On Geek Privilege

[Mysnomer]

Neither Bob Chipman nor Anita Sarkeesian has ever tried to make geeky things illegal. Neither has ever sued anybody. Neither has ever been disbarred for bringing frivolous lawsuits before the supreme court. Neither has said that you should be ashamed of yourself for pursuing geeky things.

I don't think attaching the social stigma of an anti-progressive to someone is much better than calling them a potential criminal. And while Jack Thompson tried to infringe freedom of speech through the legal system, it's hardly better to infringe it through peer pressure and browbeating.

Criticism is not 'infringing on freedom of speech through peer pressure and browbeating' - that's absurd. Neither MovieBob nor Sarkeesian has ever infringed upon - or even made an ATTEMPT to infringe upon - anybody's freedom of speech.

To be honest, neither did Thompson - but that was because he was an ineffectual buffoon, not for want of trying.

That whole line of thinking is moronic. I'm surprised that ostensibly sane people came up with it.

...
...

Criticism is not 'infringing on freedom of speech through peer pressure and browbeating' - that's absurd. [HEADING=2]Neither[/HEADING] MovieBob nor Sarkeesian has ever infringed upon - or [HEADING=2]even made an ATTEMPT to infringe[/HEADING] upon - anybody's freedom of speech.

To be honest, [HEADING=2]neither did Thompson[/HEADING] - but that was because he was an ineffectual buffoon, [HEADING=2]not for want of trying.[/HEADING]

You literally just said: They didn't attempt it. Thompson didn't attempt. But he attempted it.

This is inane. Thompson tried to outlaw violent games. His tool was the legal system. That's an infringement of free speech. There's really no contest, unless you argue that videogames aren't speech, but if you think something so tied to the families of cinema and literature isn't speech, you're off your rocker.

Sarkeesian won't be happy until everyone agrees with her. Her tool is social shame and guilt. The modern Mark of Cain that is sexism. She would brand those who do not conform to her ideals as heretics under the guise of criticism. Her criticism is entirely self-serving and has little value except as an example of what to avoid. I won't say she can't say it, that would make me no better than her, but I will say people shouldn't listen to it.

Sarkeesian is no better than Thompson. Both are self-serving narrow-minded individuals who want a medium they have no stake in to conform to their morality. The only difference is Anita used the fact that she is a woman to play the backlash in her favor, and Thompson was a bumbling fool who only sped his own demise.

 

[Gindil]

I personally prefer not to focus as much on the asshole as I do on making those that are being harassed know that they're perfectly welcome, and ignore Tim, he's a jerk, want to go kill some orcs instead?

Can't we do both? Can't we call out assholes and make it clear to the harassed that they are welcome?

I have no idea what the hell Moviebob is talking about. He's rehashing his old stuff to make his agenda known while misinterpreting old shows.

For example, you had Steve Urkel go after Laura Winslow.

You had Myrtle Urkel (Steve Urkel's "cousin") going after Laura's brother.

Then there's Myra, who was an attractive girl, going after Steve.

And Laura finally decided on Steve as the show neared its end.

That's just ONE of the contexts, Bob ignores in his view to paint "geekdom" as having some stalker BS and winning some battles like they did in his video "Magneto was right".

He conflates all people into this "community" when he has no idea who is a part and what their part is. Everyone shares an interest in games for various reasons and it just comes off as moralizing BS that he's rather become known for.

People join and leave the "community" for their own reasons. I don't see how Bob's insistence on telling others what to do will really help in this situation.

 

[JimB]

But you can't say that for sure.

Of course not. At the end of the day, only a telepath can say with absolute certainty what a person's motivations for an action are. All the rest of us can do is look at the action, what it accomplishes, and how well it does so, and from there make inferences.

Trolls generally don't care about the subject matter; they just take contrary positions to waste people's time and exasperate them.

Don't get me wrong, I do not mistake anecdotes for data...but I must say, your experience with trolls seems to differ wildly from mine. Every troll I have known has been someone with an ax to grind, someone seeking revenge for imagined slights, like some fuckwit on another site who kept trolling Doug Walker for not making a Nostalgia Critic episode about autism because that's prejudiced and keeping autistic people down, or whatever his bullshit reasoning was.

