The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[The Deadpool]

You said it was largely negative. I actually counted and looked at the numbers. You... Have a sense of things?

Sorry, but if my anecdotal evidence is sullied by confirmation bias, then your own is, too.

The difference is, I didn't say "I got the sense it was largely positive when I skimmed it."

I actually sat down and added them up, splitting them into categories and added the results. MY personal bias has no bearing on the actual numbers.

Now you can argue that 300 isn't a large enough sample size for her entire youtube comment page, but it's the largest unmoderated sample I can find. But to argue that my bias somehow created positive comments is absurd.

 

[Jaytr13]

Not sure how in the world you think you can claim a media that makes more money than movies and music together.

Nice logical fallacy yourself. ..you don't understand the first thing about strawman and logical fallacies, lol.

Sorry, I guess I should have used "people" instead of "you"; it's moronic to think anyone can claim to represent all gamers. I guess I thought the context made that obvious.

It really does not, because your first sentence

The thing is, this is OUR medium, not the feminists, and we're allowed to have and voice our opinions too, thunderf00t included.

I'm a feminist who has been gaming since my Atari 2600 and Commodore 64 days. It's far more my medium than yours.

contradicts your last one

The thing is, this is OUR medium, not the feminists, and we're allowed to have and voice our opinions too, thunderf00t included.

I'm a feminist who has been gaming since my Atari 2600 and Commodore 64 days. It's far more my medium than yours. Not sure how in the world you think you can claim a media that makes more money than movies and music together.

like I already explained, this is what you sound like.

Nice logical fallacy yourself. "I played video games before you were born, therefore I own them more than you. You're an immature nerd, and you can't claim this medium but I can." No evidence, nothing to back up your assertions, using your own subjective life experiences as ammo for your arguments..you don't understand the first thing about strawman and logical fallacies, lol.

To claim something means that you are GOING to take something, to claim it as your own that no one else can have (mostly).

You said "it's far more my medium than yours." To own something means that you have and already owned something, possibly for a short or long period of time. It is something in your possession. In your own words "it's moronic to think anyone can claim to represent all gamers. I guess I thought the context made that obvious." when your sentence clearly displays the context that you own the medium but I do not.

Not my fault you suck at putting together proper context and using words in conjunction with each other in order to invoke meaning by way of a sentence.

If you don't like current gaming journalism, go start your own site.

Not how games journalism works. ... When you see something wrong, we have this thing called "vote with your wallet and call people out on their bullshit". Because we have the right to do so as game consumers.

That's exactly what I said, and exactly how journalism works. People thought there was a liberal bias in news and so there was a market for FOX News' creation. You, or any other GGer, are perfectly free to start your own site and those appalled with "ethics" are free to join you.

Again, it just sounds like to me that you're just trying to dismiss the issue at hand here. I like MovieBob's videos, I don't agree with this political opinion he has stated. Where exactly did I say that I was against his views so I wanted to create my own website? No. I as a consumer, have a RIGHT as someone who plays video games and reads journalistic reviews or editorial pieces am allowed to question something if it comes across as strange.

Where exactly did you arrive at the conclusion, this magical idea that a bunch of gamers need to create a website because we disagree with people? that's most bizarre notion I've ever heard.

I think you're working from a faulty timeline if you think that's what came first. What came first was a false accusation of trading sex for reviews. GG would be on FAR stronger footing if the instigating event and continued focus was Shadow of Mordor marketing or the like.

Really? Zoe Quinn never had sex with five guys? I'm sure you have proof, arguments, evidence to the contrary of the blatantly obvious. Typical for a feminist to claim you allow open analysis but then deny certain facts and allegations. It's actually about both of those things, since you've just denied the allegations that these incidents took place.

That's how and why debates exist, hon. Again, I'm sure you have proof to the contrary, right?

Are you ignorant? Feminist theory can be traced back to the 1700s. Feminist analysis has been pretty much going on steadily, with much debate for, against, and within, for almost a hundred years.

