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

[Arctish]

... I think a quick refresher on Anita Sarkeesian is in order:

Anita Sarkeesian is a feminist social critic who documents sexist portrayals of women (and to a lesser extent LGBT and racial minorities) in popular media such as video games and movies. Sarkeesian runs a YouTube channel and website, both titled FeministFrequency. She is the perfect demon for Reddit to hate: woman, feminist, and not a supermodel.

While Sarkeesian is well-known in Internet feminist circles and her work has been used in university classrooms,[1] she is most noted for the hatred she has received from anti-feminists, especially Gamergate, which include constant harassment and death threats.[2] This transformation from feminist to target of often-misogynistic hate gave rise to the term "Anita's Law" and brought to light sexism in the video gaming community.

She began her online presence as a vlogger, posting feminist commentary on social issues and examining the portrayal of women in movies and TV in a series of videos titled Tropes vs. Women. In 2012 she started a kickstarter campaign to raise funds for a new series, Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, and the shit hit the fan. In a very short time she was being widely vilified online, subjected to death threats and rape threats, attempts were made to hack her accounts and release personal information like her current address, and worse:

Newgrounds user Bendilin Spurr actually created a game called Beat up Anita Sarkeesian which allowed players to simulate doing exactly what the game's title implied.

The hatred directed at her for what was actually a pretty thoughtful examination of video game culture increased through 2013 as she released the first three parts of the series. The fourth part was released in 2014 shortly after the Gamergate controversy erupted, which is how she became a focus of misogynist Gamergater abuse along with game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu. And it has continued ever since, which brings us to her "human garbage" comment last summer at a VidCon panel.

As reported by Polygon, the incident began with a group of Sarkeesian haters filling up the front rows at a panel discussion where she was scheduled to appear:

Carl Benjamin is a British YouTube personality in his late 30s. He has spoken vituperatively, many times over many years, about Sarkeesian and her work. Some of his videos are thumbnailed with ludicrously Photoshopped imagery of Sarkeesian. At the time of writing, his Twitter page is bannered with a picture of Sarkeesian.

Benjamin has made his name dismissing her feminist documentary work such as Tropes vs Women in Video Games, which details the cultural biases of video games. He is a hero for many in the hate group GamerGate, a rough assemblage of misogynists, racists, conspiracy theorists and right-wing ideologues who have spent years harassing Sarkeesian and anyone who publicly supports her work.

Most of his YouTube videos follow standard reactionary protocols, excoriating the supposed evils of political correctness, shady liberal elites and the media. His most frothy content is reserved for feminism, a hot topic for men who feel afraid and threatened by progressives, who they dismiss as “the regressive left.” He has more than 600,000 subscribers on YouTube. He makes more than $5,000 a month from Patreon.

Today, he is surrounded by a group of his supporters, who have planned to come in force and take the front seats of this VidCon panel, which is focused on the lives of women online.

The panel's first question drops. It’s about why feminism — online and in games — is an issue worthy of discussion.

Sarkeesian notes Benjamin's presence and begins speaking.

"If you Google my name on YouTube you get shitheads like this dude who are making these dumb-assed videos," she says. "They just say the same shit over and over again. I hate to give you attention because you're a garbage human. These dudes just making endless videos that go after every feminist over and over again is a part of the issue of why we have to have these conversations."

Sarkeesian has been stalked, harassed, cyberbullied, threatened with death, threatened with rape, endlessly and IMO largely mindlessly vilified online. She does not regret her words to Mr. Benjamin:

"I certainly have no regrets. And I definitely did not 'flip out' as some folks are trying to falsely describe it. This is a man who has spent years driving harassment toward me and other women online. Under the circumstances, considering his pattern of behavior and everything he’s put me and others through, I’d say 'garbage human' was one of the kinder things I could have called him.

"In the midst of the predictable flood of hate that has come my way from Carl’s supporters, there have been a number of really wonderful messages of gratitude and support.

"So many of us have spent so long internalizing this expectation that we don’t confront this kind of abuse directly, we don’t openly acknowledge it, we suffer it in silence, and these men just go on spewing their bullshit without any consequences.

"As women, we're always told not to engage, not to 'stoke the fire,' and that forces us into silence, it forces us to be quiet in the face of harassment. That silence helps perpetuate a culture in which harassment is permissible or even accepted as 'normal.' And so I think that for some women who understand what I’ve been through or who have been through it themselves, it was cathartic to see me not stay silent, to see me call him out directly like that, to acknowledge in front of all those people what he’s done."

My question is this: was Anita Sarkeesian wrong to call out one of her harassers like that? Was it acceptable, unacceptable, understandable, unforgivable, or what?

 

[barbos]

No, not wrong. It was a accurate description it seems. But I wonder what the guy did when she called him that?

