The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[Ragsnstitches]

Anita is a fraud and not a real gamer.

...

So, by taking her work in to account she is a marketing major who saw a market to establish her self in a new medium and make money,

She asked for $6,000. You did know that, right? RIGHT? Six grand is hardly a lot of money, especially if you are planning on making several 10-minute long videos. I've donated to another YouTube channel, Loosely Bolted, who are asking for $5,000 to upgrade their equipment. No one has accused Loosely Bolted of running a scam.

Here is the proof
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw

I've seen this video posted by people dozens of times. It's rather pathetic.

First of all, there are pictures of her as a kid playing video games, so she has at least in the past played games. More importantly, "Gamer" as a label is nebulous, at best. It could mean, "Someone who plays games." to "Someone whose main source of entertainment is video games." When she said she wasn't a gamer, she likely meant she wasn't a hardcore gamer, nothing more. But that won't stop people from lying about the subject.

1. Oh yeah....6 thousand dollars for a youtube video...not a lot of money. Sorry, how stupid do you think we are?

2. Given the fact that anita didn't play the majority of the games she listed kind of proves this in itself. Not to mention the journalist who missed ALL the stuff showing that anita wasn't really a "gamer" in the sense of the word SHE used it in.

1. A professional studio set-up could easily run a cost as high as $10,000 and up, which was one of the things Anita said she wanted to put a part of the funding. $6000 is pretty modest for a professional set-up.

2. Citation needed.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

Also I'm not sure you can consider anyone in MHRM a "leader"

Ok I don't want to jump in this pointless flame war, I just want to know, wtf is an MHRM? I've never heard that acronym before, only MRA.

 

[wulf3n]

I might not agree with all of Anita's claims, but I think she does more good than harm.

Was that supposed to be more good than harm?

EDIT: Clarification has been fixed.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Anita is a fraud and not a real gamer.

...

So, by taking her work in to account she is a marketing major who saw a market to establish her self in a new medium and make money,

She asked for $6,000. You did know that, right? RIGHT? Six grand is hardly a lot of money, especially if you are planning on making several 10-minute long videos. I've donated to another YouTube channel, Loosely Bolted, who are asking for $5,000 to upgrade their equipment. No one has accused Loosely Bolted of running a scam.

Here is the proof
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw

I've seen this video posted by people dozens of times. It's rather pathetic.

First of all, there are pictures of her as a kid playing video games, so she has at least in the past played games. More importantly, "Gamer" as a label is nebulous, at best. It could mean, "Someone who plays games." to "Someone whose main source of entertainment is video games." When she said she wasn't a gamer, she likely meant she wasn't a hardcore gamer, nothing more. But that won't stop people from lying about the subject.

1. Oh yeah....6 thousand dollars for a youtube video...not a lot of money. Sorry, how stupid do you think we are?

2. Given the fact that anita didn't play the majority of the games she listed kind of proves this in itself. Not to mention the journalist who missed ALL the stuff showing that anita wasn't really a "gamer" in the sense of the word SHE used it in.

1. A professional studio set-up could easily run a cost as high as $10,000 and up, which was one of the things Anita said she wanted to put a part of the funding. $6000 is pretty modest for a professional set-up.

2. Citation needed.

1. A professional studio isn't really what she has though, is it? With 100k+ she basically has a green screen, makeup, and a camcorder.
2. http://victorsopinion.blogspot.ca/2013/07/anitas-sources.html

:/

1. You said 6000, why move the goal posts?

2. Ah, I've seen that before. That doesn't prove she hasn't played the games. The most it proves is that she used other peoples footage without crediting them. That's pretty shitty, but it isn't criminal since it falls under the awfully murky principles of fair use.

What you have there is a sorry case of confirmation bias. You feel strongly that Anita is a sham, and seeing stuff like this confirms (to yourself) that you are right. The Reality is that this blog can mean any number of things, one of which is that she hasn't played those games. It's just as likely that she hadn't played them within the context of her recording scheduled, meaning she would have to supplement her videos with other sources.

Neither of these scenarios are provable, but because you have a feeling the scenario that has the best fit is the only one you see, therefore it must be true. Ergo, Confirmation Bias.

Sorry, this is not something you can hang your case on.

Do note that this was her original setup before any sort of funding from kickstarter. She already had lighting, soundproof padding(which is crazy expensive), an entire room dedicated to recording videos. And she was also producing her content in HD.

Just throwing this out there for your knowledge.

Do you have any images of her current set-up?

