On Geek Privilege

[Mysnomer]

I was mostly talking about the black supporting charcter who wears a leopardskin bikini and a necklace made of bones

<img src=http://www.electricblueskies.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Resident-Evil-5-RE5-Wallpaper-1080p-03-SHEVA-ALOMAR-TRIBAL-COSTUME.png>

That's completely not racist, eh?

That is a very disingenuous act of misdirection. The costume is a bonus, specifically chosen for it's outlandishness. In the same game, Chris can wear a Mad Max style spiked-shoulder outfit which exposes his muscled torso, or a zebra-striped jacket and pants with a purple shirt. Additionally, he has a "beefcake" style costume in RE: Revelations. So these costumes aim for an over-the-top appearance and fan service. They are specifically designed with that goal in mind, and as such should not be taken seriously as any sort of statement. Anyone who does, is either unaware of the context, or deliberately rabble-rousing.

I mean, Sarkeesian anyone? People are still making up lies to discredit her without bothering to address any of her actual ideas.

Throw in the towel, she's not worth defending.
[h4]These two quotes from DMS and Mysnomer are excerpts, and if you're reading this conversation without reading the original posts, these quotes will lack context[/h4]

But what makes her worth attacking? So, she makes some fairly well-trodden arguments, and some fairly weak arguments. Why does this provoke the need to aggressively go after her? If she's so weak and unimportant, then why not just ignore her? Why not just allow her own arguments fail?

Especially as, going hand-in-hand with the "critiques" of her actual work are usually personal attacks, or at least attacks on her for earning "too much" money from her Kickstarter - which is completely irrelevant to her ideas.

Here is why I didn't like Sarkeesian from day one, my personal experience. I was on 4chan (/v/ specifically) when this started. Before I read any articles, before I'd seen any Youtube videos, I saw page after page on the board with a copy-pasted post about TvWiVG. And I said to myself, "This is the definition of spam. It's really annoying, and a terrible way to get your point across." Then everything errupted, and over the course of the next few days, I read article after article about how Sarkeesian was the victim. And I said to myself, "Well, if I went to the zoo and entered the tiger cage, riled them up, and then came out disfigured and cried for help, people would call me a dumbass, not a hero. Why is this any different?" They might agree it's a shame I was injured, but they wouldn't be lining up to cover the cost of my medical bills.

Anita Sarkeesian started a war. She pitted idealists and people who want to feel good about themselves against the nebulous "Internet Hate Machine." She offered the trolls of the world a bountiful feast. Also, note my Newton's Law comment in my last post. This is why she dominates the conversation, because she has engineered it so. However, if we go back to some rational debunkers on Youtube (Dangerous Analysis, Instig8tive Journalism, etc.), they were done with her a long time ago. It is not they that have kept the conversation going, it's people who keep harkening back to her, like she should mean something. Also, her staggered release of her series, to ensure she gets a boost in relevancy every couple months.

I won't argue about the quantity she earned, I'll just say that since the earning was built on manufactured controversy, and is not represented in her work, that I don't think her campaign deserved to be funded.

It's funny how her critics simultaneously demonize her, while also saying she's weak and incompetent.

This kind of snide crap makes you very hard to take seriously. Why would you take such a cheap and easily debunked shot? You're conflating the many parties who oppose her, as if they can't disagree with her for different reasons. I don't think Sarkeesian is incompetent at all. Much like I respect Ozymandias or Kaiser Soze, I have to respect the villains of the real world when they achieve such a masterful deception.

Overall, I'm not really sure what you're playing at with your dismissive tone, like this isn't even a real point of debate. It's sort of humorous, as most of the evidence is on my side, while her side is a sense of moral panic and guilty consciences. If anything, I should be asking you why you would defend someone whom, if depicted in media, would almost certainly be labeled a straw feminist. I won't call on you to condemn her, but I think it would behoove those who want to be a true part of movements for equality to distance themselves from her.

Point is, there are a tone of reasons to hate Anita Sarkeesian.

Those all seem like rather pathetic reasons to hate somebody. A lot of them sound more like jealousy more than anything, particularly the ones about how much money she got on Kickstarter, and how much attention she got. Especially when a lot of that money and attention is due to this kind of hatred. It all seems rather self-defeating.

Also, reducing the death threats and massive campaigns of hatred against her as simply "saying mean things on the internet" seems well off the mark. If the treatment that she got is considered normal "on the internet" - then that's a significant problem. It also has a logical problem that somehow separates "the internet" fro the rest of life, when for most of us, the internet is a significant part of life, and it's no less real than anything else.

