The Great Debate

[Mr F.]

I am using the term "Academic" to mean "Someone who has a BA and has taught other humans a subject". Its a very broad definition which would catch people like my sister within it, but it works.

And, on those levels, no you are not equipped to respond. I love it when people state "Bias" and then use utterly asinine examples. But whatever, it is midnight.

Have you read any Butler? Honestly, I think before anyone can have an "Opinion" on this matter they should go and do at least the most basic, entry level reading on the subject.

Tell me, do they teach about using statistical inference on these courses to quantify bias and test hypotheses?

Yes. They do. I know that was an attack based on the whole "Social sciences are not really sciences" but, where possible, empirical evidence IS used within the social sciences. It is actually rather infuriating, having to wade through statistics and come up with ways that test things that create oodles of quantitative data to appease others because simply talking to people and inferring shit from what they say is frowned upon. However, within the fields of Sociology and Psychology, statistics are used where possible to back up results. Correlation has to be at a level above 99.5% for a statement to be considered vindicated. However, when one is talking about theories such as gender and identity, statistics are much harder to come by because what you are talking about is not quantitative, it is qualitative in nature.

Again I will advise you to read the literature before making a statement. Or at least point out to me at what point she quote statistics or make any ABSOLUTE claims on numbers. Because I am rather sick of the generic complaints that are far more in-substantiated then her own arguments.

Or is your statement now that anything without hard statistical backing is invalid? Any form of philosophy prior to the Empirical movement would like to have a word. Or is it just an attack, thinly veiled, on anyone who chooses to study Sociology, Gender and Womens Studies or similar?

You'd have a point if it weren't for the fact that Anita Sarkeesian hadn't disabled the comments' sections on all her videos well before she was the target of any particular internet ire. Not to mention that she also disabled her ratings (can't justify that with your argument.) Also there's the fact that she is under no obligation to pay her comments' section the slightest bit of attention if she's too frail to read mean words.

If "I hope u get raped, lol" sends you into a tizzy then you are much too thin-skinned to be on the internet and I speak that as a person who is a victim of rape.

Really? You say that as one who has been raped? Speaking as one who was almost raped and dated a rape victim for 9 months, seeing stuff like that does upset me. It upsets me for many, many reasons and choosing to avoid it is nice. Hell, I am actually behind her disabling the comments sections because it means that if I scroll down whilst bored I will not end up reading it.

I would really, really like to know why it matters so much that she got rid of the comment sections. Very little of value is ever said on YT comments, considering the abuse she gets here (Which is a significantly more moderate community then YT comments usually are), and all the discussion about her videos is taking place in forums or the real world. Nobody who matters, at all, will only say what they have to say on Youtube. As for ratings, the ratings would get bombed. So again, no point.

So to recap:
95%+ of the comments would be sexist crap
99.95%+ of the ratings would be review bombing.
Nothing of value has been lost.
People casually stating that they hope other humans get raped is utterly, utterly foul. Calling for others to have thick skin and soak up abuse for NO REASON other then "You should be able to take more abuse" when they can very, very easily avoid it (What you are currently asking her to do) is foul.

 

[Johkmil]

There is absolutely no obligation for her, or anyone else, to allow comments and/or ratings on their YouTube videos. YouTube comments are not in any way a human right, they are a mere bonus, a privilege given by the content creator. Debating whether her disabling is right or wrong is pointless, there's a whole world wide web of easily available fora in which one can pour one's heart out on how wrong or right Anita Sarkeesian might be.

 

[Kinokohatake]

Oh God, this is so true! Youtube is likely the largest collection of stupid people on the internet.

I beg to disagree, dumb YouTube commenters are the second largest group on the net. The largest collection of moronic, off topic and just plain stupid comment posters online would have to go to the folks that post on MSNbc.

MSNBC is bad but nothing compared to the Blaze or Fox News comments. OT, there is no reason to make youtube comments available. It's an extra feature that is useless at best, horrifying at worst.

 

[wizzy555]

I am using the term "Academic" to mean "Someone who has a BA and has taught other humans a subject". Its a very broad definition which would catch people like my sister within it, but it works.

And, on those levels, no you are not equipped to respond. I love it when people state "Bias" and then use utterly asinine examples. But whatever, it is midnight.

