Removed

[Sonofadiddly]

Seriously, though, I'll file those links away under "Things to Read If I Want to Convince Myself to Commit Suicide."

It's more that they might be useful in the many cases when some guy quizzically asks "But where, oh where is this sexism you speak of?"

I know what you meant, just messing with you. Thanks for being infinitely useful .

 

[BabySinclair]

A number of socially awkward men thought they could escape women in the virtual world and are finding their isolationism less effective. There will be complaining and idiocracy.

It's a viewpoint I genuinely do not understand. I am a socially awkward man. Part of this is a lack of any skill when meeting/approaching/talking to women. The fact that in the virtual world I tend to escape into contains woman who clearly enjoy the same things as I do can only be a bonus.

I should have clarified that it is from that group that the vocal dissidents sometimes spring up. Not all, likely not a significant percentage of, socially awkward men rail against the inclusion of women. I also forgot to mention the trolls and A-hats of the internet that just like being deuches, an oversight on my part. If you felt like I lumped you in with the idiocracy I apologize.

 

[Baneat]

The title promised me Dune but all I got was irony. Damn. Herbert has some serious issues with women I don't think he ever dealt with.

 

[Frankster]

Meh and here i was hoping for a discussion on how fear and strong emotions can overpower our cognitive abilities and reduce us to our more primal state.

Well im suitably horrified, i play with enough female gamers to know there are really weird anti female gamer people out there, i just had no idea there were people who dedicate their free time to actively pursuing and hunting them as if they were a pox upon gaming/dangerous animal that needs to be culled.

Im no stranger to online bullying and been on the receiving end of some rather elaborate staged trolling and persistant harassement, usually seemingly at random (or cos of my declared nationality if any characteristics are targeted like the time i had a french name and french were declared enemies of usa, even going so far as to rename french fries to freedom fries, sooo many americans singled me out in that time period xP To give an example i'd get ganked repeatedly then would be pmed about how french were cowards and how cos usa "saved" us in ww2 we are now their bitches or something.), but fuck me, never seen anything like this. In my case was bored bunch of friends at worst who happened upon a target that hit their fancy, i never felt like i was actively hunted.

Well gaming community full of antisocial fucktards that ruin it for the rest of us i guess.

 

[Kopikatsu]

even going so far as to rename french fries to freedom fries

Don't feel too bad about it, we did worse to the Germans. Frankfurters became Hot Dogs, Sauerkraut became Victory Cabbage, Hamburgers became liberty sandwiches.

If it makes you feel better, French Toast used to be German Toast up until WW1. Now it's still called French Toast.

 

[ardias014]

You are just griefing people. Attempting to dress it up as something else is if anything worse than what people like Shrine are doing.

What sounds worse to you, a guy who is mean to people every so often when life has gotten him down, or a guy who is nice to most but reserves a special kind of hatred for people based on some arbitrary feature (race, religion, gender etc)? There also are servers dedicated to roleplaying, even in World of Warcraft, and it's generally for the best not to make any assumptions or sweeping claims about what other people are or aren't doing with their entertainment.

You might want to take a step back and consider that you basically just said random acts of meanness are worse than systemic oppression.

Lets put it this way: Which is worse someone who attacks someone else because they are scared and ignorant or someone who attacks people because they get of on killing them? I think most people would go with the second one as the worst because they enjoy taking advantage of others or are just plain uncaring while the other is just an idiot.

 

[Frankster]

If it makes you feel better, French Toast used to be German Toast up until WW1. Now it's still called French Toast.

Now im genuinely curious as to how often in history food has been renamed in this fashion xD

 

[Smeggs]

Could be all of what OP stated...or, he could just, y'know, be a fucking dick?

 

[DeadpanLunatic]

I have removed my words from this site.