But to hate somebody for something as trivial as an under-researched video? The mind boggles. There are hundreds of thousands of under-researched essay being produced by students every day. Do they deserve hate for it?

Are you doing this on purpose? Stop treating the irrational death threats and actual misogyny (which is artificially bolstered by trolls) as if it's worth addressing. Trolls don't need a reason other than they think it might be fun. Actual misogynists should be treated like actual racists and discounted, along with those who only know how to speak in the foul, unreasoned language of youth. That's why I don't respect Anita, because even if she wasn't the orchestrator of the whole thing to begin with, she should have had the presence of mind to see that these comments were irrelevant.

Those "hundreds of thousands" likely have no pull with media organizations or game studios.

Additionally, you latch onto the word "hate" and take it at face value, when it could have just been poor word choice. It's very unlikely that anybody worth listening to actually hates Anita, in the literal and passionate sense. "Hate" has become watered down, just like "damn" and the F-word and any number of words. That's the English language.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Besides, hate is a useful emotion.

What's it useful for? I think it's the opposite of useful. It clouds judgement and just leads to bad decisions.

Au contrair, my friend! Hate and other negative emotions propel humanity to feats of endurance greater than any positive emotions.

It's a scientific fact!

http://www.cracked.com/article_18956_5-scientific-reasons-dark-side-will-always-win.html

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/04/strength-in-naughty-or-nice/

 

[JimB]

I'm a feminist. I radically disagree with the minority who actually do have a problem with men and make the rest of us look bad, but no amount of me saying they're "not real feminists" will make that true.

For the record, I disagree. Feminism is defined as seeking to bring about equality between the sexes; even Wiktionary [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feminism] thinks so. I argue that once someone stops seeking equality, he stops being a feminist.

I don't think a comparison of feminism to geekiness really works, though. Feminism is a belief and a political movement, albeit a fractured one with a lot of different philosophies behind each; whereas geekiness is a social classification based on shared interests that has no uniting purpose behind it, nor even a theme (comic geeks are not necessarily Star Wars geeks, just for instance). As such, it's a lot harder to say, "Oh, well that person's not a real geek," because so far as I can tell, the only qualifying requirement is to enjoy some form of entertainment that's generally looked down upon. No True Scotsman is a fallacy here.

As to the article itself: I don't think it's terribly controversial to take the stance that having an opinion on the Hal Jordan vs. Kyle Rayner argument gives one carte blanche to behave like a depraved, insensitive shit-skin, but nevertheless, I'm glad Mr. Chipman expressed that opinion all the same. Someone does need to say these things, sadly enough.

(Also for the record: Kyle Rayner.)

 

[Eamar]

I'm a feminist. I radically disagree with the minority who actually do have a problem with men and make the rest of us look bad, but no amount of me saying they're "not real feminists" will make that true.

For the record, I disagree. Feminism is defined as seeking to bring about equality between the sexes; even Wiktionary [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feminism] thinks so. I argue that once someone stops seeking equality, he stops being a feminist.

Ah, but you see a lot of extremists (in any group) are still working for the same ultimate goals, they just have really fucked up ways of wanting to get there. An extreme feminist can still want men and women to have the same opportunities while openly hating men, or thinking that all men in the world at the moment are tainted by misogyny, or whatever. But let's not derail this into a feminist discussion though.

I don't think a comparison of feminism to geekiness really works, though. Feminism is a belief and a political movement, albeit a fractured one with a lot of different philosophies behind each; whereas geekiness is a social classification based on shared interests that has no uniting purpose behind it, nor even a theme (comic geeks are not necessarily Star Wars geeks, just for instance). As such, it's a lot harder to say, "Oh, well that person's not a real geek," because so far as I can tell, the only qualifying requirement is to enjoy some form of entertainment that's generally looked down upon. No True Scotsman is a fallacy here.

I agree with you there. I wasn't actually trying to make a direct comparison, it was more about group mentality and feelings of identity/representation and how they can make you want to distance yourself from certain elements of that culture (no matter how loosely defined that "culture" might be).

 

[JimB]

I said to myself, "Well, if I went to the zoo and entered the tiger cage, riled them up, and then came out disfigured and cried for help, people would call me a dumbass, not a hero. Why is this any different?"

