I used to dislike Anita Sarkeesian, but...

[Depulcator]

Cool! you people just keep fighting about what one person said on videos on the internet. I'll be over here enjoying my games.

 

[Yuuki]

1) See first page of this thread full of responses of "I'm tired of this topic, don't care anymore"
2) Skip ahead to page 11 to see more people saying the same thing

If we are sick of this topic we have a funny way of showing it

 

[white_wolf]

The problem I have with her video is while she says this is a bad trope, old, tired, and spammed to death she doesn't do anything to give suggestions that means the game makers now have to come up with this new goal. For instance players decide they no longer wish to have the goal of save the princess what do we replace this with? Save the community? Save the galaxy? Save the dog? Save the harvest from failing and will these new goals motivate the player to want to complete the game without the player having to force themselves to do it?

We then run into the problem of how many ways can you save the world? Or save the community? Or save someones flowers before the community hates that too then goes, " Give us back the princess." There are really only a fine amount of motivations a person has money, reproduction, family well being, personal or financial safety, or social standing replace family well being for money doesn't work would we've fallowed Mario to get Peach if her dad paid us huge sums of money? Even if we did I bet feminist would bash this saying you traded money or things for Peach! How dare you! No I did a service for the King and Peach by rescuing her so I get paid for my time like the cops do. Or what if Mario was offered to be a knight for saving Peach? Would Mario even want that? He only wanted to save her because it was her getting a kiss was a bonus but that wasn't his motivation.

 

[carnex]

...

You win, I love juicy delicious murder.

 

[SushiJaguar]

I just refuse to pay any attention to her because she's a thief.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

Wow...

*slowly applauds*

The first thread I've seen on here that really seemed to not only "get" what Sarkeesian was saying, but also critically analyzed it without allowing their guilt and wounded pride speak for the author.

Very, very nice.

 

[Cecilo]

1) You assume that I support suffering since I am pro choice on most things, even what food people consume. That is incredibly entitled and reeks of prejudice. In 18 century people who actively opposed slavery have worn cotton.

I count three red herrings in paragraph alone, and I'll tell you what.

1: "You assume that I support suffering since I am pro choice [sic] on most things, even what food people consume." In the novel Thank You for Smoking the main character is a tobacco lobbyist, his son asks him about his job and to better explain it he uses an analogy. He tells him to imagine that they're debating in front of a crowd about which flavor of ice cream is better, chocolate or vanilla. His son picks chocolate (I think, it's been awhile but that's not the point) and his father responds by accusing his son of looking down on people who prefer vanilla, whereas he believes we as Americans should have the freedom to choose which ice cream they like best. His son correctly points out that has nothing to do with the topic, to which his father agrees but adds that being truthful is not his job, the red herring he employs simply works.

Now imagine you and I are having a discussion about animal cruelty and whether people ought to purchase animal products because of the cruelty of the meat industry and ethical arguments against using living creatures for their parts. I take the affirmative, that we should not, and you respond by stating that we ought to have the freedom to eat and wear what we want. That has nothing to do with the conversation, as we've not yet entered the discussion into whether the first question entitles us to ban their use. You aren't arguing in good faith, you're addressing a legal point farther down the line and ignoring the ethical questions that are in front of your face.

2: "That is incredibly entitled and reeks of prejudice" Ironically the preceding sentence demonstrates your entitlement and prejudice. It isn't "entitled" or "prejudiced" to make note of the fact that the meat industry is unimaginably cruel. Your issue isn't with Kai Kuhl, it's with reality.

3: "In 18 century [sic] people who actively opposed slavery have worn cotton." Utterly irrelevant factoid, the personal failings and hypocrisies of other activists does not excuse the hypocrisy of people who admit the meat industry is cruel while supporting them with their dollars.

2) You compare animals and humans. No matter how much I love animals, and despise many human beings that is beyond my understanding.

