can claim a media that makes more money than movies and music together.

I'm clearly asserting that you are dumb in claiming gaming as your own medium; asserting that if one were to try to claim the medium as a whole, I would have a better claim; and ending with the argument that no one person can claim the entire medium. This is not rocket science. It's not even Kerbal rocket science.

Where exactly did you arrive at the conclusion, this magical idea that a bunch of gamers need to create a website because we disagree with people? that's most bizarre notion I've ever heard.

Months of GGers whining about how corrupt and unethical games journalism is has led me to the conclusion that they should either go create their own sites or quit hypocritically griping about sites on those sites, which gives them money from hits. I kinda thought that's where you were going with the whole vote with your wallet thing.

I think you're working from a faulty timeline if you think that's what came first. What came first was a false accusation of trading sex for reviews. GG would be on FAR stronger footing if the instigating event and continued focus was Shadow of Mordor marketing or the like.

? Zoe Quinn never had sex with five guys?

She didn't trade sex with Nathan Grayson for a positive game review, which was the original claim. Even if she had, and the real issue were journalism ethics, the focus would have been on the journalist(s) involved. Yet, it was never Grayson-gate, Kotaku-gate, or anything else related to any actual game journalists who may or may not have been involved. That the whole initial subject was "quinnspiracy" points away from journalists being the focus.

since you've just denied the allegations that these incidents took place.

This would probably go a lot easier for you if I just let you speak for me, it seems.

That's how and why debates exist, hon.

Um.. Thanks for the info, sweetie.

Really? feminist analysis has been going on for hundreds of years?

Yeah; that's why I included the link and some recommended reading.

As a feminist who surely lives in a first world country, how do you feel about David Cameron refusing to wear a pro-feminist t-shirt? ... Now, how do you feel about the fact that these t-shirts are made entirely on a small, foreign island called Mauritius by women who who work in sweatshop conditions, for a dollar an hour when these t-shirts sell for 70? ... why haven't your feminist ideals extended to the women who make t-shirts supporting your cause, and have David Cameron looked down upon by other women? I thought feminism was about extending equal rights to all women? not very fair that these girls get driven like slaves.

First off, this sounds like it may be more of a Marxist issue than a Feminist issue - including cost of living information in Mauritius would have helped (maybe $1/hour is a great wage for women there). But regardless, more details may cast it more of a feminist issue. What jobs do men have there have and how much do they pay? What kind of women work these jobs and what would they be doing if they weren't working them? For instance, in early Industrial US, factory jobs were usually either held by young women saving up for marriage or widows looking for enough income to not be homeless. Though wages were comparatively low, this was generally seen as a net positive for feminism as it allowed young women to be more discerning in choosing spouses and older women to remain independent. Likewise, if women are making $1 an hour making shirts, but men are making $1 a day doing construction, then this isn't a feminist issue at all. But yeah, it could be. I'm not sure why you think being interested in feminism in gaming means I'm uninterested in feminism elsewhere. Or why as an American, I'd care much about David Cameron's politics.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

She was talking about what she called a "socially constructed myth" that women are more "frail and vulnerable". The context of her statement was fairly universally across the board and including physical strength. She also says this more than once. The example cited above was in the first Damsel video, but she elaborated it again in the third video by saying: "Damselled female characters tend to reinforce preexisting regressive notions about women as a group being weak or in need of protection because of their gender."5:25 mark

So when she talks about weakness here she's talking about the belief that women are weaker as a gender than men. But this is factually true on average. This is why we have problems with things like rape and why domestic violence affects far more females than males.

So there's a difference between reinforcing a stereotype and just depicting the statistical average. Stereotyping comes into play when you suddenly assume that any woman you ever meet is automatically weaker than you (if you're male). Now, I'm strong and quite competent in physical force but I know full well that a pro-female boxer could likely take me to task and fast. This would be because she has raised her body above the average and has developed skills to use her body to a higher degree of efficiency. But I'm also not wrong when I say that I am far stronger than the average female because I am also stronger than the average male. This isn't stereotyping, this is accepting facts and talking in aggregate like Anita is.

Additionally, there are also significant differences between genders emotionally:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201201/gender-differences-in-personality-are-larger-previously-thought

That's a 10,000 participant study split 50.1 female/49.9 male. Women score significantly higher in Sensitivity, Warmth, and Apprehension while males scored significantly higher in Emotional Stability, Dominance, Rule-Consciousness, and Vigilance. There's only about a 10% overlap between genders in these traits.

I think it's time to start owning the fact that we're a sexually dimorphic species. Both genders have specialized via evolution in specific areas and as such are generally weak in others. It's time we've started celebrating our differences rather than going forward pretending like we're all the same. Having differences doesn't mean one gender is better. Only that one gender on average will have a higher propensity for success in some areas but less in others.

