This is Why Criticizing Anita Sarkheesian is Irrelevant and Pointless

[Bruce]

IT is a "shut up, that's why argument" (term coined by Greta Christina I think). It isn't an argument that actually deals with the content of what somebody is saying, it just tries to shame them into silence.

If Anita Sarkeesian got together the budget and the skills to make her own game with its own story illustrating how to do things better, then you would have the same people calling on her to do that now saying her criticism is unprofessional and just trying to smack-talk down the opposition.

The reason being they don't really want her to do that, they just want her to shut up, which while on the surface it looks like it isn't quite so bad, it ends up actually being worse.

Change requires discussion, it requires feedback and critical thought. The "shut up, that's why argument" shuts that right down, thus maintaining a negative status quo, allowing the worst to continue to continue to become more embedded and harder to displace because people don't feel sufficiently qualified to point out the problems.

You assume the status quo is negative. It isn't for everyone.

The status quo is death. If games remain as they are, people will play them, and get bored, and the audience will shrink. And while you might like it as it is, how do you know you won't like some of the new stuff?

You also assume no discussion can be had. That's wrong, no crappy accusations will be allowed, that's for sure and that's why Anita is basically told to gtfo. She didn't just share her opinion, no she accused games of having a negative impact on society and she did that based on what is possibly the most broken and biased research ever done. Why would anyone want to have a discussion with someone like that?

I assume nothing, I have observed. When she announced her Kickstarter, when did the criticism of her research start? Before or after she actually started her research? And it hasn't really changed much - nobody has shifted position or really even thought about what she is saying.

It is clear that a lot of the responses she has garnered have nothing to do with what she has said. Your own argument that she just highlights the negative - that is more a criticism of what she hasn't said than what she has. It doesn't tell me anything of the validity of her complaints.

To use a quote from Stephen Fry (he was talking about the Catholic church at the time) "It?s a bit like a burglar in court saying ?you would bring up that burglary and that manslaughter, you never mentioned the fact that I gave my father a birthday present.?"

Personally I think games have, on balance, a very positive influence on society - but that doesn't mean they can't go the other way depending on the game and on the tropes being employed. Games are no different to any other media, they are communication just like anything else.

Sarkeesian needs to make her case, which she is in the process of doing. Personally while I think she does highlight a few issues within games she doesn't actually make an adequate case to argue that this has larger social ramifications. I view it the same way I view porn, I haven't seen much in evidence to suggest porn really has much of a lasting effect on society as a whole.

But that said, she is highlighting stuff that is not ideal and she is still in the process of making her case, so I keep an open mind. Maybe she presents something later down the line.

The point is, what she is saying has value, it is worth hearing. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but stop making such a bogeyman of her. What's the worst that happens if developers take her at her word? More games with strong female characters. They aren't going to stop making games like Battlefield, that makes them money, but maybe we get some interesting other IP going.

Is that really so terrible?

[quote>Until she listens and stops with the accusations (or comes back with citations proving them) and adopts a less biased approach to her analysis there is no reason for us to be constructive anymore. We have done our part, the ball is on her court, but based on how she hit the ball back in her second video it is quite clear she isn't willing to improve and is going to stick with the twisting, lies and lack of any suggestions to "repair" what has been broken by her twisting and lies.[/quote]

And you can't hear her so long as you have that mindset. It doesn't matter what she says at this point, and any citations she raised would probably send you on the defensive. You are hearing her as an enemy, instead just think of her as one critic amongst many. She probably doesn't mean you or gaming any harm. She could be deeply wrong, and that's fine, so are most of us most of the time, it doesn't make her a villain.

 

[Bruce]

IT is a "shut up, that's why argument" (term coined by Greta Christina I think). It isn't an argument that actually deals with the content of what somebody is saying, it just tries to shame them into silence.

If Anita Sarkeesian got together the budget and the skills to make her own game with its own story illustrating how to do things better, then you would have the same people calling on her to do that now saying her criticism is unprofessional and just trying to smack-talk down the opposition.

The reason being they don't really want her to do that, they just want her to shut up, which while on the surface it looks like it isn't quite so bad, it ends up actually being worse.

Change requires discussion, it requires feedback and critical thought. The "shut up, that's why argument" shuts that right down, thus maintaining a negative status quo, allowing the worst to continue to continue to become more embedded and harder to displace because people don't feel sufficiently qualified to point out the problems.

