The Great Debate

McMarbles

New member
May 7, 2009
1,566
0
0
Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:
McMarbles said:
Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:
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

King Snap
Jul 15, 2008
15,305
0
0
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.
 
Aug 1, 2010
2,768
0
0
McMarbles said:
Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:
McMarbles said:
Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:
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

New member
Jun 26, 2008
235
0
0
Grey Carter said:
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

The Loud Shadow
Jan 23, 2009
5,161
0
0
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

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
Yuuki said:
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

New member
Mar 19, 2013
995
0
0
maninahat said:
Yuuki said:
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

New member
Oct 14, 2010
637
0
0
Grey Carter said:
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

This ain't no hula!
Aug 30, 2012
418
0
0
The amount of bully/harassment apologists is astounding. "She got rape threats and death threats? Well it's not that bad!". Facepalm.
 

Xanex

New member
Jun 18, 2012
117
0
0
Grey Carter said:
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

King Snap
Jul 15, 2008
15,305
0
0
Paragon Fury said:
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

King Snap
Jul 15, 2008
15,305
0
0
Xanex said:
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

New member
Dec 2, 2009
1,871
0
0
Yuuki said:
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

King Snap
Jul 15, 2008
15,305
0
0
Desert Punk said:
Grey Carter said:
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

King Snap
Jul 15, 2008
15,305
0
0
Desert Punk said:
Grey Carter said:
Desert Punk said:
Grey Carter said:
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

New member
Oct 14, 2010
637
0
0
Grey Carter said:
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

New member
Nov 18, 2009
61
0
0
"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

New member
Dec 30, 2010
529
0
0
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.