I would recommend getting yourself to a library or something, because a lot of the stuff I linked are great dissections of things like game journalism, social justice scandals, and various internet pundits.

The last time I was there, I don't think my library allowed YouTube access...but that's a good idea. I should take my laptop to Panera or something. I won't be doing it today because the first of seven predicted inches of snow has already fallen, but still, thanks, Mysnomer. I sometimes forget that I don't have to rely one hundred percent on my own resources.

Thank you for the summation of the videos' points, too. I hope there is more proven causation of the allegations made--for instance, you said "threads were spammed" without mentioning who did it--but I appreciate you taking the effort.

Jack Thompson tried to infringe freedom of speech through the legal system, it's hardly better to infringe it through peer pressure and browbeating.

I know you weren't talking to me, but this one is a pet peeve of mine: freedom of speech does not mean what you seem to think it means. It means the government can't censor you. That's it. It doesn't mean that people can't disagree with your speech, nor that influential people can't publicly declare your speech to be objectionable. To suggest that they ought not to be able to express their opinions of your opinions is to damage their "freedom of speech" as you seem to understand the term.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

If I were to start a conversation about ?Geek Privilege? the first thing I?d probably want to address is my own growing discomfort with unironically claiming the privilege of using words like ?culture? or ?community? to draw some kind of parallel between the nerd/fandom pop-ephemera and actual marginalized groups.

Great article Bob! Thanks for writing it. I think there are a lot of people here on the Escapist who need to be reminded that being nerds means we have a reason to be kind to others, not that we are automatically in the right.

Also, thanks for that link to the Gay Male Privilege article. I enjoyed reading it as well.

 

[Mysnomer]

No, what I said was they never did it, or even attempted it. And Thompson never did it either, because he was ineffectual, not for want of trying.

Learn to read.

You are fond of saying this, but my ability to read, and recognize sentence structure is what led me to point out how your post contradicts itself. If anyone should learn something, you should learn to construct a post that conveys your message properly, instead of just loading it with negations.

Sarkeesian won't be happy until everyone agrees with her. Her tool is social shame and guilt. The modern Mark of Cain that is sexism. She would brand those who do not conform to her ideals as heretics under the guise of criticism. Her criticism is entirely self-serving and has little value except as an example of what to avoid. I won't say she can't say it, that would make me no better than her, but I will say people shouldn't listen to it.

You know an awful lot about the motivations of a woman you've never met. Even though she's never said any of the things you say she has, and so far not only is her opinion rather mild, but her conclusions are so obvious that they pretty much go without saying - which is why people can't actually argue against her, and resort to the kind of ridiculous, nonsensical arguments and stupid, pointless ad hominem attacks you tend to favor here.

Ooh, you're so clever. This person, so fresh and new to the internet, how could I possibly divine her intention? It's not like we have hours of footage espousing her beliefs. Or her thesis paper. Here's some facts for you: Anita has judged works out of context, removed footage that undercuts her point, and denied the validity of satire. She's shown me exactly what her motivations are: Get her point across as right, no matter what.

I assume that you're only referring to TvWiVG, but if you can stomach watching Feminist Frequency, you'll find her savaging artistic metaphor as misogyny. That carries a weight, you understand. Misogyny isn't a crime, but a lot of people treat it like one. You don't get to demonstrate such poor critical thinking and research skills as to miss the entire point of a work, and expect to be rewarded for your ineptitude as some beacon of social progress. Yet that is exactly what happened to Anita.

Hey! More rational jargon. Please highlight my ad hominem attacks that don't come attached to a relevant point or serve to draw comparisons. Because, since I am not at an academic debate, I feel a bit of ad hominem is okay now and then, to let off some steam. I'd also like that highlighting, because ad hominem is when a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. I think it's pretty relevant that Anita is an unquestioned demagogue, and that her opinions carry the weight of coming from a progressive movement.

Trolls generally don't care about the subject matter; they just take contrary positions to waste people's time and exasperate them.

Don't get me wrong, I do not mistake anecdotes for data...but I must say, your experience with trolls seems to differ wildly from mine. Every troll I have known has been someone with an ax to grind, someone seeking revenge for imagined slights, like some fuckwit on another site who kept trolling Doug Walker for not making a Nostalgia Critic episode about autism because that's prejudiced and keeping autistic people down, or whatever his bullshit reasoning was.

