Question, If Anita Sarkeesian is Right, why is Jack Thompson Wrong?
- Thread starter Tenkage
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've openly admitted to not watching any of her videos, but then I have no interest in what she has to say. Speaking of which I have to ask why any of you are watching her videos. You talk of being guilt tripped out of playing certain games, but she can only do that if you actually watch her videos you know.Skull Bearer said:
@The_Kodu: As far as I'm concerned, the @MysticSlayer completely deconstructed your argument of Anita calling gamers rape apologists on page 4 of this thread, so I find it a bit odd that I don't see you doing one of two things, respond to him and justify yourself, or stop using your flawed reasoning and admit that you're wrong.
Are you making the claim that having sexist ideals/beliefs/thoughts does not beget sexist behaviors? I'm going to call shenanigans on you there. Our thoughts and beliefs are directly causative regarding our actions. I am afraid of bull dogs because I'm prejudice against them. So if I see one running at me at a full gallop I'm going to respond negatively rather than kneeling down and expecting doggie kisses.Pogilrup said:
Your statement is like saying that violent thoughts don't translate into violence.
Her's? I imagine she just wants to make a living as a media personality and there's no way that's better to do that than with a controversial topic. Don't most of us spend significant time to make money? I certainly don't blame her for doing so and admit I envy her success if she really is all that successful. I just couldn't ethically do what she does for money.
I mean, what do you think her goal is? To make games better? No, she's not a fan. She did exactly what I or any enterprising person would do when catching wind of a viable business opportunity. Before you disagree, allow me to transcribe and cite a direct quote of her that she's since done some lying since that may make you doubt me:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmb8hO2ilV9vRa8cilis88A (1:45 mark)
Direct quote of Pre-kickstarter Anita Sarkeesian as heard in the above link: "...except I'm doing video games. So it's not exactly a fandom; I'm not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot about video games in the process of making this."
As far as I'm concerned, she's doing a performance and she's good at that and is catering to a viable market. I'd posit that we know next to nothing about Anita personally unless someone happens to be a friend or relative in person anymore than you'd know Stephen Colbert personally from watching The Colbert Report. Much of the things she says has little credence or backing. The notion that an Italian Plumber saving a Princess from a turtle somehow makes me more sexist is a laugh.
And if you go back one step in our chain of replies, you'll see that I was responding to both the issue of her playing games in the past and "qualifying" as a gamer in the present.The_Kodu said:
Since she didn't participate in gaming communities at the point when she didn't identify as a gamer, I wouldn't expect there to be many pictures of her playing video games from before the kickstarter. Especially not of her as an adult, since those types of pictures are only really taken with the intent to share them.
That's not how the gamer terms are used, though. They're used to delegitimize people's interest in the medium based on personal taste and values, which creates a hostile environment for the ones being labeled by others. For example, you'll find people who only play shooters (or one particular brand of shooter) labeling themselves as hardcore whilst dismissing most everyone else as casuals.The_Kodu said:
(For what it's worth, I can play pretty much any game genre out there, and only really have a distaste for simulators of things I don't have any real interest in. Which means I wouldn't play a sports game that tries to simulate real sports, but I'd be up for Mario Tennis. But, like I said, I'd rather leave the "gamer" label behind me.)
I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to in her videos. Now, I'm painfully aware of that her most recent release had a one-sided misrepresentation of how sandbox elements interact with other parts of the games they're part of (like being able to kill anyone and manipulate their dead bodies), but that doesn't take away from her points that the industry (and our culture at large) disproportionately uses women as sexually objectified props. Sure, most NPCs have to by necessity act as props (or extras, as they'd be in movies/television) to cheaply give the illusion of a fleshed-out world, but that doesn't mean every other game needs to have scenes set in a strip club or for the streets to be populated with exclusively-female prostitutes. (As mentioned, very few of these games have male prostitutes or strippers, regardless of whether the irrelevant "realism" argument can even seem vaguely applicable.)The_Kodu said:
Well, plenty of people have mentioned that the limitations of console and PC hardware in the past lead to both innovation and excellence. Heck, some would even argue that game series like Sonic the Hedgehog don't really work that well when released from the constraints that helped keep the games focused in the 16-bit age.The_Kodu said:
As for the touch screen... well, as with any physical interface, it has its capabilities and its limitations. It's not something I think I'd want to get into in this thread, though.
Perhaps to you, but in a general sense not really. @The_Kodu is arriving to that conclusion based on inconsistencies and lack of solid evidence from her presentation.Skatologist said:
Its not hard to see she's playing 'minesweeper' with the idea that gamers who regularly play violent games are rape apologists. When she has sentences such as "Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from the desecration of female avatars" or "The less you think you are affected, the more likely you are to be affected." Doesn't seem to align with her earlier statements that she doesn't believe developers are inherently sexist. Or that its possible to enjoy a work while being critical of other aspects. If players have the discernment to mind what they see and are allowed to do in a game why bring it up? Or frame her presentation in such a fashion?