Now, if you can somehow establish that she ONLY believes that the socially constructed myth is that women are emotionally weaker than men? Then ok. But the context is fairly damning that she was somehow under the impression that the average woman can go toe to toe with the average man when that isn't the case and is a reason for the issues the power disparity causes.

She also consistently confuses the definition of a grammatical object (the thing in a sentence which is acted upon) with the definition of the term objectification (treating a person as a thing without respect for their dignity). So I have a pretty significant argument against her believing that women receiving an action in a game from the protagonist somehow qualifies as objectifying her. By that sort of ridiculous definition "Anita defends feminists" would be a sentence in which she is objectifying feminists because they're the object of the sentence being acted upon.

I think the thing most people have issues with is her damsel argument. Her women as non-important background or sex toys is generally seen more favorably. I mean, we've all talked about the ridiculous nature of the chainmail bikini or whatever, long before Anita showed up.

I'm a little exceptical about that study. It's based on data from 1993 from the 16PF questionnaire (and it's recomended to avoid over-interpretation of its results). The USA of that time was a different environment from the USA of today.

However, one thing I want to point out is that I don't deny the existance of the sexual dimorphism. And my personal comments about it end here, because it's not the topic I'm interested right now.

 

[Silvanus]

So your argument is that games have a positive effect on gender issues? Then welcome, you disagree with Anita too. Have a nice stay.

Stop simplifying things. Media influences people in different ways. It should be rather obvious that if media has an influence, it's not all going to influence in the same direction. Positive images or positive messages can have positive influences; that doesn't somehow mean that negative images and messages cannot have negative influences.

But, yes. I do disagree with Anita Sarkeesian on a whole host of things. I never claimed otherwise. I also disagree with you.

Games are violent (undeniably so). They glorify and incentivize players to to acts of violence (also, undeniably so).

If games affect behavior, then violent games makes people more violent, leading to extra assaults and death, etc... Why WOULDN'T you want that regulated?

No, that's not my train of thinking. It does not follow that somebody who believes games can influence behaviour must believe that they "make people more violent", or that they "lead to extra assaults and death". That's just reductionist on an almost absurd scale.

Is there any meaningful difference?

Uhrm, well, yes. There's quite a meaningful difference between advocating censorship and not advocating censorship.

Yeah... That's not true. No one defended him when it happened. Certainly not the media. Hell, several articles thought it was kinda funny...

Well, I was referring rather to people around here. In this thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.862072-Was-it-fair-how-Jack-Thompson-was-treated?page=1], I count 19 explicit condemnations, and nobody supporting the treatment (though several people responded dismissively, which is depressing).

As for the media, I'd agree the response was bad. It was covered [http://www.gamespot.com/articles/rumor-control-update-bush-bros-in-madden-x05-lands-in-amsterdam-revolution-picsagain/1100-6130286/] in a couple [http://archive.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2005/11/69404] of places [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/04/men-are-harassed-more-than-women-online.html], though.

A minority. Every news outlet, not just online but even TV, largely agrees with the premise all of a sudden.

Righto. But, on forums, it's utterly unavoidable, nonetheless.

The way media influences people is usually to play on existing behaviors. People are usually talking about ads, for example. So if you want to try a new soda, Coca-cola will inform you about a product that caters to your need (or that they claim caters to it).

What people do not mean is that media necessarily makes you sexist or violent. We can tell the difference between reality or fantasy as long as we're not schizophrenic. So I would never once have considered it legitimate to take the lessons on femininity that Princess Peach taught me (which is nothing, FYI, she did not teach me anything at all) and apply them to real life because even as a kid I understood that she was a character.

So, you've got some steep evidence to amass here that Jack Thompson tried and failed to get.

I'd agree with you that media is (far) more likely to reinforce existing behaviour than to create entirely new behaviour, by the way. That's a fairly significant influence. If somebody is already a fairly anti-establishment individual, for example-- suspicious of surveillance, or tyranny-- then reading Nineteen Eighty-Four may well reinforce that outlook. If somebody is already slightly misogynistic, then reading about heroic, suave James Bond treating women as conquests may well reinforce that outlook, too.

I refer to literature, because the idea that literature influences peoples' outlook is pretty widely recognised, I would have thought.

 

[Jaytr13]

oh, good grief. Okay. Since you seem hell bent on spending pages on this, let's break it down, starting from the beginning:

this is OUR medium, not the feminists

I'm a feminist who has been gaming since [young]. It's far more my medium than yours. ... Not sure how in the world you think you can claim a media that makes more money than movies and music together.

