24228
Post by: xraytango
This is quite surreal. I had to look at the calendar to make sure this wasn't an April Fool's joke.
Evidently it's a real thing.
I'm not sure why they are bringing her in as an 'Industry GoH' as I don't know what she has to do with the tabletop gaming industry, as I don't think she's developed a ruleset or a boardgame, or that she was even a part of it. What I do know about is the kerfuffle she started in the video game hobby. She seems a disruptive and divisive influence.
Did anyone else notice this yet?
http://www.gencon.com/experience/industrygoh
199
Post by: Crimson Devil
The theme is change makers. Whether you like her or not, she is a change maker.
97571
Post by: Sqorgar
Technically, I think she is credited with one of the missions in that House on Haunted Hill expansion (though I really doubt she actually did much more than put her name on it).
Still, I saw this and thought, can't she just be happy ruining one industry? She can't order a latte without the coffee house turning into Thunderdome. The fact that they even bothered to invite this divisive, currently irrelevant person as a guest of honor means that her group of followers have decided that they have enough pull in the tabletop industry that they can start pushing their brand of bs without repercussions.
117371
Post by: Red Weasel
How did she ruin an industry? As far as I can tell the only thing that has changed is that there are more whining man babies than I thought.
What exactly do you fear will happen? More armor on the Sisters?
34242
Post by: -Loki-
Red Weasel wrote:How did she ruin an industry? As far as I can tell the only thing that has changed is that there are more whining man babies than I thought.
What exactly do you fear will happen? More armor on the Sisters?
Oh there's a lot in this hobby as well.
97571
Post by: Sqorgar
Red Weasel wrote:How did she ruin an industry? As far as I can tell the only thing that has changed is that there are more whining man babies than I thought.
What exactly do you fear will happen? More armor on the Sisters?
She gave people an excuse to stop having actual discussions. If you disagreed with her poorly researched and terrible videos, you were labeled a misogynist and, likely, banned from whatever community you made the mistake of dissenting in. It really turned gamers against each other as battle lines were drawn and people just started attacking each other over nothing. She literally turned the term "gamer" from a positive to a negative by accusing all the gamers of being mouth breathing perverts and harassers.
I have no problems with one sharing their opinions about whatever they have opinions about, but I think you should be prepared to defend them - especially when those opinions are about other people. They deserve a chance to face their accuser, but instead, after being accused, they were lynched and banished without recourse. That's just not right.
And yeah, changing the design and lore of the Sisters to appease a dogmatic cult with a repressed sense of morality most people don't share seems like a bad thing. It doesn't to you?
12313
Post by: Ouze
I have nothing against Anita Sarkeesian - I think she has a lot of valuable things to say and her role as a pop culture critic has had a lot of impact. The idea she could ruin a community and have people "banned for dissenting" is just so laughably ridiculous - what is she, an all powerful wizard? If a community was thrown into turmoil by her pointing out some common tropes on a kickstarter, maybe your community had some pretty screwed up fault lines to begin with.
That being said it seems like an odd fit for GenCon, specifically, just by dint of her not having any real background in tabletop. She's going to be on a panel for Industry Guests of Honor for an industry she has not, so far as I am aware of, ever been a member of. It's a very strange pick.
I don't know the history of all the insiders they picked, though - maybe there is always an outsider on these panels.
97571
Post by: Sqorgar
Ouze wrote:I have nothing against Anita Sarkeesian - I think she has a lot of valuable things to say and her role as a pop culture critic has had a lot of impact. The idea she could ruin a community and have people "banned for dissenting" is just so laughably ridiculous - what is she, an all powerful wizard? If a community was thrown into turmoil by her pointing out some common tropes on a kickstarter, maybe your community had some pretty screwed up fault lines to begin with.
1) Show my anything that she has ever said that has been valuable. I'd even settle for vaguely insightful. Anything. Ever.
2) She didn't ruin the communities personally. The members of her dogmatic cult did. Originally, it started out of a bit of guilt. She said, people can be kind of dicks to girls, and being true, a lot of people were like, geez, our community does tend to behave in a slightly unfashionable way online. We should do something about that. And that thing they started doing is going overboard. Anyone who said, "Sarkeesian's video is factually untrue" was met with "But people can be kind of dicks to girls. You must be one of those people who are dicks to girls." Banned.
Her initial set of videos played into a very specific insecurity with gamers that tabletop gamers also have. "We don't have enough women, it must be because of the neckbeards that make game stores so smelly - maybe if we ban the smelly neckbeards, we'll make a more inviting environment for women. We love women. Gosh, it would be nice if one would talk to me. feth you neckbeards! Die in a fire! Hey, why are all the neckbeards angry? Who cares? They're neckbeards." Pinpointing that exact insecurity and fanning the flames of contempt was enough to set off a culture war. Because tabletop gaming has that exact same insecurity, they need to be fething scared of her showing her face in these parts.
3) For the record, neckbeards, I love you guys. We are all brought together by our passion for tabletop gaming and that is what our community it built around. It isn't about who we want to include or exclude, but about who chooses to join us in that passion.
12313
Post by: Ouze
No, because
Sqorgar wrote:Technically, I think she is credited with one of the missions in that House on Haunted Hill expansion (though I really doubt she actually did much more than put her name on it).
Shows that it would be a fool's errand. You're not going to argue in good faith, you're going to invent things in your head that bolster what you already think, and I'm not going to waste my time.
Sqorgar wrote:Anyone who said, "Sarkeesian's video is factually untrue" was met with "But people can be kind of dicks to girls. You must be one of those people who are dicks to girls." Banned.
If this is accurate, then it sounds like you belonged to some terrible communities and you should appropriately focus your ire, or be happy that you're better off for no longer being part of a community that so capriciously bans members, right?
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
A demonstrably dishonest grifter. Not much else to her otherwise.
Anyone who takes her seriously enough to think she either has merit or 'ruined an industry' is giving this social media tumor more credit than she deserves.
Ouze wrote:That being said it seems like an odd fit for GenCon, specifically, just by dint of her not having any real background in tabletop. She's going to be on a panel for Industry Guests of Honor for an industry she has not, so far as I am aware of, ever been a member of. It's a very strange pick.
Do you want the honest answer? It's simple.
Tabletop gaming is full of pathetic incels that will do anything to get a peepee touch or a little booty pat. Of course they'll bend the knee to anything with two mammary glands that has a whinge. It's a community ripe for exploitation.
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
I thought the most interesting part was that according to GenCon she would be doing a Q&A. Since when does she allow questions? Automatically Appended Next Post: Adeptus Doritos wrote:Do you want the honest answer? It's simple.
Tabletop gaming is full of pathetic incels that will do anything to get a peepee touch or a little booty pat. Of course they'll bend the knee to anything with two mammary glands that has a whinge. It's a community ripe for exploitation.
That, or there's just no money left for her in videogames.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Maybe she LEVELED UP?!?!?!
Anita could have milked the video game thing and made a fortune if she'd been more familiar with the market and hit it about 10 years ago (but that's when she was in training under some professional grifter). But she bungled that. When the average gamer is... well, the average person, it's a bit harder to bat your lashes and hope some pathetic horde of nerds comes rushing in with their credit card numbers to 'save the maidens'. Tabletop gaming, however, a bit more ripe for it.
"Maybe if we give this woman money and listen to her ideas, all the cool hot gamer chicks will start wanting to play with me! Yeah, that's it! It's not me, it's because of the MUH SOGGY NESTS!"
Sqorgar wrote:Her initial set of videos played into a very specific insecurity with gamers that tabletop gamers also have. "We don't have enough women, it must be because of the neckbeards that make game stores so smelly - maybe if we ban the smelly neckbeards, we'll make a more inviting environment for women. We love women. Gosh, it would be nice if one would talk to me. feth you neckbeards! Die in a fire! Hey, why are all the neckbeards angry? Who cares? They're neckbeards." Pinpointing that exact insecurity and fanning the flames of contempt was enough to set off a culture war. Because tabletop gaming has that exact same insecurity, they need to be fething scared of her showing her face in these parts.
This. A 'bullseye' better than I could word it. No one ever bothers to consider the fact that men and women, in general, have very different interests. Even still, there are plenty of women in the hobby. And there are plenty of actual rude and awful neckbeards. Believe it or not, actual rude neckbeards are easy to deal with. I've only encountered it a couple of times, however, and it was never the type of guy who was important to the gaming community. In fact, both had legitimate social or mental issues and were more uncomfortably awkward than 'sexist'.
No one is excluded from gaming. At no point in my life have I ever seen any shortage of women in the hobby, because the ones interested in it are always there gaming and as a 'culture' we seem to be quite decent at policing ourselves. I can promise you, if the women aren't playing with you- by all means, assume they're this mysterious 'phantom audience'. That means the only reason they are not at your table is because of 'you'.
(Not directed at anyone, it's more the hypothetical 'you'.) Automatically Appended Next Post: jonolikespie wrote:I thought the most interesting part was that according to GenCon she would be doing a Q&A. Since when does she allow questions?
They're going to be pre-screened. I'd wager 'scripted'. The last time she had one, she started spewing insults. Not only that, I'm shocked anyone gave her a panel after the way she treated Boogie.
97571
Post by: Sqorgar
Ouze wrote: Sqorgar wrote:Technically, I think she is credited with one of the missions in that House on Haunted Hill expansion (though I really doubt she actually did much more than put her name on it).
Shows that it would be a fool's errand. You're not going to argue in good faith, you're going to invent things in your head that bolster what you already think, and I'm not going to waste my time.
First, I got the name wrong. It's Betrayal at House On the Hill. Second, the game had 50 different contributors, of which Sarkeesian is one of like three that have no game design credentials AT ALL. She's never written fiction or designed a game before or since, so I find it hard to believe that a complete amateur with no experience managed to make a Betrayal mission that was worth playing on her first attempt, and then proceeded to follow up this amazing accomplishment by never doing it ever again. It is far more likely that she worked with a ghost writer who did the playtesting and design, and used her name recognition as a way to add value to the product. It's not an absurd conclusion to draw.
So, let me get this straight. You won't address my points, then accuse me of not arguing in good faith to hide your shame of being unable to? Where have I see this sort of behavior before... It seems so familiar...
If this is accurate, then it sounds like you belonged to some terrible communities and you should appropriately focus your ire, or be happy that you're better off for no longer being part of a community that so capriciously bans members, right?
NeoGAF was the largest and most respected video game forum in the world. It had people from pretty much every developer and publisher posting there, interacting with the fans. It was the first site the get news and information about the industry. It had its problems, but it was a great community for a long, long time. And that changed with Sarkeesian's videos (or rather, the threads about those videos). Within a fortnight, it had gone crazy and they started banning a bunch of people, not for breaking the rules, but for having specific opinions - including industry vets who had been on the forum for a decade. It became hostile and everybody was under constant threat of getting banned (there would be threads where literally every other poster was permabanned)
In many respects, NeoGAF was a lot like Dakka is now, but for a larger, more mainstream industry. So don't blame the community. It could happen anywhere. Like, say, a Star Wars forum.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Sqorgar wrote:I got the name wrong. It's Betrayal at House On the Hill. Second, the game had 50 different contributors, of which Sarkeesian is one of like three that have no game design credentials AT ALL. She's never written fiction or designed a game before or since, so I find it hard to believe that a complete amateur with no experience managed to make a Betrayal mission that was worth playing on her first attempt, and then proceeded to follow up this amazing accomplishment by never doing it ever again. It is far more likely that she worked with a ghost writer who did the playtesting and design, and used her name recognition as a way to add value to the product. It's not an absurd conclusion to draw.
Ok, that's a fair rationalization. I should have given you an opportunity to ask why you assumed what you said, instead of assuming it was invented out of malice.
Sqorgar wrote:And that changed with Sarkeesian's videos (or rather, the threads about those videos). Within a fortnight, it had gone crazy and they started banning a bunch of people, not for breaking the rules, but for having specific opinions - including industry vets who had been on the forum for a decade. It became hostile and everybody was under constant threat of getting banned (there would be threads where literally every other poster was permabanned).
If you take a step back and look at what your saying, you're really describing what sounds like a problem with the community - a prexisting problem. If some rando who isn't a part of that community can make some videos and utterly destroy it in 2 weeks, as you claim, and turn all the mods into totalitarians, then it sounds like there were some pretty deep fault lines already; like blaming a match and not the cans of gas and dynamite all over the place.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Sqorgar wrote:NeoGAF was the largest and most respected video game forum in the world. It had people from pretty much every developer and publisher posting there, interacting with the fans. It was the first site the get news and information about the industry. It had its problems, but it was a great community for a long, long time. And that changed with Sarkeesian's videos (or rather, the threads about those videos). Within a fortnight, it had gone crazy and they started banning a bunch of people, not for breaking the rules, but for having specific opinions - including industry vets who had been on the forum for a decade. It became hostile and everybody was under constant threat of getting banned (there would be threads where literally every other poster was permabanned)
In many respects, NeoGAF was a lot like Dakka is now, but for a larger, more mainstream industry. So don't blame the community. It could happen anywhere. Like, say, a Star Wars forum.
One forum, dedicated to RPG's (and it's a big one)- was always a little... odd. But after a certain blog about 'white male terrorism', that site went spiraling into absolute madness. It was always a bit sketchy because of some of the Admins' egos, but it went from walking on eggshells to something more like tiptoeing through a minefield. Witch hunts, nitpicking every possible statement for a potential hint of Xism. Mods and Admins acting like they're in a Stanford Prison Experiment. Repeated 'and everyone clapped' stories, and even the slightest hint of skepticism not only got you banned but they took their time to flame you. It was a nuthouse, and it's a shining example of how just the right combination of frauds and desperate losers can absolutely destroy a community that once had minimal problems and banded together for the love of a hobby.
Mind you, this all went insane after someone posted a blog that was begging people to harass a miniatures company, and it was extremely questionable to anyone with an inkling of critical thinking skills.
Yes, people like Sarkeesian do damage communities. More than they should, because yes- there are two ends of the extreme. Make no mistake, Sarkeesian's a fraud and a parasite. But when people like her show up, the communities should do what we've always done and handle our own problems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:If you take a step back and look at what your saying, you're really describing what sounds like a problem with the community - a prexisting problem. If some rando who isn't a part of that community can make some videos and utterly destroy it in 2 weeks, as you claim, and turn all the mods into totalitarians, then it sounds like there were some pretty deep fault lines already; like blaming a match and not the cans of gas and dynamite all over the place.
Yeah, the problem is very simple.
Many members of the gaming community are easily bullied and exploited. Put some teats on the swindler or the bully and suddenly the drooling masses lose their damned minds.
Ever noticed how people like her don't go after Rappers? Guys that openly and willingly exercise sexist behavior?
The same reason PETA isn't yanking the leather vest off a Hells' Angel, and instead goes after some grandma with a fur coat. They always go after targets they see as weak.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
IDGAF about her. Unless she goes after Kingdom Death. Then, I might just join Kotaku online in trying to get her banned and censored.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
JohnHwangDD wrote:IDGAF about her. Unless she goes after Kingdom Death. Then, I might just join Kotaku online in trying to get her banned and censored.
I just don't want McIntosh commentary on gaming. Hers was cringy enough, but her pet soyboy needs to be mocked into the darkest corners of the internet.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Adeptus Doritos wrote:Ever noticed how people like her don't go after Rappers? Guys that openly and willingly exercise sexist behavior?
The same reason PETA isn't yanking the leather vest off a Hells' Angel, and instead goes after some grandma with a fur coat. They always go after targets they see as weak.
I think a more likely (or at less less tin-foil-hatty) explanation is that she is more familiar with gaming, and the gaming community, since she had played games since she was little. You go with what you know.
97571
Post by: Sqorgar
Ouze wrote:If you take a step back and look at what your saying, you're really describing what sounds like a problem with the community - a prexisting problem. If some rando who isn't a part of that community can make some videos and utterly destroy it in 2 weeks, as you claim, and turn all the mods into totalitarians, then it sounds like there were some pretty deep fault lines already; like blaming a match and not the cans of gas and dynamite all over the place.
It was a preexisting problem. Like I said, it was a deep seeded insecurity that belonged to all of us. That insecurity was flamed into a fire, and it turned everybody against each other. All witch hunts begin with insecurity.
Have you seen the threads about boob armor and combat heels on Dakka? Not a single one of those threads has ever gone to completion. We, as a community, have NEVER resolved that issue. There's no middle ground there. The two sides are diametrically opposed. For one to win, the other must lose. But there's a sort of uneasy truce surrounding this issue because the threads typically start running in circles and people start getting mean, and a moderator comes in and locks the thread.
Now, imagine that something happened where the balance shifted just a bit, like the moderators choosing sides. Not only did they choose sides, they felt morally obligated to act to silence the other side. Something like that can be as simple as suspicion that one side is lying, or that they are brigading from another website. Or it could be the suspicion that the people pro-boob armor secretly hate women and are misogynists, and that boob armor is actively keeping women out of the hobby. It's no longer a simple internet argument. Now it has consequences, and the moderators are morally justified in stepping in and dictating the discussion's outcome. When people disagree, they are disagreeing with the moderators, acting in official capacity, and their word is final. Disagreement with a moderator is a bannable offense. And then things start getting worse from there.
That's all it takes. Just a little push on the insecurity to get moderators to take sides, and it's over. All it takes. It's nothing. A trifle. And yet, overnight, those moderators will become dictators. And if you think it can't happen here, I don't know what to tell you. Let's hope you are right.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Actually she's also said the exact opposite- that she wasn't familiar with gaming and that she didn't know anything about games.
The jackal goes after prey that it knows it can take.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Adeptus Doritos wrote:Actually she's also said the exact opposite- that she wasn't familiar with gaming and that she didn't know anything about games.
The jackal goes after prey that it knows it can take.
Yes, I'm aware of one out of context quote in a single video, the same year she went to the Canadian video game awards, that blows the whole thing open.
Sqorgar wrote:Have you seen the threads about boob armor and combat heels on Dakka? Not a single one of those threads has ever gone to completion. We, as a community, have NEVER resolved that issue. There's no middle ground there. The two sides are diametrically opposed. For one to win, the other must lose. But there's a sort of uneasy truce surrounding this issue because the threads typically start running in circles and people start getting mean, and a moderator comes in and locks the thread.
Now, imagine that something happened where the balance shifted just a bit, like the moderators choosing sides.
Yeah, I can imagine exactly what that looks like. There is a huge problem on Dakka Dakka with this, too. The only reason the plastic render thread didn't turn into the usual dumpster fire was aggressive moderation by a different set of moderators.
Now, if someone did a set of videos about how Sisters threads bring out the worst in the 40k community, it would be difficult to blame the person who did the videos for exposing issues that have been rampant and just under the surface for quite a while That's what I'm saying.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Ouze wrote:Yes, I'm aware of one out of context quote in a single video, the same year she went to the Canadian video game awards, that blows the whole thing open.
Well, she clearly is familiar. Since she said you got rewarded for murdering innocent women in the Hitman series. And cherry-picked most of her 'studies'. Ever thought that maybe she got that invitation to the awards show for the same reason she got invited to GenCon?
Yeah, outlandish- I know. But then again, I'm the one sitting her telling you that she's a dishonest huckster after she took an obscene amount of money and never delivered on her promise, and stole "Let's Play" footage from other gamers.
Oh, by the way if you touch a hot stove it will burn you and if you stare into the sun you'll burn your retina.
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
Whether she's a life long gamer or not her videos are either exceptionally poor or intentionally disingenuous.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
My gaming group and gaming store acually has loads of women, including the main staff. They all detest her and other professional victims with a passion.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Adeptus Doritos wrote:Ever thought that maybe she got that invitation to the awards show for the same reason she got invited to GenCon?
No, because she got invited to Gencon, at least as claimed, for being a change maker. At the time she went to the first Canadian game awards she had just launched FF and the Tropes vs Videogames didn't happen for another what, 4 years? I don't think anyone knew who she was yet.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
jonolikespie wrote:Whether she's a life long gamer or not her videos are either exceptionally poor or intentionally disingenuous.
You mean to tell me that you don't assert your conclusion before you begin your research?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ouze wrote:No, because she got invited to Gencon, at least as claimed, for being a change maker. At the time she went to the first Canadian game awards she had just launched FF and the Tropes vs Videogames didn't happen for another what, 4 years? I don't think anyone knew who she was yet.
She got invited because she was already a snake oil salesman before she launched her youtube series. For whatever reason, some Canadians wanted her around. Don't act like inviting her to something like this makes her an actual relevant expert or remotely credible in her field.
81438
Post by: Turnip Jedi
She's a media manipulating performance art genius, I'd even suspect many of her 'mistakes' are on purpose to make intertubes chatter, and taking money from the gullible is borderline victimless crime
86330
Post by: Carnikang
Honestly, she's just another agenda pusher who may weight in on the industry... it only matters if her agenda is pushed by someone with backing, or like minds are already in place.
Not to add fuel to fire, but the Warhammer Adventures debacle has put the community into a light that I'm not sure I enjoy all that much. People either reacted horribly (nah mah stuffs no kids) or they seemed to revel in the fact that there was more 'all-important-diversity' (among other things that seemed suspect) and that was the only thing good about the inclusion of the books. That could easily be seized upon by someone like her.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
And so it spreads...
And "change maker"? The change she wants isn't the kind of change anyone needs...
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Turnip Jedi wrote:She's a media manipulating performance art genius, I'd even suspect many of her 'mistakes' are on purpose to make intertubes chatter, and taking money from the gullible is borderline victimless crime
Quite. Throwing money at her at this point is idiotic. Absolutely no sane person on the planet would financially support someone who didn't deliver a full product- she specifically failed to do that. Not only was it incomplete, but most of it was just stolen footage from Youtube. She got an obscene amount of money to create a series of videos that any moron can make. For FREE.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
One reasonable side hates her because she's extremely dishonest in her statements (or just incompetent). The other reasonable side sees someone who's using the feminist angle to exploit well-meaning (or desperate) persons for monetary gain.
I don't care if you love or hate feminism. If you don't know a cheap con artist when you see one, you deserve every bit of distress and every lost dollar.
Carnikang wrote:Not to add fuel to fire, but the Warhammer Adventures debacle has put the community into a light that I'm not sure I enjoy all that much.
Dude, I see what you're saying and I know where you're coming from- but let's just put it this way: The 'Negative Reaction' was blown way out of proportion. Most of it was joking and making fun of the product. A few people were whining that this was some sinister SJW plot, but anyone can see this was ridiculous. The only 'reaction' I saw that was big was basically a bunch of people pretending the minor joking and a couple of loons constituted a 'major outcry'. If that's a 'debacle' in the 40k gaming community, then 8th Edition was Armageddon.
97288
Post by: Thebiggesthat
This thread is a great example of why she's more relavent and needed for this hobby.
Hopefully she has the same positive influence
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Thebiggesthat wrote:This thread is a great example of why she's more relavent and needed for this hobby.
Hopefully she has the same positive influence
I really want to go with my first instinct and laugh at the obvious sarcasm. But on Dakka, sometimes I'm not sure it's sarcasm.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Sqorgar wrote:Have you seen the threads about boob armor and combat heels on Dakka? Not a single one of those threads has ever gone to completion.
First, boob armor is great.
Second, every one of those threads goes to completion, and then gets locked when there's nothing left to be said. They're glorious.
That reminds me, aren't we overdue for a FemMarines with boob armor thread?
81438
Post by: Turnip Jedi
Thebiggesthat wrote:This thread is a great example of why she's more relavent and needed for this hobby.
Hopefully she has the same positive influence
bu5 she won't, she'll purposely draw flak from the tiny hard of thinking frothing minority too thick to see how she's playing, which will then snowball into all gamers are petulant wammins hating manchilds which will be blood in the water for the clickbait sharks on both sides (the interwebs has no middle ground) ahd it'll turn into something akin to the TLJ or Mtg debate
72203
Post by: ulgurstasta
I'm surprised that she was invited to Gencon, but it is worrisome. I have always thought that tabletop gaming was to small a industry to attract these sort of people, I might have been wrong on that it seems.
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
ulgurstasta wrote:I'm surprised that she was invited to Gencon, but it is worrisome. I have always thought that tabletop gaming was to small a industry to attract these sort of people, I might have been wrong on that it seems.
Punch "feminist 40k" into Facebook's search bar.
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
jonolikespie wrote: ulgurstasta wrote:I'm surprised that she was invited to Gencon, but it is worrisome. I have always thought that tabletop gaming was to small a industry to attract these sort of people, I might have been wrong on that it seems.
Punch "feminist 40k" into Facebook's search bar.
Or, trust me on this, do not do that. Ever.
117801
Post by: An Actual Englishman
I don't know who this woman is and I don't particularly care, from my brief scan of the posts above there seems to be a split in terms of what people think of her.
One thing I can say for certain however is that the House on the Haunted Hill expansion has some of the most badly written and awful missions of any board game I've ever played. I hope her involvement in this was minimal.
61647
Post by: PsychoticStorm
Why on earth would somebody have as a guest of honour a toxic, absolutist, who refuses to debate their ideas, cuts off any comments and communication and has recorded instances of bullying and harassing people? It is intriguing to think it will be a Q&A but as, mythcon was it?, shown last year she will insult whoever she recognises in the audience as her critique bully to tears whoever "fellow" panellist dares to have a different line from her (and for the record his message was a unifying one not a divisive one) and walk away breaking all terms of conduct without any penalty because reasons.... Industry changers? sure, if you support a divisive, exclusive industry were any opinion and creation that does not follow the line her agenda wants needs to be burned, change is not always good and we should not celebrate all people who created change, some changes are outright horrible. She indeed had an impact definitely on communities but admittedly she was a catalyst the communities were set to fall because the moderation did not have a diverse opinion. Thankfully her biggest ambition, making UN force internet surveillance regulations for "Cyber bulling" have not been (fully) realised yet, but we are getting there. My personal hypothesis is that the digital gaming industry has been saturated by her kind and there are far more contemporary and aggressive people like her that eat up her relevance and by that her revenue, so she decided to expand on the new pastures of physical gaming, were there is less competition and more money to be made. Also there are complains for the new sisters sculpt? aside from a minor anatomical issue I do not see why someone would complain?
50213
Post by: Pumpkin
I cannot believe that, this long after the shockingly vile Gamergate saga, people still view Sarkeesian as the villain.
That's just embarrassing.
61647
Post by: PsychoticStorm
Any good reason why not?
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
I'll hold off on my opinion of what she says at the con until after she's spoken at the con.
I think she could offer some interesting opinions from the outside looking in, and her inclusion is certainly guaranteed to attract publicity, we'll see if something of worth comes of it or if it just triggers a lot of incel tosspots into pointless rage.
I'm rather more concerned that her speaking will bring total <REMOVED> like Sargon of Akkad, Unsleeved Media and other neofascist, woman hating douches sniffing around my hobby, because apparently we don't already have enough of those.
Please do not circumvent the language filter - BrookM
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Oh, Sadcase of Arcadia has already spat the dummy over Feminist 40k.
Quite pathetic, really.
87004
Post by: warhead01
It's just the kind of thing the people who like that sort of thing like.
The only way to win seems to be, not to play.
It's your money spend it how you want.
The internet and the media is providing a platform for an outrage culture. It's just not worth the stress.
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
Well, bad people were nasty to her, so ipso facto bingo wotsit she's the goodie and in the right?
I just find the whole nonsense tiresome TBH. Her material is the usual Internet Expert mix of hyperbolic nonsense and completely uncontroversial Feminism 101 stuff repackaged as Revelation but for some reason she was anointed as Grand Feminist by a couple of gaming websites and some people just don't seem willing to let that go despite the fact that it's their rabid opposition to her that keeps her in the spotlight.