A troll campaign can be started by such a person, but the adage "Don't feed the trolls" would have a lot less truth if everyone had a similar grudge. They can be so easily dismissed b/c they aren't invested beyond their own entertainment, for the most part. There are some cases where they go trolling for justice, but if this was such a case of unified intent, it still negates the accusations of misogyny, because those comments would have been an attempt to get Anita to make some sort of faux pas and discredit herself.

Thank you for the summation of the videos' points, too. I hope there is more proven causation of the allegations made--for instance, you said "threads were spammed" without mentioning who did it--but I appreciate you taking the effort.

I've heard some who don't believe it was Sarkeesian herself who did the spamming, but an actual denizen of 4chan would have known better, and she has proven her knowledge of the site, as when /v/ was trying to find a way to communicate with her without adding fuel to her fire, they said "Be polite and civil, pretend that you are female." She derisively quoted this on her twitter along with a screenshot of the post, I believe. So she's definitely aware of 4chan, and knew of it's potential for manipulation. If it didn't server he purposes so perfectly, I might have doubts as well, but I feel the pieces fall into place. Even if she didn't post it herself, I still feel she was involved.

Jack Thompson tried to infringe freedom of speech through the legal system, it's hardly better to infringe it through peer pressure and browbeating.

I know you weren't talking to me, but this one is a pet peeve of mine: freedom of speech does not mean what you seem to think it means. It means the government can't censor you. That's it. It doesn't mean that people can't disagree with your speech, nor that influential people can't publicly declare your speech to be objectionable. To suggest that they ought not to be able to express their opinions of your opinions is to damage their "freedom of speech" as you seem to understand the term.

Understand, though, that something doesn't have to be a law to create oppression. Is it against the law to be gay? No, but in certain communities, admitting you're gay or endorsing homosexuals is social suicide. In that way, freedom of speech is stifled. Maybe "freedom of speech" is not what I want to say, exactly, but the point is that Anita will attach hurtful labels like sexist and misogynist to games, without any consideration for context, or even in spite of context. When she talks about television portrayals of women in her paper, she lists "nurturing, cooperative, intuitive, and emotionally expressive" as positive feminine traits that would be displayed if television properly portrayed women. Under positive male traits, we have: rational, self-control, self-confident, objective, independent, decisive, daring, strong, and active. According to Anita, there can't be overlap, because any woman who portrays self-control and rational thought is only doing so in a charade of strictly masculine traits. (That's from Instig8tive Journalism's vid about her paper) Here's a straight quote, no filters:

Alien's Ellen Ripley and Terminator's Sarah Connor are two of the most notable strong female action heroes who attempt to subvert the traditional male gaze by becoming the traditionally male hero, but as Diana Dominguez (2005) observes they, "...eventually repudiate the feminine, becoming, in effect, sexless and less 'human' mirrors of male action heroes" (Dominguez, 2005, para. 6) instead of fully complex female action heroes.*

Under such logic, any female lead in video games where conflict resolution comes from action is simply a male stand in, and "doesn't disrupt the male value system associated with [masculine roles] and maintains male dominance."

Like I said, maybe "freedom of speech" doesn't cover what I want, but Anita has shown that she has power and pull, that she could be influencing the games of the future, and I feel like holding the Damoclesian blade of "ignorance," "sexism," or being "anti-progress" above someone's head is not going to encourage open dialogue.

*Which is bull****, by the way, as their femininity is often highlighted through maternal relationships all throughout their respective movies (we'll ignore Aliens: Resurrection, as it was written as a joke, and the studio approved it b/c they didn't realize).

 

[Therumancer]

Interesting, but fundamentally flawed. A good part of this revolved around the idea that nerds are no longer really the outcasts due to the proliferation of things normally thought of as geeky throughout society. That would be a valid point if it wasn't more of a case of the mainstream stealing from geek culture and changing things around to make them more acceptable to the mainstream as opposed to presenting them as they are. Your typical geek property being given the big budget treatment nowadays almost invariably comes under attack by the long-standing fans for being dumbed down for the mainstream, and oftentimes outright omitting aspects of a character or concept that actually made it popular among that crowd to begin with. The general argument in defense of this is "well, so what if it's changed so more people like it, if it wasn't for these changes you'd never see this multi-million dollar production taking this away from the fringes and putting it into the focus of society".