No. Are you stupid? I did not think so. Really? feminist analysis has been going on for hundreds of years? well, as someone who doesn't identify with your movement allow me to analyze something for you I've come across as kind of interesting.

As a feminist who surely lives in a first world country, how do you feel about David Cameron refusing to wear a pro-feminist t-shirt?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/27/david-cameron-feminist-t-shirt-refusal

Now, how do you feel about the fact that these t-shirts are made entirely on a small, foreign island called Mauritius by women who who work in sweatshop conditions, for a dollar an hour when these t-shirts sell for 70?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2817191/62p-HOUR-s-women-sleeping-16-room-paid-make-Ed-Harriet-s-45-Feminist-Looks-Like-T-shirts.html

why haven't your feminist ideals extended to the women who make t-shirts supporting your cause, and have David Cameron looked down upon by other women? I thought feminism was about extending equal rights to all women? not very fair that these girls get driven like slaves.

 

[The Deadpool]

I don't like the total-sum "misogyny equals this" because it ignores how subtle sexism actually is, but whatever sweeping statement floats your boat.

I did not say misogyny = ONLY this. But surely you are not arguing that some of the people defending her are actually misogynistic, are you? Because that'd be an interesting new turn of events...

 

[The Choke]

I actually sat down and added them up, splitting them into categories and added the results. MY personal bias has no bearing on the actual numbers.

Now you can argue that 300 isn't a large enough sample size for her entire youtube comment page, but it's the largest unmoderated sample I can find. But to argue that my bias somehow created positive comments is absurd.

Your personal bias is enough for you to treat your pathetically sized sample as evidence. You also... categorized the comments. Based on how they seemed to you. Interesting.

 

[The Choke]

I don't like the total-sum "misogyny equals this" because it ignores how subtle sexism actually is, but whatever sweeping statement floats your boat.

I did not say misogyny = ONLY this. But surely you are not arguing that some of the people defending her are actually misogynistic, are you? Because that'd be an interesting new turn of events...

Oh, I'm sorry. I can see that misogyny is a very confusing subject for you. Sometimes people do believe that some of their sexist behavior is actually polite, or even scientifically motivated. It's really not as simple as: "misogyny means that you don't support Anita." Anita herself has used what I would consider misogynistic language when talking about sex workers, so, once again, slightly too complicated to be boiled down it "if you support Anita, you are automatically not sexist." Too bad, too. That'd be a nice, easy litmus test.

 

[Lightknight]

I apologize for interjecting but I can't seem to see what the argument is here. What point is choke trying to make? Are we somehow surprised that negative comments are happening on the internet?

The argument is actually over what percentage of the gamer population is actually misogynistic.

The argument I presented is as follows:

If Anita's hypothesis is correct and games have a serious effect non the misogyny of people who play them, then the grand majority of players would be misogynistic.

If someone is misogynistic, said person would be against Anita's statements.

I postulate then that since the majority of gamers seem to be AGREEING with Anita, then games simply don't have any noticeable effect.

He argues that the majority of gamers are AGAINST her, citing the large percentage of negative comments against her.

That's how we came to argue over how large the percentage of negative comments against her ACTUALLY was...

But the framing of the argument itself, as you just presented it to me, is flawed.

You both spoke about confirmation bias when the biggest problem that people seem to forget is responder bias. Only two sorts of people are ever going to comment. The people who care enough to comment in support and the people who care enough to comment against.

At best you may come to a solution of the composition of people who are the most interested in the subject rather than get any sort of baseline of the gamer demographic.

Additionally, people may be critical of Anita's claim that games are sexist or make you sexist without necessarily being misogynistic. Posting negatively or critically with respect to Anita isn't inherently posting negatively or critically regarding feminism or equal rights. For example, I reject her premise that the damsel trope is negative and inherently sexist whenever a woman is damsel-ed (she also made the claim that gender power disparity is a socially constructed myth rather than a medical fact in which the average woman is as much as 50% weaker than the average male in upper body strength). Disagreeing that stopping evil villains from taking away damsels' agency isn't me saying that there aren't sexist depictions of females or that female consumers don't deserve representation at least equal to their participation as consumers in the medium. Also, those who believe she has misrepresented herself may disagree with her as a person rather than her topic but if it's the kickstarter page you're referring to then some of these wouldn't have come around until later.