Like, seriously, imagine a world where people had responded to her initial efforts with polite disinterest instead of unreasoning rage *sigh*
But hey, looks like we're opening up a new front in the Culture War, I can't wait to be told all of the reasons why things I enjoy are basically Hitler and then get drowned in the frothing backlash from the minority of raging morons who can only disagree with someone via the medium of Pepe memes and rape threats
77728
Post by: dosiere
Ugh, I'm not really following what's going on here. Can someone sum up for me who this is, why it has so many people arguing, and why I should care?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Adeptus Doritos wrote:Thebiggesthat wrote:This thread is a great example of why she's more relavent and needed for this hobby.
Hopefully she has the same positive influence
I really want to go with my first instinct and laugh at the obvious sarcasm. But on Dakka, sometimes I'm not sure it's sarcasm.
Well, no one has censured you for your posts about "pathetic incels" and "teats", so I'm not so sure that your idea of Dakka as some sort of lefty liberal bastion is very credible.
I didn't care much for her videos, so I didn't watch them. But the absolutely vile hate parade she received showed that there are some pretty deep problems in nerdy communities. The depth of loathing she can apparently summon now, years later, is another sign of something pretty deeply wrong. Just ignore her if you don't like her. There really is no need to get so nasty and bitter about it. (This is not directed solely at Adeptus Doritos).
I have to say, I do enjoy it whenever a nerdy property like Star Wars or whatever pisses off a bunch of bigots by including people from minorities or giving women a prominent role, as though that was never part of the franchise before. I love that people that unpleasant can no longer enjoy certain media because of their political views. It makes me happy. (Of course, before anyone who feels the need to point out that you can dislike Star Wars without being a bigot chimes in, I get that. But there are plenty who hate it just because they think it's too "SJW" focused, and that's who I am talking about.)
63000
Post by: Peregrine
dosiere wrote:Ugh, I'm not really following what's going on here. Can someone sum up for me who this is, why it has so many people arguing, and why I should care?
Anita Sarkeesian is a feminist author/video producer/whatever who did commentary on issues with video games. While she had some legitimate, if not terribly original, points she ended up with fame far disproportionate to the significance of her work because of the Gamergate dumpster fire. The anti-feminist crowd decided that she's Satan incarnate and whined and cried endlessly over the fact that someone to the left of Hitler might say something less than 200% mindlessly fanboyish about their favorite video games, and people sympathetic to her gave her a ton of money to produce more of the same not terribly original content (or, let's be honest here, as a "thank you for putting up with these s" gesture). Now she has been invited to speak at a convention, and the right-wing outrage machine is losing it again.
As for why you should care, you shoudn't. In any sane world it's just one talk among many, attend it or go do something else with your time. The main relevance of it is how the reaction to her exposes the fact that we still have a problem with certain toxic elements of the geek community.
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
dosiere wrote:Ugh, I'm not really following what's going on here. Can someone sum up for me who this is, why it has so many people arguing, and why I should care?
A woman has been invited to a gaming con. Depending on if you think GamerGate was a consumer revolt against a horribly corrupt games journalism industry and the heavy hand of progressive politics trying to force an agenda into videogames or a harassment campaign by a group of misogynists and neo nazis who want to drive women out of the industry this either means the con has invited a terrible speaker who has no place being an honoured guest or people are getting their panties in a twist about nothing because they too probably want women out of their hobby. Automatically Appended Next Post: I really do hate this characterization of the people that dislike her. This isn't a right vs left thing, this is progressives vs anti progressives (for lack of a better term) and the majority of Gamergate when polled fell into the liberal/central parts of the political compass. Being opposed to her and her views does not make one right wing.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
It does sort of make you a bit ... odd though doesn't it? Being "opposed" to someone who just makes what are essentially youtube videos about video games? I mean hhbomberguy made a video where he said Fallout 3 was gak, but I'm not "opposed" to him.
And it is a fact that Gamergate was intentionally hijacked by rightwingers as a way to attack feminists and recruit young men. There are plenty of people on record admitting to this. For god's sake, the whole thing started with a who slept with who argument involving an indie developer, which was apparently the biggest crisis to ever hit ethics in games journalism.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
jonolikespie wrote:Depending on if you think GamerGate was a consumer revolt against a horribly corrupt games journalism industry
AKA, "if you aren't very well informed about the subject".
I really do hate this characterization of the people that dislike her. This isn't a right vs left thing, this is progressives vs anti progressives (for lack of a better term) and the majority of Gamergate when polled fell into the liberal/central parts of the political compass. Being opposed to her and her views does not make one right wing.
It's a situation that doesn't fit perfectly well with the conventional right/left split (a problem with a one-dimensional political scale), but most/all of the Gamergate crowd define themselves in opposition to the left and share a lot of the same social conservative views as the conventional right. And Gamergate got much of its attention when it was picked up by the mainstream right-wing outrage machine and used as a tool in their ongoing anti-progressive crusade. It was a relatively minor event until mainstream conservative media figures, even ones who admitted to never playing games or even having contempt for gamers, started promoting it.
61310
Post by: Rainbow Dash
Red Weasel wrote:How did she ruin an industry? As far as I can tell the only thing that has changed is that there are more whining man babies than I thought.
What exactly do you fear will happen? More armor on the Sisters?
I never liked their helmets, they looked much cooler with the gas masks Automatically Appended Next Post: Da Boss wrote: Adeptus Doritos wrote:Thebiggesthat wrote:This thread is a great example of why she's more relavent and needed for this hobby.
Hopefully she has the same positive influence
I really want to go with my first instinct and laugh at the obvious sarcasm. But on Dakka, sometimes I'm not sure it's sarcasm.
Well, no one has censured you for your posts about "pathetic incels" and "teats", so I'm not so sure that your idea of Dakka as some sort of lefty liberal bastion is very credible.
I didn't care much for her videos, so I didn't watch them. But the absolutely vile hate parade she received showed that there are some pretty deep problems in nerdy communities. The depth of loathing she can apparently summon now, years later, is another sign of something pretty deeply wrong. Just ignore her if you don't like her. There really is no need to get so nasty and bitter about it. (This is not directed solely at Adeptus Doritos).
I have to say, I do enjoy it whenever a nerdy property like Star Wars or whatever pisses off a bunch of bigots by including people from minorities or giving women a prominent role, as though that was never part of the franchise before. I love that people that unpleasant can no longer enjoy certain media because of their political views. It makes me happy. (Of course, before anyone who feels the need to point out that you can dislike Star Wars without being a bigot chimes in, I get that. But there are plenty who hate it just because they think it's too "SJW" focused, and that's who I am talking about.)
Star Wars was, I don't care if they put blacks or women in there, whatever. My issue was they wrote them like crap.
They were awful characters, there only because they were black or women or whatever to fill the agenda.
Social Justice movies forgets to write these people as people, as well rounded characters people will like.
Politics aside the new Star Wars just sucks.
The Prequels didn't have politics in them and they sucked too.
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
I really don't wanna drag the thread down the rabbit hole of 'what was gamergate all about', but I'd just like to leave these here and say unless you describe anything anti progressive as conservative (which would be a very childish interpretation of politics) no, gamergate in general (at least not the 95 thousand member reddit group) don't have socially conservative views and while I am sure there were people who were pushed to the right by what happened it wasn't highjacked by right wingers.
Which came from: http://www.gameobjective.com/2016/11/21/no-gamergate-is-not-right-wing/
And the methodology/ FAQ for the poll: https://medium.com/@Brad_Glasgow/the-gamergate-survey-and-book-methodology-and-faq-42793440c612
11029
Post by: Ketara
I vaguely remember some girl called Anita making some slightly naff videos mentioning sexism in video games; which got the usual OTT backlash of rape & murder threats/misogynistic bullcrap over social media. Her being invited to a games convention is hardly something that requires endorsement or opposition. Games are games, some video games are like tabletop games and vice versa, often deliberately (love me some PC Space Hulk). There is crossover. It's not quite like a rapper being invited to a knitting convention.
The only people who need 'opposing', or indeed, any attention/opinion whatsoever, are the disgusting insecure specimens of humanity hell bent on scaring off any woman who ever mentions sexism.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'm rather more concerned that her speaking will bring total <REMOVED> like Sargon of Akkad, Unsleeved Media and other neofascist, woman hating douches sniffing around my hobby, because apparently we don't already have enough of those. [/color]
I'm pretty sure Unsleeved is 'rude' and a troll, but I wouldn't go as far as to say he 'hates women'. Sargon, on the other hand, I'd say it's comical. But people who have no argument really like to poison the well with false statements. If you disagree with [insert feminist], you must hate women!
Our hobby isn't full of woman-haters. Our hobby is full of guys that can't figure out why women don't want to play with them. And rather than accept that the hobby has more appeal to males than females on average, or rather than taking a shower and doing laundry- they'll blame these phantom bigots for keeping away these phantom women that just love 40k and are dying to play.
Peregrine wrote:As for why you should care, you shoudn't. In any sane world it's just one talk among many, attend it or go do something else with your time. The main relevance of it is how the reaction to her exposes the fact that we still have a problem with certain toxic elements of the geek community.
"You not wanting cancer proves that there's a problem and you need cancer." I love circular logic.
You want someone to talk about feminism? There's no shortage of people. But at least pick someone credible and someone that isn't a scam artist.
Da Boss wrote:Well, no one has censured you for your posts about "pathetic incels" and "teats", so I'm not so sure that your idea of Dakka as some sort of lefty liberal bastion is very credible.
Because it's not a 'liberal' problem. A 'liberal' is smart enough to see that this woman isn't an activist, she's a huckster. Plenty of liberals have called her on it.
The only thing 'pathetic' I see are most of the people posting in that group. I shouldn't be shocked, considering that page has actually ran off more women than it's retained.
Peregrine wrote:And Gamergate got much of its attention when it was picked up by the mainstream right-wing outrage machine and used as a tool in their ongoing anti-progressive crusade. It was a relatively minor event until mainstream conservative media figures, even ones who admitted to never playing games or even having contempt for gamers, started promoting it.
Yeah, which of the Goobiegabber trolls was standing in front of the UN? I can't recall.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Did she poop in your cornflakes or something?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
So she got all the hate she got for being a huckster? I find it strange - the world is full of hucksters, but just this one inspires a gigantic online hate campaign that has lasted for years.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
I absolutely loathe con artists. Consider it a grudge I hold from my military days when I saw them swarming to exploit young men or their young spouses and part them from their money and ruin them. The worst of which claimed to be retired veterans. Even worse were the ones that claimed to be doing something to make the lives of veterans, often wounded veterans, better. They are the absolute lowest form of filth on the planet.
And please, I'm not a wimp. I don't eat corn flakes like some wimp. I'm a Lucky Charms man.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Erm......k?
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Da Boss wrote:So she got all the hate she got for being a huckster? I find it strange - the world is full of hucksters, but just this one inspires a gigantic online hate campaign that has lasted for years.
It's the tamest 'hate campaign' I've ever seen. Sure, some of these kids are seeing 'SJW's in my cereal!', but there were a lot of people who had solid, reasoned, and completely reasonable arguments.
And hey, "That thing you like is bigoted and you're a bigot for enjoying it" tends to generate a bit of dislike. And look at how you've painted them: "A hate campaign". It was bad enough these kids had to show pictures of themselves- POC and women- to prove it wasn't a 'white male hate mob'. Now, you dismiss any argument they have with 'othering' them or accusing them of being vile things. What kind of reaction do you expect from that?
I'm still waiting to see one arrest from these 'threats' that never seemed to manifest. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Did she promise to give you a peepee touch or something?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
There`s a lot of disingenuous argumentative technique going on in your post. The way you've painted her supporters is hardly any nicer than "hate campaign", for example.
But I'm happy you are responding the way you are.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Da Boss wrote:There`s a lot of disingenuous argumentative technique going on in your post. The way you've painted her supporters is hardly any nicer than "hate campaign", for example.
If saying "this woman is a swindler, I don't care what you believe, just have better standards for who you follow before you get swindled" is something a 'hate group' would do, then I guess I need to start figuring out what fascist symbol I want to wear.
Instead of using circular logic and vague complaints, you can freely engage me and I'll be absolutely polite and engage your points.
Pumpkin wrote:I cannot believe that, this long after the shockingly vile Gamergate saga, people still view Sarkeesian as the villain.
That's just embarrassing.
I can't believe Gamergate has been dead for what seems like 3 or 4 years now, but it's still a boogeyman.
Also, I can't believe people don't realize the whole Gamergate thing was a thing at all for one reason- scummy journalists in a dying profession got called scummy, and a circus ensured. All because one of them promised a mentally ill woman a review if she would do sex things to his peepee. Anyone shocked at the idea that gaming journalists might be scumbags has obviously never had any experience with them. Absolutely none of that shocked me at all.
There are extremes of this on both ends, and both deserve ridicule.
Liking sexy women in games is not an evil thing. Not every form of escapism needs to be transformed into a social commentary for the loons no one else wants to listen to.
There is no 'SJW' agenda in every thing that shows a brown person or a woman. Everyone is free to create and free to critique. There are bigots in every hobby, and they need to be dealt with lickety-split.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Sorry, can someone point out for me what she did to swindle people?
I mean, I'm assuming she must have literally stolen or defrauded (in the criminal sense) people to get this sort of response. Like, she must have forged credit card numbers, or taken money for goods not delivered, or signed people up to badly explained payment plans or something. And if she did these things, have the courts been informed? The police? These are criminal offences after all.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Ketara wrote:Sorry, can someone point out for me what she did to swindle people?
I mean, I'm assuming she must have literally stolen or defrauded (in the criminal sense) people to get this sort of response. Like, she must have forged credit card numbers, or taken money for goods not delivered, or signed people up to badly explained payment plans or something. And if she did these things, have the courts been informed? The police? These are criminal offences after all.
Underlined is there.
But you're right, no arrests have been made. Same for those 'rape and death threats' she received. Maybe the law sees things that should be ignored when some people see a problem.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Ketara wrote:Sorry, can someone point out for me what she did to swindle people?
I mean, I'm assuming she must have literally stolen or defrauded (in the criminal sense) people to get this sort of response. Like, she must have forged credit card numbers, or taken money for goods not delivered, or signed people up to badly explained payment plans or something. And if she did these things, have the courts been informed? The police? These are criminal offences after all.
Underlined is there.
But you're right, no arrests have been made. Same for those 'rape and death threats' she received. Maybe the law sees things that should be ignored when some people see a problem.
So what, did she commit postal fraud? Why hasn't she been taken to court? I mean, she's clearly visible, and lawyers don't care about the internet. Surely the wronged parties have a legal claim or recourse? I know nothing about this. Could you give me a short summary of what she did to defraud people and why nothing has been done?
97571
Post by: Sqorgar
Da Boss wrote:It does sort of make you a bit ... odd though doesn't it? Being "opposed" to someone who just makes what are essentially youtube videos about video games? I mean hhbomberguy made a video where he said Fallout 3 was gak, but I'm not "opposed" to him.
If all she did was make YouTube videos, nobody would have a problem with her, personally. I find it irritating that she won't defend her views against actual living humans who disagree with her (even Peregrine will stick around and defend his shitposts, Anita will not), and I find it terrifying that she testified in front of the UN arguing in favor of censoring the internet and is a major part of Twitter's Trust and Safety Council, which was the beginning of the end for Twitter's neutrality.
I think in this example, she hasn't done anything against tabletop gaming personally, but she is more the canary in the coalmine. The very fact that GenCon decided to invite this huckster as a guest of honor means that the balance has tipped far enough that the witch hunts are about to start.
And it is a fact that Gamergate was intentionally hijacked by rightwingers as a way to attack feminists and recruit young men. There are plenty of people on record admitting to this. For god's sake, the whole thing started with a who slept with who argument involving an indie developer, which was apparently the biggest crisis to ever hit ethics in games journalism.
GamerGate isn't right wing. There was a time there, in the early days, when they had an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" relationship with Brietbart and Milo. They were all anti-progressive, and thus cheered each other when they were anti-progressive, but were so for different reasons and had fundamentally different views outside of that. Brietbart tried to take more credit than they deserve after the election and it is in no way representative of the views and opinions of GamerGate. Just because people think progressives have become social authoritarians doesn't make them right wing. It just makes them not progressives.
Also, the thing didn't start with who slept with who. Most people agree that it started with a whole slew of articles within the span of a single day that all said the same thing. "Gamers are dead. Gamers don't need to be your audience anymore." (Sound familiar Star Wars fans?). People were convinced that the gaming journalists were all members of the same clique and using their platform as gaming journalists to push a particular agenda (one which was at odds with the majority of gamers' wishes). When the Five Guys memo came out, it was salacious and targeted a person who was already largely reviled in the game industry (she had purposefully sabotaged a to be televised game jam and made a lot of enemies with her behavior well before GG became a thing - seriously, I had read articles about her terrible behavior on the cancelled game jam years earlier. She is a terrible human being), but it also seemed to prove that game journalists were a clique and were using their position and power (what little they had) for personal gain rather than being objective voices for gaming.
This was exacerbated by the fact the GG was fundamentally an anti-game journalist movement, and yet they let the game journalists define their public persona for people not involved. GG just didn't have the public platform to make their viewpoints clear and known at the time, and the fact that all the gaming journals flat out lied about them and any time they tried to defend themselves, they were blocked or banned and made unable to do so. It was, to me, one of the first really clear examples of how the progressives want to control the message more than they want to have one.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I believe she took crowdfunding money to produce videos and then did not produce all the videos she promised?
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Ketara wrote:So what, did she commit postal fraud? Why hasn't she been taken to court? I mean, she's clearly visible, and lawyers don't care about the internet. Surely the wronged parties have a legal claim or recourse? I know nothing about this. Could you give me a short summary of what she did to defraud people and why nothing has been done?
Well, if we're going to play 'It's not a problem because no one went to court", then I'll assume you see that as a reasonable argument for why no arrests were made for all of those 'death and rape threats'. You know, assuming 'day old account posting vile things before being banned' is evidence for their existence at all.
So she hosted a Kickstarter, where she claimed she was going to do research because video games are sexist (because that's how research works, you choose what you want to believe and cherry pick things to support it- rather than doing research first and then reaching your conclusion). She didn't deliver on the videos, and she got $400,000+ to make about half the number she promised her Kickstarter investors, and what she did produce were low-tier garbage that any teenager can make in his basement in the afternoon. Not only that, but she used "Let's Play" footage without permission from the owners (something which is quick to get Youtube videos shut down otherwise).
Face it, dude- I get it. You wanna be a feminist. Fine, that's a debate for another day. You believe you're doing good things and want things to be better, and I respect that, at least. But select a better person to listen to.
97571
Post by: Sqorgar
Ketara wrote:Sorry, can someone point out for me what she did to swindle people?
I mean, I'm assuming she must have literally stolen or defrauded (in the criminal sense) people to get this sort of response. Like, she must have forged credit card numbers, or taken money for goods not delivered, or signed people up to badly explained payment plans or something. And if she did these things, have the courts been informed? The police? These are criminal offences after all.
She took in a LOT of money to produce a series of videos (Tropes vs Women), which she never finished, and which she was repeatedly shown to use other people's work without their permission. There was also some funniness with the financial statements her non-profit put out. I don't remember exactly what, but it had something to do with the cost breakdown being grossly over inflated.
Also, if you search YouTube, you can find old videos of her shilling for a telemarketer pyramid scheme.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Sqorgar wrote:Also, the thing didn't start with who slept with who. Most people agree that it started with a whole slew of articles within the span of a single day that all said the same thing. "Gamers are dead. Gamers don't need to be your audience anymore." (Sound familiar Star Wars fans?). People were convinced that the gaming journalists were all members of the same clique and using their platform as gaming journalists to push a particular agenda (one which was at odds with the majority of gamers' wishes). When the Five Guys memo came out, it was salacious and targeted a person who was already largely reviled in the game industry (she had purposefully sabotaged a to be televised game jam and made a lot of enemies with her behavior well before GG became a thing - seriously, I had read articles about her terrible behavior on the cancelled game jam years earlier. She is a terrible human being), but it also seemed to prove that game journalists were a clique and were using their position and power (what little they had) for personal gain rather than being objective voices for gaming.
Yeah, but in her defense- she is mentally ill (by her own admission). Sounds like she was exploited, regardless of her scummy behavior. Though after that one incident with the company that catalogued trolls and harassment behavior online- I've always been suspicious of her a little more. Automatically Appended Next Post:
It should be noted that the person at the head of this scheme, one that she has praised- has faced criminal charges for this scheme.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
And those are gakky things that she did. But what I do not understand is the depth of vitriol toward her. The world is full of people delivering disappointingly on KS. This is one of the very rare times when people who did not back the KS were furious enough about it to go on about it for years, and in some cases make entire series of videos themselves about how terrible she was, some of whom also sought crowdfunding and then didn't deliver. I can accept that she was not a very good critic and that she should have delivered on her promises or refunded - absolutely. But I see a rancid double standard in how she is treated and the level of obsession some have shown toward her. And I have to conclude it's because she is a woman commenting on what some perceive to be a "male" hobby. Look at how sexualized some of the posts here are - why is there a need to bring sex and genitalia into this at all? Edit to add: Again, I can accept happily that Games Journalists are pretty scummy with low integrity and no moral standards in many cases. I can easily imagine one of them using their "power" to hit on someone. What I find really weird and troubling is how the straw that broke the camels back had to be a woman having sex and using it to get ahead, a common misogynist trope, when there are so many other examples of worse behaviour on the part of games journalists going back decades.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Da Boss wrote:And those are gakky things that she did. But what I do not understand is the depth of vitriol toward her. The world is full of people delivering disappointingly on KS. This is one of the very rare times when people who did not back the KS were furious enough about it to go on about it for years, and in some cases make entire series of videos themselves about how terrible she was, some of whom also sought crowdfunding and then didn't deliver.
Yes, but hear me out- if you fail on a Kickstarter promise with 400 grand in your pocket, and all you've got to do is make some low-quality Youtube videos? That's just something I can laugh at. When you make it a point to also insult people and accuse everyone of being some closet bigot, you tend to get more ire on top of it.
Da Boss wrote:I can accept that she was not a very good critic and that she should have delivered on her promises or refunded - absolutely. But I see a rancid double standard in how she is treated and the level of obsession some have shown toward her. And I have to conclude it's because she is a woman commenting on what some perceive to be a "male" hobby. Look at how sexualized some of the posts here are - why is there a need to bring sex and genitalia into this at all?
We didn't bring it into the discussion, man. We just want escapism. We want to enjoy things and be left the hell alone. We don't want right wing or left wing. We just want to sit and enjoy a game, and we were fine for years despite our differences.
It's not because she's a woman- people loathe her former partner even more (Jonathan McIntosh) and he gets called much worse.
Face it, dude- people get a bit aggressive when something they love, and have loved for years suddenly attracts a random loon with an axe to grind (or a buck to make) and that random loon says, "Okay this is all wrong and if you disagree it's harassment and you're a bigot." What kind of reaction do you expect?
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Da Boss wrote:So she got all the hate she got for being a huckster? I find it strange - the world is full of hucksters, but just this one inspires a gigantic online hate campaign that has lasted for years.
Because the basis of her con is portraying a large group of pretty normal people as being entirely populated by right-wing lunatic hatemongers. She, and a fair few white knights above, are literally the liberal equivalent of the alt-righters who scream buzzwords like communism or social marxism at the slightest hint of something like widely accessible schooling and healthcare, or gay marriage. And being called a literal nazi for playing video games is a pretty big deal to most decent people, so we react a bit more strongly to that than to nigerian prince spam mail.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Well, I just shrug and walk away, because I just saw another youtube pundit that I didn't agree with. Like I say, gaming youtube is full of people saying x or y is objectively wrong and terrible. It's not worth getting bent out of shape over. Automatically Appended Next Post: lord_blackfang wrote: Da Boss wrote:So she got all the hate she got for being a huckster? I find it strange - the world is full of hucksters, but just this one inspires a gigantic online hate campaign that has lasted for years.
Because the basis of her con is portraying a large group of pretty normal people as being entirely populated by right-wing lunatic hatemongers. She, and a fair few white knights above, are literally the liberal equivalent of the alt-righters who scream buzzwords like communism or social marxism at the slightest hint of something like widely accessible schooling and healthcare, or gay marriage. And being called a literal nazi for playing video games is a pretty big deal to most decent people, so we react a bit more strongly to that than to nigerian prince spam mail.
I mean has she actually said this? Has she called people nazis for playing video games? It is a pretty dumb thing to say, but again, the scale of the response is ridiculous. If she says things like that, then she is just an idiot and not worth paying attention to. But there is a little cottage industry of people who make videos commenting on her now, and it is just really weird and uncomfortable.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Da Boss wrote:Edit to add: Again, I can accept happily that Games Journalists are pretty scummy with low integrity and no moral standards in many cases. I can easily imagine one of them using their "power" to hit on someone. What I find really weird and troubling is how the straw that broke the camels back had to be a woman having sex and using it to get ahead, a common misogynist trope, when there are so many other examples of worse behaviour on the part of games journalists going back decades.
Now you understand MY grudge with Gamergate. They didn't focus on the whole problem with gaming journalists. It's a field full of scumbags and instead of going after the real disease, we focused on a symptom.
But it broke the Camel's back because once they were called on it, they circled the wagons and pissed on their customers. Before that, complaints were ignored. But when someone pointed out how absolutely low they could go, they attacked the people they were supposed to represent.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I just really do not have the same standards you do for consumer journalism. Games journalism has always, always, always been a wink and a nudge from pure shilling. I don't have any expectations that those people are going to represent my interests or do anything other than regurgitate corporate press releases.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Da Boss wrote:Well, I just shrug and walk away, because I just saw another youtube pundit that I didn't agree with. Like I say, gaming youtube is full of people saying x or y is objectively wrong and terrible. It's not worth getting bent out of shape over.
You know what is worth getting bent out of shape over?
There's someone out there that's made great changes in gaming. Someone out there has actually DONE something about sexism and bigotry. Some dude is taking kids and helping them through gaming. Someone may have made a loving, welcoming, open community and made an actual difference.
The only 'changes' Anita Sarkeesian has made?
...uh...
...maybe she...
...well...
Okay I can't really think of anything, mostly just pissed a lot of people off.
So it's really hard to see her as deserving of this position. And don't say she 'started a conversation'. Not a whole lot of 'conversation' when you block comments and your opinions aren't up for debate in any forum. Automatically Appended Next Post: Da Boss wrote:I just really do not have the same standards you do for consumer journalism. Games journalism has always, always, always been a wink and a nudge from pure shilling. I don't have any expectations that those people are going to represent my interests or do anything other than regurgitate corporate press releases.
And that's fair. But the young people that were awakened by that should have done something, and moved on to actual consumer journalism.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Well, if we're going to play 'It's not a problem because no one went to court", then I'll assume you see that as a reasonable argument for why no arrests were made for all of those 'death and rape threats'. You know, assuming 'day old account posting vile things before being banned' is evidence for their existence at all....Face it, dude- I get it. You wanna be a feminist. Fine, that's a debate for another day. You believe you're doing good things and want things to be better, and I respect that, at least. But select a better person to listen to.
What the hell is wrong with you? Do you need a lie down or something? I don't know crap about this beyond some vague recollections of seeing some compilations the abuse she got sent and seeing two minutes of a crap video on Youtube at some point. I point blank said that at least twice now. If you're fantasising all this guff about me based on that, I think it's quite clear that you're the one with a problem.
So she hosted a Kickstarter, where she claimed she was going to do research because video games are sexist (because that's how research works, you choose what you want to believe and cherry pick things to support it- rather than doing research first and then reaching your conclusion). She didn't deliver on the videos, and she got $400,000+ to make about half the number she promised her Kickstarter investors, and what she did produce were low-tier garbage that any teenager can make in his basement in the afternoon. Not only that, but she used "Let's Play" footage without permission from the owners (something which is quick to get Youtube videos shut down otherwise).
