Anita Sarkeesian called someone "a garbage human", but before we talk about that....

[Mumbles]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKGF_gINUvI[/youtube]

Thunderfoot in an interview about the aplty named "Sarkeesian Effect"... of playing professional victim for profit, but put in a much larger context. Its long, but its a good listen it fits Anita well.

Note, the actual film that this was eventually put into was a pretty big fail. It was kind of profiteering on top of profiteering. Anita wasn't wrong when she said she created a cottage industry for people to criticize her. Ironic that.

Hilariously, again, some people never consider their sources - "The Sarkeesian Effect" was an *actual* example of people playing the victim - in this case people like Davis Aurini (Pickup Artist, skull aficionado, and all-around white supremacist) and Jordan Owen (who seems to be about as sad a case of humanity, ). Their infighting and basic lack of ethics led to a mishmash of a film that went basically nowhere, wanders off repeatedly into other supposedly awful feminists (Rebecca Watson, that woman with red hair I'm supposed to hate for reasons I still don't get, and so forth) and had awful production values, and repeatedly whined hypocritically about how Sarkeesian "played the victim for profit" while simultaneously profiting by complaining about how gamers were so victimized by her web series. Sympathetic interview subjects included various MGTOW guys, Eliot Rodger sympathizers, and most notably Jack Thompson - the guy who actually did want video game violence legally banned.

Oh, here's Thunderfoot's view of the end product:

[YOUTUBE]pXhnVjQBBaM[/YOUTUBE]

Personally, I stopped paying him the slightest attention on video games when he began claiming that Princess Peach couldn't possibly be a "damsel in Distress".

She is. It's very clear that she is *constantly* getting kidnapped in the Super Mario Bros. series, and rarely serves any other purpose. The TVTropes picture on their "Damsel in Distress" page is literally her getting kidnapped by Bowser.

 

[Mumbles]

Thunderfoot's video above about her is far far more interesting than any of his criticisms of her tropes series. I recommend you give that a listen. I have. Its hitting on something much bigger than Sarkeesian herself: professional victimhood. It appears more and more on the regressive left, but also exists on the right, especially with some Fundamentalist Christians.

And especially Gamergaters like Sargon of Akkad.

That's the fun part of this ad hominem - it can apply to anybody who claims to be insulted or threatened, regardless of whether true or not. In Sargon's case, as with most of the GGers, it's patently not. The basic problem is that Sargon makes his money by effectively promoting bigotry and raging against random people he deems to be "SJWs", and flying off the handle at clickbait headlines IOW, he claims victimhood in cases when he is not, in any way, being victimized. Sarkeesian, in contrast, had no interest in the abuse that was heaped on her - rather, she was given lemons and made lemonade. Good for her!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You then repeatedly alleged that Sargon was harassing her and had a long established pattern of doing so. I saw this as slander since you offered zero evidence other than the above which had the genders been reversed nobody would pause for even a second before saying the person (ie Trump when he did it) was not justified.

I asked you if you had evidence, you kept saying you do but kept not presenting it.

Incorrect.

I provided evidence via links in the OP as part of the background on the controversy. I have provided additional evidence, also via links, throughout the discussion.

You never substantiated your claim that Sargon himself harassed her or had a pattern of harassing her, which was your explicit claim. Now you are backing off of it talking about his "group". You haven't answered if that group includes everybody critical of her who attacks her. Perhaps you can do that now. I maintain that blaming him for something somebody else has done is guilt by association and therefore your claim he has a pattern of harassment was slanderous. I am glad you are shifting way from that now.

IMO you don't accept the evidence because you want me to prove a claim I haven't made but you really, really think I'm making.

Maybe. Maybe by saying he had a pattern of harassing her you meant something completely different. Is English your second language as it is mine?

Then why do you keep mentioning her? You've been doing it for months. You've been referencing that mined quote 'everything is sexist' in thread after thread. You hold her up as an example of someone who can't be reasoned with. But you haven't watched her videos?

Neither of those points regard her Tropes vs Women in video games series. The first regards her declaring her overwhelming bias ("Everything is sexist, Everything is Racist, and you've got to point it all out"). It shows you her agenda. It doesn't matter that its hyperbolic. She admits its her game and that she used to be worse with it and realizes it made her unbearable so now she tries to tone it down. She never said its not still her angle.

