The Great Debate

[Razhem]

Did anyone call for a white knight?!

Really, it baffles me how much people are confusing supporting Anita for taking deranged amounts of bullshit and plain becoming white knights of her.

Her work has been decent, yet sketchy, I agree with some of her points (how Lego has changed it's publicity strategy for boys and girls) but at other times it seems she is looking for ghosts over her shoulders. She has her points, but tends to take it to the extreme. As for her tropes vs women, the first episode is pretty crap considering how much she is supposedly representing the female gamer with it and how base all her comments are (yes, there are a lot of games that use the trope, now tell me something I don't know), I mean, not going into the big fat elephant in the room known as Japanese culture and how their games are plagued with these tropes is pretty damn huge.

Anyway, thing is, yes, she got harassed and still gets harassed, it's horrible, deplorable and the people doing it are pathetic excuses of existence that should get their heads out of their asses and learn how to express themselves. That on the other hand does not make Anita be right on what she says and posts and doesn't stop her being a coward to a degree for avoiding critical debate,because all I've seen from her is usually purely onesided discussion and I'm also in the camp that find it amusing that the only time she has allowed comments on her youtube videos was during a short time during her kickstarter when it seemed like it was going top flop hard.

Basically, yes, she deserves support in the sense that she was a person that received surreal amounts of attacks from a bunch of bigots, that does not mean she is immune to critical analysis because people were assholes to her. She is very much susceptible to critic and if she doesn't pick her shit up, she will become an utter waste of time for all involved and will leave those people that supported her wondering why they even bothered, because yes, there is a lot of stupid shit against women in the medium, but if her form of tackling the problem is what we have seen at the moment, then she'll lose relevance in a heartbeat and will only be preaching to the choir.

Anyway, stop being bloody white knights, it only makes her become a "damsel in distress" and undervalues the strength of women everywhere with the whole "I HAS TO PROTECT" skit, I already watch enough anime and manga already to have to see it everywhere else.

 

[Orekoya]

I have a very valid concern for disabling comments on videos like this: one less hotbed of stupidity that could be harvested for Youtube Reacts [http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAE3324F1A53CA85E].

 

[zidine100]

i dont see why anyone's complaining, here, it just means that if we go watch one of her videos, we wont see constant make me a sanvich comments at the bottom.

and you know for a fact that most would just bomb the ratings without bothering to watch it so why bother.

Really it makes perfect sence, there's a difference from constructive criticism and just plain foul mouthed mind numbing hatred that some people put out just because shes doing this.

 

[Razhem]

If you don't show your face and take a few for the team, well frankly, what the hell are you doing representing a demographic? Problems are solved by confronting them, not by hiding from them, simple as that.

Also, an amusing video I found, a bit rambly but with some nice content

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL8wJvlmpRI

 

[Yuuki]

Anyway, thing is, yes, she got harassed and still gets harassed, it's horrible, deplorable and the people doing it are pathetic excuses of existence that should get their heads out of their asses and learn how to express themselves.


Basically, yes, she deserves support in the sense that she was a person that received surreal amounts of attacks from a bunch of bigots...

etc etc

Just to point out something, Anita isn't the only big name out there who is getting "harassed" the shit out of and receiving "surreal" attacks. As far as I know fuck-all has happened in real life, these "attacks" people speak of is nothing more than cyber drivel.
There are countless big names who get death threats (along with rape threats if they're female) on a daily basis on the internet. For anyone who is ready to deal with it, it is of zero concern. It's literally part of being a celebrity or well-known name, especially on the internet where anyone can say anything without consequence.

So if you're going to prod a sleeping lioness (that's basically what Anita is doing here), you're going to get a reaction. A violent one.

Anita is no unique snowflake, reactions to her stuff are nothing special and nothing worth mentioning - it's just that she used that reaction very well, making big presentations out of it and glorifying the reactions. That's why you're using words like "surreal amounts of attacks!" - because Anita made COMPILATIONS of screenshots of said attacks (who the fuck goes through comments taking screenshots??) and presented it to the media as a "help me, I'm being victimized by people on the internet!".
She also did talk-show style interviews where she wept about receiving hurtful comments (from the fucking internet may I remind you), which sealed the deal.

That's all the media needed really, a cyber damsel in cyber distress.

BAM.

 

[Razhem]

Anyway, thing is, yes, she got harassed and still gets harassed, it's horrible, deplorable and the people doing it are pathetic excuses of existence that should get their heads out of their asses and learn how to express themselves.


Basically, yes, she deserves support in the sense that she was a person that received surreal amounts of attacks from a bunch of bigots...

etc etc

Just to point out something, Anita isn't the only big name out there who is getting "harassed" the shit out of and receiving "surreal" attacks. As far as I know fuck-all has happened in real life, these "attacks" people speak of is nothing more than cyber drivel.
There are countless big names who get death threats (along with rape threats if they're female) on a daily basis on the internet. For anyone who is ready to deal with it, it is of zero concern. It's literally part of being a celebrity or well-known name, especially on the internet where anyone can say anything without consequence.