See, I would argue that REAL geeks and nerds are even more persecuted nowadays than they ever have been before, as you have the mainstream stealing things that were theirs, changing them, and taking them for their own. A sort of socio-economic version of getting your lunch money stolen, except in this case they are taking away your escapist havens. "We like this, and we'll also embrace it, but only if we changed it and start producing any further material involving it in this way so everyone else can appreciate it more...".

This also manifests outside of IPs into things like video games. Sure the mainstream has embraced video gaming, once a geek haven, but the mainstream did not meet the geeks on their terms, rather video gaming has been changed, and largely dumbed down, for the mainstream. You now see games of the sort that appeal to the "bros" (which I think is more inclusive and accurate nowadays than just saying "Jocks") being the major focus of the industry rather than the things that made it. Where once the deep, immersive, RPG with all of it's arcane management and stat balancing was king, today it's all about shooters, spectacle fighters, racing games, and similar, things which to be fair were always present, but hardly the focus of the industry. Nowadays you hardly see any RPGs at all, and the ones you see tend to be developed with budgets far smaller than action games (rarely to a true AAA level) and are increasingly simplified and/or spliced with action components and gloss over things like PnP RPG-like stats and micromanagement which was kind of a point of the genere. So yeah, video gaming has become mainstream, but it's NOT video gaming as geeks practiced it.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the central points being made here, but at the end of the day I don't think things have really changed. It's less a matter of it *ahem* "Being Hip To Be Square", so much as actual nerds and geeks have been pretty much made outcasts within what were once their own domain. You point to big budget comic movies for example, but understand, those movies simplified, changed, and ignored aspects of a lot of those characters. Indeed you now have arguments of a "Cinematic Universe" because simply put the movie versions tend to be far different from the ones in
the comics. They took aspects of these characters, mainstreamed them, and re-sold them. They did not make them popular as they were. Don't get me wrong, some good, entertaining products have been created, but do not confuse that with this being mainstream acceptance of the geek, since that isn't what's happening.

 

[Vegosiux]

There is a saying, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Not sure who said it (it is attributed to Edmund Burke) but it is a very important in this context. When we see someone being racist, homophobic, sexist, we need to point it out and do something about it. If we don't, we are culpable for what these people say and do. "Qui tacet consentire videtur." "He who is silent is taken to agree." You are not "good man doing nothing", you are fighting against those who are trying to do something.

Give me about two hundred hours in a day, and I promise I'll fight all the good fights that are to fight. But people have lives, most adult people have lives that are mostly occupied with all those self-serving things like "sleep" and "work so I don't starve at the end of the week", some even "spending time with my family" and "hanging out with friends".

But if you're going to play the guilt card, if you're going to tell people they're "part of the problem" because they're not rallying behind your particular banner, then remember: There are countless banners YOU aren't rallying behind. Will you apply your "part of the problem" logic consistently, and admit you're at fault for the overwhelming majority of nasty crap going on in the world because you're not doing anything about most of it? Will you realize you don't have a moral high ground just because of one particular issue you're invested in?

Don't you realize how conceited it is to tell people they're "the enemy" because they're not fighting your particular war? By doing so, you're making it about you as opposed to what it's allegedly about.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

He called Steve Urkel a Sexist for the love of God! Dismissing the entire plot of the show.

He called Urkel a stalker. What he did to Laura Winslow was horrible and was in no way based on love. If that happened in real life, she would have been able to get a restraining order.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

He blamed literally Millions of people for a problem that is probably not even perpetuated by a half a percentage of the people he is saying are at fault.

Do you have any evidence to back that up? The half a percentage point. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say, "Of course there are half naked women in the game. Look at the target demographic." On of those two arguments has to be really wrong.

I wish he hadn't used an actual figure, as he had a point before exposing himself to being derailed by making a claim he can't prove. HOWEVER, the target demographic is not misogynists, it's people who are enticed by T&A. So unless you want to argue that a majority who find attractive videogame women sexy are misogynists, you might want to rethink your phrasing.