So just to get this straight:-
1. She did some minor copyright infringement (which I think we've all been doing since Napster), and
2. She ran a Kickstarter, a platform that very explicitly comes with half a dozen warnings around it being a caveat emptor investment situation, and only produced half the amount of content she said she was originally planning on making?
I'm slightly confused on the second one because you simultaneously say that she 'didn't deliver' and that she 'made about half'. One of those would be the actions of a scammer/swindler, the other is someone who delivered, just not as much as was originally hoped for in a (heavily qualified investment platform based) Kickstarter campaign.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Ketara wrote:What the hell is wrong with you? Do you need a lie down or something? I don't know crap about this beyond some vague recollections of seeing some compilations the abuse she got sent and seeing two minutes of a crap video on Youtube at some point. I point blank said that at least twice now. If you're fantasising all this guff about me based on that, I think it's quite clear that you're the one with a problem.
Oh, I must have been mistaken when I assumed you had good intentions. I won't make that error again, if you like.
Ketara wrote:1. She did some minor copyright infringement (which I think we've all been doing since Napster), and
2. She ran a Kickstarter, a platform that very explicitly comes with half a dozen warnings around it being a caveat emptor investment situation, and only produced half the amount of content she said she was originally planning on making?
I'm slightly confused on the second one because you simultaneously say that she 'didn't deliver and that she 'made about half'. One of those would be the actions of a scammer/swindler, the other is someone who delivered, just not as much as was originally hoped for in a (heavily qualified investment platform based) Kickstarter campaign.
$400,000. Youtube videos with stolen content. Kind of what anyone would consider a scam.
And I'll clue you in on something- if you don't believe the whole, "We're here to fight harassment!" thing isn't often a prelude for a swindle, see 'Bullyhunters'.
97571
Post by: Sqorgar
Da Boss wrote:I just really do not have the same standards you do for consumer journalism. Games journalism has always, always, always been a wink and a nudge from pure shilling. I don't have any expectations that those people are going to represent my interests or do anything other than regurgitate corporate press releases.
The problem is, they started using their position to influence corporate decisions. They'd go, look, the people want this thing! The developers would go, really? And the journalists would go, absolutely. Look, we even wrote thirty articles about it. Then the developers would start treating their fans like gak.
You can see the exact same thing. When The Last Jedi came out and was universally hated, you'd see articles saying things like "Why Star Wars fans don't have to be your audience - and that's a good thing", which attempt to portray anyone who disliked that movie as someone opposed to the diversity politics. And then there's all these articles talking about how amazing Black Panther is for being the first black super hero, which is revisionist history that has no respect for the multiple black super heroes that came before. Remember Ghostbusters 2016 and how terribly Sony treated Ghostbuster fans? Or how comic book fans are all misogynists because they didn't like it when Iron Man was replaced with a teenage black girl who was supposedly smarter and more talented than him. Go check out the headlines for Thundercats Roar. There's an agenda being pushed that not only seeks to change the things that people love, but to blame and shame them for loving it.
Similarly, Anita Sarkeesian is not a gamer. It's obvious by her videos that she doesn't understand video games on a fundamental level and has very minimal exposure to them. And yet she tells us what we are supposed to think about them, then labels us for disagreeing with her. The truth is, she's not a gamer. She wouldn't be caught dead in the same room as a gamer. Her interaction with Boogie was legendary, and very telling. And she's telling us that games are bad and gamers are worse. Is it a surprise that gamers might be slightly offended by this?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Slightly offended? No, that seems totally appropriate. It is the years long hate campaign I don't understand. (Also, I didn't mind TLJ. About as good as Return of the Jedi for me).
I don't think someone has to be a gamer to comment on games, either, btw. But I thought her commentary was pretty basic surface level stuff, not too interesting.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
JohnHwangDD wrote:IDGAF about her. Unless she goes after Kingdom Death. Then, I might just join Kotaku online in trying to get her banned and censored.
John, you've never had a problem with all the posters here, including me, who often point out KDM's foibles and ridiculous sexualization. What gives Sarkesian such power over you?
KDM has always generated a healthy level of objection from a portion of the market. That KDM takes that and keeps doing its thing anyway is part of the charm.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Oh, I must have been mistaken when I assumed you had good intentions. I won't make that error again, if you like.
$400,000. Youtube videos with stolen content. Kind of what anyone would consider a scam.
And I'll clue you in on something- if you don't believe the whole, "We're here to fight harassment!" thing isn't often a prelude for a swindle, see 'Bullyhunters'.
...Sorry, was that first line an attempt at being condescending? I can't quite tell, because you previously wrote a paragraph loftily admonishing me over needing to pick better role models to listen to, when I know nothing about the woman who I'm supposedly paying attention to, or anything she's said or done.
Don't you see how bizare that is?
I'm quite happy to discuss the topic, but I know little about it. Which is why I'm asking you simple questions over what it is that makes her a 'scammer' (something with very clear legal and moral connotations within the realm of law and intent) But I'm all I'm getting out of you is a mangled story and some bizare compulsion to set me up in little strawman chairs to knock down. Which is really quite peculiar and speaks realms as to your degree of personal emotional investment in the story. It is, after all, quite difficult to argue with someone who explicitly states that they don't know the facts (and consequently cannot have an opinion as of yet).
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
BobtheInquisitor wrote:John, you've never had a problem with all the posters here, including me, who often point out KDM's foibles and ridiculous sexualization. What gives Sarkesian such power over you?
Which of our posters here have been on headline news? Just curious.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
She became headline news because of the response to her videos. If people had just shrugged and moved on, she'd not have gotten any exposure.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
Carnikang wrote:Honestly, she's just another agenda pusher who may weight in on the industry... it only matters if her agenda is pushed by someone with backing, or like minds are already in place.
Not to add fuel to fire, but the Warhammer Adventures debacle has put the community into a light that I'm not sure I enjoy all that much. People either reacted horribly (nah mah stuffs no kids) or they seemed to revel in the fact that there was more 'all-important-diversity' (among other things that seemed suspect) and that was the only thing good about the inclusion of the books. That could easily be seized upon by someone like her.
Where did anyone who was excited about Warhammer Adventures state that it was because of the diversity? I read the whole thread on Dakka, and the only pro-diversity supporters were straw men invented by the usual "not muh warhams " types.
The actual pro side was interested in books that would appeal to (their) kids.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Sqorgar wrote:She took in a LOT of money to produce a series of videos (Tropes vs Women), which she never finished,
So (looking for the details here), she made the series, but it wasn't as long as she'd originally planned?
There was also some funniness with the financial statements her non-profit put out. I don't remember exactly what, but it had something to do with the cost breakdown being grossly over inflated.
I'd be wary of that; purely because even on this website alone I've seen cases where a nerd with a bee in their bonnet has attempted to dig through financial statements and concocted wild stories of impropriety out of nothing.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Ketara, essentially she did not deliver everything she promised and what she did deliver was apparently pretty poor quality. A story we have all seen many times before, but without the absolute torrent of outrage seen in this case.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Ketara wrote:I'm quite happy to discuss the topic, but I know little about it. Which is why I'm asking you simple questions over what it is that makes her a 'scammer' (something with very clear legal and moral connotations within the realm of law and morality) But I'm all I'm getting out of you is a mangled story and some bizare compulsion to set me up in little strawman chairs to knock down. Which is really quite peculiar and speaks realms as to your degree of personal emotional investment in the story. It is, after all, quite difficult to argue with someone who explicitly states that they don't know the facts (and consequently cannot have an opinion as of yet).
Oh, well then clearly I misunderstood. Sorry, I tend to assume that people are as familiar with things as I am too often. I didn't mean to do that.
Anyway, yes- she's seen as a 'scammer' because she took $400,000 in Kickstarter funds and produced something my 13 year old nephew can make in a couple of afternoons. She then dropped the project- and she's got ties to an older Pyramid/Ponzi scheme that had actual arrests in the past. Additionally, it's also believed by many that she's essentially holding her hand out and telling insecure and ill-informed persons she can help solve a problem, while her 'proof' that this problem even exists is a bunch of cherry-picked data.
That's why she's seen as a scammer.
Now, combine that "I'm here to fix harassment" with a more recent debacle with "Bullyhunters". People have seen something ripe for exploitation and the jackals have come out to feed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Da Boss wrote:She became headline news because of the response to her videos. If people had just shrugged and moved on, she'd not have gotten any exposure.
The Orange Mean Man in the white house putting ketchup on his steak is headline news. Let's not act like it takes a moral outrage.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Adeptus: There are jackals on the other side of it too though - that fella making a documentary about her and shilling for crowdfunding money. I will look him up and post a link. Jorden Owen and Davis Aurini. They had a patreon for their documentary about Anita Sarkeesian and failed to deliver. Aurini is also a racist white nationalist. I would assume you are just as outraged about them, and disgusted at the lack of a large campaign of people castigating them for their lack of ethics?
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Ketara wrote: Sqorgar wrote:She took in a LOT of money to produce a series of videos (Tropes vs Women), which she never finished,
So (looking for the details here), she made the series, but it wasn't as long as she'd originally planned?
No, it was abruptly dropped. Not only was it that, but as I've said- what she did, there is no way on this earth that she needed $400,000. Automatically Appended Next Post: Da Boss wrote:Adeptus: There are jackals on the other side of it too though - that fella making a documentary about her and shilling for crowdfunding money. I will look him up and post a link.
I know who you're talking about. Both fellas, actually. And they couldn't get their act together. Both of them are idiots.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Da Boss wrote:Jorden Owen and Davis Aurini. They had a patreon for their documentary about Anita Sarkeesian and failed to deliver. Aurini is also a racist white nationalist. I would assume you are just as outraged about them, and disgusted at the lack of a large campaign of people castigating them for their lack of ethics?
Well, neither of them made headline news. And as I said, they're both idiots. They're not only idiots, but they're childish idiots and I have no doubts they looked at this and said, "Let's make a buck off this an promise something we can't deliver".
But again, these idiots don't have mobs rushing to their defense, either. Even among the opposition to Anita, these two were a joke.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
So why didn't people just drop Anita as a joke when it was obvious her critiques were fairly badly thought out?
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Da Boss wrote:So why didn't people just drop Anita as a joke when it was obvious her critiques were fairly badly thought out?
Because, for some reason, if someone has a complaint and a pair of boobs-dudes lose their damned minds once she bats her eyelashes. That, and there are a good number of people that want to turn everything into an ideological battleground. Again, see 'Bullyhunters'.
I just want to play games. I just want to come home from work at the end of the day, kick my shoes off, slip into a pair of shorts and a tee shirt, have some dinner, and play a damned game. I just want to go to my friendly local gaming store and throw some dice around and play little plastic war dudes. I just want to read a comic book, watch a tiddy movie, and chill out. That's all. I'm not asking anyone to do anything other than 'piss off and leave me be'. I'm not hurting anyone, I'm just a regular person and I'm unwinding.
I don't want to be called a bigot for doing that. I don't want to be called a pig because I like artwork of attractive women. I don't want to be lectured and questioned and pestered because this is my goddamned free time. I don't want the one thing that I can share with people, regardless of who they are, tainted with this childish bickering from tribalist loons.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
Adeptus Doritos wrote: BobtheInquisitor wrote:John, you've never had a problem with all the posters here, including me, who often point out KDM's foibles and ridiculous sexualization. What gives Sarkesian such power over you?
Which of our posters here have been on headline news? Just curious.
So, you're saying the content of what she says doesn't matter. What makes her different is that she is widely known (and hated)? It's the size of her soapbox that's the issue? If you've read through the KDM threads, there have been many tut-tutting articles about it in mainstream press already, some with far bigger profiles than Anita Sarkesian.
Don't let her get to you. You're the one giving her power over you that you would never let the Guardian or Forbes or the BBC have over you.
Besides, higher-profile outrage that brings more eyes to KDM will only translate into more profits for Adam Poots.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Da Boss wrote:Ketara, essentially she did not deliver everything she promised and what she did deliver was apparently pretty poor quality. A story we have all seen many times before, but without the absolute torrent of outrage seen in this case.
Okay. I've just looked into it to see what all the fuss and vitriol is about. Apparently Anita looked to raise $6000 to make five videos of 10-20 minutes in length. It funded in 24 hours though, so in excitement, she gradually put in four stretch goals to raise the quality and take it up to twelve videos. It finally funded at $158,922 (so I'm unsure where this $400,000 people are bandying around comes from). Looking online, I'm seeing ten videos made over a three year period, and apparently, she did indeed improve the quality from what she was producing before (I found a website where one girl was talking about the different equipment used in the production).
So to summarise, right now, after spending twenty minutes of my life I'll never get back investigating; she ducked out two episodes early after the campaign went waaay beyond anything originally planned. And she improved the quality, but not as much as some people think that the amount raised should justify.
None of which makes her a scammer by any reasonable stretch of imagination. Am I missing something or are these facts on the level?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
So, you are saying that this only happens because Anita is a woman. Okay, totally agree.
I want all those things too. I do those things. If someone calls me a bigot for doing them, I just ignore them. It doesn't bother me. These people cannot lecture or pester me, I have to seek them out to see their opinions. Once I've decided they don't have much of value to say, I just move on. I also do not want things to be tainted by childish bickering. So I am asking what it is about our communities and hobbies that causes this dramatic over reaction and overly defensive response?
In a world with free speech, you've got to accept that some of it is going to be stuff you don't agree with. Just get on with life would be my advice. Don't let it eat you up. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ketara wrote: Da Boss wrote:Ketara, essentially she did not deliver everything she promised and what she did deliver was apparently pretty poor quality. A story we have all seen many times before, but without the absolute torrent of outrage seen in this case.
Okay. I've just looked into it to see what all the fuss and vitriol is about. Apparently Anita looked to raise $6000 to make five videos of 10-20 minutes in length. It funded in 24 hours though, so in excitement, she gradually put in four stretch goals to raise the quality and take it up to twelve videos. It finally funded at $158,922 (so I'm unsure where this $400,000 people are bandying around comes from). Looking online, I'm seeing ten videos made over a three year period, and apparently, she did indeed improve the quality from what she was producing before (I found a website where one girl was talking about the different equipment used in the prodution).
So to summarise, right now, after spending twenty minutes of my life I'll never get back investigating; she ducked out two episodes early after the campaign went waaay beyond anything originally planned. And she improved the quality, but not as much as some people think that the amount raised should justify.
None of which makes her a scammer by any reasonable stretch of imagination. Am I missing something or are these facts on the level?
Nah, I think that is the basic gist of it.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
BobtheInquisitor wrote:Don't let her get to you. You're the one giving her power over you that you would never let the Guardian or Forbes or the BBC have over you.
Besides, higher-profile outrage that brings more eyes to KDM will only translate into more profits for Adam Poots.
And you may be right here, I'll give you that. But 'ignoring the problem' has never fixed much. I believe that gaming as a whole has a genuine problem- and it's exploiting insecure and well-meaning people. I don't care if someone's a feminist, go be a feminist or a liberal or Alt-Right or a Furry or whatever the hell you want to be. That's fine, I'm not trying to change the world.
But don't come in selling snake oil. Because even if I vehemently disagree with someone, I will draw the line at a predatory piece of garbage on the doorstep. You might deserve your points debated, perhaps even ridiculed- but I don't like people trying to use your emotions and concerns to exploit you. Because a lot of the people that fall for the extremes hook, line, and sinker aren't older adults- they're kids. And that bothers me a lot.
Ketara wrote:Okay. I've just looked into it to see what all the fuss and vitriol is about. Apparently Anita looked to raise $6000 to make five videos of 10-20 minutes in length. It funded in 24 hours though, so in excitement, she gradually put in four stretch goals to raise the quality and take it up to twelve videos. It finally funded at $158,922 (so I'm unsure where this $400,000 people are bandying around comes from). Looking online, I'm seeing eleven videos made over a three year period, and apparently, she did indeed improve the quality from what she was producing before (I found a website where one girl was talking about the different equipment used in the prodution).
So to summarise, right now, after spending twenty minutes of my life I'll never get back investigating; she ducked out one episode early after the campaign went waaay beyond anything originally planned. And she improved the quality, but not as much as some people think that the amount raised should justify.
None of which makes her a scammer by any reasonable stretch of imagination. Am I missing something or are these facts on the level?
Eleven videos in three years. I can crank out one video a week if I'm researching the topic and have $400,000 to keep me intoxicated and fed. One of those Youtubers mentioned on the first page of this thread as a 'hates women' type cranks out at least one video a week of the same or higher quality.
Keep in mind, $400,000... and the 'quality' didn't improve until her own investors started asking what was taking so long and where the money went.
So yeah, half-assing a project is kind of a scam. Not only that, but using bad data... that gets it.
Now, don't get me wrong- it's no "City of Titans MMORPG" scam, but it's still a scam. Automatically Appended Next Post: Da Boss wrote:So, you are saying that this only happens because Anita is a woman. Okay, totally agree.
Uh, well, yeah. It kinda is. If a guy did it, everyone would ignore it or point and laugh. Or the crazy feminists would show up and tell him to burn his peepee with a candle and stay quiet.
But it boils down to two extremes getting the spotlight- like the little meme where guys are arguing that all women are THOTs or all women are queens.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Eleven videos in three years. I can crank out one video a week if I'm researching the topic and have $400,000 to keep me intoxicated and fed.
You keep saying $400,000. I literally just looked at the KS and it said less than half of that. Did she get funds from elsewhere that I'm not aware of? Or have you literally just formed an opinion about this without even checking and made the figure up?
One of those Youtubers mentioned on the first page of this thread as a 'hates women' type cranks out at least one video a week of the same or higher quality.
Your speed or quality of production does not make you a scammer.
Not only that, but using bad data... that gets it.
Now, don't get me wrong- it's no "City of Titans MMORPG" scam, but it's still a scam.
'Scammer' is a word with very clear definitions. I'm still waiting to hear why it applies here.
There's clearly no intent to run away with no return, given ten videos were produced from an original plan of six. Granted, she left two undone from the last stretch goal, which if I'd pledged solely on the basis of quantity (which I doubt anyone did) it would annoy me. At the same time though, any sensible person pledging on KS is aware that those sorts of occurrences are common, and it is very clearly laid out in the T&C. It's an investment platform, and I have no idea what her reasons or motivations were for not doing the final two. Certainly my first assumption wouldn't be that she was filled with criminal intent to defraud.,
Either way, from a completely neutral and frankly, uncaring standpoint, I'm not seeing why the word 'scammer' would be applied, any more than the word 'writer', 'philanthropist' or 'convict'. If there's more to this, please feel free to bring fresh facts to my attention, but I've wasted enough of my life that I'm not going looking for further information.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Ketara wrote:
You keep saying $400,000. I literally just looked at the KS and it said less than half of that. Did she get funds from elsewhere that I'm not aware of? Or have you literally just formed an opinion about this without even checking and made the figure up?
No, I did research. High-quality research and I'm not asking for your money to do so and you'll be getting the product on the same day. As of right now, I'm better than she is about research.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/01/24/anita-sarkeesian-releases-kickstarter-breakdown-raised-440000-in-2014/#60c4e5a4e1ea
Ketara wrote:'Scammer' is a word with very clear definitions. I'm still waiting to hear why it applies here.
Would you feel better if I say "ripoff"? Because it's either a ripoff, a scam, or she's an absolutely incompetent person.
If you're stating that 'intent' is what matters, well- we will never know her intent. But considering her shady background and the way she actually conducts 'research'...
Let's just say she's either malicious or stupid. I don't care which one, as a matter of fact- I'll let you pick.
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
Ketara wrote: Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Oh, I must have been mistaken when I assumed you had good intentions. I won't make that error again, if you like.
$400,000. Youtube videos with stolen content. Kind of what anyone would consider a scam.
And I'll clue you in on something- if you don't believe the whole, "We're here to fight harassment!" thing isn't often a prelude for a swindle, see 'Bullyhunters'.
...Sorry, was that first line an attempt at being condescending? I can't quite tell, because you previously wrote a paragraph loftily admonishing me over needing to pick better role models to listen to, when I know nothing about the woman who I'm supposedly paying attention to, or anything she's said or done.
Don't you see how bizare that is?
I'm quite happy to discuss the topic, but I know little about it. Which is why I'm asking you simple questions over what it is that makes her a 'scammer' (something with very clear legal and moral connotations within the realm of law and intent) But I'm all I'm getting out of you is a mangled story and some bizare compulsion to set me up in little strawman chairs to knock down. Which is really quite peculiar and speaks realms as to your degree of personal emotional investment in the story. It is, after all, quite difficult to argue with someone who explicitly states that they don't know the facts (and consequently cannot have an opinion as of yet).
The specifics aside - you're not coming across as someone with a low level of knowledge trying to figure out what's going on. You're coming across as "I'm just asking questions" in the "Is this person a murderer? Did they beat their wife? Did they cook that man's pet gerbil in a microwave? I don't know, I'm just asking questions..." kind of way that someone who knows exactly what's going on does when they want to bait someone they disagree with into making themselves look silly. If that's not the case I'm sure AD will regret reacting so strongly.
Da Boss wrote:Ketara, essentially she did not deliver everything she promised and what she did deliver was apparently pretty poor quality. A story we have all seen many times before, but without the absolute torrent of outrage seen in this case.
Ehhh, I recall the initial round of outrage being fairly contained to the Usual Suspects. It only became truly ridiculous after that initial burst of mindless derp from a known tiny minority was used by some clickbait merchants to suggest that gamers as a group are fundamentally tainted because that minority exists(ignoring that they exist everywhere, in everything) that the backlash got ridiculous. Which is not to excuse the backlash, but she didn't just make a couple of shoddy videos and suddenly become the Great Enemy of all Gamerdom, both sides of the culture war outrage machine had a hand in driving things to that point.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Yodhrin wrote:The specifics aside - you're not coming across as someone with a low level of knowledge trying to figure out what's going on. You're coming across as "I'm just asking questions" in the "Is this person a murderer? Did they beat their wife? Did they cook that man's pet gerbil in a microwave? I don't know, I'm just asking questions..." kind of way that someone who knows exactly what's going on does when they want to bait someone they disagree with into making themselves look silly. If that's not the case I'm sure AD will regret reacting so strongly.
I know the game being played. Very will. You pretend to know nothing about it, to have someone speak their points and then go after them. We've already had the great and wonderful "I find it odd this only happens because she's a woman" thing come out.
Please, Jonathan McIntosh is one of my favorite social media lolcows.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
No, I did research. High-quality research and I'm not asking for your money to do so and you'll be getting the product on the same day. As of right now, I'm better than she is about research.
Questionable, scrutinising your link. The Forbes article states that the $440,000 was raised by her organisation. Not her KS. She registered as a non-profit, apparently, and solicited donations elsewhere. Which she is, of course, free to spend as she sees fit within the remit of the stated goals of the organisation. Where is the scam and why does money acquired elsewhere for other things (like the advocacy efforts mentioned in the article) have anything to do with her taking money for the explicit purpose of producing these videos?
I mean, I don't tell CMON off for spending profits acquired through selling webstore goods on something other than a KS, do I? You wouldn't query a headmaster running a raffle for spending money earnt during his day job on something other than that.
Would you feel better if I say "ripoff"?
It would only be a ripoff if your sole reason for your donation was the quantity of episodes produced. Granted, perhaps there are a few such people. But as stated, that is an explicit feature and risk of the KS platform. If an author puts up a 400 page book up on KS, it funds, and it turns out with a little judicious editing to only need 350 pages, not many people would focus in on the page count and start making storming denunciations about the author being a scammer.
Why? Because it would be frakkin weird.
If you're stating that 'intent' is what matters, well- we will never know her intent.
It would be strange to label her a scammer without that vital piece of information, given that she does not appear to have defrauded anyone or been taken to court.
But considering her shady background and the way she actually conducts 'research'...
Let's just say she's either malicious or stupid. I don't care which one, as a matter of fact- I'll let you pick.
Fox News and the Daily Mail do bad research. The first descriptive word which springs to mind isn't 'scammer' though.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Yodhrin wrote:The specifics aside - you're not coming across as someone with a low level of knowledge trying to figure out what's going on. You're coming across as "I'm just asking questions" in the "Is this person a murderer? Did they beat their wife? Did they cook that man's pet gerbil in a microwave? I don't know, I'm just asking questions..." kind of way that someone who knows exactly what's going on does when they want to bait someone they disagree with into making themselves look silly. If that's not the case I'm sure AD will regret reacting so strongly.
I know the game being played. Very will. You pretend to know nothing about it, to have someone speak their points and then go after them. We've already had the great and wonderful "I find it odd this only happens because she's a woman" thing come out.
Please, Jonathan McIntosh is one of my favorite social media lolcows.
I am not arguing from a disingenuous place fwiw. I honestly do think this only happened because she is a woman, because there is a pretty big segment of "gamerdom" that has a problem with women. "Not all gamers" and all that, but I just do not see this happening to non women to the same extent. I have never heard of Jonathan McIntosh for example, never seen anyone who made a series of videos about him or obsessed about him to the extent people like Sargon of Akhad, or Thunderf00t do about Anita. I saw her early videos, thought "That is disappointingly shallow" and only paid attention again when it was going mental, and then checked in a few times to see why it was still going on a month later, six months later, a year later. It made me pretty sad. When my non-nerd friends heard about it, I was embarrassed. I am embarrassed by the reactions I see in this thread, years later.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Yodhrin wrote:
The specifics aside - you're not coming across as someone with a low level of knowledge trying to figure out what's going on. You're coming across as "I'm just asking questions" in the "Is this person a murderer? Did they beat their wife? Did they cook that man's pet gerbil in a microwave? I don't know, I'm just asking questions..." kind of way that someone who knows exactly what's going on does when they want to bait someone they disagree with into making themselves look silly. If that's not the case I'm sure AD will regret reacting so strongly.
I see. Most be one of those text/tone things. In that case, I'll state here quite clearly that I knew sweet fanny adams really about the matter before I read this thread, and having now looked into it; I'm no closer to seeing why one slightly dreary internet content producer is worthy of any real attention or concern than when I started. She hasn't defrauded anyone, she hasn't done anything particularly offensive, and given the common crossover between miniature games/computer games, I don't see why there should be any controversy over her attending a convention as a guest (assuming she's relevant for a specific point under discussion).
46094
Post by: KingmanHighborn
I'm okay with her, a lot of what she says is grounded in truth, and she's endured a lot of unfair death threats and attacks. I don't agree with everything she says either, but at least she isn't some crazy alt-right loon or something.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Ketara wrote:Questionable, scrutinising your link. The Forbes article states that the $440,000 was raised by her organisation. Not her KS. She registered as a non-profit, apparently, and solicited donations elsewhere. Which she is, of course, free to spend as she sees fit within the remit of the stated goals of the organisation. Where is the scam and why does money acquired elsewhere for other things (like the advocacy efforts mentioned in the article) have anything to do with her taking money for the explicit purpose of producing these videos?
Well, let's see those paid appearances I'm sure raked in cash.
Either way, let's just for the sake of argument say she got $200,000. Nah, screw that.
Let's say she got $100,000. One hundred thousand dollars. It still doesn't add up. Look at the quality, objectively. Her critics have shown to have better quality and make a fraction of it. But that's okay- most people don't like admitting they got screwed over, because it makes them look stupid.
Ketara wrote:I mean, I don't tell CMON off for spending profits acquired through selling webstore goods on something other than a KS, do I? You wouldn't query a headmaster running a raffle for spending money earnt during his day job on something other than that.
If I give you money to cut my lawn, and you run the mower through the middle of it and go invest in a pressure washer, I'm going to be mad. You asked for my money to provide a service or product, and instead you went and did something else- that's kind of ripping me off.
