The Great Debate

[Xanex]

Holy goosefucks, I am seeing the words "peer review," "critical analysis" and "YouTube comments" in the same sentence. What planet is this?

Note: People don't seem to understand what a peer review actually is. A peer review is a critical analysis of a given piece of work by someone with relevant experience in the discussed field. You cannot have an anonymous peer review. So unless "DanteUnleashed007" is actually the name on your doctorate, you are not taking part in a peer review.

You seems to have a slightly flawed vision of what "peer" means. Anita doesn't have a docroate so saying only docorates can review her is false. She callers herself a gamer. So gamers ARE her peers.

And lastly. She didn't post this video in a blog, private site or even posted it in anything college related, so when you choose youtube as your pundit to soapbox from then you have chosen your peer group and all that goes with it.

 

[The Wooster]

Sorry Gary, but you're dead wrong about this.

Thanks, Steve. I'll pass that on.

Even if what she does technically qualify as censorship, its incredibly intellectually dishonest

This term does not mean what you think it means.

and pretty much an admission that she, her videos and her opinions are utter bull

Citation very much required. And even if blocking YouTube comments does limit the debate, you're falling prey to this. [https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy]

and she is attempting to shield herself from ANY form of dissent and deny others the ability to easily disprove or argue against her on open ground.

I must have missed the part where Sarkeesian shut down the entire internet, thus preventing anyone from arguing against her. No... wait, there's dozens of response videos, each with thousands of hits.

And your "suggestions" don't any water either. Take me for example; I have no video recording abilities period,

If this is legitimately the case, then congratulations on your ability to access the internet via a potato. You obviously have a computer. You can pick up a microphone for like $2 at a dollar store. That's all you need.

no article publishing websites with any sort of following to which a question might be answered or be used by someone else to meaningfully deconstruct her argument.

Here's the thing a lot of people seem to miss. You are not owed any sort of following. You are not owed an "equal say." You only have as much credibility and klout as you bring to the table. The great thing about the internet is that it provides plenty of venues for actual debates, and you can go from nobody to a respected critical voice entirely under your own power. Don't like Sarkeesian's work? Write a blog post, there's hundreds of thousands of people who want to read that stuff.

The reasoning of "its Youtube" is also bull. Anyone who has gone to college/university, particularly if you studied a more research-orientated field knows that you do not simply prevent commentary or limit conversation

Youtube. Comentary and conversation. Pick one. Anyone who has gone to college/university will tell you that a barely moderated, poorly laid out comments system with a 500 character limit is a terrible forum for any kind of discussion. Pass this message on to at least three of your friends and you'll meet the love of your life. Also, first.

because of "undesirables" - the entire world is essentially "undesirable" when talking about academic matters, but you don't hide from them; you take it on the chin for the cause you're promoting.

And that is all besides the point; we all know the real reasons she blocked comments - because people know she is a fraud and full of BS and she doesn't want to be called out on it.

In order; This [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum] and this. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem]

 

[The Wooster]

You seems to have a slightly flawed vision of what "peer" means. Anita doesn't have a docroate so saying only docorates can review her is false. She callers herself a gamer. So gamers ARE her peers.

And lastly. She didn't post this video in a blog, private site or even posted it in anything college related, so when you choose youtube as your pundit to soapbox from then you have chosen your peer group and all that goes with it.

You're missing the point there; deliberately I expect. Peer reviews require people from the same field with a reputation to uphold. Anyone hiding behind anonymity can't take part in a peer review because their credentials can't be confirmed and they've no reason to remain professional and detached. The doctorate part was me jokingly pointing that out.

Second. Delivery method does not designate a peer group. There are debates about brain surgery on YouTube, does that make us all fit to discuss the ins and outs of brain surgery?

 

[Ragsnstitches]

I see nobody has managed to answer my question yet lol, so I'll ask again:

I see why Anita turned off comments, she wanted to avoid a huge sea of trolls and hurtful comments.

But then why did she turn off ratings?? EXPLAIN THAT.

There is no room for trolls or hurtful comments in ratings, you will only get an idea of how many people agree or disagree - nothing more. So there is no excuse (but please, do explain if you can come up with one).

As I said before, Anita is well-known for only speaking/presenting (or "preaching" as I prefer to call it) in events where feedback or debate isn't allowed. She does this with almost all her content to avoid getting criticism and I'm sick of people defending her bullshit. Her MESSAGE may not be bullshit, but her her PRACTICES certainly are bullshit.