 

[Master_Fubar23]

Well there is a problem by claiming fear is tied to anger which is you don't have to have fear to be angry. I was angry with Anita not because of fear but due to her being wrong. Just as I get angry at TotalBiscuit sometimes but that?s where it stops. People are entitled to their opinions however wrong they may be as long as it doesn't interfere with others life. Just as I'm agitated that you're saying Anita was attacked because she stuck a nerve of fear. That just doesn't seem to be the case with me. It seemed it was more like a black guy getting angry by hearing the rhetoric of a Nazi. Since she seemed to be along the line of attacking then enlightening like how feminists do. Although, people really need to get their minds out of the feminist gutter. People like shrine aren't attacking out of fear at the fact gamer girls are female, they attack due to their insanely tiny penises. It?s a power issue plain and simple. He even goes on in one of the clips,?ahhhh, ya. That feels so good.? So no amount of telling him he has nothing to be afraid of will affect him because he is simply not afraid to being with. People really need to look at WHY someone is doing something and not the WHO. Oh, and he also said that she cirtized him on how we plays so yet again another tally for attacking her to show his power.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Well there is a problem by claiming fear is tied to anger which is you don't have to have fear to be angry.

The two are closely related however and stem from the very same place, emotionally. Both are emotions tied to survival and defensiveness and both are meant to help you survive in a Fight or Flight situation. When a threat appears we instantly and continually determine whatever this threat can be staved off or if we have to avoid it. If we decide we can pick a fight with it we get angry. If we decide it is too dangerous we feel fear. In that way you can certainly say that fear is a perquisite for anger, in that you first need to recognize a threat (something that provokes fear) and then have to determine whatever this threat can be fought (anger) or has to be avoided (more fear).

I was angry with Anita not because of fear but due to her being wrong.

If you get angry with everyone who's ever wrong, you have anger management issues. More like the deeper psychological reaction for you went something like this:
1. Anita Sarkeesian is saying something that is at odds with what you believe. This is a threat to your internal perception of the world, which triggers a Fight or Flight reaction.
2. You watch Sarkeesians movies and determine that she isn't a big enough threat for you to turn of your computer. Instead you get angry because Sarkeesian is challenging your internalized concepts of gaming and games and in extension yourself, because you like gaming and games.
3. Now that you are ready to fight Sarkeesian, you start finding flaws in her argument or factual mistakes she makes because you are itching for that fight (which you can't have since you are alone at a computer, you have to settle for the second best thing).
4. As a Post Facto-rationalization you determine that you aren't angry because Sarkeesian is effectively threatening your self-image and ego, but because she is "wrong".

That just doesn't seem to be the case with me. It seemed it was more like a black guy getting angry by hearing the rhetoric of a Nazi. Since she seemed to be along the line of attacking then enlightening like how feminists do. Although, people really need to get their minds out of the feminist gutter.

And here you prove that my initial analysis is more or less correct. You have already determined that Sarkeesian and "feminists" are your enemies and their reasoning a threat to you in some way, especially when you compare it to black guy and nazi rhetoric (the reason people generally get riled up by racism/sexism against them is because it is an attack on their sense of worth and ego).

As someone who has written a bachelor's thesis on aggression and violence, I am fairly certain I have scientific backing when I say that an overwhelming majority of anger and aggression are merely defensive tools used to hide the fact that the aggressor is afraid. The anger and aggression is meant to make the threat against us see us as a bigger threat and back down instead of seeing us as a potential prey because we are afraid.

 

[Smeatza]

As someone who has written a bachelor's thesis on aggression and violence, I am fairly certain I have scientific backing when I say that an overwhelming majority of anger and aggression are merely defensive tools used to hide the fact that the aggressor is afraid. The anger and aggression is meant to make the threat against us see us as a bigger threat and back down instead of seeing us as a potential prey because we are afraid.

Interesting but I've been told otherwise.
Anger developed as an emotion as a replacement, a stand in for being afraid, not as a guise to hide it. Because when we get angry we often do things that would be profitable for ourselves but otherwise might be deemed too dangerous/risky.