Then there's the assumption that Anita's claim being true means that gamers would automatically believe it only if they were not misogynistic. Without having provided any proof then it would be easy to not believe such a claim when comparable studies have said otherwise. So being against her claims at all wouldn't generally follow. Likewise, there are several specific components of her argument that disagreeing with have nothing to do with feminism at all. Saying that the damsel trope actually teaches people to stop those who would kidnap people or take away their agency doesn't mean that you think women shouldn't have equal rights.

 

[MaddKossack115]

Ok, so Anita is entitled to criticism from those who don't like her work, but what I meant to say is that the guys who voice that criticism through SEXUAL HARASSMENT and DEATH THREATS will ALSO face the consequences. If that means torpedoing whatever point they had on gaming journalism by twisting it into feminist-bashing, then they should've thought a bit harder about just how people would react when they went overboard on criticizing Anita.

Ignoring any and all criticism from many people because a few people engage in sending threats and internet harassment is not a satisfactory rebuttal to the aforementioned criticism. There will always be threats and harassment, and while I wish law enforcement all the best in bringing the perpetrators justice, I'm almost certain there's always going to be more, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. The best option is to report any such illegal activities to the proper authorities and then quietly ignore them.

Doens't change the fact people were willing to abuse loopholes from 'common firearm laws' to credibly threaten a public assassination/massacre just because she said things they disagree with. If you're trying to say Anita basically 'staged' her speech cancelation just to criticize both lax gun laws and her more homicidal critics; guess what? I'd totally approve of her exposing how many people seriously want to kill her, and how in some parts of the country they have the perfect opportunity to do so.

There's nothing abusive about exercising common state law to carry firearms, and no law in America will actually stop someone who's willing to commit murder: Law enforcement stops lawbreakers, not laws. Considering how often Anita gets around, and how many public appearances she's made, I seriously doubt many people wish to kill her and I've seen no evidence anyone has even come near her with such intent.

Huh. Funny all the sources claiming "Mateus Prado Sousa made this threat" (at least, from what I found by a quick Google search) were all from GamerGate members. Don't get me wrong - looking at Sousa's Youtube channel, he's clearly not one of Anita's fans, and he definitely sounds like a prime suspect to try pulling the 'send death threats to her family' bullshit. But until some other official source outside of GamerGate confirms this story, I'm not going to buy it just yet.

And we've heard no word on who 'Kevin Dobson' actually is, yet people find it perfectly acceptable to hold him up as the legitimate standard of gamergate, even though it's abundantly clear it was an account made solely for the purpose of sending those threats.

Yeah, the whole 'no membership, no leader, no organized methodology' thing is NOT going to help GamerGate actually reform the game journalism system. Even the most bottom-up movements needed to figure out who their leaders were and how to properly organize their statements if they wanted to gain traction in their points.

And yet, the movement seems to be doing just fine. The only ones who seem upset that Gamergate lacks official membership, leadership, or concrete methods and goals are it's critics.

But Gamergate does not exist to appease it's critics, it exists as a result of growing contempt for the media's misrepresentation of gaming and gamers. Until something is done to appease Gamergate, the contempt will remain.

Claiming 'no organized methodology' certainly isn't an excuse for GamerGate members to allow anti-feminists and misogynists to run around making threats against Anita.

This would imply Gamergate actually has the ability to disallow anti-feminists and misogynists from making threats. This is incorrect. No force on Earth could stop 'Kevin Dobson' from making those threats, he was an anonymous user on a public website.

In spite of this, not only did Gamergate condemn Kevin Dobson, but they've tried to seek out the real person behind the alias and have him brought to justice. How is that not the appropriate response?

