Here we go again: Anita Sarkeesian and the gaming community

[Something Amyss]

It amazes me that people still care about her and give her opportunities to speak.

Well, talking about her will sure change that!

 

[Lightknight]

It had a rather large thread on the religion and politics forum when it happened, it was a while ago so its dead now.

Oh, I've created the thread in the off-topic area already. I'd have thought it would have been even larger if one was made at the time it happened? Dead already? It's a significant faux pa. Maybe this will revitalize the conversation on the topic of why this sort of rhetoric is pernicious and overtly sexist. Or, maybe being old news it'll just die.

As for why it didn't gain more traction, it's because this isn't actually a new view, and its not quite the way you are interpreting it as, it's one that many people disagree with, but it's not new.

It isn't news because it is a "new view", it's news because someone who is known as standing for equality is espousing a doctrine that is decidedly not equal. If everything else she spouts is news, why not this egregious statement?

 

[Lovely Mixture]

[

Lovely one of you. You haven't read eveything I said have you? In the end I SAID he should have stuck to his guns: NEUTRALITY. But your quote of me doesn't show that. That is really dishonest.

My point was:
You admonish GamerGate for its harassing members, you are not neutral.
But you say TotalBiscuit should have ignored the harassing members of ant-GamerGate and remained neutral.

That is hypocritical.

And TB has shown himself to flip and flop between issues. That is why I do not respect the guy so much anymore.

Well you seem to flip and flop between sentences. So I'm skeptical.

Well it isn't soo rational in my eyes: who is the larger shopping demographic at Target: gamers or parents? Parents. Who made the petition: parents/sex workers/ other people or gamers. Who is Target going to listen to: the demographic that makes them money.

People who lied about the content of the game and wouldn't buy it.
Vs.
People who would have bought the game.

Have you even seen the inside of Target's gaming aisles? It is really bad.

I have. It's not that bad.

So what Target did was pro-consumer, more or less.

Pro-consumer for one-side. Anti-consumer for another.
Still anti-consumer.

He doesn't care for collective punishment, fair enough. But keep in mind that the "Gamers are dead" articles weren't collective punishment. They were articles to show that the community is diverse.

I keep seeing people try to justify those stupid articles as being "misread."
If you're so good at understanding, go to one of the dozen sites that support GamerGate and tell me it's all about misogyny.

You also seem completely sure that GameJurnoPros hadn't been talking to each other in order to push a narrative in their favor.

You not understanding that is both our issues, cause GG has besmirched the name of the community and dragged it in the mud.

No. This whole sentence is laughable.

People keep saying collective punishment is bad. Yes it is bad, yes I do not want to do such a thing, but people outside of the community take one look at the whole bloody thing and we are all brushed with the same brush. That is how the world works, regardless of what America or other people seem to think.

It's faulty logic used by idiots. If you don't subscribe to it, don't support it.

 

[Phasmal]

Not that that stops people complaining about it, mind.

Ah, forgive me for not looking into it. When it comes to things like this it often descends into link throwing and `look at someone's tiwtter!` and it's hard to keep up, I find it best to not bother.

 

[EternallyBored]

It had a rather large thread on the religion and politics forum when it happened, it was a while ago so its dead now.

Oh, I've created the thread in the off-topic area already. I'd have thought it would have been even larger.

As for why it didn't gain more traction, it's because this isn't actually a new view, and its not quite the way you are interpreting it as, it's one that many people disagree with, but it's not new.

It isn't news because it is a "new view", it's news because someone who is known as standing for equality is espousing a doctrine that is decidedly not equal. If everything else she spouts is news, why not this egregious statement?

Because like the rest of my post stated, it's not nearly as egregious as you are painting it as, its a dumb redefinition, but all your hyperbole about it meaning that men have all the power and women are eternally helpless is wrong. The last line about how you think she was talking about how men can't experience hatred or bigotry is just flat out wrong, and denotes a fundamental misunderstanding of the philosophy she is espousing, no matter how much I may disagree with this particular view of hers, it is intellectually dishonest to paint it the way you did.

 

[black_knight1337]

So a ton of evidence that was shown to be clearly non-existent is what the timeline showed. THERE IS NO link of corruptionn between Nathan Grayson and Zoe Quinn, a simple Google search would show it. Yes they slept around sure, but that WAS IT. Also none of your business. And the INdiecade "evidence" is no evidence. TFYC were shown to be playing a game of their own as evidenced by later articles and I believe both parties apologized for that one, not sure. So please bring actual evidence to the table for that.