I'm clearly asserting that you are dumb in claiming gaming as your own medium; asserting that if one were to try to claim the medium as a whole, I would have a better claim; and ending with the argument that no one person can claim the entire medium. This is not rocket science.

But you don't, so it's a hypothetical. Was that all? it was really that important you needed to get that out? O-K.

Where exactly did you arrive at the conclusion, this magical idea that a bunch of gamers need to create a website because we disagree with people? that's most bizarre notion I've ever heard.

Months of GGers whining about how corrupt and unethical games journalism is has led me to the conclusion that they should either go create their own sites or quit hypocritically griping about sites on those sites, which gives them money from hits. I kinda thought that's where you were going with the whole vote with your wallet thing.

I shouldn't have said that. All I meant was that journalists need to be called out on their BS. I couldn't less how they earn their money as long as it ain't corrupt BS.

I want journalists to be held accountable for their actions, not boycotted. Gaming journalism is a good thing.

I think you're working from a faulty timeline if you think that's what came first. What came first was a false accusation of trading sex for reviews. GG would be on FAR stronger footing if the instigating event and continued focus was Shadow of Mordor marketing or the like.

Really? Zoe Quinn never had sex with five guys?

She didn't trade sex with Nathan Grayson for a positive game review, which was the original claim. Even if she had, and the real issue were journalism ethics, the focus would have been on the journalist(s) involved. Yet, it was never Grayson-gate, Kotaku-gate, or anything else related to any actual game journalists who may or may not have been involved. That the whole initial subject was "Quinnspiracy" points away from journalists being the focus.

Well, to be honest I don't have any evidence to the contrary, I'm just getting into this. Buuutt..it is about ethics in games journalism. Quinnspiracy was what started it off just like you said already?

I think you're working from a faulty timeline if you think that's what came first. What came first was a false accusation of trading sex for reviews.

Quinnspiracy, I'm sure is still an issue talked about and debated. How exactly does you stating your opinion that Zoe Quinn never fucked Grayson make it suddenly any less valid that games journalists were involved?

1.The men were approached and asked about the incident
2. Her ex-boyfriend wrote that tumblr post
3. The claim exists in the first place

Just like you already said, that's why GamerGate exists. TO TALK ABOUT ETHICS IN GAMES JOURNALISM BECAUSE THERE WERE CLAIMS ZOE QUINN WAS TAKING SEX FOR REVIEWS. Any clearer to you yet?

As a feminist who surely lives in a first world country, how do you feel about David Cameron refusing to wear a pro-feminist t-shirt? ... Now, how do you feel about the fact that these t-shirts are made entirely on a small, foreign island called Mauritius by women who who work in sweatshop conditions, for a dollar an hour when these t-shirts sell for 70? ... why haven't your feminist ideals extended to the women who make t-shirts supporting your cause, and have David Cameron looked down upon by other women? I thought feminism was about extending equal rights to all women? not very fair that these girls get driven like slaves.

First off, this sounds like it may be more of a Marxist issue than a Feminist issue - including cost of living information in Mauritius would have helped (maybe $1/hour is a great wage for women there)

1$ is the US equivalent, love. I would've thought it would be good sense to consider the payment low. Why would a news outlet bother looking into it if there wasn't any legitimacy into any type of poor treatment? a sensationalist piece? into something like feminism where we are right now? I don't buy it.

What kind of women work these jobs and what would they be doing if they weren't working them? For instance, in early Industrial US, factory jobs were usually either held by young women saving up for marriage or widows looking for enough income to not be homeless. Though wages were comparatively low, this was generally seen as a net positive for feminism as it allowed young women to be more discerning in choosing spouses and older women to remain independent.

I don't know, I don't live in Mauritius so I couldn't tell you the financial situation. But this isn't about the financial situation, because I just told you how much they get paid. As a feminist, how do you feel about the fact that these women are living in poor living conditions and being paid extremely poor wages? that is not equal rights.

That is what I asked you, nothing else.

...Or why as an American, I'd care much about David Cameron's politics.

Never asked you about Cameron's politics. I asked you how you felt that a shirt with such controversy is approved by women, because you said feminism is completely open to analysis and has been going on for hundreds of years. I'm asking you, a feminist, your thoughts.

 

[daibakuha]

She was talking about what she called a "socially constructed myth" that women are more "frail and vulnerable". The context of her statement was fairly universally across the board and including physical strength. She also says this more than once. The example cited above was in the first Damsel video, but she elaborated it again in the third video by saying: "Damselled female characters tend to reinforce preexisting regressive notions about women as a group being weak or in need of protection because of their gender."5:25 mark

So when she talks about weakness here she's talking about the belief that women are weaker as a gender than men. But this is factually true on average. This is why we have problems with things like rape and why domestic violence affects far more females than males.