For example, if someone was to steal a turkey leg off me.
Hiding my fear would not get the turkey leg back.
Replacing the fear with an emotion that empowers me to physically attack the thief would probably get my turkey leg back.

Admittedly I know little of aggression, hell I know little of psychology. But those I know who are well educated on the subjects have explained it to me that way.

 

[Master_Fubar23]

Snip.

The two are closely related however and stem from the very same place, emotionally. Both are emotions tied to survival and defensiveness and both are meant to help you survive in a Fight or Flight situation. When a threat appears we instantly and continually determine whatever this threat can be staved off or if we have to avoid it. If we decide we can pick a fight with it we get angry. If we decide it is too dangerous we feel fear. In that way you can certainly say that fear is a perquisite for anger, in that you first need to recognize a threat (something that provokes fear) and then have to determine whatever this threat can be fought (anger) or has to be avoided (more fear).

You?re only partially right since those feelings are not only associated to threats. If you want to completely ignore the logical aspect of the human mind then find you analysis would be right. If someone is telling a child the sky is purple and the snow comes from the ground, the parent could react in an angry manner. There is no threat in this situation and there is not tied to flight or fight. The anger comes from the logical side where knowing something is wrong can bother someone. While your terms are right with something that?s a threat you are wrong in assuming humans are dumb animals that are solely ruled by emotions with no high thought processes.

Snip.

If you get angry with everyone who's ever wrong, you have anger management issues. More like the deeper psychological reaction for you went something like this:
1. Anita Sarkeesian is saying something that is at odds with what you believe. This is a threat to your internal perception of the world, which triggers a Fight or Flight reaction.
2. You watch Sarkeesians movies and determine that she isn't a big enough threat for you to turn of your computer. Instead you get angry because Sarkeesian is challenging your internalized concepts of gaming and games and in extension yourself, because you like gaming and games.
3. Now that you are ready to fight Sarkeesian, you start finding flaws in her argument or factual mistakes she makes because you are itching for that fight (which you can't have since you are alone at a computer, you have to settle for the second best thing).
4. As a Post Facto-rationalization you determine that you aren't angry because Sarkeesian is effectively threatening your self-image and ego, but because she is "wrong".

I?m sorry you think your bachelor's thesis endowed you with a professional comprehension and knowledge that qualifies you identify a psychological reaction. Moreover, if you truly think that two instances constitutes to someone suffering from anger management issues you have much to learn and are simply wrong.
1. Right and wrong. Her views would be a threat to me IF they made me question my perception of the world but her views did not. Her perception is skewed and wrong, probably due to a traumatic event at some point in her life. While it?s unfortunate that she has her view my anger comes from her trying to portray her views as facts instead of an opinion.
2. Wrong. You assume that humans are cowardly and will not fight a threat greater than themselves which is a pretty pessimist view of your own species and an emotional one at that. Once again I wasn?t angry at her challenging concepts she thought she was tackling because in essence she was trying to take off a lug nut with a hammer. Using the wrong factors and thought processes for the wrong concepts, i.e. trying to fit a square block through a triangular section.
3. Wrong again. One doesn?t need to fight someone in order to get their point across. Generally, when two or more people have a disagreement they argue. An argument is like a debate but when either side is isolated what can someone with a grievance do? Simple in this day and age, send an email. Yes, I did watch her video to find flaws in her arguments wherein I sent her an email with my perspective and thoughts.
4. Wrong yet again. However, I don?t need to reiterate what said since I?ve already addressed this statement above. So I?ll simply say this, no treat so no ?post facto-rationalization? to occur.

Snip.

And here you prove that my initial analysis is more or less correct. You have already determined that Sarkeesian and "feminists" are your enemies and their reasoning a threat to you in some way, especially when you compare it to black guy and nazi rhetoric (the reason people generally get riled up by racism/sexism against them is because it is an attack on their sense of worth and ego).

As someone who has written a bachelor's thesis on aggression and violence, I am fairly certain I have scientific backing when I say that an overwhelming majority of anger and aggression are merely defensive tools used to hide the fact that the aggressor is afraid. The anger and aggression is meant to make the threat against us see us as a bigger threat and back down instead of seeing us as a potential prey because we are afraid.