Have you read any Butler? Honestly, I think before anyone can have an "Opinion" on this matter they should go and do at least the most basic, entry level reading on the subject.

Tell me, do they teach about using statistical inference on these courses to quantify bias and test hypotheses?

Yes. They do. I know that was an attack based on the whole "Social sciences are not really sciences" but, where possible, empirical evidence IS used within the social sciences. It is actually rather infuriating, having to wade through statistics and come up with ways that test things that create oodles of quantitative data to appease others because simply talking to people and inferring shit from what they say is frowned upon. However, within the fields of Sociology and Psychology, statistics are used where possible to back up results. Correlation has to be at a level above 99.5% for a statement to be considered vindicated. However, when one is talking about theories such as gender and identity, statistics are much harder to come by because what you are talking about is not quantitative, it is qualitative in nature.

Again I will advise you to read the literature before making a statement. Or at least point out to me at what point she quote statistics or make any ABSOLUTE claims on numbers. Because I am rather sick of the generic complaints that are far more in-substantiated then her own arguments.

Or is your statement now that anything without hard statistical backing is invalid? Any form of philosophy prior to the Empirical movement would like to have a word. Or is it just an attack, thinly veiled, on anyone who chooses to study Sociology, Gender and Womens Studies or similar?

It was a question, not an attack. I am aware of the varying epistemological theories and the limitations of quantitative analysis. I would advise you to be less sensitive.

If you want citation where Anita uses stats (or doesn't use stats) then look in her thesis appendix, where she attempts a quantitative analysis and presents a false conclusion. I was trying to ascertain if she hasn't used it because it isn't taught.

 

[Mr F.]

I am using the term "Academic" to mean "Someone who has a BA and has taught other humans a subject". Its a very broad definition which would catch people like my sister within it, but it works.

And, on those levels, no you are not equipped to respond. I love it when people state "Bias" and then use utterly asinine examples. But whatever, it is midnight.

Have you read any Butler? Honestly, I think before anyone can have an "Opinion" on this matter they should go and do at least the most basic, entry level reading on the subject.

Tell me, do they teach about using statistical inference on these courses to quantify bias and test hypotheses?

Yes. They do. I know that was an attack based on the whole "Social sciences are not really sciences" but, where possible, empirical evidence IS used within the social sciences. It is actually rather infuriating, having to wade through statistics and come up with ways that test things that create oodles of quantitative data to appease others because simply talking to people and inferring shit from what they say is frowned upon. However, within the fields of Sociology and Psychology, statistics are used where possible to back up results. Correlation has to be at a level above 99.5% for a statement to be considered vindicated. However, when one is talking about theories such as gender and identity, statistics are much harder to come by because what you are talking about is not quantitative, it is qualitative in nature.

Again I will advise you to read the literature before making a statement. Or at least point out to me at what point she quote statistics or make any ABSOLUTE claims on numbers. Because I am rather sick of the generic complaints that are far more in-substantiated then her own arguments.

Or is your statement now that anything without hard statistical backing is invalid? Any form of philosophy prior to the Empirical movement would like to have a word. Or is it just an attack, thinly veiled, on anyone who chooses to study Sociology, Gender and Womens Studies or similar?

It was a question, not an attack. I am aware of the varying epistemological theories and the limitations of quantitative analysis. I would advise you to be less sensitive.

If you want citation where Anita uses stats (or doesn't use stats) then look in her thesis appendix, where she attempts a quantitative analysis and presents a false conclusion. I was trying to ascertain if she hasn't used it because it isn't taught.

Sorry, I catch a lot of flakk for my degree. Most of my friends are either hard scientists, historians or engineers. And, well, its taught, its used, but its not necessarily necessary. I write 2500+ word essays that do not contain a single statistic or, alternatively, 2500+ word essays that are two thirds statistical analyses. It really depends on the essay. I do wonder why you are bringing it up because at no point in the current series is statistics needed. It seems rather irrelevant. Whether or not she analysed statistics wrong (In your eyes, at least) is rather irrelevant, she obviously analysed them well enough to pass. I do not know how well and I do not know why that matters. That said, perhaps she did a different aspect of sociology, I mean I am going into research to prepare myself for the MA course I want to do in sociological research (As in, becoming a trained researcher) so I bounce off statistics more often then some.