The problem comes from the fact that not only does it reinforce that women are objects to be used as goals for male players but that they lack any form of agency themselves. Another comment-er pointed this out, but we live in an age where physical power matters very little in day to day life, so the differences should be moot.


So yes there are differences between men and women, but they shouldn't matter, especially in games where they exaggerate physical prowess to sometimes extreme levels. Lara Croft in the new tomb raider didn't beat all those dudes on that island with sheer physical force, she outsmarted, out maneuvered and out-skilled them all. Come to think of it, it's the exact same way Nathan Drake manages to beat people who are way stronger than himself too.

 

[The Deadpool]

Where does she claim that?

Tell you what, what do YOU think her argument is?

"help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women."

Well, evidently, feminsts and "social justice warriors" are simply a vocal minority, so isn't that the case?

Where? Every article, every news outlet, every public figure. Developers, TV personalities, journalists, bloggers... When did this become the vocal minority?

1) Um, no, just no. Thombsson argued that playing violent video-games would actually CAUSE people to become violent. There is nothing even remotely similar about that and the argument that sexist tropes reflects and continues sexist mindsets in real life.

I'm confused. Are you saying we don't have pre existing violence tendencies from the past eons, or that Anita's argument doesn't draw a causality line between the media we digest and our treatment of women.

The ability to make someone think about something, like an idea or a social issue is the very basis for something to be considered "high art".

Make me think about something and making me act immorally are two widely different things. Or do you blame Sallinger for every murder when the culprit is found with The Catcher In The Rye in his hands? Are we still blaming the Quran for terrorist acts?

Or is literature no longer "high art" because it doesn't make me think about things?

I think the thing most people have issues with is her damsel argument. Her women as non-important background or sex toys is generally seen more favorably.

Yes and no. She certainly has stronger ground here, but her lack of experience in gaming shows.

She continually compares NPCs to PCs and finds them wanting. A large portion of her background video "problems" with how these women are treated are a function of them being NPCs and not WOMEN.

Remember, the problem shouldn't be women being treated poorly, it should be women being treated DIFFERENTLY.

Stop simplifying things. Media influences people in different ways. It should be rather obvious that if media has an influence, it's not all going to influence in the same direction. Positive images or positive messages can have positive influences; that doesn't somehow mean that negative images and messages cannot have negative influences.

Right. But the argument, as presented, is that video games' effect on gender relations nets noticeably negative.

Considering gender relations has improved as exposure to video games has increased, one has to wonder where the evidence is coming from.

No, that's not my train of thinking. It does not follow that somebody who believes games can influence behaviour must believe that they "make people more violent", or that they "lead to extra assaults and death". That's just reductionist on an almost absurd scale.

Remember, this isn't about YOUR argument as YOU put for-- Well, you haven't put it forth, just believed it in your head.

Regardless, this is HER argument (and his) as it presents itself. Although I have to ask: If it doesn't influence behavior in any meaningful way, why should we care? If it does, and causes deaths, why shouldn't we regulate it?

Uhrm, well, yes. There's quite a meaningful difference between advocating censorship and not advocating censorship.

Not when talking of the validity of the premise that LEADS to censoring.

If I believe the sky is pink, it doesn't matter if I think we should live it with, or if we should dance naked at noon to worship it, or if we should spend a million dollars to fly rockets up there and paint it blue again: The basic premise is wrong, what I think we should do about it is IRRELEVANT.

As for the media, I'd agree the response was bad. It was covered [http://www.gamespot.com/articles/rumor-control-update-bush-bros-in-madden-x05-lands-in-amsterdam-revolution-picsagain/1100-6130286/] in a couple [http://archive.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2005/11/69404] of places [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/04/men-are-harassed-more-than-women-online.html], though.

Yes. It was reported. Often as a matter of fact (while still sneaking in negative information on him). Sometimes in jest. Especially the Mortal Kombat mod that let you play against him.

Compare it to the reporting on Anita's harassment. For giggles compare it to the treatment of the rudimentary flash game where you punch her. Do I have to find links?

The difference is astounding.

The depressing thing is, you know who actually treat them the same are the terrible people who SENT the damned death threats. Or sure, Sarkeesian likes the narrative that this is all some anti woman, "get out of our games!" thing. But for all the vitrol Sarkeesian, Quinn, Wu and the like got, it's not like Thompson, Ebert or Vonderhaar had it any better. The media just didn't care as much... Nor did they.