Stop defending her poor practices Cory Rydell and Grey Carter (assuming both of you are responsible for this comic). Maybe I don't feel like uploading a whole fucking video because Anita's work is just not WORTH that much time/effort! Maybe I just want to drop in a rating after I've watched it. Writing some random article somewhere or posting in random forums doesn't have anywhere near the same amount of impact as leaving some form of feedback (if not comments then at least RATINGS) on the video itself.

I heartily disagree with the message in this comic and recommend the editors at least think for a minute before they post stuff like this. I'm not against opinions and stances, but I am against irrational opinions and teaspoon-narrow perspectives - especially coming from the more influential people on sites like these.

Have you ever heard of review bombing, flagging campaigns or heck, even band wagoning? When you have a substantial part of a wider community with an agenda against you as a person, not just the subject you are discussing, expecting to be fairly judged is ludicrously naive.

Look up any video of say, someone criticising Pewdiepie or heck, even satirising him. Now look at their channel and check out some of their videos that are not pewdiepie related. What would you expect to see? There is a proportional similar amount of dislikes across the board on all their videos, regardless of content. Why? Because a community had an agenda to basically rage at them as hard they can.

Normally, when ratings are being made by viewers, the average viewer is not inclined to vote either way unless they feel REALLY strongly about the content. However, doing something controversial will automatically irk some folk simply for existing in opposition to their viewpoint. More often then not, this person won't even acknowledge the content and simply vote in the negative.

Meanwhile, the average viewer who may or may not agree with her, will not vote at all. Because they don't feel compelled to do so.

Ratings on youtube over controversial issues are not representative of the quality or integrity of that video. There is a clear and present "enemy" to anita, who care not for what she has to say, but that she simply has something to say... and that is enough to set them off.

Not to mention there are people who WANT to see her videos flop, because it would reaffirm everything they were preaching before the videos ever existed.

Just as a point of reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DQuVSL8BYQ

I find this guys videos boring, but I stumbled on this one under youtube recommendations. After watching a few minutes I switched off and moved on, not rating either way due to indifference. This is the average users reaction to something they don't actually like. Only fandoms and rage mobs make significant pushes and pulls in ratings.

Anyway, I had enough time to notice the 10,000+ dislikes compared to the 1000+ likes. Clearly the video is just so awful right? Well, no... 100,000+ views. There are 89,000~ unaccounted for opinions.

Ratings offer noting other then to have a button for ragers to press and feel satisfied or for fans to ritualistically click to show their support.

Thinking they represent something more is ludicrous.

 

[The Wooster]

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.

Sure it does. Now let's see some step forward, present their own educational backgrounds and argue under their real names. I'm all for it.

 

[The Wooster]

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.

Sure it does. Now let's see some step forward, present their own educational backgrounds and argue under their real names. I'm all for it.

Could make for an interesting option on youtube "Allow all comments, Allow all comments and force real name to be shown, disallow comments."

That would actually be a really cool system, though Facebook using real names hasn't stopped people from saying some enormously stupid shit. Though at least sometimes they're held accountable for it.

 

[wizzy555]

That would actually be a really cool system, though Facebook using real names hasn't stopped people from saying some enormously stupid shit. Though at least sometimes they're held accountable for it.

Which is why I don't comment through facebook. I don't really want horde of fan boys spamming my employer to get me sacked because I didn't quite agree with something their favourite company did.

 

[furai47]

"Second, it implies YouTube comments contain anything that could remotely be called criticism, they do not."

I call bullshit. If you're not willing to go through more that the top most upvoted comments or at most the first page of what is I would imagine is a thought-provoking topic, given the absolutely massive amounts of discussion gender politics generate, then I can't imagine your comment as it were is anything other than dishonest. Is the 500-character space you're allowed to fill the best way of doing it and if it isn't, is that reason enough to discredit everything that is ever said is those boxes? I very much doubt it is.

 

[Calcium]

I have no problem with disabling comments on the youtube video, in fact I'd say it's a good diea considering the circumstances.

Youtube has a small character limit for replies. Criticism in the form of comments has to be heavily condensed, often not allowing for good criticism when you have to remove most of your words to fit it in a post. I can't even leave criticism on a TotalBiscuit video without having to cut my point down!