Did Zoe Quinn have sexual relationships with a number of people including a journalist and few indie developers? Yes, that much we know. Did that influence the press coverage she got? Or the award she won? We don't know, it's nothing more than a 'he said she said' argument. And yes, it most certainly is my business, in the same way that someone being paid to promote something is my business. It's an extra level of bias that isn't needed and can very easily mislead viewers/readers. That being said, whether or not that was true and if it is/isn't our business isn't particularly relevant. All I was showing you was what the movement was based on, and if you look at the start of that timeline it's all about corruption in the industry.

And this isn't a bloody thread about GG. The thread is about Anita Sarkeesian. Both are related, but stick to the subject at hand. I do not want another derailment.

Fair enough, but then again you were the one who made the initial accusations that GamerGate was founded on nothing but misogyny.

Edit:

Also when you got Breitbart, fucking Breitbart, suporting you, all your cries of "BUT ITS ABOUT ETHICS" fly out of the window.

Whose first article was after GamerGate started.

If you started say 4 to 5 years ago when the first signs of collusion between Publishers and Gaming Media appeared, you might have had a point. But you didnt, you started in August 2014 with speculations about Zoe Quinn, a witch hunt based on questionable evidence (ex-boyfriend blog post, yea that is really 100% conflict of interest free) and than hacking and doxxing and than further speculation.

Idk, in the past I can't remember seeing much more than speculation. This time though, there's evidence (which is all but confirmed as being facts) at the basis of this (Zoe Quinn's relationships). If it wasn't for the mass censorship that followed the initial allegations (and before you say it, no, it wasn't just a witch hunt that was censored. It several places it covered everything related to the topic) this would have never blown up as big as it has. Pretty obvious case of the Streisand Effect.

Funny how its about ethics. Please show me more, your own evidence shows that you are in the wrong. But enough of it. NO MORE GG derailment. I see you again I will report you. Than you can cry censorship. No wait you can't, cause that isn't censorship. Its just me being tired of this bullshit

Report me for addressing your own argument? Sure...

 

[Andy Shandy]

Not that that stops people complaining about it, mind.

Ah, forgive me for not looking into it. When it comes to things like this it often descends into link throwing and `look at someone's tiwtter!` and it's hard to keep up, I find it best to not bother.

Honestly, I don't blame you. Only reason I ever looked into it was because I loved Mirror's Edge and wanted to find out whether or not it was was true.

Not that that stops people complaining about it, mind.

I think Phasmal's was rhetorical, mind.

Wait, does it look like I'm complaining about Phasmal there? It wasn't supposed to! D: I was just trying to help! XD

 

[Josh123914]

Not that that stops people complaining about it, mind.

I think Phasmal's was rhetorical, mind.

Meh, I quoted you because you've been active in this thread and regardless of your intentions you're contributing to a controversy that doesn't exist.

Only in the same sense that you are. However, you're the one saying this is what EA wants, which would indicate to me you didn't understand that this controversy doesn't exist.

Hypothetically, you'd be stoking the fires, in fact pretty much every one here is.

So you quoted me, stoking the fires, to tell me I was stoking the fires.

Yuuuuup.
This is great. I feel like Bambi in the forest at the end of Bambi. In fact here's a file video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1vjdEfxjX8#t=148

And there's a difference between a conspiracy and an educated guess.

I agree. However, what you said gave no indication of "educated guess." You were telling us how we were playing right into EA's hands. As such, while I cannot prove your intent, I have no reason to believe that it was an educated guess, and reason to believe it was conspiracy. Especially since you had the presence of mind to say it wasn't.

You're probably right that you can't convince me, but that has less to do with me and more your lack of a cogent argument.

I'm not gonna prefix everything I say with "This isn't a conspiracy", that's ludicrous, and I wouldn't expect that from you either.
I've already gave reasons why I think this (hell I quoted another user), but since you're writing in the past tense then this (?) isn't an issue?

Sure, last paragraph, agreeing again, but I thought I gave a good reason for my thought process.
I'm not telling you to connect the dots, I'm saying that this is how EA has acted in the past, and its a way to predict their motives from there.
If that isn't good enough, then predicting anything based off of past behaviour in really any context isn't either.

 

[Rednog]

Before we get to everyone brandishing their torches and pitchforks, I'd just like to point out that the last instance of a high-profile developer listening to Sarkeesian's criticism/views was Saints Row IV [https://www.google.com/search?q=saints+row+iv+anita+sarkeesian&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp], and anybody who has played that game knows how it turned out.

Also, more reputable sources than a Youtube video based on blog post rumors would be nice. The only information even tangentially related to anything like this has solely been fear-mongering, and it goes back two years now to a blog post originally made on Destructoid (which had no sourced facts or anything to begin with).

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to call for a fact check.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you're essentially saying Anita Sarkeesian's criticism influenced Saints Row 4? And because of how great that game turned out we should assume that he influence will also be a homerun like it was for Saints Row 4?