*scratched head*

So what you're saying is that because change requires discussion, feedback and critical thought, the critics should shut up?

Not really. It is more, change your mindset a bit. Instead of an enemy who must be defeated, she is a friend who may be misguided on some things, right on others. Too much of the criticism is trying to defeat her, and it isn't really developing into something constructive.

In fact a lot of it, seems to kind of make her point for her. As you say, trolls and dickheads.

 

[Vegosiux]

In fact a lot of it, seems to kind of make her point for her. As you say, trolls and dickheads.

I actually quite disagree with that assertion, on principle, mind - not just in this case. Getting trolled and abused by the internet keyboard warriors makes no points for you, just because someone is bashing you doesn't mean you're actually right, it just means that the guys bashing you are dickheads.

But, it does make it a whole lot harder to provide constructive criticism if you're being likened to those miscreants, that much is true...

Especially if then she gets hammered on by The Amazing Atheist, for example...I mean I'm an atheist myself, but I still think he's an asshole *snicker*

 

[generals3]

The status quo is death. If games remain as they are, people will play them, and get bored, and the audience will shrink. And while you might like it as it is, how do you know you won't like some of the new stuff?

I know i prefer playing male protagonists. Therefor i know i'd rather have the status quo on that aspect.

I assume nothing, I have observed. When she announced her Kickstarter, when did the criticism of her research start? Before or after she actually started her research? And it hasn't really changed much - nobody has shifted position or really even thought about what she is saying.

That's a big assumption. I didn't even know who Anita was before I saw her video. However i can understand why people already got mad when seeing the kickstarter. If you watch the other videos on her channel it's obvious what kind of person she is and that she cannot be pleased and will twist anything in sexism. I guess people assumed she would apply the same methodology to video games, which she did. So ultimately they were right.

It is clear that a lot of the responses she has garnered have nothing to do with what she has said. Your own argument that she just highlights the negative - that is more a criticism of what she hasn't said than what she has. It doesn't tell me anything of the validity of her complaints.

However i pointed out in several topics how her complaints are invalid. She pretends games have a negative influence on sexism in RL and even called devs to be dangerously irresponsible for using said tropes in a context in which there is a lot of domestic violence (and let's not even get into the fact men are subjugated to almost as much domestic violence). She has no evidence to back that up. that's pure unproven demonization. She's trying to associate these tropes with vile things without any evidence they are linked. That's just low and pathetic.

And she also makes claims about the frequency with which these tropes are used. However her methodology doesn't allow her to make such claims. So it's again all pure bollocks.

And than comes all the contradictions, obvious nitpicking and twisting. First she complains about damsel in distresses because they do nothing and are "helpless" than she goes on to say how the "Helpful damsel" is no better despite actually doing something (which was a major complaint about the DiD). She also says how women being beaten up in an action game is ok, but being killed in a shooter as part of the plot? Let's link it to domestic violence! She says we can enjoy these games while remaining critical of their content... meanwhile she spends 2 videos telling us how it fucks up society and even says devs are irresponsible for making those games. How are we supposed to enjoy them after being spoon-fed all those lies trying to make us feel bad?

And i'm sure i forgot many things. I'm complaining because what she said is shit and on top of that she didn't even offer a solution to the problem she invented by telling shit.

Personally I think games have, on balance, a very positive influence on society - but that doesn't mean they can't go the other way depending on the game and on the tropes being employed. Games are no different to any other media, they are communication just like anything else.

They are very different actually. You can't for instance compare Call Of Duty with CNN. You can't just lump all the media in one category. And nobody has ever managed to show any citation proving this effect tropes supposedly have.

Sarkeesian needs to make her case, which she is in the process of doing. Personally while I think she does highlight a few issues within games she doesn't actually make an adequate case to argue that this has larger social ramifications. I view it the same way I view porn, I haven't seen much in evidence to suggest porn really has much of a lasting effect on society as a whole.

Than there is no need to claim otherwise, no?

But that said, she is highlighting stuff that is not ideal and she is still in the process of making her case, so I keep an open mind. Maybe she presents something later down the line.

She has already made several points. I don't think you should suddenly expect evidence of how the damsel in distress trope reinforces toxic views of women in RL in the third video.

The point is, what she is saying has value, it is worth hearing. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but stop making such a bogeyman of her. What's the worst that happens if developers take her at her word? More games with strong female characters. They aren't going to stop making games like Battlefield, that makes them money, but maybe we get some interesting other IP going.