What's wrong with a comparison? The cruelty of the meat industry is certainly comparable to many atrocities in method and suffering caused. We may place special emphasis on atrocities committed against humans, and that's both understandable and rational, but drawing comparisons between the two is valid.

3) I have seen studies that plants react to harm being done to them. Their activities speed up and they actively sway away from harm at rate available to them. That makes your statement really superficial. Just because it doesn't scream it doesn't mean it's not hurt.

You're referring to ancient and outdated biocommunication experiments, the studies themselves amount to an exploration of the paranormal and are widely dismissed as pseudoscience. Mythbusters even did an episode on the topic and determined it was just that, a myth. The extent to which plants can feel stimuli has been likened to a themometer, the sensation of being eaten cannot be categorized as pain or fear as plants have no consciousness with which to formulate emotions.

tl;dr? This is a silly red-herring to avoid talking about animal rights.

Yea, last one is pretty extreme as an argument and I'm not really serious about it, but it's also true. Two of my walnut trees actually sway away from my spot where my neighbor burns his leaves, grass chippings and trash. They can't do that now, but while trees were young and thin they didn't develop branches on that side and actually lean to the opposite side.

*groan* No, they weren't "swaying away" from your neighbor's firepit they were just swaying.

Then again I see living wold as formed from biological imperatives and everything else as simple construction over it. I see first as neutral, in position that really can't be labeled as good or bad. Only humans can label it so in relation to their believes and well-being. So, human consumption of meat is just part of our natural feeding habit is. But if you don't feel like it, it's your own preference. I'm not gonna judge you, or even notice. But, if you try to force your believes on me, better be armed with some bloody good evidence to support your cause or be prepared to be considered pompous ass.

The question that needs to be asked if humans must eat meat is how much meat do humans need to eat. The answer is far less than what we're eating now. We greatly overconsume meat, even as much as meat with one meal a day is too much but a large number of Americans eat meat two-three meals a day. The human body is not adapted to eating large quantities of meat, and health issues are increasing proportional to the growth of the meat industry. Demand for meat has actually become so large that the meat industry needs to adopt increasingly cruel methods to support itself; actions such as stuffing large amounts of overly fat chickens into a tiny wire-mesh cage and searing off the beaks of chickens to prevent them from pecking the others to death. Or culling all of the male chicks from birth because it's economic to do otherwise.

Except what if plants don't react the way animals do, they are of course a different type of being. Studies have shown that plants that release a chemical when attacked, will actually cause other plants of the same type to release the chemical as well. Is this a form of communication? We see this in rabbits don't we? One rabbit will thump the ground to warn other rabbits of a threat. The rabbits flee.

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/research/title_178237_en.html

The venus fly trap is able to close itself when something agitates the hairs in it's trap. As well as a whole collection of plants that are predatory in nature. The fact of the matter is that plants COULD Feel pain, not in the same way we feel pain true. But they could. And even so, if your justification for not eating meat is just "It can feel pain". I'm sorry, but we don't have enough evidence or enough studies to show that plants do not feel any kind of pain. Even if it is just reactionary, it is still something, it is still alive, you are still killing and eating something that was alive, even if it was a form of life isn't the same as us. For your own selfish desires to live.

 

[runic knight]

Your valid argumentation

So, I understand that many people in this community think that Sarkeesian is toxic for the discussion, I mean, alone the quantity of threads alone in this forum shows that, but I think that this is not the fault of Sarkeesian, but of the audience. I just can speak out of personal experience, but I got in gaming because of escapism, to separate me for a time from my personal problems, to temporarily experience a much purer world. To hear that your own chosen world is not free from problems of our world get you peeved. I understand that. I think a bunck of dislike towards her stems from that attitude.
Maybe the audience is pissed of by Sarkeesian due to her sometimes questionable scientific research and work with sources, but in the end she is an internet activist, not a harvard professor. And in the end, she reached her goal. She made a bunch of people aware of that problem, or otherwise ther wouldnt be a baziliard threads about her and misogynistic content.