Because people there's an expectation that human beings, unlike tigers, can control their fucking behavior; and because there is absolutely no proportionality behind "I think video games are sexist" --> "SOMEONE RAPE THIS ***** TO DEATH WITH A CATTLE PROD!" Not liking a thing someone else likes in no way calls for a response that the original person be tortured to death as degradingly as possible.

Anita Sarkeesian started a war.

Actually, in a war, it's always the defender who starts it. The aggressor doesn't want a war; the aggressor just wants to conquer a territory, or whatever his specific goals for sending an army in are. If the defenders had not chosen to resist, then there would have been no war. Think of it like a gas leak in the kitchen: the leak creates a threat, but it's only a threat until someone provides a spark.

Stop treating the irrational death threats and actual misogyny (which is artificially bolstered by trolls) as if it's worth addressing.

You seem to be arguing that it is not fair to talk about things that actually happened.

Actual misogynists should be treated like actual racists and discounted, along with those who only know how to speak in the foul, unreasoned language of youth.

I don't think silence is the correct response to a problem. It reminds me of that old Simpsons joke: "We've tried nothing, and it isn't working!"

 

[HK_01]

Anita Sarkeesian started a war.

Actually, in a war, it's always the defender who starts it. The aggressor doesn't want a war; the aggressor just wants to conquer a territory, or whatever his specific goals for sending an army in are. If the defenders had not chosen to resist, then there would have been no war. Think of it like a gas leak in the kitchen: the leak creates a threat, but it's only a threat until someone provides a spark.

I'm not gonna join this argument or really talk about any of the stuff either of you said, but this right here seems extremely contrived. The defender starts the war, really? I'd say the attacker knows full well what they're doing and that their actions will cause a conflict (hence why they are called the aggressor).

 

[JimB]

Anita Sarkeesian started a war.

Actually, in a war, it's always the defender who starts it. The aggressor doesn't want a war; the aggressor just wants to conquer a territory, or whatever his specific goals for sending an army in are. If the defenders had not chosen to resist, then there would have been no war. Think of it like a gas leak in the kitchen: the leak creates a threat, but it's only a threat until someone provides a spark.

I'm not gonna join this argument or really talk about any of the stuff either of you said, but this right here seems extremely contrived. The defender starts the war, really?

Yes. Outside of cartoonish morality plays like Star Wars or whatever, an aggressor doesn't invade somewhere for no other purpose than to start a war; he does it for the sake of correcting some problem or another. If the defender would stop fighting and just correct the original problem, then there would be no war.

I'd say the attacker knows full well what they're doing and that their actions will cause a conflict (hence why they are called the aggressor).

I'm not talking about responsibility. I'm talking about who started it. A war requires two parties to both be engaged in it. Until the second party joins, it's not a war. The war hasn't begun until the second party starts fighting.

 

[HK_01]

I'm not talking about responsibility. I'm talking about who started it. A war requires two parties to both be engaged in it. Until the second party joins, it's not a war. The war hasn't begun until the second party starts fighting.

Actually, I'm pretty sure, if we're gonna argue semantics, that a state of war is what in German law would be called an "einseitige empfangsbedürftige Willenserklärung", or unilateral declaration of intent. One country can declare a state of war with another unilaterally, the one on whom war was declared really has nothing to say about it. They might even choose not to resist, but, well, then it will just have been a really short war since a peace will be signed giving the attacker what they want or the attacked will surrender unconditionally.

 

[JimB]

I tend to believe there's a difference between a state of war and a war--mostly based on the lazy assumption that if they were the same thing, then they'd be called the same thing--but if you insist a war can happen without battles, then fine. Do you have any examples of a war that was started under the conditions you describe, for no purpose other than starting a war?

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Besides, hate is a useful emotion.

What's it useful for? I think it's the opposite of useful. It clouds judgement and just leads to bad decisions.

Au contrair, my friend! Hate and other negative emotions propel humanity to feats of endurance greater than any positive emotions.

It's a scientific fact!

http://www.cracked.com/article_18956_5-scientific-reasons-dark-side-will-always-win.html

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/04/strength-in-naughty-or-nice/

You realize neither of those address hate, and in both being heroic gives similar results without clouding judgement. Those are some pretty terrible examples actually. Sure, your endurance will be a bit greater than the super nice guys, but you'll also be a massive douche, which I think makes up for the difference and then some.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Besides, hate is a useful emotion.

What's it useful for? I think it's the opposite of useful. It clouds judgement and just leads to bad decisions.

Au contrair, my friend! Hate and other negative emotions propel humanity to feats of endurance greater than any positive emotions.