Now this is different situation I understand, but if we look strictly at the aspect of playing 'minesweeper' with an contentious idea, one can look at Anthony Cumia's racist rant for getting caught being a perv with his phone. Oh he won't come out and say the N word on twitter but he'll dredge up all the sentiments about black people that still give the word its power.
So back to Anita there's not much wiggle room on her part if she doesn't clarify her opinions of gamers who enjoy games like hitman:absolution or GTAV. Especially when most players don't break the rules of the missions in sandbox games to engage in the things she says they are engaging in.
Apparently you had not seen The_Kodu's reply to this question. Here it is.MysticSlayer said:
She does totally say that, by the way. She HEAVILY implies, citing studies with MULTIPLE issues with them, that viewing "heavily sexualized images" causes people to be more likely to believe ideas which would make them more likely to agree with rape apologists or perpetrate violence against women.The_Kodu said:
I think it's because people are more willing to accept\understand violence as supposed to rape/sexual abuse. I can make up an excuses for someone who committed a violent act but their's no excuse for someone who commits rape/sexual abuse.
That's just 2 cents though.
That's just 2 cents though.
I've already pointed out that believing rape myths is not the same as rape. I've also pointed out that being more accepting of sexual harassment is not the same as perpetrating violence. And if it is so heavily implied, then why hasn't anyone actually bothered to show the connection that is apparently flying over so many people's head?PhiMed said:
Well, you can always just find it in the transcript, which is available at her website. Speaking of which, the transcript for the video in question:The_Kodu said:
These stories conjure supernatural situations in which domestic violence perpetrated by men against women who?ve ?lost control of themselves? not only appears justified but is actually presented as an altruistic act done ?for the woman?s own good?.
Of course, if you look at any of these games in isolation, you will be able to find incidental narrative circumstances that can be used to explain away the inclusion of violence against women as a plot device. But just because a particular event might ?makes sense? within the internal logic of a fictional narrative ? that doesn?t, in and of itself justify its use. Games don?t exist in a vacuum and therefore can?t be divorced from the larger cultural context of the real world.
It?s especially troubling in-light of the serious real life epidemic of violence against women facing the female population on this planet. Every 9 seconds a woman is assaulted or beaten in the United States and on average more than three women are murdered by their boyfriends husbands, or ex-partners every single day. Research consistently shows that people of all genders tend to buy into the myth that women are the ones to blame for the violence men perpetrate against them. In the same vein, abusive men consistently state that their female targets ?deserved it?, ?wanted it? or were ?asking for it?,
Given the reality of that larger cultural context, it should go without saying that it?s dangerously irresponsible to be creating games in which players are encouraged and even required to perform violence against women in order to ?save them?.
Of course, if you look at any of these games in isolation, you will be able to find incidental narrative circumstances that can be used to explain away the inclusion of violence against women as a plot device. But just because a particular event might ?makes sense? within the internal logic of a fictional narrative ? that doesn?t, in and of itself justify its use. Games don?t exist in a vacuum and therefore can?t be divorced from the larger cultural context of the real world.
It?s especially troubling in-light of the serious real life epidemic of violence against women facing the female population on this planet. Every 9 seconds a woman is assaulted or beaten in the United States and on average more than three women are murdered by their boyfriends husbands, or ex-partners every single day. Research consistently shows that people of all genders tend to buy into the myth that women are the ones to blame for the violence men perpetrate against them. In the same vein, abusive men consistently state that their female targets ?deserved it?, ?wanted it? or were ?asking for it?,
Given the reality of that larger cultural context, it should go without saying that it?s dangerously irresponsible to be creating games in which players are encouraged and even required to perform violence against women in order to ?save them?.
Really, she never even comes close to making a claim that games cause domestic abuse. In fact, she makes it very clear that the domestic abuse exists as a cultural problem outside of games and that the tendency to accept domestic abuse myths even outside of games. Furthermore, while she points out that perpetrators of domestic abuse often use the excuse that it was the woman's fault, she also makes it very clear that this is an incredibly common cultural problem that affects far more people than just the perpetrators. Her problem is that games themselves have been negative affected by these cultural problems and, as a result, do absolutely nothing to help at being a medium that doesn't add to the cultural problem.
In short, her problem is that games do absolutely nothing to break from already existent and disturbing cultural problems surrounding domestic abuse. She's not accusing games of causing domestic abuse. At worst, they are simply delivering the same disturbing messages that are already problematic in the culture even outside of the influence of games. Really, to say that she is linking games to domestic abuse, when she goes so far to point out that it is cultural problem that affects more than just perpetrators, is just looking for a way to demean her because you already didn't like her in the first place.
Also, that video contained these comments:
Note: I cut out a section about how game mechanics exacerbate the problem, but it honestly isn't that important to the rest of the quote.
Basically, though, she's even said that she doesn't think game creators intentionally try to deliver harmful messages nor that gamers will become some horrible people because they play these games. They might accept harmful stereotypes, which itself adds to an already problematic culture, but she isn't targeting games specifically nor is she trying to paint gamers or game creators as a bunch of horrible people.