And with regards to her thesis? Again, I ask for the relevance. My siblings MA thesis has very few similarities to their PhD thesis and even fewer with the book she is writing. I hope that after I am done with my thesis I will continue to improve, much like my sibling is improving, and will produce better work.

Lets try and keep this discussion about the video series.

 

[wizzy555]

Sorry, I catch a lot of flakk for my degree. Most of my friends are either hard scientists, historians or engineers. And, well, its taught, its used, but its not necessarily necessary. I write 2500+ word essays that do not contain a single statistic or, alternatively, 2500+ word essays that are two thirds statistical analyses. It really depends on the essay. I do wonder why you are bringing it up because at no point in the current series is statistics needed. It seems rather irrelevant. Whether or not she analysed statistics wrong (In your eyes, at least) is rather irrelevant, she obviously analysed them well enough to pass. I do not know how well and I do not know why that matters. That said, perhaps she did a different aspect of sociology, I mean I am going into research to prepare myself for the MA course I want to do in sociological research (As in, becoming a trained researcher) so I bounce off statistics more often then some.

And with regards to her thesis? Again, I ask for the relevance. My siblings MA thesis has very few similarities to their PhD thesis and even fewer with the book she is writing. I hope that after I am done with my thesis I will continue to improve, much like my sibling is improving, and will produce better work.

Lets try and keep this discussion about the video series.

Well I do get somewhat considered when people are pointing out social trends without statistics, although certainly there are cases when it is not applicable.

In her thesis she attempts to identify racism (and homophobia) in science fiction by comparing the number of female characters that die based on their race, the numbers actually slow a lack of discernable racism but she claims otherwise. This doesn't necessarily prove everything she says is academically invalid (and certainly not the whole field in general), but I do think it does highlight the dangers of self deception in these issues.

Anyway, you asked for a genuine academic criticism of her work and there it is. I'm not qualified to comment on the other aspects.

 

[DTWolfwood]

I wholly expected it to be disabled but she even got rid of the like or dislike. That would have got her featured!

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Holy goosefucks

My sentiments exactly. LOOK WHAT YOU'VE STARTED!!!

My mind has seriously been blown by this. I just don't understand how people can care about YouTube comments and it's fucking rating system. Did anybody know that the escapist doesn't have a rating system!?. Gasp! How can I tell Grey that I agree with him with without a green thumb up? Oh wait. I'm doing it right now. Turning a debate into a competition for the most up votes and likes is stupid. It's not a debate anymore, it's a poll. You all know what would have happened if she kept the comments and ratings so why bullshit yourselves.

Also, disabling the comments doesn't only disable the dissenting options but also the options of people who agree with you. It seems like a fair trade to me

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

You're missing the point there; deliberately I expect. Peer reviews require people from the same field with a reputation to uphold.

So only people who make shitty youtube videos are qualified to comment on her videos is what you are saying? Or is it women? Or women and white knights? Or what is her peer group that is allowed to be peer review her videos?

Because she claims to be a gamer, that makes gamers her peers.

For the love of Christ. THIS IS WHY EVERY ONE ON THIS THREAD NEEDS TO STOP SAYING PEER REVIEW!!

You can't peer review someone's opinion. To try and call criticism the same thing as a "peer review" is the stupidest thing I've read. It implies you can give or take away legitimacy to an opinion in a purely factual way. She can't be peer reviewed because these peers people keep mentioning don't exist

 

[The Deadpool]

I think the youtube commenters being idiots thing is blown a bit out of proportion. I find the percentage of idiots to be relatively small.

In Ana's case, she disables comments in ALL her videos... Except for the one that would make her money. In that case she took a few choice AWFUL comments and paraded it around as proof of how everyone hated her for her Kickstarter and managed to make an inordinate amount of money to continue doing exactly what she has always done.

Someone took a picture of said comments. Out of the first two hundred or so comments the grand majority were NOT offensive. Maybe 15% awful, 10% mindless and the rest either agreeing with her or reasonably disagreeing with her.

Overall I find it counter productive. If you aren't trying to start discussion then why are you making the video? I mean, you DO know you don't HAVE to read all the comments right? You could just ignore it and let the people who see it discuss it amongst themselves if reading stupid and awful things truly offends you that much...