Sure it's worth hearing, it's a good warning of how stupid feminism can get.

What happens if devs start listening to her? A horrible precedent is set. It would tell every predator à la Jack Thompson out there that it is possible to influence games by crying "SOCIAL ISSUE". No thank you.
And i don't want developers to listen to Anita just because she says so. There is nothing wrong with doing things she may like if the devs feel it fits the bigger package. A woman friendly GTA for instance would be silly because that game isn't friendly towards anything and anybody.

Btw, she's a boogeyman. She's like a guy who says he'll fix poverty by deporting all the poor. The goal may not be bad but the methods to achieve are vile and disgusting. I will never support her because supporting her would be approving her methods and that's just a big NO.

And you can't hear her so long as you have that mindset. It doesn't matter what she says at this point, and any citations she raised would probably send you on the defensive. You are hearing her as an enemy, instead just think of her as one critic amongst many. She probably doesn't mean you or gaming any harm. She could be deeply wrong, and that's fine, so are most of us most of the time, it doesn't make her a villain.

I'm considering her as an enemy because she has told me she was my enemy. All her efforts dedicated to demonize and twist games was enough to realize that she is an anti-gamer. She's a feminist Jack Thompson and I don't particularly liked him either.

Not really. It is more, change your mindset a bit. Instead of an enemy who must be defeated, she is a friend who may be misguided on some things, right on others. Too much of the criticism is trying to defeat her, and it isn't really developing into something constructive.

But she never listens anyway. Her style has consistently remained the same and she made exactly the same mistakes in her second video. Why even bother? She's like a friend who keeps punching you in the face despite you asking to stop, at one point he'll stop being a friend and just a dick who punches you for no reason.

And it is constructive because we are trying to enlighten the misguided feminists and white knights by showing them how they're supporting someone who's actually an enemy.

 

[Insanely Asinine]

Wait, I'm confused. In the link she says "Thanks #XboxOne #E3 press conference for revealing to us exactly zero games featuring a female protagonist for the next generation"

But an article on the front page of the Escapist says "Mirror's Edge 2 was announced at the EA E3 2013 press conference moments ago"

So am I missing something here?

You're not missing anything. It's Ana being Ana.

Right? He's missing the point that Sarkeesian is talking about the Xbox One press conference and Mirror's Edge was in the EA press conference.

Yes, she totally gets to dictate everything at EA now. Sure.

Well, you will notice that all EA titles this year feature women as protagonists and fit her anti-male agenda....
>.>
My favourite is "Ballbuster 3."

Yeah, Ballbuster 3 looks good. Too bad they decided to release Solanas as day-one-dlc, instead of including her in the actual game. Got to boycott shitty business practices :/
(I heard that Gender Warz: Tanks is coming out next December. Hope it's not gonna suck.)

You know she could have simplified it and went "Thanks Xbox One. (Enter a small point here)" But she didn't she added E3 and causes a misconception on what she is attacking. E3 itself doesn't deserve to be in that line of fire when E3 has other things getting brought up. She didn't clarify and thus lets my imagination run.

 

[Bruce]

In fact a lot of it, seems to kind of make her point for her. As you say, trolls and dickheads.

I actually quite disagree with that assertion, on principle, mind - not just in this case. Getting trolled and abused by the internet keyboard warriors makes no points for you, just because someone is bashing you doesn't mean you're actually right, it just means that the guys bashing you are dickheads.

But, it does make it a whole lot harder to provide constructive criticism if you're being likened to those miscreants, that much is true...

Especially if then she gets hammered on by The Amazing Atheist, for example...I mean I'm an atheist myself, but I still think he's an asshole *snicker*

Agreed on AA, and Thunderf00t's criticism wasn't exactly impressive either. The dick punch at the end of Double Dragon isn't actually an empowering image, it ends up working symbolically to show how low the villain has fallen, not how high the damsel in this case has risen as she does little to nothing to bring it about.

And I think that is the central issue with that particular trope as a whole - it tends to rest on the damsel herself not doing anything much to win her own freedom.

I do think that there is a lot of valid criticism that could be applied to her work, and is being.

Spoiler

For example her use of The Darkness II's plot. Part of what I liked about that game is how it handled the relationship with Jenny. That she is so overly idealised from the main character's point of view that when you end up in the insane asylum it really kind of makes sense that she might be the focus of a madman's obsession rather than a real person. The sexism that runs through the heart of the plot in this case is a bit of a feature, rather than a bug because the framing device is the recollections of a highly possessive character, which helps fuel the central conflict of the game. What makes a trope good or bad is often not so much the precise workings of it, but how it is framed. In this case the damsel in distress trope is supposed to be suspect, which takes a lot of the edge off of it.