Ketara wrote:It would only be a ripoff if your sole reason for your donation was the quantity of episodes produced. Granted, perhaps there are a few such people. But as stated, that is an explicit feature and risk of the KS platform. If an author puts up a 400 page book up on KS, it funds, and it turns out with a little judicious editing to only need 350 pages, not many people would focus in on the page count and start making storming denunciations about the author being a scammer.
If you promise me you'll make me ten pieces of fried chicken for a sum of money, and show up with eleven- you're going to find I'll be asking about that last piece. And I'll be quite upset if you've just taken cold KFC out of someone else's fridge and put it on your own plate.
Ketara wrote:It would be strange to label her a scammer without that vital piece of information, given that she does not appear to have defrauded anyone or been taken to court.
You know what else has a definition? "Threat" and "Harasser". I'll let the "she never went to court" argument fly when the same is acceptable for these "evil trolls". So, if there's no scam there's no harassment, either- by your logic.
Ketara wrote:Fox News and the Daily Mail do bad research. The first descriptive word which springs to mind isn't 'scammer' though.
Neither of which have offered you something in exchange for money and delivered a shoddy final result based on false information, either. These are existing products and services and you know about them already.
If I offered to do research for you on Anita Sarkeesian, and came back with a Ralph Retort article and a poor-quality video of some Youtuber screaming about SJWoowoos, you'd be pretty disappointed. Automatically Appended Next Post: Da Boss wrote: I have never heard of Jonathan McIntosh for example, never seen anyone who made a series of videos about him or obsessed about him to the extent people like Sargon of Akhad, or Thunderf00t do about Anita.
Because McIntosh says the same absurd stuff Anita does, and because he's not a woman people make fun of him and laugh at him about it. Something with a vagina shows up and says, "The sky is green" and suddenly neckbeards are re-evaluating the naming of colors and arguing that she's got a point and anyone who disagrees hates women.
Da Boss wrote:I am embarrassed by the reactions I see in this thread, years later.
Maybe your fret too much. I'm not embarassed. What I told my friends?
"Yeah, it's just some huckster trying to stir controversy for a buck, a lot of victim and identity politics. You know, the stuff we usually make fun of."
98515
Post by: Lord Kragan
Such as?
Like, seriously, the only two things I've seen of her are: a) video about female posture being somehow sexist (even though it's mimicking real movements) and b) the hitman video (which... is an entirely optional thing to do in a game about killing)
She is utterly inconsequential and I would love for both haters and other groups to drop her as the irrelevant source she is.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Well, let's see those paid appearances I'm sure raked in cash.
Either way, let's just for the sake of argument say she got $200,000. Nah, screw that.
Let's say she got $100,000. One hundred thousand dollars. It still doesn't add up. Look at the quality, objectively. Her critics have shown to have better quality and make a fraction of it. But that's okay- most people don't like admitting they got screwed over, because it makes them look stupid.
We know exactly how much she got. I posted it above. A little shy of $160,000. That's the money that she took in explicitly to produce these videos. That's the sum. Given that she only asked for $6000, and had already made videos previously, it would have been quite clear to all involved the level of investment into production quality that was to be expected. If she had raised $6000 exactly, nobody would have batted an eyelid at what was put out.
Just because more people choose to invest does not equal an obligation for an equivalent rise in production quality to match it. Any more than if Maelstrom's Edge had hit £200,000,000, you would expect gold plated miniatures. The woman has no desire to be a professional movie maker, and no such aim or ambition was expressed (as far as I can tell). She said that she would increase the production quality as a stretch goal. And she did, to the tune of a few thousand extra spent on it. Given no quantitative or qualitative marker on her commitment, she has absolutely met it.
Ergo, there is no scam on that front. Unrealistic expectations on the part of people, perhaps. But no scam.
If I give you money to cut my lawn, and you run the mower through the middle of it and go invest in a pressure washer, I'm going to be mad. You asked for my money to provide a service or product, and instead you went and did something else- that's kind of ripping me off.
You've missed the analogy. I'll run using yours to try and make it clearer.
It's like you giving me $40 to go and buy a lawn mower to mow your lawn. I then go off, work a day job, and make money elsewhere. I spend that money elsewhere. I buy the $40 lawn mower and mow your lawn using the originally agreed mower.
You then jump up and down and ask me why I didn't use the money I earned elsewhere to buy a better lawn mower.
Just because she raised $250,000 from other sources for other things does not obligate her to spend it on her KS product.
If you promise me you'll make me ten pieces of fried chicken for a sum of money, and show up with eleven- you're going to find I'll be asking about that last piece. And I'll be quite upset if you've just taken cold KFC out of someone else's fridge and put it on your own plate.
I've agreed that if you were solely interested in quantitative output, yes, it would be a ripoff. I continue to state though that I would find it strange as hell to hassle the author for not writing fifty extra pages. I mean, if that's your thing, you do you, and sure, you expected them. But even then, this is still Kickstarter, and it goes with the territory. Expecting a 100% accurate translation between concept and product when dealing with creative content is a recipe for eternal disappointment.
You know what else has a definition? "Threat" and "Harasser". I'll let the "she never went to court" argument fly when the same is acceptable for these "evil trolls". So, if there's no scam there's no harassment, either- by your logic.
...You're starting to embarass yourself now. Words have meanings. You used one, it doesn't fit very well. Get over it.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
BobtheInquisitor wrote: JohnHwangDD wrote:IDGAF about her. Unless she goes after Kingdom Death. Then, I might just join Kotaku online in trying to get her banned and censored.
John, you've never had a problem with all the posters here, including me, who often point out KDM's foibles and ridiculous sexualization. What gives Sarkesian such power over you?
KDM has always generated a healthy level of objection from a portion of the market. That KDM takes that and keeps doing its thing anyway is part of the charm.
None here are creating public controversy as a minor celebrity. She might.
KDM generates a excessive amount of complaint about superficial appearance, among ignorant people who paint it as Larry Flynt's Hustler of board gaming, when it's really not. At all.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Ketara wrote:
We know exactly how much she got. I posted it above. A little shy of $160,000. That's the money that she took in explicitly to produce these videos. That's the sum. Given that she only asked for $6000, and had already made videos previously, it would have been quite clear to all involved the level of investment into production quality that was to be expected. If she had raised $6000 exactly, nobody would have batted an eyelid at what was put out.
...ah, that's right.
She didn't need the money for research to make the videos. She made the videos and was e-begging, and stupid people gave her cash.
Yes, quality and quantity are relevant if you're making a product I've paid for. If I give you a pizza missing slices, and it's been under a heat lamp after I've promised a scratch-made, high-quality brick oven pizza- you'll be rather upset.
Ketara wrote:...You're starting to embarass yourself now. Words have meanings. You used one, it doesn't fit very well. Get over it.
Nah. I'm not embarassed at all. I'm spot on. Then again, I would be embarassed if I had to defend this. I don't see how you do it.
The point stands, "She never went to court for it so it doesn't count". Well, then I hold her 'harassers' and 'threats' to the same standards. Not even an arrest, and these are crimes. Hmmm... maybe they're not legitimate.
Furthermore, it's rather piss-poor that an anti-bullying celeb is on video, bullying and name-calling from a speaking platform. She is a toxic element and needs to be kept out, along with her cult.
86330
Post by: Carnikang
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Carnikang wrote:Honestly, she's just another agenda pusher who may weight in on the industry... it only matters if her agenda is pushed by someone with backing, or like minds are already in place.
Not to add fuel to fire, but the Warhammer Adventures debacle has put the community into a light that I'm not sure I enjoy all that much. People either reacted horribly (nah mah stuffs no kids) or they seemed to revel in the fact that there was more 'all-important-diversity' (among other things that seemed suspect) and that was the only thing good about the inclusion of the books. That could easily be seized upon by someone like her.
Where did anyone who was excited about Warhammer Adventures state that it was because of the diversity? I read the whole thread on Dakka, and the only pro-diversity supporters were straw men invented by the usual "not muh warhams " types.
The actual pro side was interested in books that would appeal to (their) kids.
Firmly in that bolded group myself, but I have spoken with some people on a local level, and through online interactions in other medium than Dakka. It wasn't a lot, but there was a small (but as always, vocal) portion that celebrated it because it wasn't the same stuff/more diverse. Not saying that was everyone, just like a good portion of the 'rage' was more jabs at it. Again though, Not on Dakka and through personal talks with some people locally, there was some actual anger about it.
Like I said, these aren't the whole populations of the many faceted community, and even then, the smaller community of Dakka didn't exempt some of the opinions I saw. I'm just watching and seeing a possible issue with someone reading the wrong bit rhetoric and latching onto that. I know for one if Anita was linked one of Arch warhammer's vids on WH;Adventures, I bet a nickel (to you personally Bob) that she would have something to say. They weren't very flattering or welcome of the books, to say the least.
KingmanHighborn wrote:I'm okay with her, a lot of what she says is grounded in truth, and she's endured a lot of unfair death threats and attacks. I don't agree with everything she says either, but at least she isn't some crazy alt-right loon or something.
Probably for the best that she's not actually a hard left or alt-right. Using either 'fan-base' is bad enough without actually being a fervent believer in the smoke you're blowing. That just gives it a whole new tone and sort of threat level. Then again, it might alleviate some of the worst cases of information, because she would forcibly say things using more erratic/wild logic or extreme lingo some of them use. It would put the whole thing in a more easily viewed light.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Carnikang wrote:Like I said, these aren't the whole populations of the many faceted community, and even then, the smaller community of Dakka didn't exempt some of the opinions I saw. I'm just watching and seeing a possible issue with someone reading the wrong bit rhetoric and latching onto that. I know for one if Anita was linked one of Arch warhammer's vids on WH;Adventures, I bet a nickel (to you personally Bob) that she would have something to say. They weren't very flattering or welcome of the books, to say the least.
Yes. We have 'Arch'. I don't think he's a blight on the community, he's not as bad as people make him out to be- but he's really unwise in the way he words things, and chooses odd hills to die on. You could argue the Swede is part of the problem. I wouldn't even say you're wrong. Jeremy Hamblin is another. I don't really support that guy after doing some digging on his behavior. I think they're both desperate for the clicks and they tend to lean toward the other end of the outrage mob.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
...ah, that's right.
She didn't need the money for research to make the videos. She made the videos and was e-begging, and stupid people gave her cash.
Basically. But people giving you money on the side doesn't equal an obligation to use that money for a KS. She's free to use it for whatever she likes, as long as she was clear to those people back then what she was planning on doing with it (in this case, advocacy).
Yes, quality and quantity are relevant if you're making a product I've paid for. If I give you a pizza missing slices, and it's been under a heat lamp after I've promised a scratch-made, high-quality brick oven pizza- you'll be rather upset.
Sure. And in more substantial, concrete things, I'd agree with you. But there's two specific things here that modify my opinion.
1. The speculative nature. This is an investment, with no guaranteed return. You're providing money to help realise the creation of a project, not in exchange for a specific return.This is clearly laid out.
2. The form of product being created, namely, creative content. Like with the book example, the output isn't usually measured primarily by the total quantitative output but that of the achieved goal. If people invest money to have an hour long nature documentary about seals made, few people complain when the seal documentary is 55 minutes long. They wanted a seal documentary, they got one.
This is different to a miniatures KS, where you're not investing so much for the abstract 'creation' of a line of miniatures, but for specific rewards.
Nah. I'm not embarassed at all. I'm spot on. Then again, I would be embarassed if I had to defend this. I don't see how you do it.
The point stands, "She never went to court for it so it doesn't count". Well, then I hold her 'harassers' and 'threats' to the same standards. Not even an arrest, and these are crimes. Hmmm... maybe they're not legitimate.
You've mistakenly seized upon one part of a greater point, isolated it, and then ignored the rest. I'll reiterate in very clear explicit language.
If you are going to label someone a scammer, you need to have established that people were 'scammed', or that the person deliberately set out to be a 'scammer'; a 'scammer' being someone who deliberately and purposefully defrauds another of goods or money. Without these things, applying the descriptive phrase 'scammer' is incorrect.
Going to court and being successfully prosecuted would be proof of the first kind (that people have been scammed). Another would be to demonstrate that people had signed a binding contract, and been cheated, or that they had been misled into making an agreement where they were not fully aware of the relevant circumstance. That sort of thing. Alternatively, a confession by the person or evidence of their intent would suffice, assuming we do not have reason to suspect it (torture, etc).
In this case, you have admitted to having no proof regarding her intent. There is no kind of criminal record either. In which case, we are left grasping for justification that she deliberately defrauded people. We've established already that the quality of her product is an irrelevant corollary given it meets the description (i.e. videos about specific subjects). Furthermore, given that she made 10 of 12 videos, it is unlikely that this was ever a deliberate deception to obtain goods/money. The contract used on KS makes clear the speculative basis of the financial commitment, and she offered sufficient proof/projections of what she was likely to turn out through multiple channels before the Kickstarter concluded. All of which have been accurate.
Ergo, it would be wrong to call her a 'scammer'. She's not like Daniel Mandelbaum. You could happily call her unreliable, because she's slow, or not particularly gifted because her videos aren't the best, or a poor researcher, because her facts are off. But scammer? Nah guv. She's not a crook.
86330
Post by: Carnikang
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Carnikang wrote:Like I said, these aren't the whole populations of the many faceted community, and even then, the smaller community of Dakka didn't exempt some of the opinions I saw. I'm just watching and seeing a possible issue with someone reading the wrong bit rhetoric and latching onto that. I know for one if Anita was linked one of Arch warhammer's vids on WH;Adventures, I bet a nickel (to you personally Bob) that she would have something to say. They weren't very flattering or welcome of the books, to say the least.
Yes. We have 'Arch'. I don't think he's a blight on the community, he's not as bad as people make him out to be- but he's really unwise in the way he words things, and chooses odd hills to die on. You could argue the Swede is part of the problem. I wouldn't even say you're wrong. Jeremy Hamblin is another. I don't really support that guy after doing some digging on his behavior. I think they're both desperate for the clicks and they tend to lean toward the other end of the outrage mob.
Personally, I like some of Archs views, but I also do not like others. He makes decent videos at times. Other times, his views are... interesting. I have listened to that discussion he had with Unsleeved Media, and the subsequent videos about 40K Feminists, and I have to say, I think there may be 'legitimate' worries founded on shakey logic or evidence. That's remain to be seen though. While I may not believe that 'der feminazis are cummin for my minis' I do believe that a group that tries to say that it's tolerant can and will frame those it doesn't like (or are vocal in opposition to) as intolerant of even the smallest change to a setting or product.
110703
Post by: Galas
Man, it sucks to not have been aware that Gamergate was even a thing until it ended, avoiding all of that crap, to then just see it reappear every 3-5 months in other places.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Ketara wrote:
If you are going to label someone a scammer, you need to have established that people were 'scammed', or that the person deliberately set out to be a 'scammer'; a 'scammer' being someone who deliberately and purposefully defrauds another of goods or money. Without these things, applying the descriptive phrase 'scammer' is incorrect.
Then I'll stick with labeling her incompetent. However, keep in mind- that much of the stink that rose accusing her of being a 'scammer' came from her own donors.
So, sure- you can easily say what she did isn't illegal. But that doesn't mean it was ethical. It was still pretty scummy, and I'll label that a swindle or a scam or a ripoff.
Or maybe she found a bunch of gullible morons and exploited them. Legal, but it happened.
Either way, it's not changing my rather significant disgust for her.
So no, she broke no laws that we can prove. But that doesn't mean she did the right thing, and it wasn't scummy.
Carnikang wrote:Personally, I like some of Archs views, but I also do not like others. He makes decent videos at times. Other times, his views are... interesting. I have listened to that discussion he had with Unsleeved Media, and the subsequent videos about 40K Feminists, and I have to say, I think there may be 'legitimate' worries founded on shakey logic or evidence. That's remain to be seen though. While I may not believe that 'der feminazis are cummin for my minis' I do believe that a group that tries to say that it's tolerant can and will frame those it doesn't like (or are vocal in opposition to) as intolerant of even the smallest change to a setting or product.
He's got some points, but I think the first thing he did wrong was he started complaining about the SJWoowoos, instead of using the most powerful tool at our disposal- ridicule.
And no, I don't believe the feminazis are coming for the minis, either. After all, this a group whose first point on their FAQ was "No, we're not a troll page and we're actually serious about this." That's not a threat at all.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Galas wrote:Man, it sucks to not have been aware that Gamergate was even a thing until it ended, avoiding all of that crap, to then just see it reappear every 3-5 months in other places.
I won't lie, having successfully more or less avoided it until now, I'm highly disappointed at how utterly mundane the whole thing seems to be. I mean, when I set out to look into it, I was expecting something mildly salacious and interesting given all the rage and emotive language, not just someone making a ten episode youtube series instead of twelve.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Ketara wrote:I won't lie, having successfully more or less avoided it until now, I'm highly disappointed at how utterly mundane the whole thing seems to be. I mean, when I set out to look into it, I was expecting something mildly salacious and interesting given all the rage and emotive language, not just someone making a ten episode youtube series instead of twelve.
That wasn't Gamergate. Not that the real thing was a spectacle, but Anita was pretty much ignored and forgotten for a while and would seldom crop up as an issue.
If you want real comedy gold, go find Anita's tweets when she was at E3. Apparently, she was shocked that Doom had violence and guns in it.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
Carnikang, I read your statement as dividing "the community" into two camps, and those two camps into pro-diversity and anti, which is where I disagreed. If you are qualifying that you only meant a small portion of the community, more or less the usual agitators, then that's different and a much lesser matter for the community as a whole. When you describe the Warhammer Adventures reaction as a debacle, it sounds more like condemnation of the community than a footnote about some rowdy jerks on the Internet.
I would wager that the largest part of the community reacted with apathy, followed by a portion displaying a combination of amusement and curiosity. There might be enough excited supporters and detractors globally to fill a convention hall. But conflict and outrage sell, so that last group will get all the attention.
I don't know who Arch is, and am mostly familiar with Sarkesian through her reputation, but I would not take that bet. Her job is having something to say, and she seems to be good at it.
86330
Post by: Carnikang
BobtheInquisitor wrote:Carnikang, I read your statement as dividing "the community" into two camps, and those two camps into pro-diversity and anti, which is where I disagreed. If you are qualifying that you only meant a small portion of the community, more or less the usual agitators, then that's different and a much lesser matter for the community as a whole. When you describe the Warhammer Adventures reaction as a debacle, it sounds more like condemnation of the community than a footnote about some rowdy jerks on the Internet.
I would wager that the largest part of the community reacted with apathy, followed by a portion displaying a combination of amusement and curiosity. There might be enough excited supporters and detractors globally to fill a convention hall. But conflict and outrage sell, so that last group will get all the attention.
I don't know who Arch is, and am mostly familiar with Sarkesian through her reputation, but I would not take that bet. Her job is having something to say, and she seems to be good at it.
I probably should use more careful words, but I agree on all points really.
97571
Post by: Sqorgar
Nobody needs anybody else’s blessing or permission to have an opinion on a public figure. Personally, being on the front lines in the video game chaos, I’ve formed an opinion of Sarkeesian over literally hundreds of experiences involving her. I can share as many of these as I can remember, but not having had these experiences, in context, it would be difficult to convince anyone to share my opinion on her. We don’t need to argue the semantics of the word “scammer”. Just know that this opinion wasn’t arrived at out of some conspiracy or superficial bias, but was arrived at through a very long, painful experience.
I love video games. I own about 2,500 of them. I was a programmer in the game industry (I worked at Treyarch in early 00s) and I was a writer on two video games much later (the first two DeathSpank games). I eat, sleep, and breathe video games... and yet, I’m here and not on a video game forum. I don’t place the entire blame on Sarkeesian, but there is little doubt that the decline started with her, and the tone was set by her public platform. It would’ve been someone else if not her, and I don’t even think she was the worst actor involved. But she was involved, profited off it, and actively encouraged it. The game industry is slowly recovering, but the damage is substantial and there were many, many casualties.
I’ve seen the exact same thing take over other geek hobbies, including but not limited to Star Wars, Star Trek, Ghostbusters, Magic the Gathering, comic books, science fiction conventions, cosplay, Doctor Who, and a bunch of others. The video game industry, being one of the first, didn’t handle it well and was far more affected, but there’s no doubt that this stupid culture war thing is systematically corrupting and destroying things treasured by geeks. With miniature games, it is not a matter of if, but when.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
JohnHwangDD wrote: BobtheInquisitor wrote: JohnHwangDD wrote:IDGAF about her. Unless she goes after Kingdom Death. Then, I might just join Kotaku online in trying to get her banned and censored.
John, you've never had a problem with all the posters here, including me, who often point out KDM's foibles and ridiculous sexualization. What gives Sarkesian such power over you?
KDM has always generated a healthy level of objection from a portion of the market. That KDM takes that and keeps doing its thing anyway is part of the charm.
None here are creating public controversy as a minor celebrity. She might.
KDM generates a excessive amount of complaint about superficial appearance, among ignorant people who paint it as Larry Flynt's Hustler of board gaming, when it's really not. At all.
Do you remember the thread where Family Circus mentioned the Blood Angels? I bet more people read that strip than will ever learn about Sarkesian's views of Warhammer. I really don't see how she is some great threat who will embiggened all our problems.
To be fair, it is very easy to misunderstand KDM as just another Brother Vinnie type of exploitation until one digs in because the initial presentation didn't focus on any of the things that made it stand out. Poots' most famous update has to be the one about how to draw big butts the right way.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
If Family Circus mentioned Kingdom Death, I wouldn't have an issue because it's a comic strip. One and done, and the vast majority of readers would gloss over it, or assume it was fake. I don't believe that Family Circus has an axe to grind. Unlike Anita, who definitely does.
I like the look of a more muscular girl, but that post was glorious. The game is great, where gender only matters for reproducing.
88921
Post by: Stevefamine
Baffled as to why. Embarrassing
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
Sqorgar wrote:Nobody needs anybody else’s blessing or permission to have an opinion on a public figure. Personally, being on the front lines in the video game chaos, I’ve formed an opinion of Sarkeesian over literally hundreds of experiences involving her. I can share as many of these as I can remember, but not having had these experiences, in context, it would be difficult to convince anyone to share my opinion on her. We don’t need to argue the semantics of the word “scammer”. Just know that this opinion wasn’t arrived at out of some conspiracy or superficial bias, but was arrived at through a very long, painful experience.
I love video games. I own about 2,500 of them. I was a programmer in the game industry (I worked at Treyarch in early 00s) and I was a writer on two video games much later (the first two DeathSpank games). I eat, sleep, and breathe video games... and yet, I’m here and not on a video game forum. I don’t place the entire blame on Sarkeesian, but there is little doubt that the decline started with her, and the tone was set by her public platform. It would’ve been someone else if not her, and I don’t even think she was the worst actor involved. But she was involved, profited off it, and actively encouraged it. The game industry is slowly recovering, but the damage is substantial and there were many, many casualties.
I’ve seen the exact same thing take over other geek hobbies, including but not limited to Star Wars, Star Trek, Ghostbusters, Magic the Gathering, comic books, science fiction conventions, cosplay, Doctor Who, and a bunch of others. The video game industry, being one of the first, didn’t handle it well and was far more affected, but there’s no doubt that this stupid culture war thing is systematically corrupting and destroying things treasured by geeks. With miniature games, it is not a matter of if, but when.
1). The culture was has been escalating for decades and there will be more overspill into every day life. It's unavoidable at this point. But that doesn't mean the things we love are destroyed; it just means we have to learn better how not to let the bastards get us down. She has no inherent power over the industry, except the power that is given to her by the gamers who react to and magnify her words.
2). Video game communities have been toxic for more than 20 years.*. Sarkesian is not the cause of any of this. She's just one leaf on the river.
*I remember being shocked by the onslaught of racism, homophobia, and rape enthusiasm on the Starcraft servers back in '98. I just wanted to play some $$Big Game Hunter$$$.
114775
Post by: CassianSol
On one hand it is good to see the industry embrace her, if only as a middle finger to gamergate which was a disgusting and embarrassing spasm by babies upset at women daring to offer critiques of gender in videogames. For the most part, not even particularly deep or complex analyses.
On the other hand I don't see her relevance to tabletop gaming.
On balance, a positive.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Sqorgar wrote:Nobody needs anybody else’s blessing or permission to have an opinion on a public figure. Personally, being on the front lines in the video game chaos, I’ve formed an opinion of Sarkeesian over literally hundreds of experiences involving her. I can share as many of these as I can remember, but not having had these experiences, in context, it would be difficult to convince anyone to share my opinion on her. We don’t need to argue the semantics of the word “scammer”. Just know that this opinion wasn’t arrived at out of some conspiracy or superficial bias, but was arrived at through a very long, painful experience.
I love video games. I own about 2,500 of them. I was a programmer in the game industry (I worked at Treyarch in early 00s) and I was a writer on two video games much later (the first two DeathSpank games). I eat, sleep, and breathe video games... and yet, I’m here and not on a video game forum. I don’t place the entire blame on Sarkeesian, but there is little doubt that the decline started with her, and the tone was set by her public platform. It would’ve been someone else if not her, and I don’t even think she was the worst actor involved. But she was involved, profited off it, and actively encouraged it. The game industry is slowly recovering, but the damage is substantial and there were many, many casualties.
I’ve seen the exact same thing take over other geek hobbies, including but not limited to Star Wars, Star Trek, Ghostbusters, Magic the Gathering, comic books, science fiction conventions, cosplay, Doctor Who, and a bunch of others. The video game industry, being one of the first, didn’t handle it well and was far more affected, but there’s no doubt that this stupid culture war thing is systematically corrupting and destroying things treasured by geeks. With miniature games, it is not a matter of if, but when.
Obviously, you have deeply held opinions about this and I don't mean to be flippant. But from where I am sitting, video games are absolutely awesome and have been for three plus years. The problems in video games that I see are things switching to a "games as service" model, exploitative microtransations, and trying to get my students to stop playing bloody fortnite in environmental science lessons. Video games are a cultural juggernaut. While Gamergate is a bit embarrassing, it does not seem to have harmed the medium very much, with excellent games of all stripes coming out left right and centre.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
CassianSol wrote:
On one hand it is good to see the industry embrace her, if only as a middle finger to gamergate which was a disgusting and embarrassing spasm by babies upset at women daring to offer critiques of gender in videogames. For the most part, not even particularly deep or complex analyses.
On the other hand I don't see her relevance to tabletop gaming.
On balance, a positive.
Here's another prime example of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. It wasn't even that bad. Sure, some guys were pathetic but a lot of them had valid concerns and valid arguments. Generalizing them is either intellectually lazy, or flat-out dishonest.
" LOL they are babies and they hate women!"
"Oh why are all these guys mad?"
People always saying they want to 'start a conversation', but then when he conversation isn't 100% agreement, the name-calling and labeling begins. I don't particularly fear the SJWoowoos, but I can see quite clearly why people loathe them and want them as far away from their recreation as possible.
See, I can play the generalization game, too. And I have some merit to mine. It seems like a huge majority of people who hated gamergate, namely the males- tend to be sexual predators. Seems like they are trying too hard.
59141
Post by: Elemental
Ketara wrote: Galas wrote:Man, it sucks to not have been aware that Gamergate was even a thing until it ended, avoiding all of that crap, to then just see it reappear every 3-5 months in other places.
I won't lie, having successfully more or less avoided it until now, I'm highly disappointed at how utterly mundane the whole thing seems to be. I mean, when I set out to look into it, I was expecting something mildly salacious and interesting given all the rage and emotive language, not just someone making a ten episode youtube series instead of twelve.