What led you to the conclusion that she can't be reasoned with?

Maybe I'm wrong. Can you point me to much from her showing her being reasoned with rather than lecturing and complaining about being persecuted? Her doing a debate with any of her critics? I googled for that and found nothing. Most other prominent figures, from Peterson to Sam Harris to Michael Moore to Sargon himself have opened themselves up to it. How is her ratio of monologue vs dialogue? How is her ratio of reason vs playing the victim (and profiting from it)?

- - - Updated - - -

I tracked down that "feminists aren’t known for being honest" comment. It's not a sentence fragment. It doesn't fit the definition of a mined quote either, in that it accurately portrays what Sargon was saying, but you don't have to take my word on it. The quote can be found here in his This Week in Stupid installment where he went after Phillips, right around the 16:30 minute mark, although I recommend watching the segment from the 13:30 mark to get the gist of his argument.

Finally! There is a fair criticism of Sargon himself. But its not about Sarkeesian or harassment of Sarkeesian, and it wasn't posted by you but by Ruby. So I only give you half points. And yes, there is plenty to criticize Sargon for. Thunderfoot did a good job of it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hilariously, again, some people never consider their sources

Your tribalism is showing. I actually wrote above that they were profiteering and were a disaster (you even quoted it). I also noted that it isn't just Feminists who do it. That these guys were a disaster does not make Sarkeesian any less of a professional victim. You haven't spoken against what I wrote.

 

[repoman]

This youtuber kind of pegged Sargon to a degree about a moderate hypocrisy he has



I think she is referring to this video where he is talking to alt-righters

putting into a spoiler box because Sargon uses a racial expletive and I don't want anyone in trouble accidentally

Show

Ha, Baked Alaska said that the full video above was removed from youtube and he got a 90 day ban for it.

 

[LordKiran]

Setting the issue of being in it for the money aside, since imo it could be an accusation laid at the feet of both 'sides'....

1. Anita Sarkeesian appears to have suffered chronic harassment.
2. Given what I know of Sarkon and what he has said in the Jess Philips case, I find it very difficult to imagine he has not played a role in the trolling and abuse of Sarkeesian and condoned it.
3. Turning up at the conference in the front row of 3 rows specifically targeted for occupancy in order to confront one panel member and train cameras on her is harassment in my book, of itself.
4. I therefore by and large forgive Sarkeesian for her rude remark, which was nonetheless wrong and she should have apologised for it afterwards.
5. Imo Sarkeesian's arguments about tropes are, as far as I can tell, overstated and the analysis is a bit one sided. Hardly surprising if she came into the issue thinking stuff like 'it's all sexist'. That said, I think there is a valid underlying point about tropes, even if it's a milder more balanced version of the same case.
6. People like Sargon and his ilk overreacting in turn is an overstatement too and again the analyses are one sided. And the trolling and harassment in particular is awful.


Ps Thunderfoot has some good points. It's a pity, having googled a few of his videos, that in two of them he says feminists are stupid. In the interview jolly posted, I think the interviewer is more biased than Thunderfoot is, appearing at one point to conflate 'feminists' and 'professional victims'. Thunderfoot seems more even handed in that video. He's a bit outspoken, but he's that generally, in other areas. He does refer to feminists as a whole, which I'm sure could be denounced as identity politics by those not keen on that.

As dismissive as I am of Sarkeesian and her work, I have no particular love for the likes of thunderfoot,sargon,and the ceaseless slew of 3rd rate mascot "Social critics" that followed in their wake. They're all mercilessly boorish and lowbrow, having one-sided conversations with a video that can't talk back. It's why whenever most of them actually try debating others or even each other it's a fucking disaster on camera.

I'm honestly quite over the idea of "Social critic is a job you can pay some random schmuck for."

The internet has done for social dialogue what the typewriter did for books; filled it full of mediocre crap.

 

[Mumbles]

Setting the issue of being in it for the money aside, since imo it could be an accusation laid at the feet of both 'sides'....