 

[Farther than stars]

You know what
here
I feel this was a much better and hell much more interesting attempt to analyze things.
And better yet I feel pretty fucking hopeful about the game industry then when I've had the misfortune to watch Anita's regurgitation.

An interesting perspective, but I would still say it's ultimately flawed, for the following reason: all the analysis is based on what the characters of Peach and Zelda are 'in the game', essentially on how great they are. But we're not talking about overt sexism where women are placed in a negative light for misogynistic reasons, but on a subversive sexism based on how the player perceives the character (essentially, the developers' design is more important than the product of that design). I'm sure that fictionally speaking Princesses Peach and Zelda are very much appreciated within their own kingdoms, but this does not change the fact that most important piece of information being relayed to the player is that the princesses are objectives on the hero's journey (from a gaming point of view). In the over-aching perspective offered to the player, the back story is really a fairly minor factor in the game (not unexpectedly, considering these games developed from a stage in gaming where stories were generally considered to be fairly trivial to gaming).
Also, the video to which you give a link seems to imply that Sarkeesian herself believes these characters to be inferior, which is not the case. When she refers to them as 'property', she's doing this as a hyperbole to illustrate the way in which the character is treated by developers, who merely use the princess as a plot device, instead of a character in her own right. Sarkeesian's also not saying that women are inferior for being victims but making this the most ubiquitous aspect of their character is problematic.

 

[Silvanus]

Right. But the argument, as presented, is that video games' effect on gender relations nets noticeably negative.

Considering gender relations has improved as exposure to video games has increased, one has to wonder where the evidence is coming from.

A correlation as simple as that is unlikely to be particularly meaningful. There are a million other factors, including all other (quite probably more influential) forms of media.

Even so, an improvement does not mean everything is okay. It means it's better than it was. And since it was utterly shite before, that's not necessarily saying much.

Remember, this isn't about YOUR argument as YOU put for-- Well, you haven't put it forth, just believed it in your head.

Tell me what my belief is. I imagine it isn't actually my belief.

Regardless, this is HER argument (and his) as it presents itself. Although I have to ask: If it doesn't influence behavior in any meaningful way, why should we care? If it does, and causes deaths, why shouldn't we regulate it?

It's not their argument as it presents itself. It is being misrepresented, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes, I suspect, intentionally.

As for your question; it's not an either-or between insignificant influence or direct causation. That is, once again, reductionist. It could be a contributory factor without directly causing anything.

For example; an individual who makes a rude pass at a woman is responsible for his own actions. That action was not caused by their watching James Bond the night before. However, if they've read those books and watched those films alongside a hundred other examples throughout their lifetime, portraying rudeness and misogyny as the actions of a hero, then we may have a contributory factor. The media did not make him do it. Nor is the media necessarily insignificant. That's the nature of media.

Not when talking of the validity of the premise that LEADS to censoring.

If I believe the sky is pink, it doesn't matter if I think we should live it with, or if we should dance naked at noon to worship it, or if we should spend a million dollars to fly rockets up there and paint it blue again: The basic premise is wrong, what I think we should do about it is IRRELEVANT.

Uh-huh, but we've not established that the premise is wrong.

Yes. It was reported. Often as a matter of fact (while still sneaking in negative information on him). Sometimes in jest. Especially the Mortal Kombat mod that let you play against him.

Compare it to the reporting on Anita's harassment. For giggles compare it to the treatment of the rudimentary flash game where you punch her. Do I have to find links?

The difference is astounding.

The depressing thing is, you know who actually treat them the same are the terrible people who SENT the damned death threats. Or sure, Sarkeesian likes the narrative that this is all some anti woman, "get out of our games!" thing. But for all the vitrol Sarkeesian, Quinn, Wu and the like got, it's not like Thompson, Ebert or Vonderhaar had it any better. The media just didn't care as much... Nor did they.

The response was quite different, as I've agreed. This may be because threats against Thompson, I've read, were primarily in private emails, rather than the very public nature of the ones on Twitter and other public forums against Sarkeesian. Examples are far more forthcoming.

Plus, it would be remiss to ignore the highly sexual nature of a lot of the stuff thrown at Sarkeesian.

 

[Farther than stars]

[The] argument, as presented, is that video games' effect on gender relations nets noticeably negative.

Considering gender relations has improved as exposure to video games has increased, one has to wonder where the evidence is coming from.