Finding valid criticism in a sea of troll comments and people commenting who have already made up their mind before even watching the video is a wasted endeavour.

Not giving viewers full freedoms on a video is not evil. The aforementioned TotalBiscuit is probably pretty popular. He doesn't allow voting up or down of comments on his videos.

As has been stated earlier by others, television/film doesn't have a comments section. Games don't come with a comment section. And yet this site has Moviebob and Yahtzee. If their videos/articles were limited to 500 characters (or whatever the limit is) then next to no one would watch them, even though they'd have the same opinions and criticisms on a movie/game regardless.

What I'm saying in brief is that Youtube doesn't give you the space to actually give constructive criticisms, at least not in the public comments section. The character limit is too restrictive, and leads to "This is good, I agree, lol." or "This sucks, you're an idiot. LOL!" This is a YouTube comments section, not some internet bill like SOPA.

 

[Mr F.]

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.

How about other academics who are also gamers? You know, hit both nails on the head.

I will be here for 30 seconds and then I will leave. I am just going to drop a reading list here, then go and buy more Ramen.

I needed to redownload some of my readings anyway.

Stuart Hall
Judith Butler
Michael Bilig
Benedict Anderson.
Lawler
Goffman

Hell, if you want I could forward you some of my old essays from my first year.

By disabling the comments she did nothing whatsoever. It could be argued that she did people like yourself a favour. If the comment section was live it would be filled the the brim with crap. Like every other Youtube comment section. Anyone with anything to say says it better on other websites. Nothing of value has been lost.

Honestly, I do not think she should have released them through Youtube. At all. Its not the right media for what she is producing. However, she wanted to spread her ideas far and wide so that is the media she chose. Fair enough. But, considering she is trying to come across as a professional (Which she is), doing so would be significantly more difficult with a torrent of abuse beneath every single video.

Same with it being liked or not. It would just get bombed, it serves no purpose on her videos. Neither the comments, nor the like/dislike button, matter whatsoever.

If you have anything to say, say it somewhere other then Youtube. Because if its in the YT comment section, it will just get ignored.

Are you in a position to judge what she has made? No. Not really, No. Are you her "Equal"? No. Are you my equal, with regards to sociology or identity? No. Do you have my understanding of Race/Identity, have you written essays on the subjects. Of course you do not. Most people do not. The average Jo on youtube is just some 14 year old fuckwit.

Out of interest, do you regularly post on Youtube? Out of all the people here, who REGULARLY posts on youtube? Who here actually gives a damn about Youtube?

Hmmm, when I get back from shopping I think I will make a poll/thread about just that.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Why is Ashley trying to feed liquor to a toy dinosaur?

Because that's what the English do.

We feed booze to models of extinct species.

Also robots.

All the English? Or just Ashleys?

Maybe it's just us Ashleys...

I might have to revisit this topic.

I suspect he's just smashed, killing the pain of his parents calling him Ashley.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Why is Ashley trying to feed liquor to a toy dinosaur?

Because that's what the English do.

We feed booze to models of extinct species.

Also robots.

All the English? Or just Ashleys?

Maybe it's just us Ashleys...

I might have to revisit this topic.

I suspect he's just smashed, killing the pain of his parents calling him Ashley.

Please, it's the manliest of all names.

Just ask my good friend Ashley.

Boom stick indeed.

 

[maninahat]

But then why did she turn off ratings?? EXPLAIN THAT.

Because it is fairly obvious what would happen. The gazillions of trolls and arseholes who have targeted Anita, and devoted their time and efforts to damage her and her project, would simply downvote her video into oblivion. Reasonable person who are not familiar with Sarkeesian and who happen to stumble across the video, will immediately see the massive amount of downvotes, assume the video must be shit, and quit the video before Anita has even finished her introduction. So yes, the voting system can be abused as much as the comment section, and can be easily used to damage further reception of her video.

Secondly, in all her Tropes vs Women introduction videos (brief summaries of all the tropes), I clearly recall only ~50-60% of the votes being dislikes across all videos. This was before she disabled ratings and comments on almost every video in her entire channel, but I remember the proportions.

So your "downvoted into oblivion by determined trolls" is exaggerating things a lot, 50-60% dislikes isn't all that terrible. Just a hint that the video(s) may contain a lot of biased one-sided bullshit and/or twisted cherry-picked "research" filtered through a narrow black & white perspective...which is fairly accurate if you think about it!