1. Anita Sarkeesian appears to have suffered chronic harassment.
2. Given what I know of Sarkon and what he has said in the Jess Philips case, I find it very difficult to imagine he has not played a role in the trolling and abuse of Sarkeesian and condoned it.
3. Turning up at the conference in the front row of 3 rows specifically targeted for occupancy in order to confront one panel member and train cameras on her is harassment in my book, of itself.
4. I therefore by and large forgive Sarkeesian for her rude remark, which was nonetheless wrong and she should have apologised for it afterwards.
5. Imo Sarkeesian's arguments about tropes are, as far as I can tell, overstated and the analysis is a bit one sided. Hardly surprising if she came into the issue thinking stuff like 'it's all sexist'. That said, I think there is a valid underlying point about tropes, even if it's a milder more balanced version of the same case.
6. People like Sargon and his ilk overreacting in turn is an overstatement too and again the analyses are one sided. And the trolling and harassment in particular is awful.


Ps Thunderfoot has some good points. It's a pity, having googled a few of his videos, that in two of them he says feminists are stupid. In the interview jolly posted, I think the interviewer is more biased than Thunderfoot is, appearing at one point to conflate 'feminists' and 'professional victims'. Thunderfoot seems more even handed in that video. He's a bit outspoken, but he's that generally, in other areas. He does refer to feminists as a whole, which I'm sure could be denounced as identity politics by those not keen on that.

As dismissive as I am of Sarkeesian and her work, I have no particular love for the likes of thunderfoot,sargon,and the ceaseless slew of 3rd rate mascot "Social critics" that followed in their wake. They're all mercilessly boorish and lowbrow, having one-sided conversations with a video that can't talk back. It's why whenever most of them actually try debating others or even each other it's a fucking disaster on camera.

I'm honestly quite over the idea of "Social critic is a job you can pay some random schmuck for."

The internet has done for social dialogue what the typewriter did for books; filled it full of mediocre crap.

I agree fully with most of the points Sarkeesian makes - including the fact that one can have a lot of fun with a game (I'm still playing Super Mario games, love Cuphead), and still say "yes, here's this trope, here's that trope." (Peach is constantly a Damsel in Distress, the cartoons that Cuphead draws on feature a lot of racism - and I actually like it more because they left that crap out) I like the Street Fighter series, but I'll be the first to say that almost all of the SF23 characters were blatant stereotypes - Balrog* is actually a hilarious exception, since he was clearly a parody of Mike Tyson and not a general stereotype of black people.

Having said that, both Sargon and Thunderf00t are awful debaters when it comes to actual, person to person debates. Thunderf00t managed to flounder when debating a creationist, and Sargon got slaughtered against, among others, Kristi Winters, Destiny, and Richard fucking Spencer. Neither one should even be asking to debate anyone, regardless of whether or not Sarkeesian is similarly unskilled in debate.

(*: Yes, I'm deliberately using his US name, rather than his Japanese name, which makes the parody even more obvious)

 

[repoman]

Setting the issue of being in it for the money aside, since imo it could be an accusation laid at the feet of both 'sides'....

1. Anita Sarkeesian appears to have suffered chronic harassment.
2. Given what I know of Sarkon and what he has said in the Jess Philips case, I find it very difficult to imagine he has not played a role in the trolling and abuse of Sarkeesian and condoned it.
3. Turning up at the conference in the front row of 3 rows specifically targeted for occupancy in order to confront one panel member and train cameras on her is harassment in my book, of itself.
4. I therefore by and large forgive Sarkeesian for her rude remark, which was nonetheless wrong and she should have apologised for it afterwards.
5. Imo Sarkeesian's arguments about tropes are, as far as I can tell, overstated and the analysis is a bit one sided. Hardly surprising if she came into the issue thinking stuff like 'it's all sexist'. That said, I think there is a valid underlying point about tropes, even if it's a milder more balanced version of the same case.
6. People like Sargon and his ilk overreacting in turn is an overstatement too and again the analyses are one sided. And the trolling and harassment in particular is awful.