Regarding the first sentence, I don't think I've ever seen empirically back-up research that could demonstrate net the net results of anything. That's just the nature of social science. There are far too many variables involved to create strong causal links between anything. In the case of sexism, that might be a good thing. At the point that some people can claim that they can objectively make statements about sexism and therefor solve it, that takes away the legitimacy of criticism from people who might still be harmed under what is perceived to be perfect egalitarianism. In that sense, Sarkeesian's qualitative (that is to say, non-experimental, non-numeric) methods might not be ideal, but at least her actions still fulfill this basic social function of criticism.
Regarding the second sentence, this is not a scientific statement either. Because it's subject to a possible ecological fallacy, it's not sufficient to disprove Sarkeesian's hypotheses. To give you an example, it's still possible that gender equality increases because of other factors but is held back in achieving its fullest potential by portrayals of women in video games (among other things). So you see, net advantage would not necessarily entail the non-existence of a negative relation between video games and gender equality (at least not in a meaningful, numerically scientific way).

 

[Farther than stars]

The response was quite different, as I've agreed. This may be because threats against Thompson, I've read, were primarily in private emails, rather than the very public nature of the ones on Twitter and other public forums against Sarkeesian. Examples are far more forthcoming.

Plus, it would be remiss to ignore the highly sexual nature of a lot of the stuff thrown at Sarkeesian.

I suspect that an even more crucial issue is the fact that the object being criticized is something that people love, so most gamers just have this gut reaction of dismay. Together, her critics form a loose campaign against Sarkeesian, in time even with its own slogans as an excuse for an incomplete or incoherent argumentation (analogous to gun lobbyists in the U.S.: "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun") The whole process is very irrational, in both the cases of Thompson and Sarkeesian, but you couldn't really notice it during the Thompson campaign, because he was motivated by his own sociopolitical irrationality. At least Sarkeesian is trying to engage in a meaningful dialogue.

 

[Belaam]

1$ is the US equivalent, love. ... But this isn't about the financial situation, because I just told you how much they get paid.

$1 USD in the US is not equal to $1 USD in the UK is not equal to $1 USD in Mexico is not equal to $1 USD in India. Heck, even within the U.S., $1 will get you vastly different amounts of food in Alaska or California. You've given me a context free number. After doing your research for you, it looks like a loaf of bread in Mauritius goes for $0.43 USD. So about 30 minutes of work for a loaf of bread. There's currently a push in some US states to raise the minimum wage to $10 and hour. A basic loaf of bread will be around $2. So that's 15 minutes of work for the same amount/type of food. Not great, but far better than most of humanity, sadly.

As a feminist, how do you feel about the fact that these women are living in poor living conditions and being paid extremely poor wages? that is not equal rights.

As a feminist, you haven't shown me that there's inequality between the sexes, so I have no opinion on it as a feminist problem as you haven't demonstrated there to be one. As a Marxist, I think global financial inequality is a big problem.

I asked you how you felt that a shirt with such controversy is approved by women, because you said feminism is completely open to analysis and has been going on for hundreds of years. I'm asking you, a feminist, your thoughts.

Ah. Okay. I feel like it was used as a political gotcha and to catch headlines. Most clothing in developed countries is made in less developed countries by workers who are paid the bare minimum to ensure they show up for work the next day. Again though, this is a Marxist issue, not a Feminist issue. If men are being paid $2 an hour to make these clothes and women are being paid $1 an hour to make these clothes, THEN it becomes a feminist issue. But you're simply not giving me enough details to determine if this is a feminist issue.

 

[FenchurchSt]

Thank you for calling "gamer identity" absurd - "gamer" is one of the most useless labels in existence and absolutely does not do justice to the diversity of 'those who play (video) games'.

The label may mean nothing to you, but who are you to decide that others shouldn't be allowed to define themselves as a ''gamer''? Lots of people refer to themselves based on things they're a fan of: metalheads, Little Monsters, geeks, bronies. ''Gamer'' is hardly an anomaly, and this is coming from someone who has no attachment to the label.

I feel like the gaming community used to be so positive and now I can't say anything without someone assuming something about me or watching people take sides over stupid things.

I don't know. I've been frequenting gaming forums for well over 10 years and found it every bit as unpleasant back then. For example: talking about how much I loved The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time would earn sneering dismissal from devoted Link to the Past fans; and you can bet that any fan of Final Fantasy VII will have had a ''Lemme guess, it was your first RPG'' accusation flung at them.

So yeah, I don't understand what some people are on about when they say Gamergate ''gave the community a bad name''. It's always been unpleasant, long before Gamer Gate, long before Anita Sarkeesian and long before Jack Thompson even.

I understand what you mean, but at the same time, I found it easier to open the channel of discussion back when people would only assume I was ugly as opposed to some sort of feminist conspirator or something just for being a girl. People have become so incensed lately I just want to hide from the community. This goes far beyond shaming people's taste in games (I know snootiness has always been around) but active hatred is by far another thing entirely.