I does seem a bit bizarre, yes. You look at mostly-forgotten scandals from videogame reporting that did more objective harm at the time (anyone remember that guy who got fired for not giving Kane & Lynch 2 the expected glowing review?), then this and wonder "that's it?" Even the most unfavourable readings of what she might have done don't seem to warrant such an obsessive level of attention and ill-will.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
JohnHwangDD wrote:If Family Circus mentioned Kingdom Death, I wouldn't have an issue because it's a comic strip. One and done, and the vast majority of readers would gloss over it, or assume it was fake. I don't believe that Family Circus has an axe to grind. Unlike Anita, who definitely does.
I like the look of a more muscular girl, but that post was glorious. The game is great, where gender only matters for reproducing.
John, you are one of the most blunt posters on this site. When others have axes to grind, you wade in with a hammer. With relish. Neither stature nor venerability nor affiliation held any truck with you when it came time to smash thoughts. I never thought I'd see the day you'd blanche from the prospect of a confrontation conflagration debate on Dakka. What makes this one minor celebrity with an axe to grind so bothersome to you?
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Elemental wrote:I does seem a bit bizarre, yes. You look at mostly-forgotten scandals from videogame reporting that did more objective harm at the time (anyone remember that guy who got fired for not giving Kane & Lynch 2 the expected glowing review?), then this and wonder "that's it?" Even the most unfavourable readings of what she might have done don't seem to warrant such an obsessive level of attention and ill-will.
A fair point, and there was an outcry over the K&L review. As well as some of the reviews for one of the Halo games with Mountain Dew and Dorito's in the background as the guy reviewed it. And a lot more anger should have been directed at Pay-2-Win, release-date DLC, and gamble-boxes.
It wasn't as bad, I think, because none of those publications or companies flat-out attacked the critics. That's what pissed off the Gamergate people. It's one thing to do something scummy, it's worse when your response is to double down and name-call people.
97571
Post by: Sqorgar
Da Boss wrote:The problems in video games that I see are things switching to a "games as service" model, exploitative microtransations, and trying to get my students to stop playing bloody fortnite in environmental science lessons.
Exactly. We lost our ability to effectively communicate our wishes and complaints because gaming journalism has decided that they alone get to decide what messages are heard. People have a problem with the new Battlefield game, articles come out declaring everybody against its new direction is a white male who hates women. Battlefront 2’s predatory loot boxes had a bunch of articles that were like Star Wars Battlefront has loot boxes - and why that’s a good thing! Our voices can not be heard because the people who are supposed to represent us have decided that we are the enemy.
752
Post by: Polonius
This makes me happy because I’m in favor of anything that makes gamers this upset.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Polonius wrote:This makes me happy because I’m in favor of anything that makes gamers this upset.
Then vote Republican and stop half-assing it.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Sqorgar:Hmm. Perhaps you are more invested in that side of things than I am. I don't listen to those journalists, and haven't for years, ever since I realized what a crock of gak games magazines were and how they stoked false divisions between fans of one or other console back in the 90s. I don't care what the journalists say with regard to games. I get my gaming news from some individual people that I trust and who I know where our tastes align or do not align, and I ignore the rest of it. I have never believed that they were there to represent our interests, seeing them as mostly paid shills for corporations. The sales data and community backlashes will determine what will happen. If I think a game is shady, I don't buy it. I don't need journalists to tell me what's what.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Da Boss wrote:If I think a game is shady, I don't buy it. I don't need journalists to tell me what's what.
Now you're cooking with gas, dude. This is fine, it's great, and it's more common than you realize.
And it's part of the problem. When the internet became more common, it changed the landscape. We can go to the game's website and see Dev diaries and screenshots as soon as they come out. We can go to Youtube and watch demos of the game being played. Hell, we can get together and make our OWN gaming journalist page.
...and they know that.
That's why they jump on the smallest controversy and blow it out of proportion- to keep some validity in a dying industry. Those clicks are paychecks.
The problem is, these are the people who get to talk to developers much of the time. Not us. And there's no talking, just shilling. And people are well aware of that. Hence, clickbait controversies.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
BobtheInquisitor wrote: JohnHwangDD wrote:If Family Circus mentioned Kingdom Death, I wouldn't have an issue because it's a comic strip. One and done, and the vast majority of readers would gloss over it, or assume it was fake. I don't believe that Family Circus has an axe to grind. Unlike Anita, who definitely does.
I like the look of a more muscular girl, but that post was glorious. The game is great, where gender only matters for reproducing.
John, you are one of the most blunt posters on this site. When others have axes to grind, you wade in with a hammer. With relish. Neither stature nor venerability nor affiliation held any truck with you when it came time to smash thoughts. I never thought I'd see the day you'd blanche from the prospect of a confrontation conflagration debate on Dakka.
What makes this one minor celebrity with an axe to grind so bothersome to you?
All true.
I just don't like her.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
I'm excited to hear what she has to say!
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
Ketara wrote: Yodhrin wrote:
The specifics aside - you're not coming across as someone with a low level of knowledge trying to figure out what's going on. You're coming across as "I'm just asking questions" in the "Is this person a murderer? Did they beat their wife? Did they cook that man's pet gerbil in a microwave? I don't know, I'm just asking questions..." kind of way that someone who knows exactly what's going on does when they want to bait someone they disagree with into making themselves look silly. If that's not the case I'm sure AD will regret reacting so strongly.
I see. Most be one of those text/tone things. In that case, I'll state here quite clearly that I knew sweet fanny adams really about the matter before I read this thread, and having now looked into it; I'm no closer to seeing why one slightly dreary internet content producer is worthy of any real attention or concern than when I started. She hasn't defrauded anyone, she hasn't done anything particularly offensive, and given the common crossover between miniature games/computer games, I don't see why there should be any controversy over her attending a convention as a guest (assuming she's relevant for a specific point under discussion).
Mostly because she's been pretty unfairly appointed as "The Feminist" despite doing fairly basic and occasionally disingenuous material, initially by clickbait hacks and people who agreed with her assessments, but then as a kind of proxy for both the small minority of actual scumbags and the larger minority who resented being lumped in with the scumbags simply for sharing the same hobby and not 100% agreeing with her assessments. Unfortunately human beings who feel they've been slighted are really, really slow to let things go and, when you factor in all the Culture War garbage swirling around the whole affair it just keeps dragging on.
Frankly at the time I was really annoyed at the whole thing, not just because her shoddy work was used by the very performative "I'm With Her" types to paint basically any male person who played videogames and didn't entirely(as in, 1:1 exactly in all regards and to the same degree) share their politics as a monstrous subhuman, but because that combination of shoddy work being presented as infallible truth resulted in a lot of impressionable kids ending up sucked in by warbing berks like Soggy of Argos and the rest of the Red Pill nutters, doing more damage to their purported cause than their opponents had ever managed before. But that was, like, five years ago and it just needs to go away, which brings us back to "why controversy?" - because she will undoubtedly say something that can be interpreted as provocative, the clickbaitmongers will blow it up into a huge thing, and the Pepe Brigade will start their pish again, leaving the rest of us will have to endure the whole pile of pish once again.
113661
Post by: Shiro-chan
I can't wait for the gakshow this visit for her will be. Maybe I should bring some tomatoes to her panel. Is that still a thing? Shaming charlatans and scammers into disappearing by throwing eggs or tomatoes at them? I'm feeling old.
95284
Post by: YouKnowsIt
To anyone who thinks concern about this is an overreaction I would like to point to what has happened to Magic: The Gathering. I game I love, but which can no longer buy in good conscience.
For those unawares, M:TG has gone full SJW over the last few years. To the extent where they now pay a team of investigators to look into players' backgrounds. We aren't talking about behaviour at Wizards' sanctioned events, we are talking about them digging through your social media history and looking through what you post in Facebook groups, even if private. If they don't like your politics, and that can include something as simple as pro-gun ownership (completely unrelated to behaviour) they then use this information to issue bans, which stops people playing in the popular Friday Night Magic with their local group. Those being banned are given a chance to defend themselves but are not presented with a specific charge, which makes this almost impossible. This might seem disreputable, but many people who don't follow the issue as closely will take what the company say as face value and assume what they say is true, hence the destruction of the community begins. It gets worse when employees then dogpile the more high profile people they have banned with libelous accusations without any facts to back them up.
We have seen in numerous geek arenas what happens when SJW policies weave there way in, be it Marvel Comics, Star Wars of Wizards of the Coast. What begins as fairly innocuous changes eventually becomes something more. It drives a proportion of the fanbase away, and then surprisingly there isn't an influx from the non-fan SJWs to replace them. The result is falling profits and smaller, divided communities. None of which is healthy.
97571
Post by: Sqorgar
Da Boss wrote:The sales data and community backlashes will determine what will happen.
But that’s my point. Sales data use if misinterpreted (Solo is underperforming because Star Wars fans didn’t show up when given what they asked for) and community backlashes can be obfuscated by controlling which community voices are amplified, and what message is attributed to them. Right now, a lot of people are upset with the direction the new Battlefield game is going, but the message that is being told is that a bunch of men think girls are icky. The narrative matters to affect the change you want to see, and these people 100% control the narrative. They’ve weapnized it.
95284
Post by: YouKnowsIt
It also gets to the point where people are then afraid to voice their opinions for fear of what the consequences for such false accusations will be.
752
Post by: Polonius
Oh, I don’t want to take away healthcare or food stamps from the 30 year old virgins living in their mom’s basement.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Polonius wrote:Oh, I don’t want to take away healthcare or food stamps from the 30 year old virgins living in their mom’s basement.
You're right. Then who would support Feminists like Sarkeesian?
"Mom, lemme use the credit card! I gotta fight sexists for a peepee touch!"
116402
Post by: Dr. Mills
I personally do not like Anita after watching her review of Hitman: Absolution.
Blatant lies. All of it. I had played the game to completion and her explanation was so far off the mark into her personal narrative it was insulting to watch. Watch it yourselves if you want, but don't, it's pure projection of her ideas.
I then understood her making videos have no replies - can't have people discussing or going against the narrative can we? So yeah. Personally seeing her lie makes me very weary of her putting ANY interest into anything. And how she was crucified over her treatment of Boogie I'll never know.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Wait, you're saying that her one-sided feminist narrative trumps the facts? That's sexiest!
104890
Post by: ScarletRose
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Polonius wrote:Oh, I don’t want to take away healthcare or food stamps from the 30 year old virgins living in their mom’s basement.
You're right. Then who would support Feminists like Sarkeesian?
I always think it's bizarre how the regressive corners of the world have latched onto projection as the primary tactic to use - nevermind that incels motivated primarily by sex are exactly the opposite of feminists, it must be those darn feminzis who are lonely men motivated by sex!
It's like somehow asserting it in a condescending way makes it true, it would be funnier if it didn't seem like people genuinely believed it.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
ScarletRose wrote:It's like somehow asserting it in a condescending way makes it true, it would be funnier if it didn't seem like people genuinely believed it.
Maybe when fewer of them get outed as actual sexual predators or perverts, it won't seem like it's part of the stereotype.
104890
Post by: ScarletRose
Adeptus Doritos wrote: ScarletRose wrote:It's like somehow asserting it in a condescending way makes it true, it would be funnier if it didn't seem like people genuinely believed it.
Maybe when fewer of them get outed as actual sexual predators or perverts, it won't seem like it's part of the stereotype.
"the stereotype"? You mean the one you just made up right? Again, bald-faced assertions aren't facts, even when typed on a miniatures board.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
ScarletRose wrote:"the stereotype"? You mean the one you just made up right? Again, bald-faced assertions aren't facts, even when typed on a miniatures board.
Just because it offended you doesn't make it a lie.
Again, I've never met a male feminist I would trust near my children.
I usually find they're the "Ultimate Gentlemen" like Elliot. If you know what I mean.
104890
Post by: ScarletRose
Adeptus Doritos wrote: ScarletRose wrote:"the stereotype"? You mean the one you just made up right? Again, bald-faced assertions aren't facts, even when typed on a miniatures board.
Just because it offended you doesn't make it a lie.
Again, I've never met a male feminist I would trust near my children.
Wow, a 'u mad?', it's 2001 all over again.
Again, asserting everyone you don't like is a pedophile is not an argument. It's a cheap tactic used over and over by the right.
110703
Post by: Galas
I'll say that is actually funny to see the slow degradation of the level of conversation in this thread.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
ScarletRose wrote:Again, asserting everyone you don't like is a pedophile is not an argument. It's a cheap tactic used over and over by the right.
You're right. The left just up and out accuses you of sexual assault. Thing is, when they accuse their own they're often dead on. Like Al Franken, what an upstanding feminist!
So, did you have anything to contribute- or are you just here to defend the cult?
Oh, look at these:
VICE Journalist Commits Career Suicide Following Sexual Harassment And Assault Allegations http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/18/vic... Games forum NeoGAF in chaos after owner accused of sexual misconduct https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/23/1... A Follow Up on NeoGaf's Downfall After Sexual Assault Allegations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS9x9... Sneaky Male Feminism and Rape Hypocrisy http://www.newslogue.com/debate/731/B... Multiple Women Allege Abuse by Vice 'Male Feminist' Contributor http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/10... ‘Male Feminist’ Aleksandr Kolpakov Now Charged With First-Degree Murder http://theothermccain.com/2017/06/01/... The Last Thing Heather Anable Saw? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZqif... Progressive Performer Jamie Kilstein Ousted From Citizen Radio After 'Disturbing Allegations' https://jezebel.com/progressive-perfo... Another Male Feminist Accused of Sexual Misconduct https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/03/...
104890
Post by: ScarletRose
Adeptus Doritos wrote: ScarletRose wrote:Again, asserting everyone you don't like is a pedophile is not an argument. It's a cheap tactic used over and over by the right.
So, did you have anything to contribute- or are you just here to defend the cult?
Lol, funny you mention contribution because other then "everyone who doesn't share my exact opinion is a pedo!" I don't see much else going on.
And of course we see just how much a toxic mess the community can be when humans having rights regardless of their physiology is a "cult". You want to sprinkle some more faux-outrage word in there?
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
ScarletRose wrote:And of course we see just how much a toxic mess the community can be when humans having rights regardless of their physiology is a "cult". You want to sprinkle some more faux-outrage word in there?
I don't agree with an extreme ideology, therefore- I must think women don't deserve rights. The exact kind of baseless, ignorant, and pathetic argument I expected.
Yes, it's a cult. "You don't love Jesus? You must want to go to hell and take your family with you to burn, you like seeing children burn in hell fire!"
And you didn't see anything going on because you didn't read. You just zeroed in to a threat to your cult. Keep mining for points. Maybe one day it'll pay off for you.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
ScarletRose wrote: I always think it's bizarre how the regressive corners of the world have latched onto projection as the primary tactic to use - nevermind that incels motivated primarily by sex are exactly the opposite of feminists, it must be those darn feminzis who are lonely men motivated by sex!
It's like somehow asserting it in a condescending way makes it true, it would be funnier if it didn't seem like people genuinely believed it.
The irony
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
JohnHwangDD wrote: ScarletRose wrote: I always think it's bizarre how the regressive corners of the world have latched onto projection as the primary tactic to use - nevermind that incels motivated primarily by sex are exactly the opposite of feminists, it must be those darn feminzis who are lonely men motivated by sex!
It's like somehow asserting it in a condescending way makes it true, it would be funnier if it didn't seem like people genuinely believed it.
The irony
I caught a heavy chuckle from that myself, and failed to capitalize on the opportunity.
104890
Post by: ScarletRose
Adeptus Doritos wrote: ScarletRose wrote:And of course we see just how much a toxic mess the community can be when humans having rights regardless of their physiology is a "cult". You want to sprinkle some more faux-outrage word in there?
I don't agree with an extreme ideology, therefore- I must thing women don't deserve rights. The exact kind of baseless, ignorant, and pathetic argument I expected.
Yes, it's a cult.
And you didn't see anything going on because you didn't read. You just zeroed in to a threat to your cult. Keep mining for points. Maybe one day it'll pay off for you.
"extreme" there's another good faux-outrage word, nice job. I would say yes, not agreeing with the idea women should have rights means not agreeing with the idea women should have rights. It's called a tautology.
I'm not looking for a payoff, just showing that not every gamer subscribes to incel talking points.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
ScarletRose wrote: I would say yes, not agreeing with the idea women should have rights means not agreeing with the idea women should have rights. It's called a tautology.
Except I do believe they should have rights. Up to and including the right to be questioned, their ideas criticized, and even ridiculed.
ScarletRose wrote: I'm not looking for a payoff, just showing that not every gamer subscribes to incel talking points.
Except you're doing a damned fine job of it, and you're clinging to them pretty hard.
You know what my favorite outrage word is? "Toxic". Every time someone with a fragile ideology comes under scrutiny, it's the equivalent of exposing them to nerve gas. Which, in my opinion, is perfect.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I think if you check out incel message boards and so on, very few of them subscribe to feminist ideology. To claim that such ideas are widespread among people who identify as incel (problematic as that is on its own) is so far from the truth it looks like a straw man to me.
104890
Post by: ScarletRose
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
ScarletRose wrote: I'm not looking for a payoff, just showing that not every gamer subscribes to incel talking points.
Except you're doing a damned fine job of it, and you're clinging to them pretty hard.
Projection is still not a viable tactic. The idea that incels, who only value women as sexual property, can have anything to do with supporting their rights is ridiculously contradictory at best.
But hey "I know you are but what am I?" worked great in 4th grade right?
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Da Boss wrote:I think if you check out incel message boards and so on, very few of them subscribe to feminist ideology. To claim that such ideas are widespread among people who identify as incel (problematic as that is on its own) is so far from the truth it looks like a straw man to me.
I'm made of questions right now, but the first one is: "Why are you on an incel message board".
The next one is "Since when did we get incel message boards?"
Because I'm thinking you're straw-manning. Every 'male feminist' I've seen, beyond the normal ones that are just like 'treat everyone equally' (which is what I consider an egalitarian) are usually stalkers, and sometimes worse.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Adeptus Doritos wrote:Because I'm thinking you're straw-manning. Every 'male feminist' I've seen, beyond the normal ones that are just like 'treat everyone equally' (which is what I consider an egalitarian) are usually stalkers, and sometimes worse.
IOW, "other than the normal ones, none of them are normal". How is this trainwreck of a thread still going?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Da Boss wrote:I think if you check out incel message boards and so on, very few of them subscribe to feminist ideology. To claim that such ideas are widespread among people who identify as incel (problematic as that is on its own) is so far from the truth it looks like a straw man to me.
How dare you refute a feminist with research and facts! That's sexist!
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
ScarletRose wrote:Projection is still not a viable tactic. The idea that incels, who only value women as sexual property, can have anything to do with supporting their rights is ridiculously contradictory at best.
But hey "I know you are but what am I?" worked great in 4th grade right?
You know, the crazy thought that they aren't actually sincere has never crossed your mind, has it? Of course not, I'm sure it'd work against you for your little secret to get out.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I went and read a bunch of incel message boards when I heard about it after the Eliot Rodgers shooting. The message boards have been around for a fair while, though I think the Reddit group was more popular than them until it was banned.
I mean, okay, I think you are straw manning, you think I am, let's let the reader decide who is who.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Peregrine wrote:IOW, "other than the normal ones, none of them are normal". How is this trainwreck of a thread still going?
Uh oh, Peregrine's offended! Time to shut down the thread, he's here to make sure it happens. Automatically Appended Next Post: Da Boss wrote:I went and read a bunch of incel message boards when I heard about it after the Eliot Rodgers shooting. The message boards have been around for a fair while, though I think the Reddit group was more popular than them until it was banned.
I mean, okay, I think you are straw manning, you think I am, let's let the reader decide who is who.
If you said, "It's very possible both types exist and most reasonable people aren't that way on either side", I'd give it to you.
I'm still baffled 'incel boards' exist. I thought that was just Dakkadakka.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I mean, I don't want to recommend you check them out because they are toxic hell holes, but if you are interested, incels.me is the most popular one currently. Sorry to say it is full of absolutely foul stuff.
104890
Post by: ScarletRose
Adeptus Doritos wrote: ScarletRose wrote:Projection is still not a viable tactic. The idea that incels, who only value women as sexual property, can have anything to do with supporting their rights is ridiculously contradictory at best.
But hey "I know you are but what am I?" worked great in 4th grade right?
You know, the crazy thought that they aren't actually sincere has never crossed your mind, has it? Of course not, I'm sure it'd work against you for your little secret to get out.
My little secret? Ok between the between the blatantly sexual post (that male feminists just want their genitals touched), the one about likening your arguments to gassing people you don't like and now this creepy sounding implication I'm kind of wondering why you're still here.
I don't have secrets, certainly not any that would magically be stumbled upon in a troll thread.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Da Boss wrote:I mean, I don't want to recommend you check them out because they are toxic hell holes, but if you are interested, incels.me is the most popular one currently. Sorry to say it is full of absolutely foul stuff.
I'm gonna walk through this horror show later, I promise you that.
I think the 'feminist' variant may be less likely to admit they're 'incels' like that. The truth of the matter is, desperate varieties of males tend to go to one extreme or the other out of desperation.
So yeah, I'm sure there's a reasonable middle ground. I'm sure there's decent male feminists out there, and some predators. And I'm sure that there are woman-hating incels, and guys that just don't like what feminism has become.
Fair? Automatically Appended Next Post: ScarletRose wrote:My little secret? Ok between the between the blatantly sexual post (that male feminists just want their genitals touched), the one about likening your arguments to gassing people you don't like and now this creepy sounding implication I'm kind of wondering why you're still here.
I don't have secrets, certainly not any that would magically be stumbled upon in a troll thread.
I never said I wanted anyone gassed, I said the reaction was as if they are being gassed. If reason and common sense are 'poison' to you, then you can stand there and choke and do the funky chicken.
110703
Post by: Galas
Da Boss wrote:I mean, I don't want to recommend you check them out because they are toxic hell holes, but if you are interested, incels.me is the most popular one currently. Sorry to say it is full of absolutely foul stuff.
I have read 3 threads in that forum and I think 46% of my brain-cells have just died.
Thanks, obama.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I am not really comfortable with the way you have phrased that equivalence. But I think that all the groups of people you are talking about do exist, but their numbers are likely very different to what you imagine. But neither of us can prove it conclusively here on Dakkadakka, so this is likely pointless.
Good luck on incels.me. I would not use the term to describe someone who did not use it to describe themselves, personally. I would prefer less loaded terms like "virgin" or "someone who hasn't been laid in a while".
95284
Post by: YouKnowsIt
This thread is the perfect demonstration of why identity politics (and by inference people like Sarkeesian) have no place in a hobby designed for escapism.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Da Boss wrote:Good luck on incels.me. I would not use the term to describe someone who did not use it to describe themselves, personally. I would prefer less loaded terms like "virgin" or "someone who hasn't been laid in a while".
Fair enough. "Desperate Males" seems more appropriate, too. Considering that there are, believe it or not, people who elect to remain virgins until marriage.
I think.
I saw it on TV once, at least. Automatically Appended Next Post: YouKnowsIt wrote:This thread is the perfect demonstration of why identity politics (and by inference people like Sarkeesian) have no place in a hobby designed for escapism.
Every place I game has a 'no politics of any kind discussed here' and 'no proselytizing' as well. Funny how that keeps people happy despite being diverse and having different mindsets.
3806
Post by: Grot 6
ScarletRose wrote: Adeptus Doritos wrote: ScarletRose wrote:Projection is still not a viable tactic. The idea that incels, who only value women as sexual property, can have anything to do with supporting their rights is ridiculously contradictory at best.
But hey "I know you are but what am I?" worked great in 4th grade right?
You know, the crazy thought that they aren't actually sincere has never crossed your mind, has it? Of course not, I'm sure it'd work against you for your little secret to get out.
My little secret? Ok between the between the blatantly sexual post (that male feminists just want their genitals touched), the one about likening your arguments to gassing people you don't like and now this creepy sounding implication I'm kind of wondering why you're still here.
I don't have secrets, certainly not any that would magically be stumbled upon in a troll thread.
How about you take a step back and compose yourself? Seriously. You don't need to keep doing this tit for tat stuff.
I know for a fact you do not see it... A lot of other posters are polite and are going to let you keep going....
I'm not! Just take a breath, go back and reread this conversation.... and tell me that it ends the way YOU think it ends.
Pretty please, with sprinkles.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Grot 6 wrote:I'm not! Just take a breath, go back and reread this conversation.... and tell me that it ends the way YOU think it ends.
Pretty please, with sprinkles.
And I think you're right, at least in regards to myself. I threw out some unwarranted snipes and I should not have done so.
I'll keep it civil, because you're asking nicely.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Hoh boy Anita Sarkeesian. I can tell great and amazing things are going to come from this shining example of humanity. And all of her wonderful "followers"
196
Post by: cuda1179
I am not a fan of Sarkesian getting involved in tabletop wargaming. In my opinion, she's toxic, argumentative, biased, and condescending.
I'm fine with her having any opinion she wants to have. She can even communicate it with anyone she wants, regardless of how wrong she is. I just feel that she will leave this hobby worse than it was.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
ScarletRose wrote:Again, bald-faced assertions aren't facts, even when typed on a miniatures board.
Are you trying for some sort of award for most ironic posts?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
cuda1179 wrote:I am not a fan of Sarkesian getting involved in tabletop wargaming. In my opinion, she's toxic, argumentative, biased, and condescending.
I'm fine with her having any opinion she wants to have. She can even communicate it with anyone she wants, regardless of how wrong she is. I just feel that she will leave this hobby worse than it was.
I think you give her way too much power. She's not Sauron the Great or something.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Da Boss wrote:I think you give her way too much power. She's not Sauron the Great or something.
She's less Sauron the Great, and more like a low-quality copy of The King in Yellow.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Da Boss wrote: cuda1179 wrote:I am not a fan of Sarkesian getting involved in tabletop wargaming. In my opinion, she's toxic, argumentative, biased, and condescending.
I'm fine with her having any opinion she wants to have. She can even communicate it with anyone she wants, regardless of how wrong she is. I just feel that she will leave this hobby worse than it was.
I think you give her way too much power. She's not Sauron the Great or something.
That's the thing with Sarkeesian. I think it's the crybabies who whine about her that gives her power. If the people who disagreed with her had just said, "Oh, this lady is wrong. Dislike" she would've faded into obscurity. But because she received such a hateful and frankly ugly response she was able to ply supportive ears for money. I mean hucksters like Sarkeesian are a dime a dozen and they don't generate nearly the same levels of hate.
At least that's my impression of the situation. I'm not well versed in the situation.
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
TheCustomLime wrote: Da Boss wrote: cuda1179 wrote:I am not a fan of Sarkesian getting involved in tabletop wargaming. In my opinion, she's toxic, argumentative, biased, and condescending.
I'm fine with her having any opinion she wants to have. She can even communicate it with anyone she wants, regardless of how wrong she is. I just feel that she will leave this hobby worse than it was.
I think you give her way too much power. She's not Sauron the Great or something.
That's the thing with Sarkeesian. I think it's the crybabies who whine about her that gives her power. If the people who disagreed with her had just said, "Oh, this lady is wrong. Dislike" she would've faded into obscurity. But because she received such a hateful and frankly ugly response she was able to ply supportive ears for money. I mean hucksters like Sarkeesian are a dime a dozen and they don't generate nearly the same levels of hate.
At least that's my impression of the situation. I'm not well versed in the situation.
That's a half-accurate assessment. The "good guys" side of the argument don't get to escape responsibility for initially pushing her work as authoritative and responding to genuine criticism - of the work itself, not her - as if everyone engaged in such was basically Ted Bundy in denial. The only reason the genuinely hateful stuff had enough cover to flourish was the sneering blanket insults from some of her fans in the media pissed off a lot of normal non-bigoted, non-outraged people who were then less likely to believe genuine accusations of actual atrocious behaviour.
61647
Post by: PsychoticStorm
Ah Gamergate, the simple rejection of a wide and diverse community of gamers opinions in a simple wave of a hand and a label "they are alt right"
No Gamergate was complex complicated and multistaged, with various parties and opinions mixed in from around the world expressing their own opinion, fact is the "narrative" one side chose was everybody disagreeing with us is sexist, misogynist and a fascist, funny thing, this is the stance the gaming news sites that were questioned took and still hold.