Ps Thunderfoot has some good points. It's a pity, having googled a few of his videos, that in two of them he says feminists are stupid. In the interview jolly posted, I think the interviewer is more biased than Thunderfoot is, appearing at one point to conflate 'feminists' and 'professional victims'. Thunderfoot seems more even handed in that video. He's a bit outspoken, but he's that generally, in other areas. He does refer to feminists as a whole, which I'm sure could be denounced as identity politics by those not keen on that.

As dismissive as I am of Sarkeesian and her work, I have no particular love for the likes of thunderfoot,sargon,and the ceaseless slew of 3rd rate mascot "Social critics" that followed in their wake. They're all mercilessly boorish and lowbrow, having one-sided conversations with a video that can't talk back. It's why whenever most of them actually try debating others or even each other it's a fucking disaster on camera.

I'm honestly quite over the idea of "Social critic is a job you can pay some random schmuck for."

The internet has done for social dialogue what the typewriter did for books; filled it full of mediocre crap.

Yeah, most of them are not very light on their feet with the back and forth. It is interesting that for the most part the topics of their videos in the beginning like Sarkeesian did not debate them at all, then there were a few like Contrapoints who did - Contrapoints is a brilliant but surprisingly a bit weak at debate. So their weakness was not exposed. However, for Sargon in particular it has been known for a couple years that he mostly sucks at debate.

When they finally went after the excesses (as they saw it) of the actual Alt-right it was a bloodbath for the most part. The AR was ready to use their well practiced (and most here would say very manipulative, biased and delusional) talking points and methods in a ruthless manner. The "skeptics" had no ready rebuttals.

One moderate exception is the Romanian "gypsy" Vee who is a buddy of Sargon who is much less dogmatic and can quickly make sensible points during debates and not get tripped up. It is his relative lack of ego compared to Sargon that makes this easier for him.

 

[ruby sparks]

The other thing I don't get (or I should say I do get, but it's regrettable) is, why did the term 'Social Justice Warrior' get to be so unnecessarily pejorative? I guess it started around 2011 when it was used as an insult about feminism.

It seems to me that in general, in the USA, there is a particularly pervasive stigma about anything that could be described as even partly socialist (including the term Social Justice it seems) which imo tends to ruin reasonable debate. It seems as if all one needs to do to discredit social justice efforts is to call them 'marxist', almost as a scare tactic. Which always looks slightly odd to many europeans, because when we look at American politics, we see even your 'left' Politics (with a few exceptions) as capitalist and essentially 'right, just not as right as your right right'.

 

[LordKiran]

Setting the issue of being in it for the money aside, since imo it could be an accusation laid at the feet of both 'sides'....

1. Anita Sarkeesian appears to have suffered chronic harassment.
2. Given what I know of Sarkon and what he has said in the Jess Philips case, I find it very difficult to imagine he has not played a role in the trolling and abuse of Sarkeesian and condoned it.
3. Turning up at the conference in the front row of 3 rows specifically targeted for occupancy in order to confront one panel member and train cameras on her is harassment in my book, of itself.
4. I therefore by and large forgive Sarkeesian for her rude remark, which was nonetheless wrong and she should have apologised for it afterwards.
5. Imo Sarkeesian's arguments about tropes are, as far as I can tell, overstated and the analysis is a bit one sided. Hardly surprising if she came into the issue thinking stuff like 'it's all sexist'. That said, I think there is a valid underlying point about tropes, even if it's a milder more balanced version of the same case.
6. People like Sargon and his ilk overreacting in turn is an overstatement too and again the analyses are one sided. And the trolling and harassment in particular is awful.


Ps Thunderfoot has some good points. It's a pity, having googled a few of his videos, that in two of them he says feminists are stupid. In the interview jolly posted, I think the interviewer is more biased than Thunderfoot is, appearing at one point to conflate 'feminists' and 'professional victims'. Thunderfoot seems more even handed in that video. He's a bit outspoken, but he's that generally, in other areas. He does refer to feminists as a whole, which I'm sure could be denounced as identity politics by those not keen on that.

As dismissive as I am of Sarkeesian and her work, I have no particular love for the likes of thunderfoot,sargon,and the ceaseless slew of 3rd rate mascot "Social critics" that followed in their wake. They're all mercilessly boorish and lowbrow, having one-sided conversations with a video that can't talk back. It's why whenever most of them actually try debating others or even each other it's a fucking disaster on camera.