 

[Iridium Dawn]

First, it implies that anyone who makes a video is honor-bound to lend their credibility and popularity to the opposing argument, they are not.

How are you lending your credibility and popularity to the opposing argument by enabling youtube comments?

Because it can create a false equivalency between the comments and the arguments being made in the video. It's why Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn't debate astrologers or Richard Dawkins doesn't debate creationists: putting some idiot like Ken Hamm on stage with Dawkins makes it seem like Hamm has something of value to contribute to a discussion of evolution. Obviously, he does not. For Anita, regardless of whether you agree with her or not, she's not engaging in the same sort of harassment as some of the people in the Youtube comments. Allowing the comments only enables those trolls to harass a greater a number of people. People with something constructive to say have had no real avenues to speak cut off. Grey pointed many of those out.

Numerous people have said it already, but nobody on Youtube is obliged to allow comments, votes, favorites, or anything else. They can disable those features for whatever reason they choose, and it's not censorship.

But really, let's cut to the chase. She can't win, can she? If she enables comments, then she enables an environment where people can threaten her or others with absolutely no repercussions, and where it's easy to create a mountain of turds that swamp anything of value in the comments. If she doesn't, then she's a "coward or a hypocrite", "weak", or any of that other horsecrap. If there's comment moderation, she can be accused of only allowing the comments that agree with her or whatever ludicrous conspiracy theory fits the bill. But if she enables comments and doesn't read them, then she's not responding to dissent, is she?

There is no situation that allows her to meet the standards people have been talking about in this thread.

 

[Mr F.]

Sorry, I catch a lot of flakk for my degree. Most of my friends are either hard scientists, historians or engineers. And, well, its taught, its used, but its not necessarily necessary. I write 2500+ word essays that do not contain a single statistic or, alternatively, 2500+ word essays that are two thirds statistical analyses. It really depends on the essay. I do wonder why you are bringing it up because at no point in the current series is statistics needed. It seems rather irrelevant. Whether or not she analysed statistics wrong (In your eyes, at least) is rather irrelevant, she obviously analysed them well enough to pass. I do not know how well and I do not know why that matters. That said, perhaps she did a different aspect of sociology, I mean I am going into research to prepare myself for the MA course I want to do in sociological research (As in, becoming a trained researcher) so I bounce off statistics more often then some.

And with regards to her thesis? Again, I ask for the relevance. My siblings MA thesis has very few similarities to their PhD thesis and even fewer with the book she is writing. I hope that after I am done with my thesis I will continue to improve, much like my sibling is improving, and will produce better work.

Lets try and keep this discussion about the video series.

Well I do get somewhat considered when people are pointing out social trends without statistics, although certainly there are cases when it is not applicable.

In her thesis she attempts to identify racism (and homophobia) in science fiction by comparing the number of female characters that die based on their race, the numbers actually slow a lack of discernable racism but she claims otherwise. This doesn't necessarily prove everything she says is academically invalid (and certainly not the whole field in general), but I do think it does highlight the dangers of self deception in these issues.

Anyway, you asked for a genuine academic criticism of her work and there it is. I'm not qualified to comment on the other aspects.

Well, would that not be a criticism leveled purely at her thesis? Having not read it, I cannot comment, but I would assume there was a lot more to it then one level of statistical analyses. However, having not read it, I will refrain from commenting.

I just find it incredibly annoying when people with no understanding of the nuances of social sciences, people who have never even heard of Butler (Seriously, somewhat important with regards to this particular topic) who attack her points despite having no grounding from which to do so. It is, honestly, akin to questioning the laws of gravity without ever having read anything to do with the subject. Or, something less tangible, questioning string theory because "The world is not made of strings you are wrong". That is the level to which it is stupid. Someone with absolutely no understanding of the subject claiming some level of understanding.

And now we get to the crux of the matter, the subject which the webcomic addresses. Youtube comments. You are making that statement here, would you make the same statement, and ask the same question, on youtube? What happened when Rebecca Blacks "Friday" started trending because of how bad it was. It became an avalanche of hatred, comments were posted at an incredible rate, 99.5% of which were just pointless abuse. You know (And, apparently, choose to ignore) that this would be the case, that if those comment sections were open it would simply be a tide of people calling for her to die, get raped, hurling abuse, just saying she is wrong, making racist remarks, insulting her, demeaning her, using foul and sexist language... You get the idea. You KNOW this is the case.