 

[Icehearted]

You're right, my mind is made up, I have yet to see the side against her offer any compelling evidence that shes wrong, pretty much all the angles of attack on her are personal. They all seem to come down to "ohhhhh shes not a real gamer." Video games are not a walled off garden, you don't have to have devoted yourself to them for a life time to understand them or to learn the tropes that are in them. I have spent a life time playing them and that is why I agree with her. The fact that other gamer's on this site agree with what she has to say kinda proves that shes not full of shit, Movie Bob obviously agrees and so does Jim Sterling, if you want some names.

Again, she pretty much said this herself.

Not really sure how anyone agreeing with her proves she's right anymore than someone disagreeing with her is proven right by those that agree with their dissent. Self-aggrandizing web personalities or otherwise.

By that type of reasoning and using your very logic (and wording) I could argue, for example, that the Ku Klux Klan says that Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world and run all the media, the fact that some people agree with what they have to say kinda proves that they're not full of shit, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad obviously agrees and so does Mel Gibson, if you want some names.

See? Logic fallacies really don't hold up either.

Want to stress that I am not in agreement with the KKK, Ahmadinejad, Gibson, or any other racist or racist organization in any way shape or form, I myself the son of a mixed-race couple have experienced a lot of the evil of bigotry first hand. My post was about making a point regarding another user's absurd reasoning and not in support of the views expressed by the persons mentioned about the Jewish community.

Edit: cleaned up the quote box, sorrys.

First of all, what the hell are you talking about? Second of all, it helps her case because even if she isn't a gamer and assuming that videogames are impossible for people to get into unless they have been into them since birth. It means that people who have devoted their lives to games can see the same problems she does.

Your point makes no sense, the only way the whole kkk, ahmadine-jad, gibson thing you brought up would make some sense if they were also all jewish or they got a bunch of jews to agree with them. On its own it doesn't work though.

It makes perfect sense because they have people in agreement with their beliefs; not all that agree with Sarkeesian are gamers, it's a feminist cause that other people agree with. It only wouldn't make sense to someone who's seeing things one-dimensionally. Has nothing to do with being born into anything, she says she doesn't even like video games, and leanred about them for the purpose of making a pro-feminist video with the song "Too Many Dicks (On The Dance Floor)".

I worded things exactly as you did to demonstrate the fallacy of your logic. Since it seemed as ridiculous to you as it did to me, I'd consider that a point taken, even if by your own admission you've made up your mind on the issues and everything everyone has to say about it in advance of all comments posted.

No really, if it was an exclusive matter of gaming that would be one thing, but she's discussed Legos, Movies, Television, Fantasy art, and a plethora of other matters, and last I checked it was "Feminist Frequency" which is broader than "Gamer's Frequency", so you can give the exclusivity argument a rest. She's not just talking to gamers, she's talking to anyone that will listen, on CNN, at expos, wherever they'll give her a mic, to whomever will listen to her.

*bangs head on desk* You're not listening. The only way your example is compatible is if they went to a bunch of Jewish people and got them to agree that the jews did everything you mentioned. Just having someone agree with you means nothing, but if you have some people who are members of the group you are taking about agree with you, then it means something.

Again, by your own fallacy of logic, Bob and Jim are not female gamers. You're ignoring that she isn't just talking about video games, or to gamers, or to women. She is not speaking to any specific demographic. My example stands.

Your example FAIIIIILS. They aren't females, but they are gamers, she clearly is capable if figuring out enough about games so that gamers can see her point and agree with her.

Right, so again, by your mode of logic these people speak to anti-Semites, they aren't politicians or entertainers, but they are anti-Semites, they clearly are capable of figuring out enough about antisemitism so that anti-Semites can see their point and agree with them.

Again, my original example stands.

Listen to me, you are talking about someone who hates jews, being able to convince other people who hate jews. I am talking about someone who might not be a gamer, being able to convince people who are gamers. Its different. ...THis is so stupid, why are we even arguing about this? She was working on her tropes vs woman thing for like a year, even with no prior knowledge of video games she could have played a ton of them and brought herself up to speed.

Actually I was just using your own words to demonstrate a point, again.

This whole thing about Gibson and Ahmadinejad was to demonstrate your fallacy of logic; Anita Sarkeesian is "not full of shit" because some people are mean to her so all that disagree have nothing valid to say, and Chipman and Sterling agree with her views legitimizing her message. I do not believe that an endorsement by either Bob, Jim, or anyone else means something is factual or even correct. You said it does. By this logic that means that as long someone agrees with somehting it is truthful.

Agreeing with an opinion is fine, deciding or delcaring it a fact because someone else agrees with it is a fallacy of logic, which was the whole point to begin with. If you've lost track as to why we're even discussing this I encourage you to return to earlier posts in this thread in which you've done exactly this while quoting me in support of validating an opinion as fact.

Take this video, which I already know you will not watch because you've said you will not, "bringing herself up to speed" was not her point for the purpose of validating her arguments, but rather to support a preexisting idea or message then seeing "evidence" to support these claims.