Only partially right yet still doesn?t prove you initial analysis or assessment correct or true. I have determined feminists to be my enemy, especially when I?m verbally assaulted, harassed, and threated by some. Feminists are to males as the KKK is to blacks... biased and hateful to those born with a feature that group does not like. While true not all feminists are this way, there is a great majority that would ?have my taint lessened by castration? as was said to me. However, Anita did not mention these types of views in her videos so my perception of her wasn?t hostile nor did I label her as a treat. It was to share knowledge that could be beneficial if she heeded it, if she didn?t then it wouldn?t affect me. She is free to believe what she wants as I am and her future endeavors won?t be supported by me as my lack of support won?t affect her. This has nothing to do with a sense of worth or ego. If it did then I would have been like one of so many that went through great lengths to belittle, harrass, and/or threaten her.

As you are not the only one who completes theses, I am very certain you have a lot more to learn. Your analysis could very well be true for those who lacked the intellectual capacity to voice their concerns in a clear concise manner but I am offended you try to label me as a mindless mammal that has anger issues. I think the main problem here is that you associate anger to someone being mad enough to flip tables. However, the reality is that there are different levels of anger ranging from a slight bother to mindless fury.

 

[TAGM]

Also this [http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/13300/article/comments-aren-t-disabled-here-s-what-people-are-saying-about-tropes-vs-women/].

Wow. Just like to say, in terms of that article, if they were trying to prove something like most if not all critics are just fearful misogynists that are afraid of da womens takin' da videa gaems (and seeing how they say that they've cherry picked the stuff, it sort of implies it - although it seems from the article that they were just saying that disabling comments might have been a good idea.) then they're doing it in the most counter-productive way possible.
Godda love how, sprinkled in with the fairly valid cases of people being misogynist dick-bags on a level rivaling The Legion from Fallout New Vagas are comments (and parts of comments) like:

"She doesn't even know what she's talking about. She says Peach was only a playable character in Mario Bros 2. WRONG. She was a playable character in Super Mario RPG, EVERY SINGLE Mario Kart, Mario Party and Super Smash Bros."
"There's room for well educated feminists to present such topics and i'll be supportive of them. This lady is mostly being counter-productive."
"I feel this article is entirely bias. She should at least have a comparative to justify her arguments, otherwise shes rambling on about a list of games that make her upset about her feminist desires."
And my personal favorite:
" She disables comments so people aren't allowed to give their opinion? That seems a little one sided. Honestly, I thought this lady disappeared after she made a fool of herself in her Bayonetta video. (That she removed)"

Now, I will admit, some of these parts were sprinkled with "I hate feminism" type things that could easily be called misogynist, yes. But I ask you this:
If these parts - as in, either fairly logical statements and criticisms or outright facts that she missed out - are really considered "the worst," what does that say about them? Really? What does that say about "the best"? If you can't make a worst compilation without accidentally including some fairly reasonable points, you're either not paying attention, or "the worst" is so infrequent that you have to tug at "the almost worst" to get it to fit. And really, that seems to reflect the argument here as a whole, at least from the Feminist Frequency side of things. Shove the valid criticism and questioning of why she's doing this in with the trolling and the misogamy, and then dump it all as "based on fear" so you can ignore it and make people think that she's right, because if she was wrong, well, where's the criticism?

Am I going to say that there isn't a problem with sexism in video games? Am I going to say that women are perfectly equal? Well, no. There's issues, I'll admit. They may not stem from actual hated of women, but they're still issues. But supporting Anita to try and get those problems fixed is almost counter-productive in my eyes. Why? Various reasons. Go look Anita up on YouTube, and seek out criticism of her. There's dozens, if not hundreds of videos all making various levels of valid arguments against her, the way she ran the kickstarter, the way she handles comments, the way she handles the videos, everything.