I know one of the reasons she gets some abuse from people here is her videos found their way to /v/ and 4chan promptly was what 4chan is (The fact that its acceptable is foul but thats another topic entirely) and people blame her for how they reacted (Which is utterly stupid, but whatever). If her videos had comments open, that would happen again. Not only would every attempt at rational debate be drowned out by the insults and threats, but fuel would be poured onto the fire that people are claiming does not exist. You would be giving her more interesting followers ammunition, and plenty of it. Hell, slippery slope argument here, but what if an actual REAL news provider grabbed onto it?

"Jewish academic abused for pointing out the inherent sexism in some video games", that would be a BRILLIANT headline for us on, say, the Guardian. It would damage the hobby.

People like to talk about her academic credentials (And claim that she has none). I would state that it is academically dishonest for such people to turn around and then state that her removals of the comments and ratings is "Dishonest" and stifling free speech. You all KNOW that it would just be abuse, that any discussion would be drowned out. You mention statistics and how she misused them. I state that you are willfully ignoring statistics if you claim anything rational would appear from the youtube comments.

The fact of the matter is she is trying to start a discussion about these topics. But she knows it is a discussion better taken to places other then Youtube. If nothing of any value has been lost I fail to see what the issue is.

 

[The Deadpool]

People with something constructive to say have had no real avenues to speak cut off.

And people who feel the need to say something awful and pointless and useless ALSO have had no real avenue to do so cut off.

The thing, by turning off the comment section, you are splitting the discussion. Some people talk about it here, some there, some over there... But differing opinions is what makes discussion valuable. The split diminishes the discussion. And discussion is, theoretically, the whole point OF the video...

 

[The Deadpool]

You all KNOW that it would just be abuse, that any discussion would be drowned out.

Except for the one time she did allow comments. That time it wasn't ALL abuse. Hell, it wasn't even MOSTLY abuse. It was actually most "Yay, this is awesome." and actual discussion.

 

[Darken12]

I pretty much completely agree with Grey and Cory on this one.

Nobody is obligated to enable comments on youtube. Using that as the main thrust of your argument speaks very poorly of your capacity for rational argument and discussion. You're latching onto something tangential to the point they're making in the video in order to avoid having to deal with the contents themselves.

 

[Iridium Dawn]

People with something constructive to say have had no real avenues to speak cut off.

And people who feel the need to say something awful and pointless and useless ALSO have had no real avenue to do so cut off.

The thing, by turning off the comment section, you are splitting the discussion. Some people talk about it here, some there, some over there... But differing opinions is what makes discussion valuable. The split diminishes the discussion. And discussion is, theoretically, the whole point OF the video...

It does split the discussion, but that seems almost unavoidable. Youtube does allow for comment approval (though I think if she took that route people would still ***** about censorship), but it's also globally accessible. The first "Tropes vs Women" video got, what, 1 million+ views? If even 1% of those people commented, that's 10,000 comments to review and approve. That doesn't seem manageable for 1 person. Actually, that doesn't seem manageable for a team of people.

On that note, even with comment approval and moderation, does Youtube's format really allow for a discussion once you hit that kind of response size? I don't really bother with comments sections there, but unless you can change how the comments are presented, they are incredibly disorganized. How do you sift through hundreds, let alone thousands of comments? I mean, we're taking advantage of the Escapist mods and forum structure...

I guess that's why I disagree that splitting the discussion diminishes it. People having the discussion in multiple places only seems like it increases the number of people exposed to the discussion. I feel confident any venue capable of having a decent discussion will guarantee differing opinions get into the mix.

 

[Lieju]

I don't get why she isn't allowing comments. I mean, it's inevitable it would be filled with misogynistic shit, and then she could just point at that and go 'yeah, you're kinda proving my point here'.

I would like to disagree with the premise. Had plenty good quality intellectual debates on youtube comment sections.

How? The character limit is laughably small, it's the thing that always annoys me, and even discussions that have potential to be intellectual get muddled and misunderstood because you have to get your meaning across in such a short message. And you can't post links, can you?