But that is a matter of interpretation and hers is as valid as mine. When we see a flood of argle blargle over her being a feminist though, or how she doesn't 'have the right' to voice her criticisms, it all kind of falls through. It becomes more about painted lines between opposing forces, which means the valid stuff often gets lost.

 

[Bruce]

[blockquote]They are very different actually. You can't for instance compare Call Of Duty with CNN. You can't just lump all the media in one category. And nobody has ever managed to show any citation proving this effect tropes supposedly have.[/blockquote]

CNN isn't the media, the media in this case is TV. Much like TV, games can cover a range of topics.

Science doesn't really work on proof, it works on evidence and as far as that is concerned, okay:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001879178900386

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-007-9278-1

Stereotyping is a form of trope, so there are two citations right there.

[blockquote]A horrible precedent is set. It would tell every predator à la Jack Thompson out there that it is possible to influence games by crying "SOCIAL ISSUE".[/blockquote]

Isn't this the exact same argument that was used by people sneering at the Retake Mass Effect movement? That it would set a horrible precedent for games companies?

If her ideas lead to better games, then I am not that bothered if gaming companies listen to her. If they lead to worse games, well the market will out and no lasting harm will be done. It is nothing to be afraid of.

[blockquote]But she never listens anyway.[/blockquote]

In her second video she briefly touches on Marian from Double Dragon. She clearly did this because of Thunderf00t's video criticising hers. She is listening, she just isn't agreeing.

 

[Bruce]

Isn't this the exact same argument that was used by people sneering at the Retake Mass Effect movement? That it would set a horrible precedent for games companies?

The Retake Mass Effect movement was a bunch of self-entitled morons who thought Mass Effect belonged to them.

What precedent are you talking about? The artistic license of video game developers?
Bioware decides what goes into their games and only Bioware.

Entitled is one of those funny words, it says more bad things about the person using it than the people its being applied to.

 

[Uhura]

Right? He's missing the point that Sarkeesian is talking about the Xbox One press conference and Mirror's Edge was in the EA press conference.

You know she could have simplified it and went "Thanks Xbox One. (Enter a small point here)" But she didn't she added E3 and causes a misconception on what she is attacking. E3 itself doesn't deserve to be in that line of fire when E3 has other things getting brought up. She didn't clarify and thus lets my imagination run.

Uhh, you could just admit making a mistake. The statement she made seems to be only confusing for people who already hate her and latch on any additional info that might be used to bash her. Or do you not know how tagging works on twitter?

 

[shadowuser10141]

Isn't this the exact same argument that was used by people sneering at the Retake Mass Effect movement? That it would set a horrible precedent for games companies?

The Retake Mass Effect movement was a bunch of self-entitled morons who thought Mass Effect belonged to them.

What precedent are you talking about? The artistic license of video game developers?
Bioware decides what goes into their games and only Bioware.

Entitled is one of those funny words, it says more bad things about the person using it than the people its being applied to.

What bad things does it say about me?

 

[Wyvern65]

[blockquote]They are very different actually. You can't for instance compare Call Of Duty with CNN. You can't just lump all the media in one category. And nobody has ever managed to show any citation proving this effect tropes supposedly have.[/blockquote]

CNN isn't the media, the media in this case is TV. Much like TV, games can cover a range of topics.

Science doesn't really work on proof, it works on evidence and as far as that is concerned, okay:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001879178900386

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-007-9278-1

Stereotyping is a form of trope, so there are two citations right there.

Thanks for the links. They're both behind paywalls (not a criticism of you at all, most academic research is these days - sad fact) which makes them difficult to evaluate beyond their abstracts.

Unfortunately they don't really prove what you're claiming they do in a strict scientific sense. At best, the first proves that when you expose very young children to certain depictions over and over again they learn enough about those depictions to color their own opinions and ideas.

This isn't particularly helpful when examining media as a whole or how the expression of ideas in it affects adults, unfortunately. Children are, for lack of a better term, 'built' to learn. Certainly it suggests and supports that media can influence us, but it doesn't really move beyond that.

The second is a survey study which appears to focus on what people believe and not why they believe it. Clearly the authors attempt to make a connection between depictions in games and social attitudes among gamers, but even in the abstract they qualify that the attitudes shown in the survey appear to a significant degree in non-gamers.