Bear in mind that she didn't get into the practise of removing ratings days after Sarkeesian Season was called on her kickstarter project, so the ratings that previously existed on her other videos didn't quite represent the extent of the troll wraith. What with the sheer amount of animosity towards her videos, I wouldn't expect anything near a 50-60% ratio now.

I can tell you this - almost every Youtube video that has a solid sample-size of views (say, at least 10k+) has a corresponding rating that neatly encapsulates the quality of the video's content and/or people's general agreement/disagreement. That pretty much DEFINES what a rating is supposed to do.
I can see the issue with "comment trolls" but you're seriously exaggerating the "rating trolls", rating continues to be a fairly accurate indicator.

That's not necessarily true. The ratings are highly dependent on the subject and the kind of people the video attracts. If it is a mainstream pop song or celeb personality, the ratings will almost invariably be highly positive, because only fans bother to watch the video in the first place to vote. That's why though many people hate people like Justin Bieber, Pewdiepie or The Amazing Atheist, they'll still have fairly high ratings, just because the "haters" don't bother watching (and down voting) all their videos in the first place. Contrariwise, if there is bad press attached to a specific person or video, then their video ratings will plummet as angry members of the community pop in to express their distaste through the down vote button (often regardless of the actual content of the video). Videos on certain discussions, like feminism, are different in that they attract both fans and detractors, so the ratings tend to be more varied. Sarkeesian is something of a special case, in terms of just how many people were willing to go to the effort to shit all over her work, so yes, I wouldn't put it past the trolls to go out of their way to push her ratings deep into the red, had they been given the chance.

 

[maninahat]

But then why did she turn off ratings?? EXPLAIN THAT.

Because it is fairly obvious what would happen. The gazillions of trolls and arseholes who have targeted Anita, and devoted their time and efforts to damage her and her project, would simply downvote her video into oblivion. Reasonable person who are not familiar with Sarkeesian and who happen to stumble across the video, will immediately see the massive amount of downvotes, assume the video must be shit, and quit the video before Anita has even finished her introduction. So yes, the voting system can be abused as much as the comment section, and can be easily used to damage further reception of her video.

Secondly, in all her Tropes vs Women introduction videos (brief summaries of all the tropes), I clearly recall only ~50-60% of the votes being dislikes across all videos. This was before she disabled ratings and comments on almost every video in her entire channel, but I remember the proportions.

So your "downvoted into oblivion by determined trolls" is exaggerating things a lot, 50-60% dislikes isn't all that terrible. Just a hint that the video(s) may contain a lot of biased one-sided bullshit and/or twisted cherry-picked "research" filtered through a narrow black & white perspective...which is fairly accurate if you think about it!

Bear in mind that she didn't get into the practise of removing ratings days after Sarkeesian Season was called on her kickstarter project, so the ratings that previously existed on her other videos didn't quite represent the extent of the troll wraith. What with the sheer amount of animosity towards her videos, I wouldn't expect anything near a 50-60% ratio now.

I can tell you this - almost every Youtube video that has a solid sample-size of views (say, at least 10k+) has a corresponding rating that neatly encapsulates the quality of the video's content and/or people's general agreement/disagreement. That pretty much DEFINES what a rating is supposed to do.
I can see the issue with "comment trolls" but you're seriously exaggerating the "rating trolls", rating continues to be a fairly accurate indicator.

That's not necessarily true. The ratings are highly dependent on the subject and the kind of people the video attracts. If it is a mainstream pop song or celeb personality, the ratings will almost invariably be highly positive, because only fans bother to watch the video in the first place to vote. That's why though many people hate people like Justin Bieber, Pewdiepie or The Amazing Atheist, they'll still have fairly high ratings, just because few "haters" bother to watch (and down vote) all their videos in the first place. Contrariwise, if there is bad press attached to a specific person or video, then their video ratings will plummet as angry members of the community pop in to express their distaste through the down vote button (often regardless of the actual content of the video). Videos on certain discussions, like feminism, are different in that they attract both fans and detractors, so the ratings tend to be far more varied. Sarkeesian is something of a special case, in terms of just how many people were willing to go to the effort to shit all over her work, so yes, I wouldn't put it past the trolls to go out of their way to push her ratings deep into the red, had they been given the chance.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

First of all, she is not an academic, academics (generally) strive to present unbiased studies and the like. She is about as academic as any of those silly right-wing studies that link being homosexual with any number of bad things.