Part of the reason I dislike her and call her toxic is because she does what every Bill o'Riley or Glenn Beck out there does. I call them toxic to the discussion on politics all the time because they add nothing to the discussion, they derail it near entirely by spewing unproven crap and hiding behind a victim status in order to keep it up and they refuse to address any valid complaints. With Beck and O'Rilely the victim status is the claim they are the voice of the common man, thus any complaint usually is replied with a "if you don't support the real Americans" sort of response from fans or defenders. They are toxic because they not only help create that atmosphere, but perpetuate it by burning bridges for discussion simply by continuing the way they do.
That is what Anita does in my eyes. It isn't just that she is a horribly boring reviewer with an ideological chip on her shoulder and a webcam, it is that she is causing harm to the very discussion itself by polarizing people who would otherwise be having those discussions even more then they should be and by distracting the conversation away from the topic and onto the internet personality herself.

 

[Tony2077]

Wow...

*slowly applauds*

The first thread I've seen on here that really seemed to not only "get" what Sarkeesian was saying, but also critically analyzed it without allowing their guilt and wounded pride speak for the author.

Very, very nice.

i get what she's saying but some of it is still not true and just there for some reason i will never understand

 

[hexFrank202]

*sigh*... With all due respect, I just don't care. And have never cared about this 'sexism' issue. How many bloody threads are we gunna have about this before we put this to bed? I'm not upset, I'm exhausted of this topic and I wonder when this community will have some ELSE to talk about.

Agreement! In the latest episode of Moviebob's bizarre 'The Game Overthinker' webshow on Youtube/Screwattack/Blip, he mentions that things like 'sexism, racism and bigotry are NOT talked about nearly enough in this community'. What a croc.

Look, folks like Bob and Jim seemed to have had sexist thoughts and feelings and/or been brought up in bigoted families (and I only say this because it is something that they themselves have alluded to, I stress!) in the past, and clearly have a far greater gut-reaction and shame when they see anyone else doing it. (Again, I'm not saying this makes them bad people or anything, just my observation that might explain why they keep talking about certain things.)

Well I don't. And I wish people who regret being jerks before could stop being kind of jerks NOW and cease wasting this community on the same tripe dialogue over and over and over and over and over again.

Maybe it wouldn't be a problem if they focused more on the individual people who caused the problem. Because I don't see it anywhere! I've never been to a forum--never seen a single post--with NEARLY as much bile and bigotry as Movie Bob and Jim Sterling constantly gab on about. Every gamer I've talked to is pretty accepting and alright. Maybe there are certain websites where it's a problem? Then please highlight those sites only; not this vague critique of the gaming community at large.

Also, one reason for Anita's hefty backlash is, well, look at her. She just LOOKS smug and condescending and 'holier than thou'. It's just an aesthetic persona thing; a lot of it may not even be her fault.

 

[wulf3n]

People hated her right from the start, and are just looking for anything to discredit her, from legitimate concerns to entirely fabricated accusations, to justify their hate. To make them look better than the misogynist pricks they are, in the face of others and themselves.

I don't think the haters of Anita are "misogynistic", or at least not in their hatred of Anita. For it to be misogynistic the hate must be because she's a woman, but really it's not her gender that makes people hate her, it's what they perceive to be her intentions.

Do you really think the reaction would be much different if a Anita was a man. Sure he'd be called "White Knight" more than but the hate would still be there.

 

[CloudAtlas]

People hated her right from the start, and are just looking for anything to discredit her, from legitimate concerns to entirely fabricated accusations, to justify their hate. To make them look better than the misogynist pricks they are, in the face of others and themselves.

I don't think the haters of Anita are "misogynistic", or at least not in their hatred of Anita. For it to be misogynistic the hate must be because she's a woman, but really it's not her gender that makes people hate her, it's what they perceive to be her intentions.

Do you really think the reaction would be much different if a Anita was a man. Sure he'd be called "White Knight" more than but the hate would still be there.