Honestly, no surprises. If there were a study that could strongly connect media and sexism (or any other ism for that matter) it would be very big news. At best, we have studies that suggest connections, which tend to break down in various ways.

Mostly because humans are very complicated, and doing ethical research on them is extraordinarily difficult.

But again all of this only frustrates me when it's brought back to the subject at hand. If you, a casually motivated random (to me) internet poster can do some rudimentary research and post some citations to back up your arguments, why can't Anita who has funds for the project? If she didn't care to do it herself she could always hire an intern.

 

[generals3]

CNN isn't the media, the media in this case is TV. Much like TV, games can cover a range of topics.

You missed the point, my point was that media =/= media. You can't just assume different types of media have the same effects because they're totally different in so many ways.

Science doesn't really work on proof, it works on evidence and as far as that is concerned, okay:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001879178900386

Too bad this is about TV and not video games so I didn't even have to read the study.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-007-9278-1

"A limitation of this research is that it does not test for effects of stereotyping and aggression in video games. "

I don't think I need to add anything to that.

Stereotyping is a form of trope, so there are two citations right there.

Nonono. A trope is merely an overused story element. You see you could have a game with 99 strong women and 1 damsel in distress and the game would still be using the DiD trope. And surely you'll agree with me that it wouldn't be stereotyping than?

Isn't this the exact same argument that was used by people sneering at the Retake Mass Effect movement? That it would set a horrible precedent for games companies?

I didn't come across that argument and which precedent would that be?

If her ideas lead to better games, then I am not that bothered if gaming companies listen to her. If they lead to worse games, well the market will out and no lasting harm will be done. It is nothing to be afraid of.

Nothing suggests she has good ideas, she's using a horrible method to get where she wants, she's often bitching for the sake of bitching and as such I see no reason whatsoever to support her.

In her second video she briefly touches on Marian from Double Dragon. She clearly did this because of Thunderf00t's video criticising hers. She is listening, she just isn't agreeing.

Ok, she listened once and that was probably the most unnecessary response needed. I guess at least her mention of marian in the 2nd video just showed how silly she is. "What do you mean the fact the game clearly shows she can kick ass doesn't mean the game portrays her as weak and pathetic?! that one scene doesn't matter hur dur dur".

 

[Bruce]

[blockquote]They are very different actually. You can't for instance compare Call Of Duty with CNN. You can't just lump all the media in one category. And nobody has ever managed to show any citation proving this effect tropes supposedly have.[/blockquote]

CNN isn't the media, the media in this case is TV. Much like TV, games can cover a range of topics.

Science doesn't really work on proof, it works on evidence and as far as that is concerned, okay:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001879178900386

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-007-9278-1

Stereotyping is a form of trope, so there are two citations right there.

Thanks for the links. They're both behind paywalls (not a criticism of you at all, most academic research is these days - sad fact) which makes them difficult to evaluate beyond their abstracts.

Unfortunately they don't really prove what you're claiming they do in a strict scientific sense. At best, the first proves that when you expose very young children to certain depictions over and over again they learn enough about those depictions to color their own opinions and ideas.

This isn't particularly helpful when examining media as a whole or how the expression of ideas in it affects adults, unfortunately. Children are, for lack of a better term, 'built' to learn. Certainly it suggests and supports that media can influence us, but it doesn't really move beyond that.

The second is a survey study which appears to focus on what people believe and not why they believe it. Clearly the authors attempt to make a connection between depictions in games and social attitudes among gamers, but even in the abstract they qualify that the attitudes shown in the survey appear to a significant degree in non-gamers.

Honestly, no surprises. If there were a study that could strongly connect media and sexism (or any other ism for that matter) it would be very big news. At best, we have studies that suggest connections, which tend to break down in various ways.

Mostly because humans are very complicated, and doing ethical research on them is extraordinarily difficult.

But again all of this only frustrates me when it's brought back to the subject at hand. If you, a casually motivated random (to me) internet poster can do some rudimentary research and post some citations to back up your arguments, why can't Anita who has funds for the project? If she didn't care to do it herself she could always hire an intern.

As I said, it doesn't really prove but it provides evidence. What got me was it didn't even take very long to do. That is a serious flaw with her presentation. I think if she is going to bring in how these tropes do RL harm, she is going to need to go beyond simple media analysis and go into sociological and psychological research to back herself up.