So by your idea no one is fit to judge anyone else's works as they don't have the same experiences. And as a matter of fact I have written essays for my college years ago on videogame topics. And I do post on youtube, both assholish comments when responding to an idiot and actual debates when the mood strikes me.

Anita Sarkeesian is about as academic as anyone's ever gotten with video games. Her analysis is strong, well researched and very articulate. Meanwhile, the bulk of video responses to her seem to have no understanding of what is meant by the term 'trope', as they think if they can find one example of a game that doesn't conform it disproves her entire point.

I've seriously got no idea why people start frothing at the mouth whenever she's mentioned. Based on the vitriol used to describe her I expected a younger version of Judith Butler clutching the S.C.U.M. manifesto in her videos. Instead there was a very reasonable and insightful commentary that was generally book-ended by "This is not how all games are, and using this trope doesn't automatically make the game sexist."

 

[Mr F.]

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.

How about other academics who are also gamers? You know, hit both nails on the head.

Are you in a position to judge what she has made? No. Not really, No. Are you her "Equal"? No. Are you my equal, with regards to sociology or identity? No. Do you have my understanding of Race/Identity, have you written essays on the subjects. Of course you do not. Most people do not. The average Jo on youtube is just some 14 year old fuckwit.

First of all, she is not an academic, academics (generally) strive to present unbiased studies and the like. She is about as academic as any of those silly right-wing studies that link being homosexual with any number of bad things.

So by your idea no one is fit to judge anyone else's works as they don't have the same experiences. And as a matter of fact I have written essays for my college years ago on videogame topics. And I do post on youtube, both assholish comments when responding to an idiot and actual debates when the mood strikes me.

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.

 

[Iridium Dawn]

Grey Carter, thanks for getting a thread going that's inspired me to de-lurk!

Mr. F, while you're right that turning off the comments really didn't cost anyone anything of value, her academic qualifications are basically irrelevant. Ditto those of her critics, actually. Whether she has any sort of degree doesn't really have an impact on the quality of her ideas or criticism. I mean, look at Roger Ebert. He originally studied English, not film, but it was the strength of his writing and thought that turned him into a household name. I disagree with her on a number of things, but at a minimum Sarkeesian is clear, coherent and, as far as I can tell, honest about her biases.

In a way, focusing on whether someone has a degree is a trap. If Sarkeesian doesn't, than having that as a prerequisite makes it even easier to dismiss her. If she does, then it's easy to focus on whether she's meeting some nebulous criteria for posting "proper" criticism. That seems to a pretty frequent accusation against her and it does nothing but derail the conversation.

At any rate, disabling comments, likes, and up/down votes is definitely not stifling free speech. As @Ragsnstitches said, it is incredibly easy to game all these things. More importantly, Youtube is an anonymous medium with a low barrier to entry and no meaningful consequences for threatening violence, rape and murder. Somebody disabling feedback in the face of that kind of bullshit is only reacting rationally to the situation.

The idea that anybody should have to wade through an ocean of excrement to find the occasional nugget of potential wisdom is both ludicrous and basically worthless. It's an easy thing to say and carries with it no burden of actually helping that person do any wading...

 

[The Material Sheep]

Still don't understand why she cares what idiots over youtube say. It's like no one hear grew up with a bully or someone who just wanted to treat them badly. People say dumb, vile and ridiculous things when they are anonymous, but at some point you gotta stop caring about what people like that think. Is there really any value lost when someone like that doesn't like you? I mean the last wave of ridiculous internet backlash fueled her kickstarter with sympathizers wanting to support her, so why couldn't that be a response to a dedicated effort to give her videos bad ratings. I don't know. Seems like a logical conclusion or at least a possibility. What better to see your supporters overcome the inane and stupid comments.

I just wonder why you would ever put something in a public forum if you weren't ready to deal with a lot of people who for no good reason treat you like crap. Pretending that doesn't exist or that people don't say these things or think these things doesn't spare you anything. You've deluded yourself if you think that feeling, that hate, goes away just from silencing the forum. All you've lost is legitimate commenting from those who don't have the time to make a video or find another forum your active in. Just learn that you don't have to care or be bothered my idiots or what they think, and stay focused on the intelligent people.

 

[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?

 

[Iron Lightning]

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.