You can't claim disorganization as an excuse to just ignore the sexist lunatics dragging GamerGate's name through the mud; if the GamerGate community is going to be anything beyond a social punchline, its members NEED to openly say that sexists and misogynists are not welcome, and that their criticisms of the gaming business has nothing to do with anti-feminism, end of discussion.

The only ones dragging Gamergate's name through the mud is the media; the evidence that Gamergate actually harbors a significant number of sexists is scant at best, and the methods of somehow addressing the presence of anonymous users who may or may not be sexist are wildly impractical.

And absolutely none of those claims are relevant because Gamergate has no membership. There is as much of a gamergate community as there is a gaming community: It's just a loose collection of many individuals with an aligned interest in criticizing gaming media. Whether they be sexist, misogynists, or cishetwhitemales is completely irrelevant to that criticism.

Ok, so long story short, I understand that you clearly don't support the sexists that try to abuse the Gamergate hashtag to harass people, and I appreciate how your policy is to get the proper authorities to get on the case whenever one of these threats show up. But just because the police are going after the guys who make death threats under the Gamergate name doesn't really mean Gamergate itself can ignore the fact the guys making death threats are there. Even taking into account of how "Gamergate isn't an organization with membership, it's a community with people of similar interests in it" doesn't mean the Gamergate community can't make more effective steps to disavow and separate themselves from those using Gamergate as a tool of abuse - again, in MovieBob's Game Overthinker video, the metal 'community' united to disassociate itself from the Neo-Nazi skinheads that were into metal, and Bob went on to claim that the gaming community can dissociate itself from the trigger-happy right wing lunatics like Anders Breivik (the Oslo Massacre guy), who outright claimed Call of Duty was literally part of his 'training simulation'. I'm certain that if Gamergate made a far more conscious effort to exorcise the misogynists who are only in it to bash feminism from their community, they can easily do that. They can certainly afford to do more than just claim 'hey, it's up to the police to catch these guys. We're just going to give the police information, and then stay away from the whole issue while the cops do their thing'. And you can't just blame the media for exclusively trying to smear Gamergate's name. There wouldn't be much for the media to smear Gamergate with if it wasn't for the misogynists giving them plenty of material to cover.

 

[The Deadpool]

I actually sat down and added them up, splitting them into categories and added the results. MY personal bias has no bearing on the actual numbers.

Now you can argue that 300 isn't a large enough sample size for her entire youtube comment page, but it's the largest unmoderated sample I can find. But to argue that my bias somehow created positive comments is absurd.

Your personal bias is enough for you to treat your pathetically sized sample as evidence.

I treat it as superior evidence to... NOTHING.

I'm still wondering why you think you can claim the comments were largely negative with nothing but your gut, but complain about sample size...

Oh, I'm sorry. I can see that misogyny is a very confusing subject for you. Sometimes people do believe that some of their sexist behavior is actually polite, or even scientifically motivated. It's really not as simple as: "misogyny means that you don't support Anita." Anita herself has used what I would consider misogynistic language when talking about sex workers, so, once again, slightly too complicated to be boiled down it "if you support Anita, you are automatically not sexist." Too bad, too. That'd be a nice, easy litmus test.

It isn't about EVERY SINGLE MEMBER, but simply about a population trend.

I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that the number of misogynistic gamers who agree that their games make them hate women is small enough to be insignificant.

Also, calling sex workers "prostituted women" is insensitive to sex workers. It isn't misogynistic. The word kinda gets thrown around a little too easily...

 

[MaddKossack115]

Anita, on the other hand, is challenging the CONSEQUENCE-FREE SPEECH

Likewise, she now faces the consequences of her own speech, none of which are legally binding or government supported.

Why the concern over silencing critics when no one is actually being censored?

Ok, so Anita is entitled to criticism from those who don't like her work, but what I meant to say is that the guys who voice that criticism through SEXUAL HARASSMENT and DEATH THREATS will ALSO face the consequences. If that means torpedoing whatever point they had on gaming journalism by twisting it into feminist-bashing, then they should've thought a bit harder about just how people would react when they went overboard on criticizing Anita.