Please don't tell me we're starting to pointlessly argue semantics. Believing something and accepting it are pretty much the same thing. For instance, someone who believes the pseudoscience behind six day creationism obviously accepts that pseudoscience.
Yeah, I probably should have avoided giving in to calling them rape apologists, considering it gives a negative implication far beyond what Anita actually said:
OK, to some extent that can come across as rape apology, but it is possible to accept rape myths while still not dismissing the crime that happens. In other words, they accept a crime occurred, but they also will say, "You know you shouldn't have been wearing such revealing clothes." In these cases they aren't necessarily complicit in the crime, but they also aren't helping the victim either. After all, we have tests [https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/user/pimh/index.jsp] to analyze subconscious prejudices for a reason, as even those who are the most antagonists towards something like racism still show minor signs of racist prejudice.
And again, there is still a huge difference between holding a harmful belief that makes someone apathetic towards a crime and actually being part of a crime. We have far stronger mental barriers to committing a wrong action (ex. murder, rape) than we do to hold prejudicial beliefs. I'm not trying to say that passing off rape as "not bad" isn't despicable. But I am saying that we shouldn't hold the two as at all equivalent.
And, as I pointed out above, Anita has said in other videos that she doesn't think games will automatically lead to someone being a "raging sexist". Her problem is that games are simply part of an extended culture that itself has problems, and she wishes games to stop giving into that culture and try to be a medium that stands out against it. Could it lead to a harmful belief? Sort of. Even she admits that things are far too complicated to automatically link games to sexist beliefs and attitudes, as games are themselves influenced by a culture that itself contains many harmful beliefs.
Well, for starters, as her second Damsels in Distress video pointed out, a lot of the problem is likely unintentional and simply educating people on the problems could lead to some positive change. I also believe she's occasionally given brief tips such as having the damsel in distress do things to save herself. As far as her current "Background Decoration" goes, she still has at least one video left, so we don't know if she'll offer any solutions. We also don't know if she'll start dedicating videos to solutions. Again, though, at least in her mind, pointing out that problem may itself be the solution.
And, at least from my experience, if people don't accept that there is a problem, they tend to not care about any solution. If they don't accept that there might be a problem with the presentation of sex workers in games, then they tend to not see a point in offering any solutions, such as actually treating some of them as characters rather than just eye candy. It seems sort of obvious, as they don't think a solution is even needed. If you don't think there is a problem with the Damsel in Distress trope, why bother to think of a different way to approach it? Anita's main goal has been to point out problems, and while that is itself a partial solution, it is still the first step in actually coming up with more concrete solutions.
I will, however, say that I'm not particularly a fan of how she basically makes a video, disables comments, and then never really follows up on addressing rebuttals (at least not as far as I've been able to find). I understand that she underwent a lot of harassment early on, but she could at least try to follow the rebuttals and give at least some response. It would certainly make it seem like more of a discussion than a lecture from an, admittedly, boring speaker.
Sorry, if my comment seemed directed at you. My problem is that too often, and even in this thread on at least one occasion, people just dismiss her studies because they disagree with the conclusion. They don't actually try to point out the faults, which aren't that hard to do, and even I have found quite a few across the studies. I know you have at least tried to address the problems in other threads, so again, sorry if it sounded like I was accusing you of offhandedly dismissing the studies without adequate reason.
To answer the thread starters question:
Sarkeesian has a few distinctions that Thompson doesn't: A brain, Sex appeal and the sympathy of marks with disposable income. Both of them do have something in common: Their ideological end-goals are impossible, but that doesn't matter to Anita any more now that she's a wagon master and not just another oxen.
Sarkeesian has a few distinctions that Thompson doesn't: A brain, Sex appeal and the sympathy of marks with disposable income. Both of them do have something in common: Their ideological end-goals are impossible, but that doesn't matter to Anita any more now that she's a wagon master and not just another oxen.
"Creative works can propagate a harmful culture of violence/sexism" are both equally valid arguments (in fact it would be pretty hard to argue that cultural products are entirely detached from the culture that created them), while "playing a video game will directly turn you into a killer/rapist so they must be banned" are equally wrong.
Thompson's self-positioning was a lot closer to the latter, while Sarkesian is to the former. Cultural criticism is not the same thing as legal censorship.
Thompson's self-positioning was a lot closer to the latter, while Sarkesian is to the former. Cultural criticism is not the same thing as legal censorship.
I got photographic evidence of me playing the piano when I was a toddler....would you like to pay me a few grand to hear my opinion on Richard clayderman?JediMB said:
Except that there's no real evidence to support either claim.Alterego-X said:
A lack Detachment doesn't automatically imply propagation. Sure, as Anita would say "These things don't exist in a vacuum" but that's a meaningless statement as nothing exists in a vacuum, everything is either inspired by culture or inspires culture.Alterego-X said:
While there are "studies" that indicate sexist images increase sexist beliefs, there are also "studies" that show violent media actually reduces violence. [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804959]