It's a scientific fact!

http://www.cracked.com/article_18956_5-scientific-reasons-dark-side-will-always-win.html

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/04/strength-in-naughty-or-nice/

You realize neither of those address hate, and in both being heroic gives similar results without clouding judgement. Those are some pretty terrible examples actually. Sure, your endurance will be a bit greater than the super nice guys, but you'll also be a massive douche, which I think makes up for the difference and then some.

Bah! Cling to your sappy ideologies, it matters not to me.

I'll just leave you with this; there's a reason why the good die young and pricks live forever.

 

[Ickorus]

snip

There's a lot there to respond to, but Bob tried to nip your whole first paragraph in the bud with his argument about how 'geeks didn't suffer enough for their grievances to count' bit. We can't draw comparisons between what geeks do and what other abused minority groups do because it would just be awful to seriously compare your negative experiences as a geek to the negative experiences of someone who suffered for being a certain race or sex or have a certain sexuality. Or so people would have me believe anyway.

As for your discussion of Urkle, there's no need for a more nuanced approach to this look at the work. Urkle's sexual advances were obviously wrong, falling between objectification and misogyny. On the other hand, him being used by her in turn, as if he were merely an object to perform whatever tasks she wished, isn't a big issue because there is no historical context of oppression for men and objectification that isn't sexual, doesn't count.

All devil's advocacy and sarcasm aside. Thanks for taking the time to write all that up.

The bolded parts are what has left me totally disillusioned and in opposition to modern social justice, this idea that only the most oppressed are worthy of sympathy and nobody else has any right to complain. It's created a culture of self-victimization and a kind of sick competition whereupon each person tries to prove themselves more oppressed and everyone else more privileged than them, and then use that as an excuse to be vile to other people they deem more privileged (and thus, ironically, lesser) than themselves.

It's a movement fueled by hatred and narcissism and the only thing it has managed to do is fracture communities and cause undue strife.

 

[Groverfield]

Unfortunately, I find this article's about a decade late, more true of the era when geek culture was gaining momentum than at current moment. As from my perspective of geek women in modern media, I'm more offended by the overuse of a single personality/appearance archetype (MPDG) than their role in relation to the man. I'm not really seeing the withholder of sex being portrayed as a villain beyond the withholdee's sexual frustration in most cases. I'll admit, I don't watch most of the "geek" sitcoms, they always feel like Friends or Seinfeld with hipsters or fantasy-science with zero wit.

 

[Groverfield]

And another thing - what is with the whole Oprah's Nuns feminism thing. Okay, it's a good move to detach yourself from dependent one-sided relationships, but then why glorify someone's independence from their need of a relationship? It's got some good aspects, but it damningly enforces the notion that the only way to be in control of yourself is to be alone, or, without an emotional safety net; that the only way to be strong is to abstain from intimate relationships because they take a woman's power.

 

[Mysnomer]

I said to myself, "Well, if I went to the zoo and entered the tiger cage, riled them up, and then came out disfigured and cried for help, people would call me a dumbass, not a hero. Why is this any different?"

Because people there's an expectation that human beings, unlike tigers, can control their fucking behavior; and because there is absolutely no proportionality behind "I think video games are sexist" --> "SOMEONE RAPE THIS ***** TO DEATH WITH A CATTLE PROD!" Not liking a thing someone else likes in no way calls for a response that the original person be tortured to death as degradingly as possible.

Please note that we're talking about 4chan. The comparison to animals was not coincidental.

Anita Sarkeesian started a war.

Actually, in a war, it's always the defender who starts it. The aggressor doesn't want a war; the aggressor just wants to conquer a territory, or whatever his specific goals for sending an army in are. If the defenders had not chosen to resist, then there would have been no war. Think of it like a gas leak in the kitchen: the leak creates a threat, but it's only a threat until someone provides a spark.

Don't be obtuse. The point of the sentence was to drive home that Anita Sarkeesian manipulated people into fighting one another over her content. She literally started the fight by playing two sides against each other for her own benefit. This is not about the semantics of aggressor and defender.

Stop treating the irrational death threats and actual misogyny (which is artificially bolstered by trolls) as if it's worth addressing.

You seem to be arguing that it is not fair to talk about things that actually happened.

No, I acknowledge that they happened, but what do they add to the conversation? Nothing. There's nothing to address with them. If you came to make a speech about how misogyny and death threats are bad, any rational human being will say, "Yeah, that's bad. Now what's the actual meat of your speech? Where's the content?" I'm arguing that talking about these things is pointless past the first acknowledgement and condemnation. Most egregiously, lumping in legitimate detractors with those who spew nothing of worth is uneducated at best, sinister and deceitful at worst.