Arg.

Women in video games are very often treated as objects, sexual or otherwise, with no agency of their own. Yes, that is sexist. If a female character emphasizes their sex appeal over their competency in whatever endeavor they are on, then yes, that is sexist. If the more powerful armor is, the more skin it shows, that is sexist.

Saying, "What's wrong with making a character sexy." is ignoring the point.

Blame a racist for being racist. Don't blame all white people.

And for the love of God, blame the Geek Bully/Sexist for being a Geek Bully/Sexist. Quit blaming the entire damned enchilada. It's disgusting, it's wrong, and it doesn't help your point, it just makes us want to oppose you personally, not what you're for persay.

There is a saying, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Not sure who said it (it is attributed to Edmund Burke) but it is a very important in this context. When we see someone being racist, homophobic, sexist, we need to point it out and do something about it. If we don't, we are culpable for what these people say and do. "Qui tacet consentire videtur." "He who is silent is taken to agree." You are not "good man doing nothing", you are fighting against those who are trying to do something.

Again with people being obtuse. He is not advocating doing nothing.

I agree. He is actively trying to stop people from doing something. That's much worse than doing nothing.

MovieBob and others point out a problem in the gaming community and people like him, instead of admitting there is a problem, attack MovieBob for pointing out real problems.

it would have been less damaging than saying, "You are all responsible for this, because you haven't stamped it out yet."

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

MovieBob pointed out a problem and stated we all need to fix it.

If you interpret that as a personal attack, perhaps it's a guilty conscience.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

There is a saying, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Not sure who said it (it is attributed to Edmund Burke) but it is a very important in this context. When we see someone being racist, homophobic, sexist, we need to point it out and do something about it. If we don't, we are culpable for what these people say and do. "Qui tacet consentire videtur." "He who is silent is taken to agree." You are not "good man doing nothing", you are fighting against those who are trying to do something.

Give me about two hundred hours in a day, and I promise I'll fight all the good fights that are to fight. But people have lives, most adult people have lives that are mostly occupied with all those self-serving things like "sleep" and "work so I don't starve at the end of the week", some even "spending time with my family" and "hanging out with friends".

But if you're going to play the guilt card, if you're going to tell people they're "part of the problem" because they're not rallying behind your particular banner,

I guess you didn't actually read my post. I'll try a different approach.

TYT Sports was talking about the Super Bowl and they took viewer questions. One of the viewers compared the game to a rape. Anyone who has played an online game should not be surprised with that comparison. However, the host said we need to stop using that term when describing a sporting event. It didn't take him 200 hours to do that. It didn't even take him 2 minutes to say calling anything but rape rape is offensive. If everyone did that, then people would stop using that term so inappropriately. If you are not doing that, then you have no right to complain when people point out misogyny in sports, using this example, or in video games, as it happens there as well.

I'm not calling ultreos2 part of the problem because they are not rallying around my banner. I'm calling him part of the problem because he is actively fighting against those who are pointing out sexism in the "Geek Community". Saying, "Stop attacking me!!!!!" whenever someone points out a real problem in the "Geek community" is making the problem worse, because it gives the offenders cover.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Says the Hypocrite, as Jack Thompson did exactly the same as these two. Prove me wrong, and after that I can prove me right.

MovieBob and Anita Sarkesian used media platforms to point out problems within the video game community. Jack Thompson tried to use the legal system to make video games illegal. Those are not the same thing. Those are not even close to the same thing.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Neither Bob Chipman nor Anita Sarkeesian has ever tried to make geeky things illegal. Neither has ever sued anybody. Neither has ever been disbarred for bringing frivolous lawsuits before the supreme court. Neither has said that you should be ashamed of yourself for pursuing geeky things.

I don't think attaching the social stigma of an anti-progressive to someone is much better than calling them a potential criminal. And while Jack Thompson tried to infringe freedom of speech through the legal system, it's hardly better to infringe it through peer pressure and browbeating.

You have to be joking. Please tell me you are joking.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to criticize someone. If it didn't, you would be guilty of infringing on MovieBob and Anita Sarkeesian's freedom of speech.