This woman roundly explains exactly what I mean in the first 60 seconds, without attacking Anita Sarkeesian, without making it personal, simply a perspective on the facts of Anita's message as Anita herself presents them. She also offers a pretty fair perspective in her own right.

*bangs head on wall* You aren't listeniiiiiiiing. Your argument doesn't mean shit unless those people went to a bunch of jews and suddenly got some of them to believe that jews are responsible for all the bad shit in the world. Hell, that isn't even what I'm trying to say with my argument, my argument isn't that she suddenly convinced people, its that people already in the know about games see the problem. Which means that her points aren't full of shit.

I've already watched the vid you linked, it was one of the few that wasn't a personal attack but it was still wrong within one minute. Anita says that the problem isn't that the damsel in distress happens, its that it is almost the only way women are portrayed in games. IN the vid you linked, kite says Anita says the formula should be completely retired form use. Really if I remember right, the main point of the vid you linked just addressed Anita's arguments on a very superficial level and was more about how she though the nintendo characters being damseled all the time, wasn't an issue. To me the vid came off more as an easy way to get hits, since its by far her most viewed vid, over 200k while all her others are less than 10k.

Actually, you appear to be completely ignoring both of my points, the first one when I first posted in this thread, which as you've already stated is a lost cause as your mind is completely made up, and the second one which was not about anybody convincing anyone of anything, but about how someone opinion isn't a fact because someone else agrees with them.

That was your statement. Not that anyone was convinced of anything, not that anyone was changing anyone's mind or making a valid point, only that she was not full of shit because some people agree with her, then you name-dropped Bob and Jim as if that somehow makes her opinion a factual or legitimizes her message. I used nearly identical words that you used, changing only the subject and names, to demonstrate that this was a fallacy of logic. Not about changing minds or convincing anyone of something, just pointing out the error in believing someone is truthful only because a group of persons agree with their statement.

You aren't even seeing my point because you're too focused on the wording and not on the message, which again, as simply as I can convey it, is that a group of people supporting an opinion does not make it a fact. That is a fallacy of logic, I know I've beaten that term to death here, but I keep using that phrase because it is as concise a way as I can think of to convey the erroneous way in which you claim she is not only defensible but accurate, and that because some people agree with her opinion that it someone means it's factual. That's not how facts work.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Do you have any images of her current set-up?

Ehh sorry mate. Since she basically controls all information of what goes in and what goes out now basically nothing for her current setup has been taken nor shared by Anita. Only people that will have that information is Anita or her staff.

EDIT: Just as a quick note of reference. I remember having this whole controversial conversation with Matt_LRR(Matt from loading ready run) and even he said that setup in that picture was more advanced that what the entire LRR staff have ever had. So even her original setup basically dwarfed LRR's gear and setup.

EDIT 2: I cannot stop screwing up with the spelling errors!

Well then the only fact we can gleam from this is that we can't make a good judgement on how much her hardware and software cost. I do recall new tech and upgrades as being a part of her Kickstarter scheme, but without a reference we can't make a call one way or the other.

It certainly doesn't help anyone that she keeps her info locked away.

 

[Miroluck]

If all of the threats on the internet would always come to life I would have to buy, like, 120 new appartments by now.

You can talk about how internet threats are meaningless, but it misses the point. The people being complete shitheads to her brought attention upon her in a way no marketing can do. People accuse her of manipulating folks for donations, but they forget that if it hadn't been for thousands of manchildren railing against her, this would have all amounted to nothing of consequence.

It'd be nice if people could take responsibility for their actions instead of dishonestly portraying Anita as a con artist because they made her so damn popular.

Well, no. She's not a con artist. It's just that America loves the underdog. (and that love sometimes defies logic and reason).

Other people probably don't have spare 100K lying around.

So it's okay to "steal" from people if you don't have money. Gotcha.

Sort of. It's not okay to violate copyright laws just because you don't have money (of course), but it's a grey area.

So... do you want people to watch her videos before complaining or not?

Especially since you had to conflate what another poster said with what I said to force such a choice. snip

You really didn't contradict yourself in that previous post, I'm sorry for that. But in one of your next posts - see below.

Ahem...

And she should stop forcing me to watch her videos!

That is a sarcastic statement, so you're implying that complainers shouldn't watch her videos.

BY now, anyone who still defends anita probably haven't watched the response videos and probably won't.

Kind of like how most of her critics haven't watched her videos and probably won't.

And here you're implying that people should watch her videos before complaining. Which is true - they really should if they haven't yet.

Ah, nice attempt at a false dichotomy.

That wasn't a false dichotomy. Because it really is binary choice here - you either watch those videos, or you don't.
If there's a third option, do tell.