So if you're going to prod a sleeping lioness (that's basically what Anita is doing here), you're going to get a reaction. A violent one.

Anita is no unique snowflake, reactions to her stuff are nothing special and nothing worth mentioning - it's just that she used that reaction very well, making big presentations out of it and glorifying the reactions. That's why you're using words like "surreal amounts of attacks!" - because Anita presented these comments to the media, made COMPILATIONS of screenshots of said attacks (who the fuck goes through comments taking screenshots??) and presented it to the media as a "help me, I'm being victimized by people on the internet!" plea.

That's all the media needed really, a cyber damsel in cyber distress.

BAM.

Oh, of course she manipulated everything to further her desires, but the truth is that a lot of jackasses gave her that material to be able to manipulate with. Basically, yeah, she's playing the damsel card a lot (Seems that every time she does a talk, she plays the harassment card to get pity points) but that does not change that she has suffered real harassment. Yes, it may be only of a verbal kind and yes, most people that re remotely famous have to deal with this shit constantly too, that still does not invalidate it being deplorable and needing to be something people should be made aware and told down about. Of course like I stated before, there is a big difference between that and her not being full of it.

 

[Kururu999]

You guys are a few weeks late. The thing you are supposed to be passive aggressive and smug about this week is the Dragon's Crown sorceress.

 

[Caiphus]

You know there is a reason I asked my main question in BOLD right? You didn't answer it in the slightest, you're just telling me the same thing everyone else in this thread is chanting - why she disabled comments. I KNOW why she disabled comments.

I'm not talking about comments, I'm talking about ratings. There is no room for trolling or hurtful comments in a rating - only an indicator of how people feel about the video.

Answer the bolded question.

If every time I posted something relevant to my interests on youtube, an army of spiteful twits invariably materialised, well I'd probably disable feedback as well. In all forms.

Sorry if that was buried in there.

My justification for removing the votes would be the same as for removing comments; if a bunch of people were bound/destined/compelled to come onto my video and downvote it regardless of its actual quality, just because they hate me or my message, I would probably take the arguably cowardly way out and just disallow them from doing it.

There's a point where criticism becomes more akin to vandalism.

And besides. Lots of people will downvote Anita's work regardless of its quality. I'm not a huge fan of her work either, so I generally just ignore her. But plenty of people will go onto her youtube page and downvote everything for various silly reasons.

And at that point, the rating system becomes meaningless anyway, does it not? The rating system no longer measures quality, or the reasonableness of the video, or the intelligence behind it, because it's muddled by people acting in this way. So not only does the rating system become a bit pointless, it just becomes depressing for the author.

Because again, instead of criticism or anything meaningful, it just tends to become vandalism. So nothing is lost anyway.

Do you not agree?

 

[Yuuki]

Do you not agree?

1) People hate Anita because of her message
2) People hate hate the message because of Anita

Both seem equally valid reasons and accurately define "feedback" as far as I'm concerned. I mean there is a reason someone would come to Anita's video JUST to click the dislike button, Anita in general has pissed them off - what else could drive a person to do that? As an overall picture, you're still getting an idea of the PROPORTION of people who disagree/hate her compared to the people who agree/like her. And that proportion would be enough proof to give everyone visiting that video a general idea of what others things of Anita's message, without the need of a single comment.

I would also file troll comments under "feedback" (there is a REASON for trolling, always) but since Anita would simply make another compilation of those comments and sob even harder in the name of victimization, I guess we're all better for it.
But she can't do the same thing with ratings, trying to say "people dislike my video because they hate me and want to rape/victimize me!" would simply hold no water. See where I'm getting?

Eh, in the end I'm in the same boat as you - not overly concerned. And thank heavens the game industry isn't concerned either, only a handful of petty videogame journalists having slow news days

 

[Caiphus]

1) People hate Anita because of her message
2) People hate hate the message because of Anita

Both seem equally valid reasons and accurately define "feedback" as far as I'm concerned. I mean there is a reason someone would come to Anita's video JUST to click the dislike button, Anita in general has pissed them off - what else could drive a person to do that? As an overall picture, you're still getting an idea of the PROPORTION of people who disagree/hate her compared to the people who agree/like her. And that proportion would be enough proof to give everyone visiting that video a general idea of what others things of Anita's message, without the need of a single comment.

I would also file troll comments under "feedback" (there is a REASON for trolling, always) but since Anita would simply make another compilation of those comments and sob even harder in the name of victimization, I guess we're all better for it.
But she can't do the same thing with ratings, trying to say "people dislike my video because they hate me and want to rape/victimize me!" would simply hold no water. See where I'm getting?

Eh, in the end I'm in the same boat as you - not overly concerned. And thank heavens the game industry isn't concerned either, only a handful of petty videogame journalists having slow news days

Listen, I'm not going to presume we're in the same boat. But here we go:

I was raised by video games far more than human friends for the majority of primary/secondary school (ages 5-18). So when people like Anita come onto the scene and start implying that the things that raised me were sexist and misogynistic, well, it's really difficult to have a completely rational, objective response to that.