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't really know enough about the background (not a gamer so haven't been following that controversy) but I'd say that many of her supporters will forgive her and all of her detractors will decry her. It probably wasn't a smart thing to say. But we're all human. I think if she was wise, she might have afterwards said something about regretting it, while still explaining the circumstances, which appear to involve intimidation. That way, more or less neutrals like myself would have been pretty much fully able to defend her. An apology doesn't cost anything.

I get that she's been harassed. From what I can tell (again, I haven't been following closely) it seems awful. And if even half of what I hear is true, then of course her reaction is at least understandable, in the general circumstances and those pertaining at that event, even it can't be applauded.

On Sarkeesian in general, I have in the past watched some of her videos on sexism in toy ads and movies, and as a parent and a movie fan, I thought she made some really good points. As for gaming, I just don't know much about gaming, so it's hard to comment, but I'd be surprised if the tropes she talks about there are absent. I have also seen her highlight issues around violence and racism, which again I think are by and large valid and worth paying attention to.

Whether I fully agree with her over-arching feminist ideology/philosophy regarding the causes of such things, I dunno. It's likely I'd disagree with her on some counts. It might not be that I disagree that there is sometimes or often patriarchy at play, for example, but I might disagree about the extent to which this is the relevant or only factor.

I do think the fact that she is by and large calm during her video presentations shows up that it isn't really just Chanty-Binx-style anger and shouting which is what actually bothers some feminist detractors. That someone here who self-identifies as a feminist and an egalitarian can say that he hasn't found anything other than rubbish and not one valid point in anything he's ever heard from Sarkeesian is, imo, more than just slightly puzzling.

 

[marc]

Most of what I’ve seen of Sarkeesian has been scathing, but well supported criticism. Yes, there is sexism in video games, but she seems like a hack cashing in on the subject. The videos criticizing her are dismissed as misogynistic, without addressing their actual arguments, and people trying to get the video maker fired from his job.

Of course people making actual threats against her are disgusting, and should be prosecuted as appropriate. But these actual misogynists are given cover when valid criticism is denounced as misogyny. Given that, yea, some of those people are garbage human beings.

 

[ruby sparks]

Most of what I’ve seen of Sarkeesian has been scathing, but well supported criticism. Yes, there is sexism in video games, but she seems like a hack cashing in on the subject. The videos criticizing her are dismissed as misogynistic, without addressing their actual arguments, and people trying to get the video maker fired from his job.

Of course people making actual threats against her are disgusting, and should be prosecuted as appropriate. But these actual misogynists are given cover when valid criticism is denounced as misogyny. Given that, yea, some of those people are garbage human beings.

Good post, imo.

I might add....

Often, feminism 'sees' sexism and misogyny, when I'm not sure if it's there as much or as often or in the ways it's seen. Just my tuppenceworth. And I'm generalising. One big problem, imo, is that it is very hard to objectively measure such things, so it can at times boil down to how much of it someone is inclined to see (or not see in the reverse case of someone who doesn't see it).

But, when I hear a woman saying that something even seems like sexism, I have to be careful not to dismiss it. I'm not a woman. So, if I hear the same thing being raised again and again by many women for example, even if I don't like to hear it, then to me that is enough to warrant giving serious consideration to whether there is in fact a valid complaint, even when it can't be objectively quantified or established.

I do realise that I could be accused of sometimes mansplaining when I even open my mouth about feminism.

 

[repoman]

This is a Sargon (Carl Benjamin) video.

 

[Angry Floof]

Who cares what names somebody calls a fucking abuser? What kind of human garbage would compare abuse, stalking, and harassment to name calling? Oh, I know who - abusers, stalkers, harassers. They are human garbage.

 

[barbos]

I am not a gamer so just watched couple youtube videos criticizing her work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgvYJ9Ei90Y
this guy does not look like a shithead to me , and he does paint her as a hack and phony and he provides evidence of that.
Having said that I understand why would she close comments, some shitheads probably went berserk there, but she kinda triggered them If I can say that.

 

[barbos]

This is a Sargon (Carl Benjamin) video.

So this is from british guy who was in the first row at her talk? Well, I can't call him a shithead based on that.

 

[Terrell]

Who cares what names somebody calls a fucking abuser? What kind of human garbage would compare abuse, stalking, and harassment to name calling? Oh, I know who - abusers, stalkers, harassers. They are human garbage.

How is taking apart her "arguments" abuse?

 

[LordKiran]

How does this keep happening? How do we keep seeing dipshit know-nothings and liar charlatans being put into these positions where they direct the national conversation?

Am I in hell?

I remember hearing about this woman years ago. I wasn't impressed with her work then and yet thanks to the Streisand effect she's more prominent than ever before. People should have stopped giving this woman any attention when it became clear she was more interested in scamming her backers than producing anything of worth. But why stop harping on about a self-proclaimed 'social critic' when you can make easy YouTube money bashing a social pariah?