The first in the search link you provided is an escapist article which is pretty much the guy mentioning that he accepts the criticism that Anita leveled against the early saints row games. She used the early games as an example in her August 25th, 2014 "Women as Background Decoration". No actual mention of her direct or even indirect input affecting the game.

Let's go further into the article, he talks about Viola and Kiki in Saints Row 3...which came out in 2011, where he mentions how they are treated as female character. Let's also note that Saints Row 3 predates the first Tropes vs Women which was March 7, 2013. Then he talks about women's depictions in Saints Row 4, which released August 20, 2013. Her videos came out very close to release date (March 7, 2013 & May 28, 2013). I find it hard to believe that those two videos had any significant impact if any at all, especially since their topics really don't address the issues that were changed. The time frame is just too short for a developer to turn around and redo character dialogue and record new lines.

Rather I believe that the team became more aware of the issues arising in the industry over the years.

So yea I call shenanigans on your claim.

 

[Haerthan]

[

Lovely one of you. You haven't read eveything I said have you? In the end I SAID he should have stuck to his guns: NEUTRALITY. But your quote of me doesn't show that. That is really dishonest.

My point was:
You admonish GamerGate for its harassing members, you are not neutral.
But you say TotalBiscuit should have ignored the harassing members of ant-GamerGate and remained neutral.

That is hypocritical.

And TB has shown himself to flip and flop between issues. That is why I do not respect the guy so much anymore.

Well you seem to flip and flop between sentences. So I'm skeptical.

Well it isn't soo rational in my eyes: who is the larger shopping demographic at Target: gamers or parents? Parents. Who made the petition: parents/sex workers/ other people or gamers. Who is Target going to listen to: the demographic that makes them money.

People who lied about the content of the game and wouldn't buy it.
Vs.
People who would have bought the game.

Have you even seen the inside of Target's gaming aisles? It is really bad.

I have. It's not that bad.

So what Target did was pro-consumer, more or less.

Pro-consumer for one-side. Anti-consumer for another.
Still anti-consumer.

He doesn't care for collective punishment, fair enough. But keep in mind that the "Gamers are dead" articles weren't collective punishment. They were articles to show that the community is diverse.

I keep seeing people try to justify those stupid articles as being "misread."
If you're so good at understanding, go to one of the dozen sites that support GamerGate and tell me it's all about misogyny.

You also seem completely sure that GameJurnoPros hadn't been talking to each other in order to push a narrative in their favor.

You not understanding that is both our issues, cause GG has besmirched the name of the community and dragged it in the mud.

No. This whole sentence is laughable.

People keep saying collective punishment is bad. Yes it is bad, yes I do not want to do such a thing, but people outside of the community take one look at the whole bloody thing and we are all brushed with the same brush. That is how the world works, regardless of what America or other people seem to think.

It's faulty logic used by idiots. If you don't subscribe to it, don't support it.

1) I was never neutral. I was anti-GG from the beginning and still am. TB should have stuck neutral and admonished harassers from both sides. Instead he took the easy way out. Hypocrisy, look it up.
2) I've been inside a Target myself. A very huge gap of PC gaming titles and only AAA console titles. Nintendo is present but not to the extent I wish. So yes, again who shops there? Parents and families, not gamers. It's pro-consumer for one side, anti-consumer for the other. That is it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
3) How do you know they are pushing their own narrative. They know each other, of course they do. But that so far hasn't affected and most likely won't affect the so-called "narrative". Not when you do it yourself with your so called "evidence". And I keep telling you people that you should have started years ago, but you didn't. So your ENTIRE root cause is tainted.
4)I don't support collective punishment. But we still gotta come out against harassment ALL OF US, regardless of ideology. You seem unable to grasp that.
5) I will report you if necessary, so stop derailing. Insulting people is also a big no no.

 

[Lightknight]

It had a rather large thread on the religion and politics forum when it happened, it was a while ago so its dead now.

Oh, I've created the thread in the off-topic area already. I'd have thought it would have been even larger.

As for why it didn't gain more traction, it's because this isn't actually a new view, and its not quite the way you are interpreting it as, it's one that many people disagree with, but it's not new.

It isn't news because it is a "new view", it's news because someone who is known as standing for equality is espousing a doctrine that is decidedly not equal. If everything else she spouts is news, why not this egregious statement?

Because like the rest of my post stated, it's not nearly as egregious as you are painting it as, its a dumb redefinition, but all your hyperbole about it meaning that men have all the power and women are eternally helpless is wrong. The last line about how you think she was talking about how men can't experience hatred or bigotry is just flat out wrong, and denotes a fundamental misunderstanding of the philosophy she is espousing, no matter how much I may disagree with this particular view of hers, it is intellectually dishonest to paint it the way you did.