Talking about a problem and offering solutions is not the same and trying to make something illegal. It is not even close.

 

[Karadalis]

God damnit there are so many priviliges out there that telling someone to "check his priviliges" is not meant degratory.. it literrary means that you should check your priviliges to see just how many of the bloody things you have accumulated.

You could be running around with a privilige and not even know about it!

So boy and girls check your priviliges... knowing is better then not knowing...

Neither Bob Chipman nor Anita Sarkeesian has ever tried to make geeky things illegal. Neither has ever sued anybody. Neither has ever been disbarred for bringing frivolous lawsuits before the supreme court. Neither has said that you should be ashamed of yourself for pursuing geeky things.

I don't think attaching the social stigma of an anti-progressive to someone is much better than calling them a potential criminal. And while Jack Thompson tried to infringe freedom of speech through the legal system, it's hardly better to infringe it through peer pressure and browbeating.

You have to be joking. Please tell me you are joking.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to criticize someone. If it didn't, you would be guilty of infringing on MovieBob and Anita Sarkeesian's freedom of speech.

Talking about a problem and offering solutions is not the same and trying to make something illegal. It is not even close.

What solutions? Neither Anita nor Bob have ever offered solutions. And before you claim Anita did with her idea for a video game: That idea goes against every single thing she ever said or done on feminist frequency and her academic papers so no.. it is not a solution.

Also there is no geek "community" or games "community"

Theres gamerdom and geekdom. Community would mean that every single gamer or geek is part of one organized community when the truth is that both couldnt be any further unorganized if they even tried.

Its like saying everyone who ever painted a picture is somehow part of the "art community", everyone who bakes cakes is part of the "baking community".

If we really where all part of one big community there would have to be one singular place where every single member of said community would go to to inform himselfe about his hobby. You know.. being all part of the same community?

 

[Vegosiux]

-snip-

There's a difference between saying "There are problems with sexism in the community" and "The community is sexist".

 

[Mysnomer]

Neither Bob Chipman nor Anita Sarkeesian has ever tried to make geeky things illegal. Neither has ever sued anybody. Neither has ever been disbarred for bringing frivolous lawsuits before the supreme court. Neither has said that you should be ashamed of yourself for pursuing geeky things.

I don't think attaching the social stigma of an anti-progressive to someone is much better than calling them a potential criminal. And while Jack Thompson tried to infringe freedom of speech through the legal system, it's hardly better to infringe it through peer pressure and browbeating.

You have to be joking. Please tell me you are joking.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to criticize someone. If it didn't, you would be guilty of infringing on MovieBob and Anita Sarkeesian's freedom of speech.

Talking about a problem and offering solutions is not the same and trying to make something illegal. It is not even close.

I'm not saying Anita and Bob can't criticize, I never said they couldn't. I'm saying they aren't credible, and shouldn't be given the time of day. I'm also pointing out that their criticism has an end goal of stigmatizing certain things to paint them as sexist or anti-progressive.

This more subtle approach to infringing on someone's expression is possibly more dangerous than straight-up legal action, because it bypasses the rigorous checks that a law goes through. Anita and Bob don't have to provide sound logic, they just have to dress their argument up enough and get people on the bandwagon of "progress." And when people accept that, that's when the dangerous part begins*. Look at Anita's work, it is of low quality, poorly researched, inflammatory**, and heavily biased. This is not a credible person, and yet we are giving her so much leeway, for no other reason than she is a woman. If a man tried the whole "Wounded Gazelle" shtick, we would have told him to buck up, and when his unscrupulous actions came to light, we would have raked him over the coals.

Also, as someone pointed out, "solutions" is pretty laughable here. Bob's solution is, "Police the whole of your nebulously defined community and root out the offenders wherever you see them, be ever vigilant, or you are part of the problem." But at least he does better than Anita, who has no real solution that isn't a contradiction of some other part of her irrational dogma.

*(maybe I should have specified that accepting their claims leads to a road of self-censorship for fear of being branded as sexist, rather than directly censoring those people like a law would, I apologize, I thought that was understood)
**(except when she's making her token concession that contradicts everything she said but it's got to be there so she can point to it when you call her inflammatory)