 

[thebeave]

My question is this: was Anita Sarkeesian wrong to call out one of her harassers like that? Was it acceptable, unacceptable, understandable, unforgivable, or what?

She's a liar. A con. A scammer. See the video above. There are a lot of them around, including one sitting in the Oval Office. Is there a particular reason why this scammer should get a free pass? Ask yourself this. If Donald Trump, or David Miscaviage or James Van Praagh or Jim Bakker... or whoever, called one of their critics "human garbage" in a public forum, ask yourself whether that was wrong or not. Then you'll have your answer.

 

[Mumbles]

Who cares what names somebody calls a fucking abuser? What kind of human garbage would compare abuse, stalking, and harassment to name calling? Oh, I know who - abusers, stalkers, harassers. They are human garbage.

My view as well. Sargon wasn't just a part of Gamergate, he's a not-very-bright ringleader of that little hate mob - a self-styled "free speech" advocate who has called on "UNIVERSITIES" to censor professors, who led his mob to harrass a British MP (and rape survivor) by telling her "I wouldn't even rape you", apologist for mass shooter Eliot Rodger (Whose rampage he blamed on a "FUCKING FEMINIST SYSTEM!", shouting his), and has gone on to spectacularly lose arguments against white nationalists and Neo-Nazis.

Did I mention that, after his years-long attacks of Anita Saarkesian, who he falsely accused of wanting to censor video games, he was among the Gamergate leaders who endorsed Dolt 45, who recently announced that he wants to censor video games? He *also* managed to get banned from Twitter before the prominent white nationalists did - he insists that there's no known reason for this, but most people suspect it was the porn he sent to uninterested people. Realistically, you basically have to wait for clowns like his to self-destruct among his own audience, like Milo Whatshisface did. I can't really say Saarkesian got him wrong, but she didn't (and really couldn't) do much.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Of course, disagreeing with her is a form of abuse, so therefore she's free to strike out against him. Criticizing her works is even worse abuse. Nobody has ever been hurt more than Sarkeesian has when finding out that Sargon made a video critical of her and deconstructing her arguments. Forget murder victims, forget rape victims, they haven't experienced anything compared to what Sarkeesian has gone through.

She says "How dare you harass me by attempting to refute my arguments! You are doing it because you are a misogynist!" Can't you see the brilliance of that argument?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

My question is this: was Anita Sarkeesian wrong to call out one of her harassers like that? Was it acceptable, unacceptable, understandable, unforgivable, or what?

I'll give a longer post on this later, but for now my question to you is have you viewed Benjamin's (Sargon of Akad's) videos in his defence? Have you viewed his purportedly scathing uncalled for attacks on her, or are you getting that from secondary sources?

 

[ruby sparks]

....who led his mob to harrass a British MP (and rape survivor) by telling her "I wouldn't even rape you".....

To me, as a sort of uninformed outsider to the controversies involved here (and having checked the apparent veracity of what you say above via wiki) that's a sort of '1 each' moral scoreline then. Sarkeesian insulted him in a very personal way that can't be condoned (and should be condemned) and he has done similar to someone else in another situation.

Regarding the short video which appears to show Sarkeesian lying, it doesn't do much to enhance her reputation. That said, I don't know enough about the context of each clip (short clips always suffer from this) or if there is for example a long time period in between her saying both things. I also note that the monochrome clip is edited here and there. I would suspend judgement while agreeing that on the face of it, it does make her seem dishonest.

On another tack though, I think the video title referring to 'debunking' is the wrong word. To me that would usually involve debunking arguments, and that is what I was expecting too see when I played the video.

 

[Mumbles]

....who led his mob to harrass a British MP (and rape survivor) by telling her "I wouldn't even rape you".....

To me, as a sort of uninformed outsider to the controversies involved here (and having checked the apparent veracity of what you say above via wiki) that's a sort of '1 each' moral scoreline then. Sarkeesian insulted him in a very personal way that can't be condoned (and should be condemned) and he has done similar to someone else in another situation.

As a gamer - Sargon and his friends have done similar, and far worse, things to her, and to quite a few other people. In fact, this is how he and many of his fans ended up sitting at the front rows of a panel discussion, and took up Q&A Time asking obnoxious questions like "Do you really believe the things you say in your videos?" Note that the video of her supposed awful attack featured a camera that was trained directly on her throughout, regardless of who on the panel was speaking.

No, The guy was, as I said, a major part of a years-long campaign aimed at harassing and threatening her and other women in the gaming industry, such as Brianna Wu and Zoe Quinn. As far as Saarkeesian goes, false claims that she's somehow a con artist (despite delivering the series), that she made up every allegation (their own public actions disprove this one), that she's just the mouthpiece for an evil male who wants to destroy gaming (um...there's simply nothing here at all), and that she wants to ban all games (she has said no such thing). For Wu and Quinn, it was mostly just being women in gaming that seemed to piss off the GGers so much.