 

[Jaytr13]

1$ is the US equivalent, love. ... But this isn't about the financial situation, because I just told you how much they get paid.

$1 USD in the US is not equal to $1 USD in the UK is not equal to $1 USD in Mexico is not equal to $1 USD in India. Heck, even within the U.S., $1 will get you vastly different amounts of food in Alaska or California. You've given me a context free number. After doing your research for you, it looks like a loaf of bread in Mauritius goes for $0.43 USD. So about 30 minutes of work for a loaf of bread. There's currently a push in some US states to raise the minimum wage to $10 and hour. A basic loaf of bread will be around $2. So that's 15 minutes of work for the same amount/type of food. Not great, but far better than most of humanity, sadly.

So, you don't believe in feminist issues such as the "gender pay gap" in workplace discrimination because of a supposed male dominated patriarchy?

As a feminist, how do you feel about the fact that these women are living in poor living conditions and being paid extremely poor wages? that is not equal rights.

As a feminist, you haven't shown me that there's inequality between the sexes, so I have no opinion on it as a feminist problem as you haven't demonstrated there to be one. As a Marxist, I think global financial inequality is a big problem.

Well, I don't know if you realized but Marxism and feminism already go hand-in-hand here. It's called Marxist Feminism, and it is focused on how women are supposedly oppressed through capitalism and other such things. It's kind of redundant to refer to yourself as two separate things that correlate with each other.

What merits you to believe, in general that there is no female discrimination i Mauritius just because I haven't told you? this is the first story I've ever heard come out of a place I haven't even know about until now. I don't follow feminism, you do. I'm just debating it.

Ah. Okay. I feel like it was used as a political gotcha and to catch headlines. Most clothing in developed countries is made in less developed countries by workers who are paid the bare minimum to ensure they show up for work the next day.

Really? I thought people were paid less in poor third world countries because they're first world countries like America's cheap labor solution and they're willing to work for less because of whatever reason or cause in that country that would allow it.

 

[Farther than stars]

Ah. Okay. I feel like it was used as a political gotcha and to catch headlines. Most clothing in developed countries is made in less developed countries by workers who are paid the bare minimum to ensure they show up for work the next day. Again though, this is a Marxist issue, not a Feminist issue. If men are being paid $2 an hour to make these clothes and women are being paid $1 an hour to make these clothes, THEN it becomes a feminist issue. But you're simply not giving me enough details to determine if this is a feminist issue.

It is a feminist issue. Even in Western countries that strive to be egalitarian, there is still a sizable wage gap between men and women and this doesn't disappear in disadvantaged economies. In this instance, Marxism and feminism might overlap (Marxist feminism), since one of the main reasons for the wage gap purportedly involves women choosing low-paid jobs. But then the question remains: why does society value that type of work at a lower salary? Marxist feminism gives the answer that a patriarchal society organizes socioeconomic class structures along gender lines.

 

[itsmeyouidiot]

Unrelated, but one thing that's been annoying me lately is how the anti-Anita crowd have been saying that her not "being able to name three games" on Colbert was some kind of smoking gun. I've been seeing it come up a lot with Thunderf00t's fans and it strikes me as a really weak way of saying "she doesn't know games" even though it doesn't really prove anything at all.

It kind of strikes me as similar to those creationists who jumped on the 11-second pause in a Richard Dawkins. It's grasping at straws hoping that it'll actually mean something.

 

[The Deadpool]

A correlation as simple as that is unlikely to be particularly meaningful. There are a million other factors, including all other (quite probably more influential) forms of media.

Which again, begs the question: What kind of evidence does one have that any effect at all is happening?

Even so, an improvement does not mean everything is okay. It means it's better than it was. And since it was utterly shite before, that's not necessarily saying much.

Tell me what my belief is. I imagine it isn't actually my belief.

Neither of this have anything to do with what I said.

It's not their argument as it presents itself. It is being misrepresented, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes, I suspect, intentionally.

"Nuh-huh!" is a poor counter. Please present both of their arguments for a compare and contrast.

Nor is the media necessarily insignificant.

It kinda is.

Look, Smurfs didn't create Communists. Dungeons & Dragons didn't create a group of easily lead automatons. We don't blame A Catcher in the Rye for murders.

EVERY piece of media goes through this: Someone finds some hot button issue, finds some tenuous connection to current extra popular media and blame it on it while declaring themselves somehow immune to its magical, civilization destroying powers. Then arguing goes round and round. Sometimes we get self censorship, sometimes we get government censorship, sometimes we just keep on arguing but sooner or later it ends with a bunch of us just looking back going "wow, were they silly back then!"

The response was quite different, as I've agreed. This may be because threats against Thompson, I've read, were primarily in private emails, rather than the very public nature of the ones on Twitter and other public forums against Sarkeesian. Examples are far more forthcoming.