What a great way to sweep the problem under the rag, dismiss anybody criticising you as the "worse thing ever" but never address the criticism.
The vast fuel of Gamergate was people reacting to others patronising them as to what they want and enjoy, the fact that it was convenient to toss them and their criticism to "the other side" to avoid them is what fuelled the other side so much.
But hey, never address criticism, everything is done in bad faith if they do not agree with you and praise you.
On the subject I do not like her agenda, I feel she is a person that harmed the industry a lot by been the talk person who expressed the views and then lay the victim card whenever she was criticised, well rehearsed, well executed, her stance is disingenuous and her public unscripted performances have shown a toxic double standard, I do not think such persons have a place as the guest of honour.
If Larry Correia was deplatformed from Origins, I do not see why she should have a platform, he didn't have a history of attacking attendees.
GenCon including her as a guest of honour is a political move and statement I would rather not have in my industry and definitely not if something that is celebrated as the best 4 days in gaming.
I prefer inclusiveness and understanding in my hobby not hostility and exclusion.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Yodhrin wrote: TheCustomLime wrote: Da Boss wrote: cuda1179 wrote:I am not a fan of Sarkesian getting involved in tabletop wargaming. In my opinion, she's toxic, argumentative, biased, and condescending.
I'm fine with her having any opinion she wants to have. She can even communicate it with anyone she wants, regardless of how wrong she is. I just feel that she will leave this hobby worse than it was.
I think you give her way too much power. She's not Sauron the Great or something.
That's the thing with Sarkeesian. I think it's the crybabies who whine about her that gives her power. If the people who disagreed with her had just said, "Oh, this lady is wrong. Dislike" she would've faded into obscurity. But because she received such a hateful and frankly ugly response she was able to ply supportive ears for money. I mean hucksters like Sarkeesian are a dime a dozen and they don't generate nearly the same levels of hate.
At least that's my impression of the situation. I'm not well versed in the situation.
That's a half-accurate assessment. The "good guys" side of the argument don't get to escape responsibility for initially pushing her work as authoritative and responding to genuine criticism - of the work itself, not her - as if everyone engaged in such was basically Ted Bundy in denial. The only reason the genuinely hateful stuff had enough cover to flourish was the sneering blanket insults from some of her fans in the media pissed off a lot of normal non-bigoted, non-outraged people who were then less likely to believe genuine accusations of actual atrocious behaviour.
Okay, that does make some sense. The whole FF was a mess and it's hard to get a clear image of what happened sometimes. A lot like the whole Gamergate scandal.
Well, if the past is any indication then the social media surrounding GenCon 2018 should be a great and wonderful battleground.
61647
Post by: PsychoticStorm
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
KDM has always generated a healthy level of objection from a portion of the market. That KDM takes that and keeps doing its thing anyway is part of the charm.
I laughed hard when Shut up and gak down tried to make a review of it, it was way too obvious he wanted to get a shovel to bury it, but that kickstarter success would make him look clueless and out of touch, he made a really entertaining passive aggressive video.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
PsychoticStorm wrote:If Larry Correia was deplatformed from Origins, I do not see why she should have a platform, he didn't have a history of attacking attendees.
GenCon including her as a guest of honour is a political move and statement I would rather not have in my industry and definitely not if something that is celebrated as the best 4 days in gaming.
This. If Kevin could get disinvited from being a guest, perhaps the same could happen with Anita. Automatically Appended Next Post:
In the matter of identify politics, her having a vagina trumps most of you.
I, however, am darker than parchment, so she has nothing on me. Race trumps gender, and she knows it.
92323
Post by: thekingofkings
I think personally that there are a lot more women who have done a lot more and more tangible things to the benefit of the rpg and tabletop community and they all would have been vastly better choices to invite than someone who is fairly or unfairly considered extremely toxic (and to be honest, what has she contributed to the RPG or TT community that makes her a "industry" guest at all, let alone one of honor)
98515
Post by: Lord Kragan
thekingofkings wrote:I think personally that there are a lot more women who have done a lot more and more tangible things to the benefit of the rpg and tabletop community and they all would have been vastly better choices to invite than someone who is fairly or unfairly considered extremely toxic (and to be honest, what has she contributed to the RPG or TT community that makes her a "industry" guest at all, let alone one of honor)
My stance. You want to be inclussive? Grab someone that's done something for the tabletop industry. Or if you're only interested in bringing someone that does totally misinformed reviews just for the sake of cash and clickbaits just contact Teena Hancock's blog. At least her misinformed and clickbaity content are hobby related.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
thekingofkings wrote:I think personally that there are a lot more women who have done a lot more and more tangible things to the benefit of the rpg and tabletop community and they all would have been vastly better choices to invite
Totally agreed.
24228
Post by: xraytango
Wow, that Larry Correia issue with Origins; wondered how long it was going to be before someone brought that up.
The worst thing Larry did was 'fisk' an article by a gentleman named A.A. George in which he (George) claimed that tabletop gaming was hostile to women and PoC's while effectively calling 50,000 GenCon attendees racist. Larry broke that article down and showed the flaws with his argument (i.e. 'fisking' a new term for me).
This happened four years ago and when Mr. George's girlfriend found out that Larry was to be a GoH at Origins this year, she wrote a letter, as revenge, to John Ward (Origins director) who subsequently did no research on the subject and as a knee-jerk reaction disinvited Larry.
In case no one had heard of this particular case, that's the nuts and bolts of it. I'm surprised that we didn't see a thread about that already.
More here: http://www.monsterhunternation.com
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
Da Boss wrote:I think you give her way too much power. She's not Sauron the Great or something.
And yet she was at the UN Women (which as I understand it is a separate organization under the UN, not the actual UN but still backed by them) talking about censoring the internet to stop online harassment.
I also think the big divide in opinions here comes down to the fact that one side will view her as having been attacked horribly with harassing comments and sent all sorts of threats and the like and so obviously the people doing that (Gamergate) are the bad guys. The other side will look at her and just see someone who stirs up controversy and claims to be the victim when it happens because c'mon, it's the internet, there's always gonna be a few trolls throwing death threats across twitter for literally any opinion anyone gives, and those people probably aren't related to gamgergate since the FBI did investigate and didn't find anything worth persuing. ( IIRC I think there were also people taking the 4chan greentext about being a marine sniper with over 300 confirmed kills who'll 360 noscope you seriously.)
I am not aware of Anita ever doing this, and I doubt she would, but other big names on the progressive/anti gamergate side were caught out posting hate and threats at themselves as well from anonymous accounts.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
I don't believe Anita ever did anything even close to that, but she is very good at making things that aren't about her into things that are about her (not quite to Brianna "Insert Myself into Literally Anything then cry victim!" Wu levels), like the blow-up at the college that had a concealed carry law that she somehow turned into it being "unsafe" for her to appear.
3828
Post by: General Hobbs
I'm a little confused by this whole Gamer Gate thing.
From reading the first several pages of this, this Anita person is the "bad guy" in the controversy, or at least one of them.
But from reading the wikipedia article, which I feel is biased, she is one of the "good guys" and the GamerGate community are a bunch of misogynists engaging in inappropriate behavior.
The article also claims the whole thing started from an ex-boyfriend posting about his game designer girlfriend's relationship with him.
I'm totally confused...anyone point me to the Dummies Guide for this?
77728
Post by: dosiere
well.. so I just spent the last couple hours looking into things like “gamergate” “incels”, Anita, gamer culture, feminist and gamer culture, etc... what a stupid mess this all is. Basically you have a bunch of women who hate men and a bunch of men who hate women arguing over things they don’t understand. What a waste of time.
119854
Post by: Skaorn
Honestly, you're probably better off doing your own research and trying to find many sources, even watching some of her own videos too. Dig into things to try and get context. If you decide to jump on one side or the other, it's always good to know what the other side's major points are so you can counter them in debate with relevant arguments rather than essentially name calling from the extremes of both ends.
77728
Post by: dosiere
Well, I’m definitely not jumping onto any side here. Running away as fast as possible from both sounds reasonable based on my first (and probably last) few hours looking into this pile.
97571
Post by: Sqorgar
General Hobbs wrote:I'm a little confused by this whole Gamer Gate thing.
From reading the first several pages of this, this Anita person is the "bad guy" in the controversy, or at least one of them.
But from reading the wikipedia article, which I feel is biased, she is one of the "good guys" and the GamerGate community are a bunch of misogynists engaging in inappropriate behavior.
The article also claims the whole thing started from an ex-boyfriend posting about his game designer girlfriend's relationship with him.
I'm totally confused...anyone point me to the Dummies Guide for this?
The short of it is, gamers were getting a little fed up with the progressive agenda being pushed (which largely started with, but was not limited to Anita Sarkeesian's videos), as this push ended up portraying them as bad people who hate women. They believed that this agenda was deliberately being pushed by the game journalists, who were selling out the gamers they were supposed to represent in order to gain political and social capital they could use for clicks, money, and popularity (with women).
The ex-boyfriend of Zoe Quinn, who is legitimately a terrible person who is best known for a TWINE game called Depression Quest, wrote a long screed about how she was emotionally abusive to him and constantly cheated on him. He named names, and some of those names were game journalists who worked out outlets that had given good publicity to Depression Quest in the past. Here, then, was the proof that the game journalists were cliquish and selling out gamers for personal gain. GamerGate was coined as a term from this, not because of the harassment that Quinn suffered but because how it reflected the incestuous nature of games journalism.
Around this time, and I'm not sure if it was before or after the Zoe Quinn memo, a bunch of articles came out declaring that "Gamers Are Dead". Like two dozen of them in the span of two days, all saying the same thing. Basically, that gamers were terrible people and that game developers didn't need to target gamers to be successful. Again, we have a case of game journalists deliberately selling out the very people who supported them and who they were supposed to represent. Some people suspected that there was actual collusion going on, due to the articles sounding so eerily similar and coming out so close together. Turns out, there was collusion going on, and there was a mailing list called Game Journo Pros where the game journalists would get together and actually decide what agenda to push. Leaks from this mailing list prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that people's worst fears were true.
The problem with all this is that Sarkeesian started a... I guess a meme... that gamers were all harassing her because they were misogynists. I'm sure she was getting harassed, but since she never actually provided more than a handful of tweets as evidence, nobody could be clear as to how legitimate the threats were, how many they were, or what their actual intent really was. However, the narrative that a bunch of misogynists were trying to keep a feminist down made her Kickstarter skyrocket. She learned real quick, and several noteworthy others as well, that there is a lot of power (and money and clicks) in that narrative, and it started showing up even when there was no clear evidence of harassment. In one case, one person said that she was run out of her house and home and spent three months in hiding, when in reality, she was spending the summer in Europe on vacation (as evidenced by tweets she made well before the harassment supposedly started).
Still, the problem with GamerGate is that their enemies were the ones with the megaphones, and the game journalists got ahead of the message and managed to turn it into something else. That narrative of harassment worked really well to obfuscate the findings of the Zoe Quinn memo, and it didn't actually matter what it said, only that a woman was under attack by misogynist gamers (a well she would continue to return to many times). To people who didn't know or didn't care what was going on, the result was that the expectations of the conflict were set by the "bad guys" to make them look innocent, and that their enemies were only after them because they were misogynists who didn't want women in the game industry. Things got REALLY bad from there. To this day, the narrative that surrounds GamerGate (including the Wikipedia page) is the worst kind of shallow bs, with the evidence being little more than half researched articles in major newspapers that only interviewed the game journalists who used their own website articles as proof that they were totally being truthful. WSJ: Gamers hate women, Kotaku said so. Kotaku: Gamers hate women, Polygon said so. Polygon: Gamers hate women, Kotaku said so.
Now, this is a biased account. I don't consider myself a GamerGater, but I was there. Having had a similar situation in the past where Penny Arcade smeared me and being unable to clear my name or change an incorrect public narrative, I am very interested in these kinds of situations, and I always seek to read as much primary sources as possible before I make up my mind about these things. And since I was there from the very beginning (before even the Quinn memo), I saw the narrative taking shape, very much in a manner similar to what I had gone through in the past. I saw the narrative form, I knew what would happen next, and watched it prove me right in real time. But I'm still an outsider, giving my opinion on what I thought people saw, felt, and thought. I urge you to go check out all the primary sources yourself, and know that any summary you read about this whole thing is going to be polarized and one sided. I haven't lied about anything here, but it is still my opinion and it should be pretty obvious which side my biases support. Automatically Appended Next Post: dosiere wrote:well.. so I just spent the last couple hours looking into things like “gamergate” “incels”, Anita, gamer culture, feminist and gamer culture, etc... what a stupid mess this all is. Basically you have a bunch of women who hate men and a bunch of men who hate women arguing over things they don’t understand. What a waste of time.
None of that is true though. "gamer culture" is virtually identical to miniature gamer culture, with the same types of people and opinions, but maybe a little more mainstream. I see the same arguments happening for boob armor that I saw for Ivy's costume in Soul Calibur, and I see people upset at the same corporate decisions and wanting largely the same better future for their hobby. If you understand the culture you are currently in, then you understand gamer culture. The only difference is that at some point, somebody managed to convince people that one side of the boob armor debate did it because they hate women. They don't, but when has the truth ever matter to public opinion?
As for incels, that's just the newest boogieman. They've already exhausted nazi, alt-right, racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and whatever else they try to label their ideological enemies as, so they needed a new term as the old ones lost their punch. Sure, incels exist, much like neo-nazis exist, but they are nobodies in the grand scheme of things and are simply being used to scare people. Fear will keep them in line, right? Personally, I thought that once nazi ran its course, they'd run out of boogiemen - I mean, how do you top nazi? I guess you troll the secret, tiny frontier of the internet and find someone more pathetic, while simultaneously seeming capable of violence. Remember when you just had to worry that heavy metal meant people worshipped Satan?
104890
Post by: ScarletRose
Sure, incels exist, much like neo-nazis exist, but they are nobodies in the grand scheme of things and are simply being used to scare people
Maybe you missed the part where both those groups have committed murders that were widely covered in the news?
And that those murders were fully in line with the respective ideologies both groups espouse?
97571
Post by: Sqorgar
ScarletRose wrote:Sure, incels exist, much like neo-nazis exist, but they are nobodies in the grand scheme of things and are simply being used to scare people
Maybe you missed the part where both those groups have committed murders that were widely covered in the news?
And that those murders were fully in line with the respective ideologies both groups espouse?
I guess you are scared then.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Don't worry, I highly doubt he holds Communists- a group that has committed far more acts of murder and terrorism than Nazis and Incels combined- to the same standard. People tend to be very selective about their boogeymen. This one in particular only comes out of the box when the 'feminism' thing gets questioned, and with a volatile passion. Everyone has their hobbies, I suppose.
And the funny thing is, the overwhelming majority of incels I've encountered are desperate men that will pretend to be white-knight feminists. The only difference between an Elliot Roger and a Desperate Male Feminist is that Elliot Roger gave up chasing things he couldn't hope to have.
Your post regarding Gamergate was spot on. A bunch of folks called the game journalists out for being scumbags, and within 24 hours the journos were smearing their customers. Not sure how this is a wise business practice, but I'm also pretty sure that there's a reason why some game reviewers on Youtube are more successful than the average Kotaku writer. That, and Kotaku was part of Gawker, and Gawker all but flat-out said "We peddle clickbait garbage".
116402
Post by: Dr. Mills
ScarletRose wrote:Sure, incels exist, much like neo-nazis exist, but they are nobodies in the grand scheme of things and are simply being used to scare people
Maybe you missed the part where both those groups have committed murders that were widely covered in the news?
And that those murders were fully in line with the respective ideologies both groups espouse?
Which in turn are blown up massively out of proportion in the media. Widely covered? Yeah, it's done so to avoid talking about other issues or to distract from other ones.
Because it gets clicks. The media doesn't care for honest reporting, just sensationalist headlines to push a narrative for clicks and coin. The because can you honestly believe that neo nazis and incels being a bigger issue or danger than radical religious terrorism or deep set gang culture in America?
104890
Post by: ScarletRose
Sqorgar wrote: ScarletRose wrote:Sure, incels exist, much like neo-nazis exist, but they are nobodies in the grand scheme of things and are simply being used to scare people
Maybe you missed the part where both those groups have committed murders that were widely covered in the news?
And that those murders were fully in line with the respective ideologies both groups espouse?
I guess you are scared then.
Yeah, I left my fake tough guy-isms in the laundry I guess.
Doesn't change the point that calling groups who promote and successfully carry out killings "boogeymen" is disingenuous at best.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Don't worry, I highly doubt he holds Communists- a group that has committed far more acts of murder and terrorism than Nazis and Incels combined- to the same standard.
"Nothing is is bad, as long something else is worse".
Dr. Mills wrote:The because can you honestly believe that neo nazis and incels being a bigger issue or danger than radical religious terrorism or deep set gang culture in America?
This is a weird strawman. No one made the assertion you are rebutting here.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
ScarletRose wrote:Doesn't change the point that calling groups who promote and successfully carry out killings "boogeymen" is disingenuous at best.
I'm sure you hold all groups to this same standard, too, being the intellectually honest person you are.
But we both know you don't. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ouze wrote:"Nothing is is bad, as long something else is worse".
Oh I won't say it isn't bad. But you can be pissy and sour about it, a fact's a fact.
Suddenly stacks of bodies and human misery are only a problem if it suits your own argument. What a compassionate and humanitarian individual!
12313
Post by: Ouze
How dare you denounce me when there are worst people in the world?
See how that's a silly argument?
116402
Post by: Dr. Mills
ScarletRose wrote: Sqorgar wrote: ScarletRose wrote:Sure, incels exist, much like neo-nazis exist, but they are nobodies in the grand scheme of things and are simply being used to scare people
Maybe you missed the part where both those groups have committed murders that were widely covered in the news?
And that those murders were fully in line with the respective ideologies both groups espouse?
I guess you are scared then.
Yeah, I left my fake tough guy-isms in the laundry I guess.
Doesn't change the point that calling groups who promote and successfully carry out killings "boogeymen" is disingenuous at best.
No one said to not call out groups on crimes. But you cannot treat one group different to another or say one is worse than the other because that is biased. Which is what the media is doing.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Ouze wrote:How dare you denounce me when there are worst people in the world?
See how that's a silly argument?
Worse* people.
And it's far from 'silly'. It's a point, many of you are selective about your little outrages.
Two virgin losers killed people, big deal.
I notice that you don't have the same outrage for the black guy that went down the street and shot a random man over his girlfriend. Well, he was black. You're probably terrified of bringing that up. But hey, I get it- you've gotta be selective in that outrage. You gotta have your boogeyman, you gotta have something to fight against, even though you're not doing anything but posturing.
I think the funniest part is that a bunch of incels are actually pointing to incel groups on the internet and trying to pretend they aren't the same kind of pathetic human being.
104890
Post by: ScarletRose
Dr. Mills wrote: ScarletRose wrote: Sqorgar wrote: ScarletRose wrote:Sure, incels exist, much like neo-nazis exist, but they are nobodies in the grand scheme of things and are simply being used to scare people
Maybe you missed the part where both those groups have committed murders that were widely covered in the news?
And that those murders were fully in line with the respective ideologies both groups espouse?
I guess you are scared then.
Yeah, I left my fake tough guy-isms in the laundry I guess.
Doesn't change the point that calling groups who promote and successfully carry out killings "boogeymen" is disingenuous at best.
No one said to not call out groups on crimes. But you cannot treat one group different to another or say one is worse than the other because that is biased. Which is what the media is doing.
I didn't even bother replying the first time because as soon as "but the media!" comes out any real point is long gone.
As has been pointed out, just because other bad events happen doesn't mean "the media" is totally in the wrong to cover murders carried out by people espousing systematic murder as part of their platform.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
ScarletRose wrote:Sure, incels exist, much like neo-nazis exist, but they are nobodies in the grand scheme of things and are simply being used to scare people
Maybe you missed the part where both those groups have committed murders that were widely covered in the news?
And that those murders were fully in line with the respective ideologies both groups espouse?
And recently, a woman murdered her boyfriend at a major Bay Area tech company.
Counterpoint shows that clearly, women are the root of all evil.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Adeptus Doritos wrote:I think the funniest part is that a bunch of incels are actually pointing to incel groups on the internet and trying to pretend they aren't the same kind of pathetic human being.
Who specifically are you referring to?
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
ScarletRose wrote:As has been pointed out, just because other bad events happen doesn't mean "the media" is totally in the wrong to cover murders carried out by people espousing systematic murder as part of their platform.
So, what about the Skeptic Feminist? You know, that male feminist that shot his partner?
And the S.C.U.M. manifesto- a work of feminism- actually espouses murder and violence, where is your outrage?
Is it in your laundry, too?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Adeptus Doritos wrote:I think the funniest part is that a bunch of incels are actually pointing to incel groups on the internet and trying to pretend they aren't the same kind of pathetic human being.
Who specifically are you referring to?
Whomever the shoe fits. If it fits, lace it up and wear it.
12313
Post by: Ouze
So, doing that thing where you win imaginary arguments in the shower, but typing them out onto a forum. Got it.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Ouze wrote:So, doing that thing where you win imaginary arguments in the shower, but typing them out onto a forum. Got it.
It was a generalized statement. I know, you were hoping I'd name you or someone else off so you could smash your little yellow triangle and have some moderator action taken. Maybe if you don't like the content of a discussion, you should just stay out of it instead of exposing yourself to arguments you can't handle.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Maybe if you don't like the content of a discussion, you should just stay out of it instead of exposing yourself to arguments you can't handle.
In a thread of people complaining about a woman speaking at a panel they are free not to attend, irony, thy name is Adeptus Doritos.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Ouze wrote:In a thread of people complaining about a woman speaking at a panel they are free not to attend, irony, thy name is Adeptus Doritos.
That's really stretching it, Ouze. And I'm very fast and loose with ironic.
Unlike some aircraft, I don't wade into topics I dislike to start playing with the 'report' function. I can, at least, make my points and handle counter-points without needing someone silenced.
(Really, Dakka? Someone types an 'r' on its lonesome and you turn it into 'are'? I don't know how I feel about that.)
196
Post by: cuda1179
thekingofkings wrote:I think personally that there are a lot more women who have done a lot more and more tangible things to the benefit of the rpg and tabletop community and they all would have been vastly better choices to invite than someone who is fairly or unfairly considered extremely toxic (and to be honest, what has she contributed to the RPG or TT community that makes her a "industry" guest at all, let alone one of honor)
Right here is the mainstay of why I don't like the idea of her being there. It's like inviting Gordon Ramsey to be the honored speaker at a Martial Arts convention. Almost ANYONE would have been a better choice. I'd take a random FLGS owner that hosts RPG's on Sundays. I'd take a relatively vocal web-celebrity who plays D&D. Heck, I'd even take Vin Diesel, as apparently he's really into gaming.
And that's not even accounting for the hostility, history of illegal actions, attention seeking, or disruptive behavior.
12313
Post by: Ouze
cuda1179 wrote:Right here is the mainstay of why I don't like the idea of her being there. It's like inviting Gordon Ramsey to be the honored speaker at a Martial Arts convention. Almost ANYONE would have been a better choice. I'd take a random FLGS owner that hosts RPG's on Sundays. I'd take a relatively vocal web-celebrity who plays D&D. Heck, I'd even take Vin Diesel, as apparently he's really into gaming.
Yeah, this is a pretty valid complaint and one I totally agree with. I feel like there are a host of options a lot better suited to the actual tabletop community.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Ouze wrote:Yeah, this is a pretty valid complaint and one I totally agree with. I feel like there are a host of options a lot better suited to the actual tabletop community.
And if they're looking for women who've contributed to tabletop gaming, there's no shortage of those. Elisa Teague, I believe, would be a better choice. She's actually created a product and done things for the industry.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Ouze wrote: Adeptus Doritos wrote:I think the funniest part is that a bunch of incels are actually pointing to incel groups on the internet and trying to pretend they aren't the same kind of pathetic human being.
Who specifically are you referring to?
Do you mean people on this thread? Because I think you are using the term "incel", as much as it can have any definition, incorrectly. Incel is a self identified status, unless someone is calling themselves that, you cannot put it on someone. Incel means someone who feels not having sex is somehow unjust or especially unfair, and plenty of people who do not have sex do not see it that way.
I mean, I am leaving aside the fact that you do not know anything about the sexual histories of people posting in this thread.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Da Boss wrote:Do you mean people on this thread? Because I think you are using the term "incel", as much as it can have any definition, incorrectly. Incel is a self identified status, unless someone is calling themselves that, you cannot put it on someone. Incel means someone who feels not having sex is somehow unjust or especially unfair, and plenty of people who do not have sex do not see it that way.
"Incel" was being thrown around for a while, long before any groups were formed. It was an insult, actually before "Don't care virgin" was a thing. I'm not sure that it's lost its sting as an insult, and I don't think a bunch of incels get to treat it like the N-word and make it 'their word'. As a matter of fact, it's been an insult for over a decade now.
Da Boss wrote:I mean, I am leaving aside the fact that you do not know anything about the sexual histories of people posting in this thread.
I wasn't directing it at anyone in this thread. Trust me, when I feel like getting my wrists slapped I tend to just go straight out with the insults. And it's about as subtle as a boner joke.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
My understanding is that the term originated from a woman on a forum somewhere.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Da Boss wrote:My understanding is that the term originated from a woman on a forum somewhere.
Where ever it came from, there's instances of it being used in 2007- EDIT- this woman was complaining about being an incel in the early 90's, and did have issues with it being an insult. But because a couple of unhinged virgins killed some people, and it plays right into the 'they hate womens' narrative- it's being used as a convenient boogeyman.
For perspective- two incels have been murderers, and apparently the board (which was banned because it was a troll pit)- hosted 40,000 members. Anyone who's shocked that subreddits full of anons are usually unhinged troll-pits where people do dumb stuff for shock value... well, they must be new to the internet.
If incels were a threat, we'd know about it. Two out of 40,000? Not scary at all. Sounds to me like people who need to find monsters in their cereal are clinging to this a bit too hard.
Meanwhile, a famous psychologist says that being an incel and remaining isolated and insular is terrible for young men, and the mainstream media is after him and calling him 'alt-right'. Further proving my point that if you upset certain people, it doesn't matter what you are- you get lumped into the villain basket and 'othered'- so some elements of society are best ridiculed or ignored.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Ouze wrote:... a thread of people complaining about a woman speaking at a panel they are free not to attend, irony, thy name is Adeptus Doritos.
Is disingenuousness yours? 'Cause when you reduce Sarkeesian to just "a woman speaking at a panel" it's very easy to make anyone against that idea look unreasonable.
Kinda like how she does.
She's not just 'a woman'. She's not just 'speaking at a panel'. She is far more than that. I know that, and you know that.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Shrug. I still am not sure why people make her out to be like Sauron, with these incredible god-like powers. She'll give her speech, and Gencon will avoid being ruined forever, presumably.
3806
Post by: Grot 6
Ouze wrote:Shrug. I still am not sure why people make her out to be like Sauron, with these incredible god-like powers. She'll give her speech, and Gencon will avoid being ruined forever, presumably.
I hate to say it, but I agree with you on that. If anything she gets more publicity on her ridiculous comments and pushes her false positive agenda. Looking at this thread though.... oh man... oh man...
If you have any gaming in your areas, you know that this insane ranting that leaks from her holes isn't true in any sense of the word. I put it up to the fake agendas that people push to fuel their egos... And yes, it is an agenda, but it is being shilled in the worst of places... A convention center full of gaming industry sales and trade, and gamers from across the country... She's going to get up on stage, call everyone a whatever and there you go- instant fame from the conversation value.