Regarding the short video which appears to show Sarkeesian lying, it doesn't do much to enhance her reputation. That said, I don't know enough about the context of each clip (short clips always suffer from this) or if there is for example a long time period in between her saying both things. I also note that the monochrome clip is edited here and there. I would suspend judgement while agreeing that on the face of it, it does make her seem dishonest.

Well, yes, those often are out of context - she has pointed out that this is one of the tricks people like to use against her - including Sargon, MundaneMatt, Thunderf00t. In her "I'm not a fan of video games", taken *years* before her tropes vs. women in games project, she's speaking specifically of violent games (her right), and also states that she did "a lot of research" to learn about these games for a different project. Basically, it's a dishonest edit that attacks her for not being absolutely precise at every moment of speaking.

 

[LordKiran]

As a gamer - Sargon and his friends have done similar, and far worse, things to her, and to quite a few other people. In fact, this is how he and many of his fans ended up sitting at the front rows of a panel discussion, and took up Q&A Time asking obnoxious questions like "Do you really believe the things you say in your videos?" Note that the video of her supposed awful attack featured a camera that was trained directly on her throughout, regardless of who on the panel was speaking.

No, The guy was, as I said, a major part of a years-long campaign aimed at harassing and threatening her and other women in the gaming industry, such as Brianna Wu and Zoe Quinn. As far as Saarkeesian goes, false claims that she's somehow a con artist (despite delivering the series), that she made up every allegation (their own public actions disprove this one), that she's just the mouthpiece for an evil male who wants to destroy gaming (um...there's simply nothing here at all), and that she wants to ban all games (she has said no such thing). For Wu and Quinn, it was mostly just being women in gaming that seemed to piss off the GGers so much.

Regarding the short video which appears to show Sarkeesian lying, it doesn't do much to enhance her reputation. That said, I don't know enough about the context of each clip (short clips always suffer from this) or if there is for example a long time period in between her saying both things. I also note that the monochrome clip is edited here and there. I would suspend judgement while agreeing that on the face of it, it does make her seem dishonest.

Well, yes, those often are out of context - she has pointed out that this is one of the tricks people like to use against her - including Sargon, MundaneMatt, Thunderf00t. In her "I'm not a fan of video games", taken *years* before her tropes vs. women in games project, she's speaking specifically of violent games (her right), and also states that she did "a lot of research" to learn about these games for a different project. Basically, it's a dishonest edit that attacks her for not being absolutely precise at every moment of speaking.

If you look at the specifics she underdelivered from what she had promised and way late. If this were typical business procedure and not just an online gofundme with little legal oversight at the time, miss sarkeesian would have been sued into the mud for breach of contract.

This is not helped for her refusal to openly discuss the finances of her project even among her backers and would routinely mute/ban people who brought the subject up in her personal forum. So when little work is getting done but sarkeesian finds herself auspiciously in the possession of a new car, it raises eyebrows.

Sarkeesian didn't just get all this hate because alt right gamergate. She got her Stirling reputation by cheating people out of their money under false pretenses at worst, or for refusing to handle her business projects in an up front and professional manner at best. The fact that she knows less than she lets on is just the creamy turd on top.

And this is comming from someone who genuinely does not like Sargon of Akkad btw. From the very beginning I thought he was just a neckbeard loser out to bully the sjw's for easy views which turned out to be the case!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

My take on Sarkeesian is that she's in it for the money. She's made a bunch of money on the videos she has done, she doesn't seem to care about veracity, as she knows people will follow her. She plays victim to gain more attention and bring in more cash. She's contradicted herself numerous times, saying what it profits her to say. She's more of a politician than a idealogue IMO. And she's done very well for herself playing her game. She does on occasion make good points (and then sometimes contradictory points) as she plays her audience. She's strikes me as pretty intelligent underneath it all. But that's just my own view. Sargon (her critic) seems to be also in it for some money, but more in it for his ideology than I think she is. He also strikes me as a bit of a troll.

 

[Mumbles]

If you look at the specifics she underdelivered from what she had promised and way late. If this were typical business procedure and not just an online gofundme with little legal oversight at the time, miss sarkeesian would have been sued into the mud for breach of contract.

No, she delivered what she promised to, and in fact considerably more than her initial 5 video proposal (she ended up doing 14 total) - and given the resulting flood of money into her campaign, and the simple fact that overfunded kickstarters are typically late, particularly when stretch goals involve increased production - which, naturally, take more time than the initial, lowball estimate, I see no issue there.

The complaints usually refer to this, or to some mix of "She won't open her books!" (never saw this in a kickstarter before), "She won't debate us!" (she never said she would), and "She turns off Youtube comments!" (Likely because Youtube comments are notoriously odious).