 

[Bruce]

[blockquote]Too bad this is about TV and not video games so I didn't even have to read the study.[/blockquote]

Aaand there you have it. Find a citation, you find excuses to not pay attention to it.

 

[generals3]

[blockquote]Too bad this is about TV and not video games so I didn't even have to read the study.[/blockquote]

Aaand there you have it. Find a citation, you find excuses to not pay attention to it.

What's wrong with rejecting evidence that doesn't prove your point? I can bring you historical evidence Mao caused a famine which killed millions, does that suggest Anita is crap?!

We aren't talking about TV so i really don't care that much about TV. This is about video games and since video games are very different to movies or tv shows i won't just accept people telling me "this is what TV does so you should assume video games do that too".

But if you truly want me to say something about the study: it hypothesizes that, since little girls who saw women do "men's" jobs were more likely to want that, the media should portray more women in a man's job. Basically it suggests TV characters act as role models. Now does that mean Jack Thompson is right? After all i think we might better ban games like GTA. Because based on the study you linked it would make men want to be psycho mobsters.

 

[shadowuser10141]

Isn't this the exact same argument that was used by people sneering at the Retake Mass Effect movement? That it would set a horrible precedent for games companies?

The Retake Mass Effect movement was a bunch of self-entitled morons who thought Mass Effect belonged to them.

What precedent are you talking about? The artistic license of video game developers?
Bioware decides what goes into their games and only Bioware.

Entitled is one of those funny words, it says more bad things about the person using it than the people its being applied to.

Are you going to explain why Bioware owes you a new ending?

What you said sounds like a feminist anti-debating tactic.

 

[Insanely Asinine]

Right? He's missing the point that Sarkeesian is talking about the Xbox One press conference and Mirror's Edge was in the EA press conference.

You know she could have simplified it and went "Thanks Xbox One. (Enter a small point here)" But she didn't she added E3 and causes a misconception on what she is attacking. E3 itself doesn't deserve to be in that line of fire when E3 has other things getting brought up. She didn't clarify and thus lets my imagination run.

Uhh, you could just admit making a mistake. The statement she made seems to be only confusing for people who already hate her and latch on any additional info that might be used to bash her. Or do you not know how tagging works on twitter?

I did admit to making a mistake by saying my imagination run. I don't use twitter because it's the youtube of the social medias. In other words its just another 4chan. Except with names, which tend to be fake.

 

[Uhura]

I did admit to making a mistake by saying my imagination run. I don't use twitter because it's the youtube of the social medias. In other words its just another 4chan. Except with names, which tend to be fake.

You blamed her for letting your imagination run.
And that's how using hashtags in twitter work. She didn't put E3 in any "line of fire".

 

[Insanely Asinine]

I did admit to making a mistake by saying my imagination run. I don't use twitter because it's the youtube of the social medias. In other words its just another 4chan. Except with names, which tend to be fake.

You blamed her for letting your imagination run.
And that's how using hashtags in twitter work. She didn't put E3 in any "line of fire".

That's the thing I could be read as that hence why I read it like that. I hate it when my imagination runs it usually ends with me arguing with myself for hours. Again she could have just simple. "#Microsoft thanks for not showing any games with women in it." While this stop the flack? No of course not assholes are going to be assholes. Would it make people like me, with an overly active imagination, understand her point? Of course keeping it simple is should be the best policy when constructing things on the internet. Does it actually seem like I'm blaming her? Probably. Note to self clarify better that this is criticism not blame.

 

[Uhura]

I did admit to making a mistake by saying my imagination run. I don't use twitter because it's the youtube of the social medias. In other words its just another 4chan. Except with names, which tend to be fake.

You blamed her for letting your imagination run.
And that's how using hashtags in twitter work. She didn't put E3 in any "line of fire".

That's the thing I could be read as that hence why I read it like that. I hate it when my imagination runs it usually ends with me arguing with myself for hours. Again she could have just simple. "#Microsoft thanks for not showing any games with women in it." While this stop the flack? No of course not assholes are going to be assholes. Would it make people like me, with an overly active imagination, understand her point? Of course keeping it simple is should be the best policy when constructing things on the internet. Does it actually seem like I'm blaming her? Probably. Note to self clarify better that this is criticism not blame.

This is getting really off topic. The point is that she used hashtags the same way pretty much everyone is using them. She is keeping it simple. You just said that you don't use Twitter and hence don't know how the stuff works.