Considering most of her threats are deleted first, then screen shots handed, by her, to the media... Not that different. Check out the first wave of articles if you doubt me.

Of course, Vonderharr's harassment was on TWITER. Very public. I don't blame you for forgetting him though... Not a whole lot of report on it.

Plus, it would be remiss to ignore the highly sexual nature of a lot of the stuff thrown at Sarkeesian.

It's not like the men didn't get anything sexual tossed at them either, just different nature.

Look, these people are out to hurt. They aim it towards whatever seems to hurt that person most. Thompson gets insulted with age, lack of virility, useless career. Vonderharr gets it about his spouse and child. Sarkeesian, as a feminist, gets it over gender issues.

Most of this isn't about what they hate. It's about what's going to hurt the target.

So you see, net advantage would not necessarily entail the non-existence of a negative relation between video games and gender equality (at least not in a meaningful, numerically scientific way).

But if as negative exposure increases, negative results DECREASES, it shows that any effect, if real, is negligible. Perhaps existent, but small enough as to not matter.

 

[Kameburger]

Unrelated, but one thing that's been annoying me lately is how the anti-Anita crowd have been saying that her not "being able to name three games" on Colbert was some kind of smoking gun. I've been seeing it come up a lot with Thunderf00t's fans and it strikes me as a really weak way of saying "she doesn't know games" even though it doesn't really prove anything at all.

It kind of strikes me as similar to those creationists who jumped on the 11-second pause in a Richard Dawkins. It's grasping at straws hoping that it'll actually mean something.

I think at this point anything Anita does is going to be co-opted by her supporters and her detractors pretty equally at this point. I have also heard this point used to champion her as being above this sort of question for not "demeaning the problem to some trivial list."

Her detractors have used gone through some effort to discredit her in regards to her as a gamer, to try and show her to be an outsider who had already passed judgement on the culture and the industry before she ever entered it. In this case their "smoking gun was her pretty much a video of her speaking in front of a classroom uttering something like, "I don't really play video games but you can see [XYZ...]."

In all honesty I would be much more interested to see Anita name 3 games that are not negative under her definition. But that's probably would be pointless at this stage. I think the politicization of Games in this case has reached a point of no return where now battle lines are drawn and regardless of the validity of points prejudices will remain and every thing anyone says on the subject will be cherry picked misconstrued and molested in various ways to suit either sides narrative.

 

[Aggieknight]

Well said, Bob.
(not that you'd read down to comment 460 with all the mess that people have thrown up on this video)

Jack Thompson was a political hack and he's been successfully banished.

Calling someone a SJW is just the next iteration of the tired (but yet partially successful) ploy to to one's "opponents" into caricatures and then tear them down, ala "feminazi" (Rush Limbaugh) and the vilification of words like "liberal" and "progressive".

Note - I'm not singling out conservative leaners, that's just all that comes to mind at 5AM before my flight while I sit in an airport...

 

[Silverspetz]

I'm confused. Are you saying we don't have pre existing violence tendencies from the past eons, or that Anita's argument doesn't draw a causality line between the media we digest and our treatment of women.

We do have pre-existing violent tendencies, and most of them are tied into our cultural preconceptions of manhood and masculinity. It is "manly" to be physically strong or to engage in fights for example.

And no, Anita does not draw a causality line between media consumption and our treatment women. She draws up the RELATIONSHIP between the two by pointing out how preexisting trends create stereotypes and how these stereotypes then feed the trends that spawned them. She is arguing that these stereotypes CONTINUE negative trends and thinking in real life, not that they CAUSE them. The diference between those two things CANNOT be overstated.

Make me think about something and making me act immorally are two widely different things. Or do you blame Sallinger for every murder when the culprit is found with The Catcher In The Rye in his hands? Are we still blaming the Quran for terrorist acts?

Or is literature no longer "high art" because it doesn't make me think about things?

This is an irrelevant rhetoric because Saarkeesian has never blamed any specific game for the violent or sexist acts committed by anyone. She is only arguing that games (just like any media) can affect the ways people think (which is true for all art) and are therefore subject to criticism when the ideas presented within them are harmful or otherwise questionable. I am not BLAMING any work of literature for something it's fan base does just because I say that I think it's ideas are bad. This is something that gamers DESPERATELY need to learn. No one is calling anyone a misogynist because they like to play game with sexist subtexts, and no one blames the game when the one playing it does something genuinely sexist like threatening a female media-critic with rape. It DOES however prove the point said critic was making about sexist trends being very prominent in the gaming community, which is where the tropes that she criticizes comes from.