kaioshade said:
Here is another view about the Let's Play video debate. When a user uploads a Let's Play video, since they do not own the copyright to the IP in question, the video is considered fair use. Even if Anita did use the footage without notifying the uploader, she really was not legally obligated to. So slightly tacky? yes. Wrong? no.
Well, I think I would actually say that it was wrong. Just because you broke no law does not mean you are faultless. After all, it is not illegal to be a jackass but that doesn't make it right.
That said, I do think tacky is the word to describe it. If I had a friend who did the same thing I would tell them to stop being a jackass and give credit where it is deserved, but it wouldn't be a big thing.
As for the original topic, I really don't care about Anita. I have watched one of her videos and I wasn't really impressed at her arguments, but whatever. If she wants to say things on the internet then she should go right ahead.
But if she was claiming that she was a life long gamer and is not then there is a bit of a problem there. In fact, I would say there are two big problems there.
The first is the more important one: When Anita made her kickstarter she made the basic claim that she is both an expert on video games and on issues of feminism. She asked for money so she could do what she is doing now. To establish her expertise she made certain claims about herself being a gamer. If, in fact, she is not an expert on video games, if her claim was false, then she is basically a con artist. She lied in order to get money from people.
That is IF she lied. I really don't care enough to comb through her history to find out if she lied, but I did check out her kickstarter and she never claimed to be a life long gamer. She only claimed to be a gamer. It is possible that, if she really isn't part of the gaming community at large, she did not understand the connotations that "gamer" has. She may have thought along the lines of "I play games, therefore I am a gamer" and did not understand that to the gaming community "gamer" means much more than simply a person who plays games. It is equally possible that she was not a life long gamer but had really gotten into the scene over a two year period (easily enough time to go from non gamer to hardcore gamer.)
Last of all, if she ever did claim to be a life long gamer it is still possible that she simply did not understand what that means to the gaming community. Within the community "life long gamer" implies a life style and a huge background knowledge in gaming. An outsider is unlikely to understand this and the claim may have been made in good faith without fully understanding the implication.
The second problem is how this impacts her credibility and the legitimacy of the views she expresses in her videos. And before anyone says that this is an ad hominem argument, lets actually think about that. The issues of feminism and how it relates to gaming are highly subjective. There are no direct measurements that can be made to determine if a work is sexist and why. It is something that must be determined by a judgement call. And while anyone can make that judgement call only an expert can make the judgement call with authority. She can make all the arguments she wants but each piece of evidence she presents again comes down to another judgement call.
If I remember correctly the first video she made was about the damsel in distress trope. The question centered around this trope is if it is sexist for a man to save a woman from danger. Obviously it is not always sexist for this to happen, so Anita looks for specific examples and makes a series of judgement calls. She has arguments, but even her evidence always boils down to her making a judgement call based on the authority that her status as an expert grants her. Her status as an expert is the basis for her entire argument. Or at least it is the basis of why she should be taken any more seriously than, for example, any random 4chan poster.
Since Anita is claiming expert authority, calling into question the truth of that claim is a legitimate counterpoint to her arguments. If, in fact, Anita is not a gamer then it greatly weakens her claim as an expert.
It is like an expert witness in a legal situation. Sometimes an expert witness is called and a claim is made based on their authority as an expert. For example, an expert witness may be used to establish that a defendant is insane. The expert may cite sources, give evidence, etc. but ultimately in a case like establishing insanity it comes down to a person making a judgement call based on their authority as an expert. In this situation an attempt to prove the individual is not an expert is not an ad hominem argument because the legitimacy of the expert is the basis of the evidence presented.
TLDR:
"Anita is a ****, this is why..." is ad hominem.
"Anita is not an expert, this is why..." is not ad hominem.