You don't think any fair share of her haters are misogynists? What difference does it make in the end if they hate her because she's a woman daring to have an opinion, or if they hate her because she is probably intending to criticize sexist content?

Allow me to quote ert once more, since I couldn't have said it better myself:

Anita said "I think there are sexism problems in the community," and so many people screamed back "we're not sexist you stupid ****!". Their words said one thing. Their actions another.

Edit:
Now I don't know for sure, but I don't believe a man would have gotten the same reaction. Jimquisition's Jim is talking about the same issues, and he's calling his opponents out for what they are with language I couldn't ever repeat here lest I be banned, yet reactions don't seem even remotely similar. And while I'm not important or famous in any way, I've personally never faced reactions when saying even 'worse' things that were half as abusive.

 

[wulf3n]

You don't think any fair share of her haters are misogynists?

They might be I don't know. All I'm saying hating Anita is not evidence of Mysoginy.

What difference does it make in the end if they hate her because she's a woman daring to have an opinion, or if they hate her because she is probably intending to criticize sexist content?

Ones Misogyny the other isn't [necessarily].

Allow me to quote ert once more, since I couldn't have said it better myself:

Anita said "I think there are sexism problems in the community," and so many people screamed back "we're not sexist you stupid ****!". Their words said one thing. Their actions another.

It's incredibly easy on the internet to interpret criticism as insult. While I don't agree with their action I don't believe it indicates misogyny. It's not showing hatred for her being a woman, it's showing hatred for her "deeming" what they enjoy to be sexist.

Edit:
Now I don't know for sure, but I don't believe a man would have gotten the same reaction. Jimquisition's Jim is talking about the same issues, and he's calling his opponents out for what they are with language I couldn't ever repeat here lest I be banned, yet reactions don't seem even remotely similar. And while I'm not important or famous in any way, I've personally never faced reactions when saying even 'worse' things that were half as abusive.

The problem is we don't have a similar male equivalent. There are what I consider 2 [there may be more] major events that escalated Anita from regular internet opinion personality, a la Jim Sterling or Bob Chipman to what she is now. The first being receiving $150K to make a video series, and Feeding the trolls on 4Chan.

 

[carnex]

What difference does it make in the end if they hate her because she's a woman daring to have an opinion, or if they hate her because she is probably intending to criticize sexist content?

And of course ignore, or even celebrate the fact that whole argument is built upon idea that males treat females like a lower spices because they are males. Just because you have valid point (lack of female protagonists and often quite bad female characters where there are some) doesn?t mean you can piggy back other, quite ideological claims on it. At least those are my qualms.

Oh, I forgot, questioning those claims is Misogyny, and debunking them is highest form of oppression known to human beings.

 

[Kai Kuhl]

Part of the reason I dislike her and call her toxic is because she does what every Bill o'Riley or Glenn Beck out there does. I call them toxic to the discussion on politics all the time because they add nothing to the discussion, they derail it near entirely by spewing unproven crap and hiding behind a victim status in order to keep it up and they refuse to address any valid complaints. With Beck and O'Rilely the victim status is the claim they are the voice of the common man, thus any complaint usually is replied with a "if you don't support the real Americans" sort of response from fans or defenders. They are toxic because they not only help create that atmosphere, but perpetuate it by burning bridges for discussion simply by continuing the way they do.
That is what Anita does in my eyes. It isn't just that she is a horribly boring reviewer with an ideological chip on her shoulder and a webcam, it is that she is causing harm to the very discussion itself by polarizing people who would otherwise be having those discussions even more then they should be and by distracting the conversation away from the topic and onto the internet personality herself.

Ok, I see where our opinions split here. I honestly dont see how she poisons the topic at all. So, she made some strange claims about some of the games you like so much, this is understandable, because she is not a scientist, but some activist, so shit happens. Even professors do some false claims time to time. And she doesnt really discuss about her work through the internet. This weighs a bit more grave, but as an internet person who got serious attacked in the past on a very low niveau, I can really understand that, too. Besides that, I just dont see what everybody has against her.
I really think she doesnt 'poisons' the discussion, but the topic poisons the sometimes really immature gamers community.