If someone you didn't know came up and called your parents racist, you'd have a poor reaction, even if they presented a ton of evidence. And I don't think Anita has emphasised fully with that side of her audience. I watched a few of her videos, and she just seemed to present her arguments (even if they were probably reasonable) in a way that made me feel bad for liking video games. Even if that wasn't her intention. When you're trying to convince me to take your side in a debate, that's not a great place to start.

But that's an emotional reaction. And I'd like to think I'm someone who can recognise that and either ignore it, or at least just pout to myself about it in the corner. But clearly there are people that can't do that, and will just either downvote out of spite, or I guess threaten to rape her.

Off topic ranting aside, people are going to have emotional reactions to content like Anita's. If she doesn't want a whole bunch of emotional shit flung at her (some more eloquent than others) then she can disable it if she wants. She still has a twitter feed, and there are still places like the escapist where we can discuss it and gauge the community reaction.

Although you're exactly right, there's always a *reason* for trolling. That doesn't necessarily make it helpful. Perhaps you think that emotional hate mail/hate downvoting is useful feedback for either the viewers or the content creator, but I don't think so.

You've already pointed out that Anita has a tendency to use negative feedback to further her cause anyway.
So she clearly doesn't give a dingy dang what kind of feedback she receives; she seems to be set in her ways as to how she presents her videos.

But you might be right. There's a place for this stuff, certainly. But if Anita, or anyone, doesn't want it next to their video, then I can't really bring myself to demand it to be there.

And that could just be the difference between us.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Nothing quite sets off my absolute bullshit detector quite like disabling ratings and comments.

 

[McMarbles]

It really doesn't matter how inane and idiotic the comments end up being.

Disabling them completely shows weakness. It's just that simple.

Besides, there is no legitimate reason to do such a thing unless you specifically don't want people insulting you.

Turning off ratings is even worse.

My god, why would people want to NOT be insulted? What madness is this!

Because they're thin skinned.

Even if there is a SINGLE constructive comment among 10 million insults, cutting off the comments is still silencing that opinion because you can't deal with people typing mean things.

Occasionally, I need to use a public restroom.

Am I obligated to lie on my back on the floor with my mouth open and let people shit down my throat on the offchance that someone might drop a piece of candy one time out of a million?

 

[The Wooster]

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.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

It really doesn't matter how inane and idiotic the comments end up being.

Disabling them completely shows weakness. It's just that simple.

Besides, there is no legitimate reason to do such a thing unless you specifically don't want people insulting you.

Turning off ratings is even worse.

My god, why would people want to NOT be insulted? What madness is this!

Because they're thin skinned.

Even if there is a SINGLE constructive comment among 10 million insults, cutting off the comments is still silencing that opinion because you can't deal with people typing mean things.

Occasionally, I need to use a public restroom.

Am I obligated to lie on my back on the floor with my mouth open and let people shit down my throat on the offchance that someone might drop a piece of candy one time out of a million?

That may just be the worst analogy I have ever seen in my entire human existence.

Mean text is in no way analogues to literally eating shit. If random assholes typing bad things is really that painful for you, you probably shouldn't be on the internet.
That "piece of candy" isn't for you. It's for people who want to read a meaningful opinion.
No one is making you read those comments.
Silencing those comments makes it appear you have a lack of confidence regardless.

 

[NortherWolf]

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

THe Planet Surrealiea. Welcome. Pink Top Hats are at the door.

Now, to the point of the matter; the bullshit about "Free speech! Censorship!" Is as always in these cases, just an excuse for small cowards to hide behind an anonymous nickname and write "Lo, die whore." "Get raped" "Lol, do the dishes."
Don't try to wave some shit about "Intellectual debate!" in my face here. This is youtube, the gathering place of all things stupid and the chance for a post being of any value in a video is about as non-existent as the chances I find gold if I dig in my back yard.

And, as previously been stated: If you can't discuss Sarkeesians goddamned videos...WHAT THE FLYING HELL ARE WE DOING RIGHT GODDAMN NOW?!
*coughs*My two cents.

 

[Paragon Fury]

Sorry Gary, but you're dead wrong about this. Even if what she does technically qualify as censorship, its incredibly intellectually dishonest and pretty much an admission that she, her videos and her opinions are utter bull 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.

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

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 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.

 

[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.

 

[Yuuki]

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.

Firstly, I thought we had universally agreed that Anita's videos getting fewer views was a GOOD thing...

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!

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.

 

[wizzy555]

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.

Actually you can have anonymous peer review, but you need a third party to mediate it and verify qualifications.

I don't know how you peer review social and political thought but I am sure if you show the numbers in Anita's thesis to a statistician they will probably cry.

 

[Uhura]

The amount of bully/harassment apologists is astounding. "She got rape threats and death threats? Well it's not that bad!". Facepalm.