Makes giving references difficult.

The only kind of discussion I really get into on Youtube is small positive stuff, like talking about how my ferret also does this cute thing, or how bunnies are cute but kittens are more adorable.

 

[wizzy555]

Actually I have no problem with her disabling youtube comments. But I am reluctant to hale someone as a great academic just because because they have a degree and some videos on youtube, I'm not sure why I should take her more seriously than say ... moviebob.

That said the abuse is totally unwarranted and unacceptable.

 

[Iridium Dawn]

People with something constructive to say have had no real avenues to speak cut off. Grey pointed many of those out.

1) It is. It doesn't violate free speech but it is censorship.
...
2) Bullshit. Comments are an avenue to speak, and not everyone has a video to make a video response with or has a place that will publish an article.
[From a later response] Or he's looking at on a library computer.
...
3) Honestly no one expects the video makers to respond to comments, especially ones that get a lot of them.
...
4) Allow comments. Not that hard. She says wants to foster dialogue but her actions say otherwise.
...
5) Oh and not all insults are ad hominems. It's only ad hominem if you use it to dismiss arguments. Calling someone a coward isn't ad hominem, saying "they're a coward so they must be wrong" is.

Okay, a couple of responses. Sorry about the formatting and length, Father Time did a couple of posts and I can't make it pretty. I added a 1), 2), etc, before the things I want to address.

Father Time, I think in general you and some others are appealing to some pretty abstract ideals of censorship, free speech, desire for a completely open discussion, and it doesn't seem to get at any of the concrete events that led to Anita disabling comments. The problem with focusing on such abstract ideals is that it becomes easier to point out that they are being selectively applied.

What, exactly, do you want to happen as a result of comments on her videos being enabled? Will enabling comments actually cause those things to happen?

1) Disabling comments is censorship
I will grant you that disabling comments is, in some nebulous way, censorship. I should have said "not MEANINGFUL censorship". Youtube, hell, almost all websites have some limitations on content. An Escapist mod gave somebody earlier in this thread a warning for posting "Agreed". That is by far a more concrete method of censorship. If not allowing comments is a bigger upset than direct censorship, then how are you not taking issue with the basic idea that you can't say whatever you want, whenever you want?

2) Comments as an avenue to speak
Fine. Comments are an avenue for speech. They are not indispensable and everyone DOES has a place that will publish an article. There's WordPress, Blogger, GoogleBlog, WordSpot, BlogPress, FaceTube, YouBook. It's the Internet, there's LOTS, all free. As for the objection that not everyone has a computer, fine. There are people who only have consistent internet access at a library. They still have access to free blogging sites. And if somehow blocking comments is disabling their one avenue for speech, than you might as well say that Anita's videos not being translated into French prevents feedback. It does prevent feedback, but at that point it's not a useful objection and there's a much bigger underlying obstacle you're overlooking.

3) "Honestly no one expects the video makers to respond to comments, especially ones that get a lot of them."
I agree, but saying this contradicts your argument. If people don't expect video makers to respond to comments, then what does it matter if comments are not allowed? If it matters, then what you are actually objecting to is them not providing a forum for discussion. But why should they, if you don't expect them to participate?

4) Fostering dialogue
Her actions don't say otherwise. She posts video that anyone is free to watch and people are free to use any other forum to discuss. By disabling comments, she's turned Youtube into a simple delivery medium, nothing more or less. If that is failing to foster dialogue, so is every book that doesn't have a website and forum.

5) Insults and ad-hominems
No, calling someone a coward is not inherently an ad hominem, but it does imply a character defect that disparages them. It doesn't dismiss their argument but in the absence of actual evidence of cowardice, you're using it to dismiss them.

 

[Iridium Dawn]

Content creators retain the right to accept and dismiss criticism at their own discretion, and do not owe you an explaination. To assume the dismiss your comment out of fear of criticism is impossible to prove. You have no idea what goes on in the minds of content creators, and there can be a hundred thousand reasons they dismissed your comment.

Thank you! That is precisely something I've been trying to say. Except, said concisely.

Not giving someone a forum to speak is not the same thing as censoring them. If it is, that is such a broad definition that the concept of censorship becomes meaningless.