The death threats against Anita can't be shrugged off when she had to cancel a presentation because the threat of a school shooting could've been carried out thanks to how guns weren't banned from the school she was presenting [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/138046-School-Shooting-Threat-Sent-to-USU-about-Anita-Sarkeesian],

False; Anita made the decision to cancel her talk even after being assured the threat the school had received was not credible by the police. Many college campuses allow guns to be carried, typically in states with similar laws. She's been giving talks at length across the country for some times, she knows these laws exist. Refusing to talk at a previously planned presentation because of death threats she has allegedly been receiving this entire time because of a common firearm law she would have undoubtedly encountered before is disingenuous.

Doens't change the fact people were willing to abuse loopholes from 'common firearm laws' to credibly threaten a public assassination/massacre just because she said things they disagree with. If you're trying to say Anita basically 'staged' her speech cancelation just to criticize both lax gun laws and her more homicidal critics; guess what? I'd totally approve of her exposing how many people seriously want to kill her, and how in some parts of the country they have the perfect opportunity to do so.

and when she was forced to flee her own house after the threats to break in and murder her family proved all to real not to brush off as a sick joke or empty boast [http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/27/6075179/anita-sarkeesian-says-she-was-driven-out-of-house-by-threats].

False; The threat of posting an address of a public figure, or the address of a public figure's family with nothing more than words to back it up is not a credible threat. Considering Anita continues to make public appearances in well-populated spaces to this day, and much of her personal information can be found online through completely legal means with nothing more than her full name, it is laughable to asserts this had any more reason to 'drive Anita from her home' than any other anonymous death threats.

Also? Gamergate is pretty sure they found 'Kevin Dobson'. He was a Brazilian journalist by the name of Mateus Prado Sousa doing it to stir up controversy: http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2j2gun/identity_of_one_of_anita_sarkeesians_harassers/

Huh. Funny all the sources claiming "Mateus Prado Sousa made this threat" (at least, from what I found by a quick Google search) were all from GamerGate members. Don't get me wrong - looking at Sousa's Youtube channel, he's clearly not one of Anita's fans, and he definitely sounds like a prime suspect to try pulling the 'send death threats to her family' bullshit. But until some other official source outside of GamerGate confirms this story, I'm not going to buy it just yet.

At the very LEAST, the GamerGate members who DON'T support trying to outright kill Anita just to shut her up should call out any of their members who tried to do so, if only in a "GUYS!! Stop making US look bad!" motive.

GG has no membership, no leader, no organized methodology. It simply is. Trying to call out anonymous users who engage in bad behavior for no other reason than they used the GG hash tag is beyond impractical.

Yeah, the whole 'no membership, no leader, no organized methodology' thing is NOT going to help GamerGate actually reform the game journalism system. Even the most bottom-up movements needed to figure out who their leaders were and how to properly organize their statements if they wanted to gain traction in their points. Claiming 'no organized methodology' certainly isn't an excuse for GamerGate members to allow anti-feminists and misogynists to run around making threats against Anita. In one of Bob's GameOverthinker episodes, he pointed out how metal music was starting to get controversy over being the 'music of choice' for skinhead Neo-Nazis, and the reason that controversy didn't get out of control (at least, compared to some other metal controversies) was how the metal community as a whole banded together to openly declare that "Neo-Nazis aren't welcome here!" (See 14:18 of this video for the part explaining it).

You can't claim disorganization as an excuse to just ignore the sexist lunatics dragging GamerGate's name through the mud; if the GamerGate community is going to be anything beyond a social punchline, its members NEED to openly say that sexists and misogynists are not welcome, and that their criticisms of the gaming business has nothing to do with anti-feminism, end of discussion.

The campus found no credible threat to Anita so her cancelling the planned talk event seems extremely bizarre for someone who goes out to make public speeches despite being "in fear for her life".Makes me think Anita isn't as scared to death as she,the media,and you are implying her to be.