I'm honestly quite over the idea of "Social critic is a job you can pay some random schmuck for."

The internet has done for social dialogue what the typewriter did for books; filled it full of mediocre crap.

I agree fully with most of the points Sarkeesian makes - including the fact that one can have a lot of fun with a game (I'm still playing Super Mario games, love Cuphead), and still say "yes, here's this trope, here's that trope." (Peach is constantly a Damsel in Distress, the cartoons that Cuphead draws on feature a lot of racism - and I actually like it more because they left that crap out) I like the Street Fighter series, but I'll be the first to say that almost all of the SF23 characters were blatant stereotypes - Balrog* is actually a hilarious exception, since he was clearly a parody of Mike Tyson and not a general stereotype of black people.

Having said that, both Sargon and Thunderf00t are awful debaters when it comes to actual, person to person debates. Thunderf00t managed to flounder when debating a creationist, and Sargon got slaughtered against, among others, Kristi Winters, Destiny, and Richard fucking Spencer. Neither one should even be asking to debate anyone, regardless of whether or not Sarkeesian is similarly unskilled in debate.

(*: Yes, I'm deliberately using his US name, rather than his Japanese name, which makes the parody even more obvious)

I actually still have and play Super Mario Bros. Honestly I don't see much merit to making this dated social commentary about games that are decades old. Super Mario Bros was very much a product of its time. They didn't have the memory to make complicated stories in a time where every byte counted. So it makes sense that people initially would base their games on something simple and universally understandable (Save the princess!) But even if that weren't the motivation for making the princess the damsel in distress, the fact is Nintendo has long since moved on, featuring the good princess in many Mario games since as an outright playable character and she even obtained a few of her own games as well.

It all just seems so moot, like Sarkeesian is stuck in her cherry picked view of the past, having ignored that the people who made those games have largely moved on. It would have been wiser if she kept the scope on modern games still being made if you ask me.

Also while I'm here there's one point Sarkeesian makes that none of you have even touched yet, the point which sort of serves as the impetus for her entire project: That these tropes are actively harmful to women because they create/reinforce negative stereotypes and should be avoided for that reason. Yet my favorite Legend of Zelda game has room for both a princess to save AND a character that has her own goals and motivations at the outset that also helps you take down the bad guy at the end. It all just seems very forced to me. Like Sark. had a goal in mind and she needed her presentation to suit that goal from the very beginning...

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It all just seems so moot, like Sarkeesian is stuck in her cherry picked view of the past, having ignored that the people who made those games have largely moved on. It would have been wiser if she kept the scope on modern games still being made if you ask me.

She would profit less from that. It would be bad for her business.

 

[Mumbles]

I agree fully with most of the points Sarkeesian makes - including the fact that one can have a lot of fun with a game (I'm still playing Super Mario games, love Cuphead), and still say "yes, here's this trope, here's that trope." (Peach is constantly a Damsel in Distress, the cartoons that Cuphead draws on feature a lot of racism - and I actually like it more because they left that crap out) I like the Street Fighter series, but I'll be the first to say that almost all of the SF23 characters were blatant stereotypes - Balrog* is actually a hilarious exception, since he was clearly a parody of Mike Tyson and not a general stereotype of black people.

Having said that, both Sargon and Thunderf00t are awful debaters when it comes to actual, person to person debates. Thunderf00t managed to flounder when debating a creationist, and Sargon got slaughtered against, among others, Kristi Winters, Destiny, and Richard fucking Spencer. Neither one should even be asking to debate anyone, regardless of whether or not Sarkeesian is similarly unskilled in debate.

(*: Yes, I'm deliberately using his US name, rather than his Japanese name, which makes the parody even more obvious)

I actually still have and play Super Mario Bros. Honestly I don't see much merit to making this dated social commentary about games that are decades old. Super Mario Bros was very much a product of its time. They didn't have the memory to make complicated stories in a time where every byte counted. So it makes sense that people initially would base their games on something simple and universally understandable (Save the princess!) But even if that weren't the motivation for making the princess the damsel in distress, the fact is Nintendo has long since moved on, featuring the good princess in many Mario games since as an outright playable character and she even obtained a few of her own games as well.