If your going to Gen Con, make sure you drive your salt truck in and make sure it is fully stocked.
113626
Post by: kastelen
Before any mods have to come in we should probably stop insulting eachother and get back on topic.
61647
Post by: PsychoticStorm
Ouze wrote: In a thread of people complaining about a woman speaking at a panel they are free not to attend, irony, thy name is Adeptus Doritos. In this thread people complain about a particular individual with existing track record of behaviour and established agenda. The fact she is a woman is irrelevant, I appreciate we all understand that people are individuals, with individual personalities, merits, flaws and responsibilities and not groups of things. Right? Seriously, nobody complained gencon decided to bring a "woman as a guest of honour", people complained that gencon decided to bring as a guest of honour a toxic individual with proven track record and no positive affect on the gaming industry in general or connection with the tabletop industry.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Ouze wrote:Shrug. I still am not sure why people make her out to be like Sauron, with these incredible god-like powers.
Now you're taking the opposite tact.
First she was "She's just a woman giving a speech" and now it's "It's not like she has superpowers".
If you cannot argue this without using reduction or hyperbole, then why even bother?
12313
Post by: Ouze
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ouze wrote:Shrug. I still am not sure why people make her out to be like Sauron, with these incredible god-like powers.
Now you're taking the opposite tact.
First she was "She's just a woman giving a speech" and now it's "It's not like she has superpowers".
If you cannot argue this without using reduction or hyperbole, then why even bother?
... those are exactly the same thing! There is literally no confusion or difference between those ideas. Where is the lack of consistency?
She's just a person who is going to give a speech and go home. Most of the people attending Gencon probably don't even know who she is. The people who travel to Gencon expressly to see her is, I imagine, less than you need to field a basketball team.
And yet if you go back to the first page, there is this gnashing of teeth about how she destroys communities. She's not going to snap her fingers and Jordan Weisman disappears.
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
Ouze wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote: Ouze wrote:Shrug. I still am not sure why people make her out to be like Sauron, with these incredible god-like powers.
Now you're taking the opposite tact.
First she was "She's just a woman giving a speech" and now it's "It's not like she has superpowers".
If you cannot argue this without using reduction or hyperbole, then why even bother?
... those are exactly the same thing! There is literally no confusion or difference between those ideas. Where is the lack of consistency?
She's just a person who is going to give a speech and go home. Most of the people attending Gencon probably don't even know who she is. The people who travel to Gencon expressly to see her is, I imagine, less than you need to field a basketball team.
And yet if you go back to the first page, there is this gnashing of teeth about how she destroys communities. She's not going to snap her fingers and Jordan Weisman disappears.
It's funny that you've managed to read the whole thread without actually reading it.
Yes, part of the reason she's still a thing is the overblown reaction to her work and statements, but the reaction is not only a negative one from people who dislike what she has to say or how she's said it. The value and validity of her material is also overblown by people who support her broad ideological stance despite its manifold flaws, and the difference is many of them have a platform in the media to amplify both their views and hers, and which they've used to traduce anyone who criticises those views by lumping together genuine, measured, valid criticism with trolls and genuine misogynist nutjobs.
She may not be Sauron, but pretending she'll be "just another speaker" if nobody with past experience of her antics and the backlash to them pays any attention is nonsense, because she does have people who will amplify what she says even if people who disagree ignore it completely, which will be enough to spark the minority of usual suspects into their usual fury and once again provide the excuse needed to label a whole community as toxic women-haters.
105865
Post by: Rolsheen
I had to check who she was as I'd never heard of her.
Don't really see the point of her talking at Gencon but inviting her has definitely achieved a lot of talk about it and as the old saying goes "there's no such thing as bad press". This will drum up a lot of business for Gencon
24228
Post by: xraytango
AS snapping her fingers and making Jordan Weissman dissappear , heh.
No, but she'll probably claim that inch-tall representations of giant fighting robots are sexist because there aren't any representative female giant fighting robots. Then if there were she would complain about how they were portrayed.
Remember when she said, "Everything is sexist, everything is racist; and you have to point it all out." Talk about seeing goblins in your cereal. She definitely has an agenda, and it is a toxic one.
51486
Post by: Frankenberry
This woman is about as close to an industry expert as I am a chinese fighter pilot.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
Edit never mind
120078
Post by: dyndraig
I wonder what the Gencon admins hoped to achieve with this, as far as I know she has no connections at all with the tabletop industry? Did they just wanna stir some controversy or was it ideologically driven?
Also, I'm amazed that this thread is still alive
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
xraytango wrote:AS snapping her fingers and making Jordan Weissman dissappear , heh.
No, but she'll probably claim that inch-tall representations of giant fighting robots are sexist because there aren't any representative female giant fighting robots. Then if there were she would complain about how they were portrayed.
Remember when she said, "Everything is sexist, everything is racist; and you have to point it all out." Talk about seeing goblins in your cereal. She definitely has an agenda, and it is a toxic one.
This video is relevant:
https://youtu.be/WxYyxC7gftg
110703
Post by: Galas
To be honest since Gamergate ended all the times I have realised Anita still is a thing is because posts and news against her.
For example, without this post I wouldn't even know she would go to Gencon.
And, in a unrelated note. I'm the only one that hated the term "gamer" much earlier than this gamergate thing? I always hated how its used as some kind of sweet pill that some people uses to try to identify and make feel that they are part of a larger group, because normally this was the "home" of the nerds and the socially excluded in their youth.
But as years past I have seen the term become an excuse to attack each other, insult, etc... and I'm not even talking about "men hate women" but "Omg you aren't a true gamer because you don't play this specific games", etc...
I don't know. I have play games since I have memory, and they have been the most important part of my life, but I don't consider myself a "gamer". I don't construct my personality and personal identity around things like that.
(I'll add that I have the same opinion about anybody that calls himself, I don't know. A Hipster, a heavy metal... whatever name they use to call themselves, etc...)
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
You know what's funny? 25-30 years ago, geeks were under attack by ideologues claiming that our games and hobbies were 'Satanic' or would would make us into school shooters. Back then, we got together and fought back.
Anita's 'just a woman speaking at an event'... just like Johanna Michaelsen. She spoke at an event, too. What happened next was parents tearing through their kids' rooms and confiscating and burning D&D books, music cassettes, VHS movies, etc. Kids were getting dragged in front of the pulpit to 'confess' their Satanic activities and 'get saved'. Friendships were ruined, because we were forbidden to talk to people who did 'Satanic' activities. FFS, this woman actually perpetuated a story about Star Wars being Satanic.
(Here's what Johanna Michaelsen was known for: https://www.amazon.com/Like-Lambs-Slaughter-Johanna-Michaelsen/dp/0890816174 )
Yeah, it might have not been as international or 'huge' as Anita Sarkeesian, but Johanna piggybacked off of another huge moral panic, just like Anita. And there were people who were throwing down their hobbies, screaming about how this Quiet Riot tape had him communing with Beelzebub and how now he has repented, and come to the Lord Jesus Christ! Amen, brothers and sisters, pass the offering plate around! You need to give from the heart!
Now some other woman comes along and trades 'Jesus' for 'Feminism' and 'Satan' for 'Misogyny' and we swapped the offering plate for a Kickstarter/Patreon. And we get a portion of gamers that suddenly forgets about that and they're ready to geld themselves and bend the knee.
Think that's extreme? Go digging through Anita's commentary about gaming that isn't about sexism. She loathes violence, gore, etc... and I must remind you we're on a 40k board. Do you really want this outrage mob of moral authoritarians coming for you, your group, or your hobby?
Because in the end you're still not getting a peepee touch. You're still not going to be a better person. You're just another sucker that got caught up in a moral panic, and just like those guys hurling their Metallica tapes into a fire- you're not really doing anything but signaling your virtues.
Another issue is- Anita has, on record (and video) lashed out at audience members. I don't care if you like Sargon of Akkad or his follwers, she sat on a panel and berated and demeaned an audience member. She then entered into a conflict with an impartial, yet supportive panel member offstage. She is, by all standards- unfit to sit on this panel and she should be de-platformed.
Anita has, on record- stolen artwork and video footage for her video series. No credit was ever given to the artists or players that the media was stolen from.
Anita has, on record, worked with an actual con-artist who is also a sleazy pick-up artist that refers to women repeatedly as 'sluts'.
There are plenty of better candidates. A rabble-rouser and huckster with a track record of dishonest and questionable business practices should not be something the gaming community places at the forefront of their culture, even for this event.
I am considering, in all honesty, starting a petition.
The best example for Anita I've ever heard was 'asbestos salesman'. Back in the old days, before we were certain about how dangerous asbestos was-there were people working for asbestos companies spreading panics about children burning alive in schools. This was not directed at the schools, but rather an ignorant and uninformed audience- pearl clutching mothers. It would generate a small panic, and these mothers would demand the schools use asbestos. Anita is very much the same way- fabricating a panic to sell her product. And her product is herself. Perhaps, at some point, her end state may be to sell her services as a 'feminist advisor' and slap her seal of approval on games (that's my current theory, at least- and I believe she's tried to do so).
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
I really don't actually see how that context makes it any different, so she's talking about systemic sexism/racism/whateverisms and you have to point all of *that* out...
Still, not the worst thing she said on that particular stage. My favourite quote from here is the one where she says she wasn't always a feminist and might have once even uttered the words 'I'm for equality but I'm not a feminist' and then describes that as 'not a high point in her life'. To me that says the 'branding' of feminism is what's important to her, not the equality that she would say feminism is trying to achieve, and that tells me all I need to know about her ideology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOmIIAact4s Automatically Appended Next Post: dyndraig wrote:I wonder what the Gencon admins hoped to achieve with this, as far as I know she has no connections at all with the tabletop industry? Did they just wanna stir some controversy or was it ideologically driven?
I doubt they're actually gonna talk about her work on Betrayal at House on the Hill, I would expect she's gonna talk about her usual cultural critic stuff but directed at the tabletop industry, and I would suspect that the GenCon people weren't inviting her to stir up controversy, they probably just like her (ideology).
63000
Post by: Peregrine
jonolikespie wrote:Still, not the worst thing she said on that particular stage. My favourite quote from here is the one where she says she wasn't always a feminist and might have once even uttered the words 'I'm for equality but I'm not a feminist' and then describes that as 'not a high point in her life'. To me that says the 'branding' of feminism is what's important to her, not the equality that she would say feminism is trying to achieve, and that tells me all I need to know about her ideology.
Disagree with this. The whole "equality not feminism" thing is almost always said by people opposed to equality, or at least in denial about what equality means. Feminism is simply an acknowledgement that we are starting from a position of inequality and need to actively work to achieve equality, and because of that inequality work is going to be focused more on improving things for women than for men. When people say "equality not feminism" what they really mean is something like "we let you have the right to vote, what more do you want". IOW, a bad assumption that because the law requires equality it must have been achieved and anyone asking for more needs to STFU and deal with what they have. It's not just about branding, it's about a very different mindset.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Adeptus Doritos wrote:You know what's funny? 25-30 years ago, geeks were under attack by ideologues claiming that our games and hobbies were 'Satanic' or would would make us into school shooters. Back then, we got together and fought back.
That isn't a reasonable comparison at all. People united against the Jesus cults because their arguments were obviously completely detached from reality. It was nonsense on the same level as the crazy guy on the corner yelling about how the end is near, nothing but lies and ignorance. No reasonable and informed person could possibly believe the nonsense, so of course everyone united in opposition to it. People aren't uniting against Anita Sarkeesian because, while she isn't the best representative of her side, she does make some valid points and many of us agree with them. And it's pretty hard to find any energy to oppose someone when your feelings are "she makes some valid points, but I'm not giving her any money".
Do you really want this outrage mob of moral authoritarians coming for you, your group, or your hobby?
Do I care? The "mob" isn't doing anything to threaten my hobby. They aren't going to succeed in banning violent video games or whatever because too many people want those games, and money talks.
I don't care if you like Sargon of Akkad or his follwers, she sat on a panel and berated and demeaned an audience member.
What's your point? The fact that someone is an audience member doesn't make them immune to criticism or mockery. If someone in the audience started waving a Nazi flag I don't think anyone would believe that their "audience member" status gives them any immunity, or object to their removal from the audience. Clearly Sargon of Akkad is not a literal Nazi, but you're going to have to do a lot more than point out that he was occupying a chair in a particular room to establish that anything inappropriate happened.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Peregrine wrote:That isn't a reasonable comparison at all. People united against the Jesus cults because their arguments were obviously completely detached from reality. It was nonsense on the same level as the crazy guy on the corner yelling about how the end is near, nothing but lies and ignorance. No reasonable and informed person could possibly believe the nonsense, so of course everyone united in opposition to it. People aren't uniting against Anita Sarkeesian because, while she isn't the best representative of her side, she does make some valid points and many of us agree with them. And it's pretty hard to find any energy to oppose someone when your feelings are "she makes some valid points, but I'm not giving her any money".
What are some of her 'good points'? I'm fairly sure, "Don't be a sexist jerkoff" is a pretty standard belief. Just because we don't have a zero-sum solution to the occasional idiot doesn't mean we have an epidemic and we need a missionary from the Church of Feminism to lead us on the path to righteousness. If you need someone to tell you this, then you're an absolutely awful person and there is no way to redeem you.
Peregrine wrote:Do I care? The "mob" isn't doing anything to threaten my hobby. They aren't going to succeed in banning violent video games or whatever because too many people want those games, and money talks.
And video games, mind you, are far too wealthy and powerful as an industry for persons like her to hold any real sway over. RPG's, on the other hand, are more likely to be influenced. Recently, the creator of Roll20 (a video game for people to play tabletop RPG's, if you're not familiar- not to insult your knowledge)- has stated that groups of men-only will be banned, however women-only groups are still commonplace- all because a feminist (or at least a perceived feminist) got in his ear about this.
Peregrine wrote:What's your point? The fact that someone is an audience member doesn't make them immune to criticism or mockery. If someone in the audience started waving a Nazi flag I don't think anyone would believe that their "audience member" status gives them any immunity, or object to their removal from the audience. Clearly Sargon of Akkad is not a literal Nazi, but you're going to have to do a lot more than point out that he was occupying a chair in a particular room to establish that anything inappropriate happened.
"Waving a Nazi flag" and sitting somewhere quietly are two completely different things. The former, I'm pretty sure, is against the policy for both attendees and panelists. Berating and name-calling an audience member who was in no way attacking the panelist (in fact, their plan was 'go in and be quiet, say nothing' and that's what they were doing until she started insulting him).
Additionally, the rules for the panelists and participation in that forum are against specifically 'mockery'. There was no criticism, she just had a hissy-fit and started calling a paying audience member names. Had anyone not tied to the Church of Feminism done this, they'd be banned from this sort of thing.
So, your hand-waving of her toxic and inappropriate harassment is not going to hold water to any rational person.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
I feel like this thread is a perfect example of why Anita Sarkeesian should not have been invited to GenCon.
Regardless of is she's divisive, the fact remains that she is.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Adeptus Doritos wrote:What are some of her 'good points'? I'm fairly sure, "Don't be a sexist jerkoff" is a pretty standard belief. Just because we don't have a zero-sum solution to the occasional idiot doesn't mean we have an epidemic and we need a missionary from the Church of Feminism to lead us on the path to righteousness. If you need someone to tell you this, then you're an absolutely awful person and there is no way to redeem you.
Starting off with "if you disagree with me you're an awful person and there's no way to redeem you" is certainly a productive way of having a conversation...
RPG's, on the other hand, are more likely to be influenced. Recently, the creator of Roll20 (a video game for people to play tabletop RPG's, if you're not familiar- not to insult your knowledge)- has stated that groups of men-only will be banned, however women-only groups are still commonplace- all because a feminist (or at least a perceived feminist) got in his ear about this.
First of all, who cares? Roll20 is a tiny part of RPGs, and public groups on Roll20 (as opposed to IRL friends using it for convenience) are an even tinier part. It doesn't matter what policies they have, nothing they do will have any meaningful impact on the RPG hobby. In fact, RPGs are probably the worst example of where we should be concerned about influence, as they have an existence almost entirely independent from any controlling authority. Once the rules are published that's all anyone needs to play, the author's politics become irrelevant. Even character/setting/etc elements that find their way into an RPG because of the creator's politics are easily avoided, and many RPG groups start every game by discarding any "official" setting material in favor of creating their own world and characters.
Second, it's not really that hard to understand why that policy exists. Women are often treated badly and have a legitimate purpose for having a group where they can play their game without having to worry about TFGs ruining it. Men don't face similar problems just because of their gender, so a men-only group is almost certainly run by whiny MRA-types who are doing it just to make a political statement. That doesn't necessarily mean that men-only groups need to be banned, but it's absurd to pretend that the two things are equivalent.
"Waving a Nazi flag" and sitting somewhere quietly are two completely different things.
Stop nitpicking the details of the description. Call it a metaphorical Nazi flag if you require it to be that literal. The point is that occupying a chair in the audience does not grant any special immunity, and you need to establish more than which chair a person was occupying before they get any sympathy for being attacked.
Berating and name-calling an audience member who was in no way attacking the panelist (in fact, their plan was 'go in and be quiet, say nothing' and that's what they were doing until she started insulting him).
Now you're moving the goalposts from "audience member" to "someone who is quietly observing". And you're ignoring the fact that Sargon of Akkad attacked her (and people like her) in the past, whether or not he was doing so at that particular moment. It's like punching someone in the face and then demanding that they not retaliate because at that exact moment you are no longer punching them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote:I feel like this thread is a perfect example of why Anita Sarkeesian should not have been invited to GenCon.
Regardless of is she's divisive, the fact remains that she is.
If you avoid anyone who is "divisive" then you end up with bland and uninteresting events because only the most boring speakers can participate. For example, by that standard GenCon should not invite anyone who works for GW because there is too much disagreement over 8th edition and it would be "divisive" to have that be a topic.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Peregrine wrote:Starting off with "if you disagree with me you're an awful person and there's no way to redeem you" is certainly a productive way of having a conversation...
Well, fortunately that's not what I said. And you're not really known for having 'productive conversations', but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. What I said is, "If you need to be told by someone else that sexist behavior is bad, then you're an awful person and there's no way to redeem you". I'll just assume you mis-read what I typed. Honest mistake, I'm sure.
Me, a paying customer who would like freedom of association in my online interactions. I'm not sure why you thought this was a question.
Peregrine wrote:Roll20 is a tiny part of RPGs, and public groups on Roll20 (as opposed to IRL friends using it for convenience) are an even tinier part. It doesn't matter what policies they have, nothing they do will have any meaningful impact on the RPG hobby. In fact, RPGs are probably the worst example of where we should be concerned about influence, as they have an existence almost entirely independent from any controlling authority. Once the rules are published that's all anyone needs to play, the author's politics become irrelevant. Even character/setting/etc elements that find their way into an RPG because of the creator's politics are easily avoided, and many RPG groups start every game by discarding any "official" setting material in favor of creating their own world and characters.
RPG's? Sure. But what about games with things like controlled tournament systems?
Peregrine wrote:Second, it's not really that hard to understand why that policy exists. Women are often treated badly and have a legitimate purpose for having a group where they can play their game without having to worry about TFGs ruining it. Men don't face similar problems just because of their gender, so a men-only group is almost certainly run by whiny MRA-types who are doing it just to make a political statement. That doesn't necessarily mean that men-only groups need to be banned, but it's absurd to pretend that the two things are equivalent.
People are often treated badly. Men are, in fact, treated badly as well. It's almost as if the internet has these things called 'trolls'.
And yes, the two things are 'equivalent'. We don't generalize when it's convenient for us. We treat people as equals. Human beings should be free to associate with anyone they choose without being punished. If I want to create a group and have only white male republicans in that group, I should be welcome to do so without Nosy Nanny coming in to take the toys away. This whole nonsense about 'women being treated badly' seems to fall apart when these online interactions have systems in place to report persons who are abusive.
Your generalizing of a 'men-only' group as 'whiny MRA types' is just about as valid as me saying that males who support women-only groups are usually guys pretending to be women online and closeted sexual predators. Do we want to play, "Let's make up generalizations?" Tell me what you think a black-only RPG group is, I'm dying to know.
Peregrine wrote:Stop nitpicking the details of the description. Call it a metaphorical Nazi flag if you require it to be that literal. The point is that occupying a chair in the audience does not grant any special immunity, and you need to establish more than which chair a person was occupying before they get any sympathy for being attacked.
Your example was one of a blatant inappropriate behavior, so don't blame me for nitpicking when you chose a very poor example that was completely unrelated to the events that took place. Unless you're under this delusion that certain specific people have invisible Nazi flags without any reason at all to suspect them of being Nazis. I don't know how your mind works, your ideas are generally inconsistent and always mold themselves in accordance with your specific side, rather than anything rational or reasonable.
And yes, as a paying audience member- you should NOT be harassed by someone on the stage. This is pretty fundamental, and you've got to be pretty far over the edge if you're thinking "Well it's okay when we do it!" Had it been the other way around, I am certain your statement would be far different. I don't know why this is difficult for you.
Peregrine wrote:Now you're moving the goalposts from "audience member" to "someone who is quietly observing". And you're ignoring the fact that Sargon of Akkad attacked her (and people like her) in the past, whether or not he was doing so at that particular moment. It's like punching someone in the face and then demanding that they not retaliate because at that exact moment you are no longer punching them.
Do you understand that 'attacking' someone and 'criticizing their ideas' are two different things? If you're having trouble with this concept, I recommend you take a step back and do a little research. Ideas are not protected little things that no one can engage. If you can say he 'attacked' her, then by that very standards you attack quite a few people on this forum and should be shown the door, my good man.
Peregrine wrote:If you avoid anyone who is "divisive" then you end up with bland and uninteresting events because only the most boring speakers can participate. For example, by that standard GenCon should not invite anyone who works for GW because there is too much disagreement over 8th edition and it would be "divisive" to have that be a topic.
Which GW employee called a paying customer a 'Garbage Human being' and a 'Piece of gak'? I'm curious.
11029
Post by: Ketara
I don't know what country you live in, but it must be a very nice place for that to be the case.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Ketara wrote:I don't know what country you live in, but it must be a very nice place for that to be the case.
And I don't know what country you're in, but if you lack decent human beings to deal with this behavior then you probably need to separate yourself from them or be a man and do something yourself. That's how these things usually get handled. Sorry you're surrounded by trash.
34439
Post by: Formosa
Ketara wrote:
I don't know what country you live in, but it must be a very nice place for that to be the case.
its pretty standard in our country ... Automatically Appended Next Post: Adeptus Doritos wrote: Ketara wrote:I don't know what country you live in, but it must be a very nice place for that to be the case.
And I don't know what country you're in, but if you lack decent human beings to deal with this behavior then you probably need to separate yourself from them or be a man and do something yourself. That's how these things usually get handled. Sorry you're surrounded by trash.
He's not, its not like that over here, as per usual there are a few cases and people try to blow it out of proportion to get attention... think its called virtue signaling?
Not saying this guy is doing that though.
110703
Post by: Galas
The problem is when people can't agree in whats sexist and what isn't.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
I doubt it's common in his country. This sort of behavior is rare, but people like to equate loathing someone like Anita Sarkeesian with 'hating women' and then make up "And everyone on the bus clapped" stories on the internet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote:The problem is when people can't agree in whats sexist and what isn't.
Moving the goalposts is a thing. There's a clear definition for 'sexism'. It's just 'too equal' for some people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote:He's not, its not like that over here, as per usual there are a few cases and people try to blow it out of proportion to get attention... think its called virtue signaling?
Not saying this guy is doing that though.
I'm aware. I use Roll20 with a lot of people from the UK. I've also played with them in person. They're pretty chill.
It seems to me like the extremists are more common on the internet comments and message boards, rather than in actual gaming places. I've been playing since the 90's, and I've only met a few actual 'extremists'- and they were mentally ill, rather than hardcore believers or pigs.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Ketara wrote:I don't know what country you live in, but it must be a very nice place for that to be the case.
And I don't know what country you're in, but if you lack decent human beings to deal with this behavior then you probably need to separate yourself from them or be a man and do something yourself. That's how these things usually get handled. Sorry you're surrounded by trash.
It's the UK. Thanks to feminism, the general oppression of women has come a long way, but there's still the torrent of dick pics, over-sexualisation and objectification of women, gender pay gap, and so on. And that's just the overt stuff, you should hear some of the stuff men regularly say or send to girls when they're on anonymous message boards. People are often far braver in revealing their more disgusting opinions online than in person.
Sadly, my masculinity is clearly several Bear Gryll points too low to singlehandedly swoop in on a rope, battle the mongs who perpetrate this stuff, and save the damsels from the evil monsters of sexism, but you know. Only so many hours in the day if I want to be productive.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Too bad, because that's hilariously naive idealism. You don't have a right to freedom of association on someone else's (digital) property. Your ability to use their service is entirely up to them, and you can only choose to comply with their rules or go somewhere else. You never have had, and never will have, unlimited freedom of association anywhere online unless you build your own service and keep full control over it.
RPG's? Sure. But what about games with things like controlled tournament systems?
Well yes, that was kind of my point. You picked the weakest possible example for your argument, ignoring potentially stronger ones. But it's not my job to make your argument for you. Tournaments would obviously be at a bigger risk from poor choices by the organizing authorities, but you haven't shown that threat.
People are often treated badly. Men are, in fact, treated badly as well. It's almost as if the internet has these things called 'trolls'.
Sigh. That's not the point. Women are treated badly because they are women. Men are treated badly sometimes, but rarely because they are men. There is a vast difference between being subjected to an endless barrage of "TITS OR GTFO" and "MAKE ME A SANDWICH LOL" by TFGs and ordinary trolling (which women also have to deal with).
And yes, the two things are 'equivalent'. We don't generalize when it's convenient for us. We treat people as equals.
That is more wishful thinking. You can talk all you want about how nice it would be for things to be equal, but things aren't equal. And when you have a problem with unequal treatment the solution to that problem is likely not going to be equal.
Human beings should be free to associate with anyone they choose without being punished.
That's a nice theory. Feel free to start your own competitor to Roll20 and use that as your policy. Until then, if you want to use Roll20 then you play by their rules.
(And if you do start your competitor I suspect you'll quickly back off of that policy when it becomes apparent to you how difficult moderation becomes if you can't ban people/groups you don't want using your service.)
Your generalizing of a 'men-only' group as 'whiny MRA types' is just about as valid as me saying that males who support women-only groups are usually guys pretending to be women online and closeted sexual predators.
No, it isn't at all equivalent. One is a pretty accurate generalization, one is you making up random nonsense. The reasons people start women-only groups do not apply to men, because men don't experience the same kind of harassment and sexism that women do. Men don't need separate groups to avoid behavior that they are not commonly targeted by. So if you're making a "men only" group that fills a nonexistent need then it's time to look at the other motives. And the obvious one is the same one behind white history month and straight pride parades and such, creating a parody of legitimate groups for political reasons.
Your example was one of a blatant inappropriate behavior, so don't blame me for nitpicking when you chose a very poor example that was completely unrelated to the events that took place.
Again, you're missing the point (or deliberately ignoring it). Of course it was an example of inappropriate behavior, the point is that "audience member" is meaningless in determining if treatment of someone was appropriate. The actual standard is how they were behaving, both in the audience and elsewhere, not which chair they were occupying at the time they were attacked. You're the one who is trying to argue that occupying a chair in the audience is relevant, my example demonstrates that it isn't and that audience members can be justifiably attacked.
If you want to make a compelling argument about the events that took place then you need more than "he was sitting in a chair in this spot" as a defense of him as an innocent victim rather than a TFG who just wasn't doing anything TFG-ish at that exact moment. And you haven't done that.
If you can say he 'attacked' her, then by that very standards you attack quite a few people on this forum and should be shown the door, my good man.