What I find incredibly funny about the last part of your post is that you only call out one side to openly say that it's trash elements aren't welcome.Why not extend the same courtesy to Anti Gamer Gate who houses a Neo Nazi,many racists and sexists who go around bullying LGBT organizations and the like?

Can you tell me exactly WHO in Anti Gamer Gate are "a Neo Nazi,many racists and sexists who go around bullying LGBT organizations and the like?" Like, with links showing the people making Neo-Nazi, racist and sexist comments? I'm not even being sarcastic, or anything - if guys like that really are running around Anti Gamer Gate, they deserve to be called out for their radical beliefs just as much as if they were running around Gamer Gate instead.

 

[Mahha]

I just wanted to say that there's lots of research into the third-person effect, and I'm actually surprised that more GG-supporters don't use it and first-person effect in their arguments against critiques that focus on social equality.

You have a point. There should be more of a strongly argumented approach to debunking false claims.

However, as far as I've understood, GG has nothing to do with social equality in games. I'm pretty sure GG is all about journalistic integrity of the games media, something that really has nothing to do with Anita and her "research". I find it funny that it's often the opponents of GG that bring them up, it's never (or rarely) GG supporters.
I think it's important to distinguish between that GG has nothing to do with social equality in games, it might have arose from affairs of a game developer with games journalists, but it's purely about ethics in journalism and not social equality.

 

[CaitSeith]

From her video Damsel on distress Part 1:

The belief that women are somehow a ?naturally weaker gender? is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false- but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it?s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women.

She doesn't deliver proof of this statement either, but that's not the point we're arguing right now.

EDIT: Finally got the quotes right. Sorry.

Actually it's on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.[64] [footnote] "Strength training for female athletes: A position paper: Part 1". NSCA 11 (4). 1989.[/footnote]

It even says at absolute peak training there will be a 30% consistent difference.

What Anita is arguing against according the multiple sources may be science itself in that statement. That is if you consider physical power to be the only form of strength that is.

According to studies women have better memories and a stronger immune systems.

Again large generalisations but still observed differences which are observable. The article in question has been edited a lot. It's a war ground on there at one point with claims that muscle mass differences were still observable on trained female vs untrained male and at one point a claim from a non scientific source that the only reason for the difference was social pressure for men to lift weights.


Testosterone, it's a hell of a drug.

I think she refered to things like thinking that the Olympic weightlifting champion in the women division can't beat an average male athlete, because she is a woman. To tell the truth, I haven't researched if she can do it or not.

EDIT: Or emotionally weaker than men in danger situations.

 

[The Deadpool]

You both spoke about confirmation bias when the biggest problem that people seem to forget is responder bias.

That should not really matter here. Sure, it isn't indicative of the EXACT population that agrees or disagrees, but we aren't looking for exact, just percentages.

If the same percentage of the pro Anita camp is prone to respond as the anti Anita camp, then they are each indicative of the larger population.

Now, it IS possible that one side has more pressure to comment than the other, but I can't think of anything that would cause that. If you can, I would like to consider it.

Additionally, people may be critical of Anita's claim that games are sexist or make you sexist without necessarily being misogynistic.

That's not actually relevant to the hypothesis.

The argument isn't that everyone who disagrees with Anita is misogynistic. It is that people who are misogynistic are far, far, FAR more likely to disagree with her.

 

[The Choke]

I actually sat down and added them up, splitting them into categories and added the results. MY personal bias has no bearing on the actual numbers.

Now you can argue that 300 isn't a large enough sample size for her entire youtube comment page, but it's the largest unmoderated sample I can find. But to argue that my bias somehow created positive comments is absurd.

Your personal bias is enough for you to treat your pathetically sized sample as evidence.

I treat it as superior evidence to... NOTHING.

I'm still wondering why you think you can claim the comments were largely negative with nothing but your gut, but complain about sample size...