And Sarkeesian addresses all of this in tying it into how the same trope is still being used today - including Peach in most newer Super Mario platformers.

Also while I'm here there's one point Sarkeesian makes that none of you have even touched yet, the point which sort of serves as the impetus for her entire project: That these tropes are actively harmful to women because they create/reinforce negative stereotypes and should be avoided for that reason. Yet my favorite Legend of Zelda game has room for both a princess to save AND a character that has her own goals and motivations at the outset that also helps you take down the bad guy at the end. It all just seems very forced to me. Like Sark. had a goal in mind and she needed her presentation to suit that goal from the very beginning...

Which, first, is very often how these projects work, and second, is not quite what she says (in fact, she's quick to reject Jack Thompson's simple view that people see misogyny in a game and then become misogynist themselves).

 

[LordKiran]

And Sarkeesian addresses all of this in tying it into how the same trope is still being used today - including Peach in most newer Super Mario platformers.[1]

Also while I'm here there's one point Sarkeesian makes that none of you have even touched yet, the point which sort of serves as the impetus for her entire project: That these tropes are actively harmful to women because they create/reinforce negative stereotypes and should be avoided for that reason. Yet my favorite Legend of Zelda game has room for both a princess to save AND a character that has her own goals and motivations at the outset that also helps you take down the bad guy at the end. It all just seems very forced to me. Like Sark. had a goal in mind and she needed her presentation to suit that goal from the very beginning...

Which, first, is very often how these projects work, and second, is not quite what she says (in fact, she's quick to reject Jack Thompson's simple view that people see misogyny in a game and then become misogynist themselves)[2]

1. But that's not the extent of it. It's one thing to argue that in 1985 princess peach was little more than a goal to be chased. To try and use that as a springboard for a critique of game development as a whole today? What decade does she think she's living in? Has she any clue how diverse and dynamic games have become in the last 30 years. Hell most of the console games I played in the 90s/early 2000s either had a female lead or playable character. (PerfectDark, Jetforce Gemini, Donkeykong64, Gauntlet Legends/seven sorrows, Resident Evil, Pokemon, The Sims...Urbz, ect.) Double Hell! most of the games I play today for that matter don't even have a canon central character! They're either grand strategy games like Hearts of Iron, or games wherein the player makes their own character like Dark Souls, Saint's Row or Dragon Age. Sorry Mumbles but I genuinely do not see it. Video games have never been as diverse and inclusive as they are today and yet somehow that's still not enough.

2. You're right, I went back and looked. She said they're merely offensive and not harmful. Tbh this only serves to weaken her argument. Some of the best pieces of media were incredibly offensive to at least someone (Cit. Kane anyone?)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The other thing I don't get (or I should say I do get, but it's regrettable) is, why did the term 'Social Justice Warrior' get to be so unnecessarily pejorative? I guess it started around 2011 when it was used as an insult about feminism.

It seems to me that in general, in the USA, there is a particularly pervasive stigma about anything that could be described as even partly socialist (including the term Social Justice it seems) which imo tends to ruin reasonable debate. It seems as if all one needs to do to discredit social justice efforts is to call them 'marxist', almost as a scare tactic. Which always looks slightly odd to many europeans, because when we look at American politics, we see even your 'left' Politics (with a few exceptions) as capitalist and essentially 'right, just not as right as your right right'.

It's become a pejorative because the perception of their actions is now negative. Their intent is good but they go too far. Also, it's become far more about making noise than about doing.

 

[Mumbles]

1. But that's not the extent of it. It's one thing to argue that in 1985 princess peach was little more than a goal to be chased. To try and use that as a springboard for a critique of game development as a whole today? What decade does she think she's living in? Has she any clue how diverse and dynamic games have become in the last 30 years. Hell most of the console games I played in the 90s/early 2000s either had a female lead or playable character. (PerfectDark, Jetforce Gemini, Donkeykong64, Gauntlet Legends/seven sorrows, Resident Evil, Pokemon, The Sims...Urbz, ect.) Double Hell! most of the games I play today for that matter don't even have a canon central character! They're either grand strategy games like Hearts of Iron, or games wherein the player makes their own character like Dark Souls, Saint's Row or Dragon Age. Sorry Mumbles but I genuinely do not see it. Video games have never been as diverse and inclusive as they are today and yet somehow that's still not enough.