It is a sexist comment. Overt misandry.

If you don't think such comments are egregious from a person who markets herself as a proponent of gender equality then you and I are of different opinions. Egregiousness of actions is measured only by subjective scales so that is your prerogative to differ from me.

However, seeing as sexism is just that, hatred/prejudice/bigotry/discrimination/etc towards individuals based on sex, her saying that men can't be on the receiving end of it is exactly as I painted it. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that a person redefining a term of bigotry as a means to exclude the possibility of their side from being recognized as such is not performing a bigoted action.

Is she honestly making the claim that no women have power over men? This is sexist against both sexes if you really evaluate it in that way. Women are CEOs and business owners all over the world and are perfectly capable of sexism.

 

[shrekfan246]

Before we get to everyone brandishing their torches and pitchforks, I'd just like to point out that the last instance of a high-profile developer listening to Sarkeesian's criticism/views was Saints Row IV [https://www.google.com/search?q=saints+row+iv+anita+sarkeesian&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp], and anybody who has played that game knows how it turned out.

Also, more reputable sources than a Youtube video based on blog post rumors would be nice. The only information even tangentially related to anything like this has solely been fear-mongering, and it goes back two years now to a blog post originally made on Destructoid (which had no sourced facts or anything to begin with).

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to call for a fact check.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you're essentially saying Anita Sarkeesian's criticism influenced Saints Row 4? And because of how great that game turned out we should assume that he influence will also be a homerun like it was for Saints Row 4?

No, actually, that's not what I'm saying at all.

My point, rather, was that Anita Sarkeesian has apparently had a favorable response to what many people would likely consider to be the single video game that best embodies everything she supposedly hates and wants to remove from video games, if you were to listen to the way people on the internet go about talking about her. And that her response to it and her criticism of other representation within the realm of video games was received well by the developer of that game, and absolutely nothing horrifying came of it.

My apologies if I was unclear in my original post.

 

[Something Amyss]

Wait, does it look like I'm complaining about Phasmal there? It wasn't supposed to! D: I was just trying to help! XD

No, just saying it probably didn't require an answer. Though I may have been wrong.

In any case, to the part of the post aimed at her, the reason I look into these things is because so many people who complain about Anita Sarkeesian are either making up or parroting made up issues that it's just my default position. If someone told me that Anita said the sky was blue, I'd fact-check it. What's worse is how often it comes from the people who hate her because she "misrepresents" or "lies" about things.

The message, essentially, is "two wrongs make a right."

I don't blame anyone for not looking into it (also, I'm not going to follow linkspam, a practice I find dishonest at best, or twitspam, which I find is generally worse), but I imagine the ratio of false statements to true ones borders on 999:1

I'm not gonna prefix everything I say with "This isn't a conspiracy", that's ludicrous, and I wouldn't expect that from you either.

That's not what I said. Re-read carefully. My point was that you did do just that:

It isn't some conspiracy, it's EA deciding that having AS on board will give them a nice safety net somewhere down the line.

I've already gave reasons why I think this (hell I quoted another user), but since you're writing in the past tense then this (?) isn't an issue?

I still have no reason to believe you weren't talking a conspiracy. Quoting someone else doesn't help.

 

[CaitSeith]

As much as I respect ReviewTechUSA, I can't consider him a good source of information. His rage against censorship and feminist influence in gaming has been getting the best of him lately, making him ignore facts and skipping proper research before giving his opinion.

 

[Haerthan]

Regardless of where you stand on the whole issue I think we can all agree on one thing. OP is a tool. Report me for that. It would be the first valid one you have made or threatened to make in this entire thread.

Well please do reread my OP. I edited it a few hours after i put it up to reflect new knowledge on the matter. Although how you missed that is beyond me. And yes sometimes I do fire off OPs without doing my whole research. This was one of this times and I apologize.

 

[Josh123914]

snip

Okay, good for you. I already gave reasons and you haven't addressed them.

You can keep assuming what I said was conspiracy, but the definiton is:
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

Cuz, see, a conspiracy implies something bad is going to happen. But hiring AS as a consultant is neither illegal nor to dangerous to anyone's wellbeing, so you can stop calling what I said a conspiracy.

Other than that there's not anything left to be said here.

 

[Haerthan]

Apparently she's already had them change the controls to the console version of a game, Sarkeesian has made it self-evident that she understands incredibly little about game design.

I don't think it's right to have someone who knows very little about game design make that kind of decision, the mildest number tweak can lead to a massive imbalance, shitty controls will always hamper someones ability to enjoy something.

This is a dumb move, if it's true & being a fan of Mirrors Edge, I genuinely hope it's not.

I am going to whack you with a giant CITATION NEEDED.

CITATION NEEDED.