Oh, I'm sorry. I can see that misogyny is a very confusing subject for you. Sometimes people do believe that some of their sexist behavior is actually polite, or even scientifically motivated. It's really not as simple as: "misogyny means that you don't support Anita." Anita herself has used what I would consider misogynistic language when talking about sex workers, so, once again, slightly too complicated to be boiled down it "if you support Anita, you are automatically not sexist." Too bad, too. That'd be a nice, easy litmus test.

It isn't about EVERY SINGLE MEMBER, but simply about a population trend.

I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that the number of misogynistic gamers who agree that their games make them hate women is small enough to be insignificant.

Also, calling sex workers "prostituted women" is insensitive to sex workers. It isn't misogynistic. The word kinda gets thrown around a little too easily...

So I told you I read the comments, and it's my gut. You tell me you read the comments, and it's proof.

Also, I don't think I said that calling sex workers "prostituted women" was what bothered me about that segment, but rather that it was Anita's language, but sure, you can assume and put words in my mouth. That makes me trust your tactics in a debate.

Choke, your panties are twisting. Go date pigeons. This is why we rarely comment on things. Go date pigeons, Choke.

Once again, Bob, I greatly enjoyed your video. Hats off.

 

[Lightknight]

You can't claim disorganization as an excuse to just ignore the sexist lunatics dragging GamerGate's name through the mud; if the GamerGate community is going to be anything beyond a social punchline, its members NEED to openly say that sexists and misogynists are not welcome, and that their criticisms of the gaming business has nothing to do with anti-feminism, end of discussion.

That looters show up to a peaceful protest doesn't make the protest illegitimate. A pickpocket-er taking advantage of one of Ghandi's sit-ins didn't make Ghandi guilty by proxy or his cause less deserving.

I'll remind you that both sides have seen their proponents do some pretty despicable stuff. Anti-GG has stuff like hacking and bringing down a charity drive to give resources to female developers and proceeds to charity while people on both sides have seen some doxxing, harassments and threats.

The only thing you're showing is that people will exploit scenarios in which there is enough noise or activity to mask their actions. Yay humanity.

Please understand, we are not dismissing these acts as nothing. We are dismissing these acts as not indicative of our group as a whole. We have task forces actively trying to seek out, expose, and stop these kinds of actions to the best of our ability. But at the end of the day, I can't stop people from harassing other people anymore than you could stop me from having posted this before I did.

 

[The Deadpool]

From her video Damsel on distress Part 1:

The belief that women are somehow a ?naturally weaker gender? is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false- but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it?s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women.

She doesn't deliver proof of this statement either, but that's not the point we're arguing right now.

EDIT: Finally got the quotes right. Sorry.

Actually it's on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.[64] [footnote] "Strength training for female athletes: A position paper: Part 1". NSCA 11 (4). 1989.[/footnote]

It even says at absolute peak training there will be a 30% consistent difference.

What Anita is arguing against according the multiple sources may be science itself in that statement. That is if you consider physical power to be the only form of strength that is.

According to studies women have better memories and a stronger immune systems.

Again large generalisations but still observed differences which are observable. The article in question has been edited a lot. It's a war ground on there at one point with claims that muscle mass differences were still observable on trained female vs untrained male and at one point a claim from a non scientific source that the only reason for the difference was social pressure for men to lift weights.


Testosterone, it's a hell of a drug.

I think she refered to things like thinking that the Olympic weightlifting champion in the women division can't beat an average male athlete, because she is a woman. To tell the truth, I haven't researched if she can do it or not.

At the highest level and at the average level, there are physical differences between men and women, and sheer strength is a noticeable one.

BUT even that ignores the obvious problem: We live in a society where physical strength has NOTHING to do with worth. I'm just random jackass down the street could bench press twice as much as any President we've had. It means nothing.

Depicting someone as physically weaker does not depict them as less worthy. REGARDLESS of gender.

 

[Lightknight]

The argument isn't that everyone who disagrees with Anita is misogynistic. It is that people who are misogynistic are far, far, FAR more likely to disagree with her.

I would imagine that to be true. It would constitute an additional bias against her argument.