Actual misogynists should be treated like actual racists and discounted, along with those who only know how to speak in the foul, unreasoned language of youth.

I don't think silence is the correct response to a problem. It reminds me of that old Simpsons joke: "We've tried nothing, and it isn't working!"

"Discounting" != silence, as I said. What I'm really fed up with is people continuing to dredge these threats up as if they are meaningful.

 

[JimB]

Please note that we're talking about 4chan. The comparison to animals was not coincidental.

That's a funny line, but it's not a useful one. That they are members of an unpopular group does not excuse them from behaving like sane adults, and dismissing them because of their association more than whiffs of No True Scotsman.

Don't be obtuse. The point of the sentence was to drive home that Anita Sarkeesian manipulated people into fighting one another over her content.

Alright, then, leaving aside for a moment whose fault it is to get suckered in by a troll, I think there's a burden on you to prove malicious intent behind her actions if you're going to make that accusation.

I acknowledge that they happened, but what do they add to the conversation?

They establish the environment the conversation exists in, and the baggage the conversation carries with it. I'm sorry if you feel it's unfair to have to say, "I never played the game where you punch Ms. Sarkeesian's face," but those people have marred your position by claiming it as their own. Sometimes you gotta disavow the nutters.

 

[JimB]

No seriously, everyone has to agree with her damning a group of millions for the actions of an extremely small minority, because we have to disavow the nutters to have our opposing position taken seriously?

That's...not what I said. In fact, it's so far from what I said that I am honestly confused as to what you're even talking about. Who's the "her" who's damning a group of millions, who's the group of millions, and what actions?

Tell me more about how you ignore any counter argument of every white individual on the fact that racism isn't as big an issue and is limited to only a small handful of our population that happen to be racists.

I have never in my life said anything like that.

Tell me more about how you would ignore the argument of any German about how they aren't part of the Nazi or Neo-Nazi group or agenda.

I've never said that, either.

No sane person should blame all white people for the act of a handful of racists, for not doing what you personally think is enough.

Wait, are you thinking I'm talking about blame? Is that the problem? Because I'm not. I never once mentioned blame, either explicitly or implicitly. All I said is that Mysnomer is going to have to get used to clarifying how he differs from the popular conception of Ms. Sarkeesian's detractors.

So if you are going to blame me, and millions of others for geek privilege and sexist actions, which Bob makes claim to both in his article, then please do tell me what more we can do?

That is yet another thing I never said. Are you sure you meant to quote my post?

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 per se.

That is not my point, and you can tell that because I never said anything about it.

But let me tell you about sexism. In America, a women can lie about being raped, and no one is allowed to question her about it, even though it has happened repeatedly in the past.

Yeah, I'm going to need you to show me the statute on that one, because it sounds a lot like hysterical hyperbole.

In America, if a man gets raped by a woman, we don't question him on it, we call him an outright liar.

The treatment of male victims of sexual assault in this country is beyond shameful. I agree. I wish you had asked me my position on it instead of assuming I'm some monster who hates penis-bearing rape victims so you could use it against me as some kind of gotcha, but for what it's worth, I agree.

There's some of that equality we've achieved.

It is not a contest, and I find it weird that you frame it as one.

 

[Branindain]

Okay, so I enjoyed the article on gay male privilege, and from there it was obvious where you were going to go. I agree with your general thrust. I'm someone who is into "nerdy" intellectual pursuits, the less mainstream genres of videogames, and also follows sports, and I've noticed that my sports friends are far more accepting of my geek-outs than vice versa. When I used to be on Facebook (years ago now, thank Glob), my smart friends could never let my comments on a Crows or Titans game go by without a snide remark. So the "jock bullies nerd" trope always seemed outdated to me.

I got confused at the end though. It seemed like you were getting too hyperbolic in order to make a point/generate traffic. I grant you, I live in Australia and I'll never make it to SDCC, but is conference-goers actually GROPING cosplayers really a thing? If people are doing that, they deserve to be scorned, but morals aside, a nerd-type with the sheer self-assurance required to act that way in public isn't even something I can construct in my mind. Likewise, I've read some dopey forum arguments but I've never once seen someone claim racial oppression on account of their geekdom. So unless someone can show me the error of my ways, I'm going to assume you just went off the rails there in your enthusiasm, and for me, it kind of soured the whole thing.