And she discusses several counterexamples - Distressed Dudes, women who are not Damselled, comparing the relatively strong role that Zelda plays in that series, and so forth. Again, you're attacking a strawman.

2. You're right, I went back and looked. She said they're merely offensive and not harmful. Tbh this only serves to weaken her argument. Some of the best pieces of media were incredibly offensive to at least someone (Cit. Kane anyone?)

And yet again...Her claim is that it's the unbalanced portrayals, in our relatively misogynistic (compared to ideal) society that are harmful, not any individual.

 

[ruby sparks]

....she's quick to reject Jack Thompson's simple view that people see misogyny in a game and then become misogynist themselves.

Now I'm confused. The cornerstone of Thunderf00t's criticism was that she was alleging harm of some sort.

 

[ruby sparks]

I came across this video by Sargon. In less than the first 20 seconds, he describes male feminists as 'possibly the most pathetic thing ever to have crawled across god's earth' and says 'feminism appears to be a man-hating supremacy movement'.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8fo6b0pdkM[/YOUTUBE]

I know I'm putting the boot into Sargon lately, but prior to this thread, I hadn't heard of the guy. For some reason he hadn't registered on my asshole radar beforehand.

Perhaps we could say in his favour is that at least he doesn't indulge in shallow identity politics and group-monolithic thinking. No wait......

 

[LordKiran]

1. But that's not the extent of it. It's one thing to argue that in 1985 princess peach was little more than a goal to be chased. To try and use that as a springboard for a critique of game development as a whole today? What decade does she think she's living in? Has she any clue how diverse and dynamic games have become in the last 30 years. Hell most of the console games I played in the 90s/early 2000s either had a female lead or playable character. (PerfectDark, Jetforce Gemini, Donkeykong64, Gauntlet Legends/seven sorrows, Resident Evil, Pokemon, The Sims...Urbz, ect.) Double Hell! most of the games I play today for that matter don't even have a canon central character! They're either grand strategy games like Hearts of Iron, or games wherein the player makes their own character like Dark Souls, Saint's Row or Dragon Age. Sorry Mumbles but I genuinely do not see it. Video games have never been as diverse and inclusive as they are today and yet somehow that's still not enough.

And she discusses several counterexamples - Distressed Dudes, women who are not Damselled, comparing the relatively strong role that Zelda plays in that series, and so forth. Again, you're attacking a strawman.

2. You're right, I went back and looked. She said they're merely offensive and not harmful. Tbh this only serves to weaken her argument. Some of the best pieces of media were incredibly offensive to at least someone (Cit. Kane anyone?)

And yet again...Her claim is that it's the unbalanced portrayals, in our relatively misogynistic (compared to ideal) society that are harmful, not any individual.

But wait I thought we just established that she never claimed the misogynistic tropes are harmful, just offensive as far as I could find? So did she say the tropes are harmful or not? I'm sorry to brick you over word choice but it kind of matters here.

 

[Mumbles]

And she discusses several counterexamples - Distressed Dudes, women who are not Damselled, comparing the relatively strong role that Zelda plays in that series, and so forth. Again, you're attacking a strawman.



And yet again...Her claim is that it's the unbalanced portrayals, in our relatively misogynistic (compared to ideal) society that are harmful, not any individual.

But wait I thought we just established that she never claimed the misogynistic tropes are harmful, just offensive as far as I could find? So did she say the tropes are harmful or not? I'm sorry to brick you over word choice but it kind of matters here.

No, I said that she didn't take a simplistic Jack Thompson view - you may remember him as the guy that claimed that video games directly led to school shootings and therefor should be banned. THat's far different than "contributes to culture in potentially negative ways.", which is why she also called attention to games like Beyond Good and Evil or Overwatch as positive counterexamples.

 

[repoman]

Anita needs to get redpilled.