What is the argument then? Your condition then is basically axiomatic. Like saying that people who are against even numbers are more likely to disagree with a proponent of even numbers. Ugh... yep.

 

[ryukage_sama]

While I have heard no calls from critics of video games to censor their production or sale,

I see this argument often, and it makes no sense to me. Yes, Jack Thompson called for censorship, but was the call for censorship the ONLY thing you disagreed with him here?

I'm honestly curious. Is it your contention that believing video games cause children to murder each other because of its high violent content is okay, but expecting the government to monitor and limit something that causes kids to kill other kids is an absurd idea?

I should have been more specific in which critics I was referring to. I was referring to feminist critics (at least those with some semblance of professionalism) of games having not advocated a form of censorship.

Regarding how I feel about how others feel about games versus what other try to have done about video games? Well, I limit how much thinking I do about the thoughts/feelings of others regarding things I care about of which they know little. For instance, I like pinball games, both physical and digital, and find them more compelling than most FPS games. I don't really care if some people don't like them since it does nothing to diminish my fun. Similarly with Bayonetta games, even if the criticism is whether people find them to be too provocative. The opinions of most people are inconsequential to most other people, including myself. It is rare for a particular opinion, perspective or viewpoint to actually become a movement or agenda. I would like for people to be more enlightened, to see things from a rational perspective that is concerned with practical outcomes not archaic prejudice. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the personality and drive to pursue, never mind accomplish such pervasive cultural transformation to achieve universal acceptance of video games as a viable entertainment and artistic medium. I will however act to prevent the opposite event from taking place. Video games have come a long way in terms of market reach and mainstream success, accompanied by acknowledgement from the SCOTUS, that I don't feel the medium is in any danger from groups seeking to censor them or restrict their sale.

So, while I'm not "okay with" people believing nonsense about a causative relationship between video games and violent behavior, I have zero interaction with such people so I don't waste my emotional energy on them. I will take more of an activist role whenever bans or censorship of fictional media is legitimately threatened, but after California failed to legally restrict game sales, that threat is in no way immediate.

 

[Silverspetz]

Well, for starters one actualy happened while the other one is a complete misrepresentation/outright lie.

Have you already forgotten about that nugget of intelligence that went something to the tune of, "the more you think you aren't affected, the more you are" and "mistreatment of women in videogames causes people to mistreat women in real life". Statements made based on research that doesn't exist.

She is a liar and a fraud. Saying that her opinions are shit, because she has no idea of what research is doesn't make anyone a misogynist.

First of all, none of the feminist critics that are being talked about have ever said anything like that second statement. It is the fact that you keep insisting that they do that makes it a complete misrepresentation/lie.

Second of all, that first part is also more or less misrepresented. Saarkesian has said that negative tropes in video-games and other media perpetuates the same stereotypes in real life, because said tropes are originally spawned by negative trends and deep-rooted preconceptions about women in the first place. WHICH IS COMPLETELY TRUE! The whole point of her videos is that these tropes DOESN'T exist because some mustache-twirling bad guy in a game company got off on it, nor is it about tropes TURNING unsuspecting people into said raging misogynists. What it is ACTUALLY about is how the negative trends that have affected women for centuries show themselves through the disproportionate prelevance of these tropes in our media.

So in conclusion: no, criticizing Saarkesian or her academic methods (although complaining about that in a series that is by definition opinion and observation based seems like the height of pointlessness to me), doesn't necessarily make anyone a misogynist. However, comparing her to someone like Thombsson is not only completely idiotic since the two are completely different in their goals and approaches, but comparing them with the purpose of somehow JUSTIFYING the disgusting threats thrown her way DEFINITELY makes someone a misogynist.

 

[The Deadpool]

So I told you I read the comments, and it's my gut. You tell me you read the comments, and it's proof.

Actual numerical break down is more reliable than gut.

Yes, I could be lying. You'd have to confirm that yourself. But to say that "I have a good feeling" and "I counted" are the same type of evidence is just silly.

Notice the complete lack of personal attacks from ONE side of this argument.