And that topic itself is polarizing people, not just one internet activist.
I think Sarkeesian stands for many gamers for an attack on their own little refugee. That is understandable, but not excusable. Games are now, or will be, a very influental medium, and being that, it should be conform to certain rules like every other respectable medium out there should be.

 

[nuttshell]

...Feeding the trolls on 4Chan.

Wow, it got the thread 11 pages for someone to mention this.
Even if people are just being presented with her videos alone, I am struggling to grasp how they think she deserves such praise, compassion and 150k$.

 

[Asita]

And I assume we will agree on one more thing: Her being, in your eyes, a poor defender of her cause is not the main reason why she receives so much flak and abuse - it is the cause itself.

In as much as the rush to back her was clearly nothing more than the Dulcinea Effect in full force... *eyeroll*

(And before anyone jumps on me for that, the above statement is solely intended to make a point about assuming motive. I am NOT actually suggesting that that is the case)

More seriously, let's be honest here, this isn't an issue isolated to Sarkeesian or Feminism or even video games. It's LONG been established that the internet can be a vitriolic place sometimes and the flavor of that vitriol tends to reflect on whatever is being actively trolled at the time. When Jack Thompson was relevant it wasn't unusual to see people state the desire to kill him, when Cooper Lawrence lambasted Mass Effect - despite acknowledging that she had no experience with the game - her book got review bombed (With the most common comment accompanying it being along the lines of "I haven't read the book but I am qualified to talk about its content and say that it's horrible"), and then of course there's the whole "An Hero" fiasco, to name but a few examples. Now, is the abuse disgusting? Yes. But given precedence I don't think it's really safe to assume motive like that.

And really, let's not dismiss the possibility that people can disagree with her argument without disagreeing with the cause. While she's gained an incredible amount of name recognition from her Kickstarter, Tropes vs Women as a project predated that Kickstarter and had several entries from which people could guess at the content of the new project and...well suffice to say that they didn't speak particularly well towards her ability to fairly represent the subject[footnote]See for instance her Straw Feminist video which complained about a certain Powerpuff Girls character as a weak caricature of feminism...ignoring the fact that the character's revelation as a faux-feminist by actual feminist characters was actually integral to the episode, essentially removing the character's defining context[/footnote], and that kind of thing tends to be a bit of a berserk button for gamers (or really any kind of fandom) as a group.

 

[chellfreeman]

As a feminist, I'm verrrrry fed up with Anita Sarkeesian

Anita is NOT a radical feminist, radical feminists declare they are never playing a game again unless it has a female protagonist/believable female characters. I have seen this time and again in the radfem community.

Shutting off the youtube comments is a double edged sword because she does receive outrageous abuse BUT she also refuses to offer solutions or engage at all, her word is law. I've tried to talk to her feminist-to-feminist to no avail. She is also very choosy in what she wants to talk about so she comes off as biased. Part of good argumentative writing/presenting is showing off counterarguments you already thought of to your position and she refuses to do even that.

I'm kind of grateful for her existing but at the same time she is painting other feminist gamers in a bad light, so I'm torn. She also hates on just about every game ever it seems, judging from her twitter feed, so it makes her look a little worse considering she is never happy with ANYTHING. She shat all over Remember Me, and I found it to be pretty awesome from a feminist standpoint at least. I don't understand why she can't say "I didn't like Remember Me because of x,y, and z but as a game with a female protagonist I enjoyed it" or what have you. The only games I've ever seen her talk about enjoying are Mirror's Edge and Sword and Sworcery, which barely counts for me.

She just seems like she isn't a gamer, which lends credence to the "fake gamer girl" bullshit. But what do I know, I'm just a feminist gamer who actually has bothered to play games/participate in gaming culture.