I could say the same about you. The door is right here: DOOR.GIF
Which GW employee called a paying customer a 'Garbage Human being' and a 'Piece of gak'? I'm curious.
There you go again, making up straw man arguments. Nobody claimed that a GW employee did. The argument was that we shouldn't invite divisive people, not that we shouldn't invite people who said those particular things. GW employees are divisive in different ways, but they are still divisive and would be excluded under a "no divisive people" policy.
34439
Post by: Formosa
I doubt it's common in his country. This sort of behavior is rare, but people like to equate loathing someone like Anita Sarkeesian with 'hating women' and then make up "And everyone on the bus clapped" stories on the internet
.
Misunderstanding, me and him live in the same country and its NOT common here, not sure why he implied it was.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I doubt it's common in his country. This sort of behavior is rare, but people like to equate loathing someone like Anita Sarkeesian with 'hating women' and then make up "And everyone on the bus clapped" stories on the internet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote:The problem is when people can't agree in whats sexist and what isn't.
Moving the goalposts is a thing. There's a clear definition for 'sexism'. It's just 'too equal' for some people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote:He's not, its not like that over here, as per usual there are a few cases and people try to blow it out of proportion to get attention... think its called virtue signaling?
Not saying this guy is doing that though.
I'm aware. I use Roll20 with a lot of people from the UK. I've also played with them in person. They're pretty chill.
It seems to me like the extremists are more common on the internet comments and message boards, rather than in actual gaming places. I've been playing since the 90's, and I've only met a few actual 'extremists'- and they were mentally ill, rather than hardcore believers or pigs.
odd it cut off most of my reply, long story short, yep, thats my experience as well.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Formosa wrote:
Misunderstanding, me and him live in the same country and its NOT common here, not sure why he implied it was.
Guv, you should hear some of the stories my girlfriend and other female friends have. You're very lucky not to be a sexually attractive young woman in some regards, because it means you get to be oblivious to it.
97571
Post by: Sqorgar
Peregrine wrote:
Sigh. That's not the point. Women are treated badly because they are women. Men are treated badly sometimes, but rarely because they are men.
I guess you've missed the recent feminist backlash against cis white males? Gamers are treated badly because they are men. That's the entire point of Sarkeesian's videos. The male gaze is bad because it is male. Virtual violence is bad because it feeds into masculine desires. Damsels in distress are bad because it is a male power fantasy of saving/winning a princess through heroic (masculine) deeds. The one thing that ties together everything she has ever said about the game industry is that men are bad, doing men things is bad, gamers are men, gamers are bad because they are men.
34439
Post by: Formosa
Ketara wrote: Formosa wrote:
Misunderstanding, me and him live in the same country and its NOT common here, not sure why he implied it was.
My friend, you should hear some of the stories my girlfriend and other female friends have. You're very lucky not to be a sexually attractive young woman in some regards, because it means you get to be oblivious to it.
Ah the "my friends/girlfriend" nonsense..... ok to counter your circumstantial evidence, here is some of my own, my twin sister has never had an issue, neither has my Mrs, nor nieces.... so by your reasoning they must all be munters because they have never had a problem......
I hate the "my X/Y/Z had an experience once so that must be true" argument, it has as much credence as "but I cant be racist, i have a black friend"
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Sqorgar wrote:I guess you've missed the recent feminist backlash against cis white males?
No such backlash exists. Some of us are annoyed at cis white men who think that any ishness they don't personally experience doesn't exist, or that any character in fiction who isn't a cis white man is taking something away from them, and there is certainly a lot of pointing out the privilege that cis white men have. But nobody (at least outside of irrelevant "some random person on tumblr" nonsense) is saying "you suck because you are a cis white man". Nobody is asking inappropriate questions about what's in their pants (and if it's "real") or insisting they offer a solution to white on white crime or yelling "GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN" at them in the same way that people treat transgender/non-white/female people.
Gamers are treated badly because they are men.
No they aren't. Female gamers are often treated badly in the same ways as male gamers, to the extent that gamers in general are treated badly at all. This isn't 1990 anymore, gaming is a mainstream thing. And there is certainly no male equivalent to the sexism that women get in the gaming community. If a person with a male-sounding voice joins a random FPS server they aren't going to expect to receive "DICK PICS NOW" or "I BET YOU ONLY PLAY BECAUSE YOUR GIRLFRIEND DOES" spam in the same way that women receive inappropriate comments.
The male gaze is bad because it is male.
No, that isn't anyone's point. The male gaze is bad because of how it is a near-universal thing. Men are the important part, women are the subject and entertainment for men. Most/all people objecting to the male gaze problem would be happy with equality in that, where the female gaze has equal prominence.
Damsels in distress are bad because it is a male power fantasy of saving/winning a princess through heroic (masculine) deeds.
Well yes, when your story treats half of your potential customers as irrelevant at best, and helpless objects to be rescued at worst, you're going to have objections to it. In fact, you're demonstrating the problem by making this argument. You're treating "gamer" and "male power fantasy" as synonymous, and assuming that criticism of that male power fantasy must be criticism of gamers.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Formosa wrote:
Ah the "my friends/girlfriend" nonsense..... ok to counter your circumstantial evidence, here is some of my own, my twin sister has never had an issue, neither has my Mrs, nor nieces.... so by your reasoning they must all be munters because they have never had a problem......
Well that's that, you've convinced me with your solid argument and empirical evidential foundation!
You know, I think you should start a blog to disseminate your views. Call it, 'Why casual sexism towards women doesn't exist in my country' or something. You could explain to all the ladies who think they've been on the receiving end of it that it must be psychosomatic. You could even do advocacy stuff. You know, turn up at feminist events and tell them that it's all pointless, because equality of the sexes is now the social norm. Then they could go home and do more productive things.
I bet you'd be wildly popular, and all those girls would be really grateful to you for breaking things down in a simple fashion so that they can understand it.
28774
Post by: Brunius
Ketara wrote: Formosa wrote:
Ah the "my friends/girlfriend" nonsense..... ok to counter your circumstantial evidence, here is some of my own, my twin sister has never had an issue, neither has my Mrs, nor nieces.... so by your reasoning they must all be munters because they have never had a problem......
Well that's that, you've convinced me with your solid argument and empirical evidential foundation!
You know, I think you should start a blog to disseminate your views. Call it, 'Why casual sexism towards women doesn't exist in my country' or something. You could explain to all the ladies who think they've been on the receiving end of it that it must be psychosomatic. You could even do advocacy stuff. You know, turn up at feminist events and tell them that it's all pointless, because equality of the sexes is now the social norm. Then they could go home and do more productive things.
I bet you'd be wildly popular, and all those girls would be really grateful to you for breaking things down in a simple fashion so that they can understand it.
I reckon his evidence is about as good as yours (ie not very)
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Ketara wrote: Formosa wrote:
Ah the "my friends/girlfriend" nonsense..... ok to counter your circumstantial evidence, here is some of my own, my twin sister has never had an issue, neither has my Mrs, nor nieces.... so by your reasoning they must all be munters because they have never had a problem......
Well that's that, you've convinced me with your solid argument and empirical evidential foundation!
You know, I think you should start a blog to disseminate your views. Call it, 'Why casual sexism towards women doesn't exist in my country' or something. You could explain to all the ladies who think they've been on the receiving end of it that it must be psychosomatic. You could even do advocacy stuff. You know, turn up at feminist events and tell them that it's all pointless, because equality of the sexes is now the social norm. Then they could go home and do more productive things.
I bet you'd be wildly popular, and all those girls would be really grateful to you for breaking things down in a simple fashion so that they can understand it.
Deleted because it's not on topic and I can't be arsed falling down the identity politics rabbit hole.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Brunius wrote:
I reckon his evidence is about as good as yours (ie not very)
What? No, it's far better! Look at how he flawlessly demolished my lengthy and well footnoted critical discourse! I reckon what we have here is a budding genius in the offspring, and he should share that genius with as many women as possible. How else can they fully appreciate their newfound liberation from casual sexism if they don't know about it?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Sim-Life wrote:What rights are afforded to men that aren't to women in the UK?
Legal equality =/= actual equality. Merely making a law that says something is true doesn't guarantee that it is true.
18698
Post by: kronk
Since 2000, I have been to 14 GenCons.
I have never gone to a panel featuring a Guest of Honor, I have never met a Guest of Honor, not have I ever given a feth about who the guest of honor is/was.
If this is upsetting to you, don’t go, I guess?
I will be attending to play new games, hang out with old friends, and stare unabashedly at hot cosplayer girl side boob.
34439
Post by: Formosa
Ketara wrote: Formosa wrote:
Ah the "my friends/girlfriend" nonsense..... ok to counter your circumstantial evidence, here is some of my own, my twin sister has never had an issue, neither has my Mrs, nor nieces.... so by your reasoning they must all be munters because they have never had a problem......
Well that's that, you've convinced me with your solid argument and empirical evidential foundation!
You know, I think you should start a blog to disseminate your views. Call it, 'Why casual sexism towards women doesn't exist in my country' or something. You could explain to all the ladies who think they've been on the receiving end of it that it must be psychosomatic. You could even do advocacy stuff. You know, turn up at feminist events and tell them that it's all pointless, because equality of the sexes is now the social norm. Then they could go home and do more productive things.
I bet you'd be wildly popular, and all those girls would be really grateful to you for breaking things down in a simple fashion so that they can understand it.
And you too have convinced me with your substanceless comment on it too
Men and woman have some great banter between the two sexes and revel in the differences, then when someone like yourself comes in and starts whinging about "equality this and equality that".. you ruin the dynamic, its made situations that were equal previously ... not, now in a situation where I and others would treat a woman in an equal manner, we must infact treat them differently for fear of being called sexist.. or racist or some other BS "Ist" thats out there, people like you and peregrine have made my job much much harder and have infact HARMED the cause for equality within my industry.
If you are not one of those types I apologise in advance, but its the way you are coming across at the moment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brunius wrote: Ketara wrote: Formosa wrote:
Ah the "my friends/girlfriend" nonsense..... ok to counter your circumstantial evidence, here is some of my own, my twin sister has never had an issue, neither has my Mrs, nor nieces.... so by your reasoning they must all be munters because they have never had a problem......
Well that's that, you've convinced me with your solid argument and empirical evidential foundation!
You know, I think you should start a blog to disseminate your views. Call it, 'Why casual sexism towards women doesn't exist in my country' or something. You could explain to all the ladies who think they've been on the receiving end of it that it must be psychosomatic. You could even do advocacy stuff. You know, turn up at feminist events and tell them that it's all pointless, because equality of the sexes is now the social norm. Then they could go home and do more productive things.
I bet you'd be wildly popular, and all those girls would be really grateful to you for breaking things down in a simple fashion so that they can understand it.
I reckon his evidence is about as good as yours (ie not very)
That was kinda my point lol
11029
Post by: Ketara
Formosa wrote:
And you too have convinced me with your substanceless comment on it too
Men and woman have some great banter between the two sexes and revel in the differences, then when someone like yourself comes in and starts whinging about "equality this and equality that".. you ruin the dynamic, its made situations that were equal previously equal ... not, now in a situation where I and others would treat a woman in an equal manner, we must infact treat them differently for fear of being called sexist.. or racist or some other BS "Ist" thats out there, people like you and peregrine have made my job much much harder and have infact HARMED the cause for equality within my industry.
If you are not one of those types I apologise in advance, but its the way you are coming across at the moment.
Mate, I was clearly talking crap. You are totally right, things have clearly gone the other way if anything. The fact that you would have previously treated people equally, and are now FORCED (probably by police showing up or something) to look at women differently is a clear sign that things are going too far the other way! On top of attending those feminist assemblies to tell them they can go home, you should start up an organisation for men's rights. I'll be the first subscriber. You could hold rallies on male oppression and everything.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Ketara wrote: Formosa wrote:
And you too have convinced me with your substanceless comment on it too
Men and woman have some great banter between the two sexes and revel in the differences, then when someone like yourself comes in and starts whinging about "equality this and equality that".. you ruin the dynamic, its made situations that were equal previously equal ... not, now in a situation where I and others would treat a woman in an equal manner, we must infact treat them differently for fear of being called sexist.. or racist or some other BS "Ist" thats out there, people like you and peregrine have made my job much much harder and have infact HARMED the cause for equality within my industry.
If you are not one of those types I apologise in advance, but its the way you are coming across at the moment.
...and are now FORCED (probably by police showing up or something)
The fact that you live in the UK and are making jokes about people being arrested for having opinions is pretty ironic.
34439
Post by: Formosa
Ketara wrote: Formosa wrote:
And you too have convinced me with your substanceless comment on it too
Men and woman have some great banter between the two sexes and revel in the differences, then when someone like yourself comes in and starts whinging about "equality this and equality that".. you ruin the dynamic, its made situations that were equal previously equal ... not, now in a situation where I and others would treat a woman in an equal manner, we must infact treat them differently for fear of being called sexist.. or racist or some other BS "Ist" thats out there, people like you and peregrine have made my job much much harder and have infact HARMED the cause for equality within my industry.
If you are not one of those types I apologise in advance, but its the way you are coming across at the moment.
Mate, I was clearly talking crap. You are totally right, things have clearly gone the other way if anything. The fact that you would have previously treated people equally, and are now FORCED (probably by police showing up or something) to look at women differently is a clear sign that things are going too far the other way! On top of attending those feminist assemblies to tell them they can go home, you should start up an organisation for men's rights. I'll be the first subscriber. You could hold rallies on male oppression and everything.
Grade A trolling there Ketara
You keep trying to make this something else eh hahah, and yep you are clearly talking crap and now trying to muddy the waters with bad sarcasm, I am glad my first impression of you was correct.
You keep reaping the benefits off the back of people like me who actually actively do things about equality, while you just do it to "look good" in front of your piers and achieve nothing other than to muddy the waters, good job
752
Post by: Polonius
Wait, are people here actually arguing that there is no sexism against women in society at large?
This stuff is pretty well documented. There are studies, literally hundreds of high profile cases in the media, and plenty of personal stories.
I supposed if your female friends and family have never shared any sexism with you, it could mean one of two things: 1) that you only know women that have had a completely different experience than most women, or 2) the women in your life have not shared their sexist experiences with you.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Formosa wrote:
You keep reaping the benefits off the back of people like me who actually actively do things about equality,
Errrr...I don't understand? Surely if casual sexism is no longer the norm in the UK, there's no need to do anything about equality! Unless....you mean battling the evil forces of feminism to make men equal to women again! Is that how I'm 'reaping the benefit'?
I truly am lucky to have such stout defenders of the male gender around to fight my battles for me.
while you just do it to "look good" in front of your piers and achieve nothing other than to muddy the waters, good job
But Formosa! You're the only pier I want the good opinion of! Don't leave me alone here with those horrible virtue signalling man haters like Peregrine!
34439
Post by: Formosa
Polonius wrote:Wait, are people here actually arguing that there is no sexism against women in society at large?
This stuff is pretty well documented. There are studies, literally hundreds of high profile cases in the media, and plenty of personal stories.
I supposed if your female friends and family have never shared any sexism with you, it could mean one of two things: 1) that you only know women that have had a completely different experience than most women, or 2) the women in your life have not shared their sexist experiences with you.
Nah I’m arguing with blowing it out of proportion and using circumstantial evidence to back it up, the “I saw it happen therefore it always happens everywhere” argument, it’s clearly nonsense and used to either close an argument down or provoke and emotional response.
752
Post by: Polonius
Formosa wrote: Polonius wrote:Wait, are people here actually arguing that there is no sexism against women in society at large?
This stuff is pretty well documented. There are studies, literally hundreds of high profile cases in the media, and plenty of personal stories.
I supposed if your female friends and family have never shared any sexism with you, it could mean one of two things: 1) that you only know women that have had a completely different experience than most women, or 2) the women in your life have not shared their sexist experiences with you.
Nah I’m arguing with blowing it out of proportion and using circumstantial evidence to back it up, the “I saw it happen therefore it always happens everywhere” argument, it’s clearly nonsense and used to either close an argument down or provoke and emotional response.
But if it's pretty well documented to being common, then personal accounts make sense, right? I mean, there's evidence that low grade harassment toward women does happen all the time, if not quite everywhere.
It kind of seems like you want to acknowledge sexism, but then not actually do anything about it.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Polonius wrote:Wait, are people here actually arguing that there is no sexism against women in society at large?
The argument being attempted was that, to quote 'its not common here'. Ergo, that it is unusual, out of the ordinary, and not something to be encountered in any form on a regular basis.
18698
Post by: kronk
Ketara wrote: Polonius wrote:Wait, are people here actually arguing that there is no sexism against women in society at large?
The argument being attempted was that, to quote 'its not common here'. Ergo, that it is unusual, out of the ordinary, and not something to be encountered in any form on a regular basis.
That’s a poor arguement, sadly. Sexism is pretty rampant.
Sadly, you encounter it more often than hot cosplayer girl sideboob.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Polonius wrote: Formosa wrote: Polonius wrote:Wait, are people here actually arguing that there is no sexism against women in society at large?
This stuff is pretty well documented. There are studies, literally hundreds of high profile cases in the media, and plenty of personal stories.
I supposed if your female friends and family have never shared any sexism with you, it could mean one of two things: 1) that you only know women that have had a completely different experience than most women, or 2) the women in your life have not shared their sexist experiences with you.
Nah I’m arguing with blowing it out of proportion and using circumstantial evidence to back it up, the “I saw it happen therefore it always happens everywhere” argument, it’s clearly nonsense and used to either close an argument down or provoke and emotional response.
But if it's pretty well documented to being common, then personal accounts make sense, right? I mean, there's evidence that low grade harassment toward women does happen all the time, if not quite everywhere.
It kind of seems like you want to acknowledge sexism, but then not actually do anything about it.
Do you suggest he hangs around buildings sites and calls the police whenever a builder makes an off colour comment?
Even feminists can't agree on exactly what exactly constitutes sexism. Who are we to do so?
110703
Post by: Galas
This discussion could benefit from someone quoting actual studies (With a good methodology) about the whidespread of low-key sexim. Or the lack of it.
Personally, I don't consider myself feminist, I disagree with many of their principles and methods if not with the final goal.
But I find bollocks to try to say that theres actual generalised discrimination agaisnt white males in general or in the gamer sub-world, but then to negate that theres common sexism toward women in the world at large.
I don't know what to say, personally, here, you just need to go a friday or a saturday in the night for clubs and pubs to see all kind of sexist attitudes. I'll add, of course, that the "club culture" is obnoxious in all kind of senses, for men and women, and it should be erased from the face of the earth. But maybe my vision in that regard is a little extreme.
34439
Post by: Formosa
Polonius wrote: Formosa wrote: Polonius wrote:Wait, are people here actually arguing that there is no sexism against women in society at large?
This stuff is pretty well documented. There are studies, literally hundreds of high profile cases in the media, and plenty of personal stories.
I supposed if your female friends and family have never shared any sexism with you, it could mean one of two things: 1) that you only know women that have had a completely different experience than most women, or 2) the women in your life have not shared their sexist experiences with you.
Nah I’m arguing with blowing it out of proportion and using circumstantial evidence to back it up, the “I saw it happen therefore it always happens everywhere” argument, it’s clearly nonsense and used to either close an argument down or provoke and emotional response.
But if it's pretty well documented to being common, then personal accounts make sense, right? I mean, there's evidence that low grade harassment toward women does happen all the time, if not quite everywhere.
It kind of seems like you want to acknowledge sexism, but then not actually do anything about it.
Its pretty well documented is it? cool, provide those documents from a reputable/reliable source, you have essentially claimed that its rampant, so back that up.
97571
Post by: Sqorgar
Peregrine wrote: Sqorgar wrote:I guess you've missed the recent feminist backlash against cis white males?
No such backlash exists. Some of us are annoyed at cis white men who think that any ishness they don't personally experience doesn't exist, or that any character in fiction who isn't a cis white man is taking something away from them, and there is certainly a lot of pointing out the privilege that cis white men have. But nobody (at least outside of irrelevant "some random person on tumblr" nonsense) is saying "you suck because you are a cis white man". Nobody is asking inappropriate questions about what's in their pants (and if it's "real") or insisting they offer a solution to white on white crime or yelling "GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN" at them in the same way that people treat transgender/non-white/female people.
I could provide you with HUNDREDS of examples of people saying "you suck because you are a cis white man". If you were being honest, you could too. I mean, "toxic masculinity" is literally one of the go to claims of feminists. This shouldn't even be up for debate, but I feel like you are so unwilling to allow for any ground lost that you would eventually start arguing the definition of "is".
Gamers are treated badly because they are men.
No they aren't. Female gamers are often treated badly in the same ways as male gamers, to the extent that gamers in general are treated badly at all. This isn't 1990 anymore, gaming is a mainstream thing. And there is certainly no male equivalent to the sexism that women get in the gaming community. If a person with a male-sounding voice joins a random FPS server they aren't going to expect to receive "DICK PICS NOW" or "I BET YOU ONLY PLAY BECAUSE YOUR GIRLFRIEND DOES" spam in the same way that women receive inappropriate comments.
Female gamers are WORSHIPPED in the video game community. It's the only reason why Sarkeesian's bs gained any traction at all.
The male gaze is bad because it is male.
No, that isn't anyone's point. The male gaze is bad because of how it is a near-universal thing. Men are the important part, women are the subject and entertainment for men. Most/all people objecting to the male gaze problem would be happy with equality in that, where the female gaze has equal prominence.
So, the male gaze - called the MALE gaze - which objectifies women (and only women) and is a near-universal thing (because men are near universally into looking a the female form), is only bad because there is also not a female gaze? Then why are their movies that are simultaneously condemned for having sexy female characters (like Black Widow) while also being praised for their sexy male characters (like shirtless Thor)?
Damsels in distress are bad because it is a male power fantasy of saving/winning a princess through heroic (masculine) deeds.
Well yes, when your story treats half of your potential customers as irrelevant at best, and helpless objects to be rescued at worst, you're going to have objections to it.
Last I checked, women like the damsel in distress tropes as well, or have Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty become famous, popular fairy tales for centuries because only men like it?
In fact, you're demonstrating the problem by making this argument. You're treating "gamer" and "male power fantasy" as synonymous, and assuming that criticism of that male power fantasy must be criticism of gamers.
I'm not making that claim, but I'm glad we finally got around to arguing the definitions of words. The claim made by Sarkeesian is that these things (male gaze, violence, damsels in distress) are morally bad things, and that they have no place in a modern, equal society. The crux of all these claims is that men like them, women do not, and thus it is unfair and sexist. Instead of allowing for these things to exist in addition to the experiences she wants to see, she is, herself, unfair in her criticisms and praise.
For instance, seeing DOOM at the Bethesda E3 conference, she tweeted - direct quote - "This level of violence shouldn't be considered normal. It's not an excuse to say it is expected because DOOM. That's the problem."
DOOM is one of the cornerstones of gaming. Why shouldn't the new game's level of violence (well within the standard set by the series) be considered normal? Especially when it is a DOOM game being a DOOM game? How is it a problem? She also complains about the audience cheering that violence. What does this say about what Sarkeesian wants for video games? That she wants more experiences that she likes or that she wants less (zero) experiences that she doesn't?
And how does she associate violence with masculinity? Here's some tweets she wrote in the aftermath of a school shooting:
"We need to seriously address connections between violence, sexism and toxic ideas of manhood before boys and men commit more mass shootings."
"Not a coincidence it’s always men and boys committing mass shootings. The pattern is connected to ideas of toxic masculinity in our culture."
110703
Post by: Galas
Personally, with the "Female gamers are worshipped" affirmation, I have to disagree. If they where worshipped in general, you wouldn't have people arguing if a girl is a true gamer or a poser based in how pretty she is. And I have seen plenty of cases of people saying each other "Omg you suck because you are male" but thats like in universities and on the internet, and as we know those are not the real world.
Theres a ton of discussion about that kind of stuff. Of course, our personal experiences are different, because hispanic countries (Theres no "spanish" communities on the internet, just hispanic ones, we all get mixed up) specially those in South america are generally much more sexist and religious controlled than Spain.
So even in my small warcraft roleplay community, I have seen a ton of cases of sexist commentaries towards women, normally from people of central-south america.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Galas wrote:Personally, with the "Female gamers are worshipped" affirmation, I have to disagree. If they where worshipped in general, you wouldn't have people arguing if a girl is a true gamer or a poser based in how pretty she is.
Go on over to Twitch and check out a few girls channels. I don't have a lot of sympathy for girls who wear a low cut top, position a camera at a high angle and watch free money roll in then complain about being objectified..
110703
Post by: Galas
Sim-Life wrote: Galas wrote:Personally, with the "Female gamers are worshipped" affirmation, I have to disagree. If they where worshipped in general, you wouldn't have people arguing if a girl is a true gamer or a poser based in how pretty she is.
Go on over to Twitch and check out a few girls channels. I don't have a lot of sympathy for girls who wear a low cut top, position a camera at a high angle and watch free money roll in then complain about being objectified..
As I loathe and hate the term "gamer", I don't spend much time thinking who is one and who isnt. And for that, I'm happier. But personally I don't have problems with people that do with his time whatever they want.
I have seen too much porn to claim the high ground in that kind of discussion.
EDIT: In response to your edit, yeah, thats hipocrisy for their part, but at the same time... does it matter?
97571
Post by: Sqorgar
Galas wrote:This discussion could benefit from someone quoting actual studies (With a good methodology) about the whidespread of low-key sexim. Or the lack of it.
Unfortunately, a large number of these studies are extremely poor. Being obsessed with primary sources, I personally read many of the studies cited and drew my own conclusions. In most cases, the studies were misquoted or quoted out of context or simply misunderstood, with the rest being legitimately poor studies that used a statistically insignificant number of people, a biased sample, didn't control for various factors (such as lying, when using anonymous questionnaires), and so on. The worst ones were the meta-analyses which collected together a hundred or so studies and tried to make a study out of that, but it generally treats the studies as if they were equal. When the majority of those studies were terrible by scientific standards in the first place, it starts to make the ones that were legitimate stand out as an outlier, becoming a footnote to the study.
For instance, there was this one study - it was a while ago, so I hope I'm remembering this right - that reported that it showed that people are racist because when shown faces of convicted criminals, when shown more black faces, the people were more likely to favor the death penalty. But if you examine the actual study, you'd find that they didn't control for other factors, like mustaches, glasses, whether they were smiling, and stuff like that. It didn't control for the ages, races, income levels, whether they'd been victimized in the past, and stuff like that for the people questioned. And then, when you ran the numbers, they only did two tests, each with a group of twenty people, in which the total difference in votes was 2 - well within the range of variation for such a small sample size. And yet, this study was reported on as if it proved racism and was brought up repeatedly in debates about racism.
But I find bollocks to try to say that theres actual generalised discrimination agaisnt white males in general or in the gamer sub-world, but then to negate that theres common sexism toward women in the world at large.
I think most people agree that there is discrimination against women, but where we disagree is how damaging that discrimination is - especially with regard to gaming. Sure, genital mutilation in Africa is pretty darn bad, but getting "SEND NUDES" over voice chat? It's a matter of balance. How terrible is this discrimination and how many concessions are we willing to make to to end it? For instance, I think most people would be against wholesale censorship of the internet to end online harassment.
I'd argue that while women are treated differently in the gamer community, I won't agree that they are treated worse. I have not seen any evidence that this is true. Everything I've seen happens to men and women alike, often in equal measures (I just got teabagged in Fortnite), and it seems like the true difference isn't in how they are treated, but how much they are offended by their treatment.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Galas wrote: Sim-Life wrote: Galas wrote:Personally, with the "Female gamers are worshipped" affirmation, I have to disagree. If they where worshipped in general, you wouldn't have people arguing if a girl is a true gamer or a poser based in how pretty she is.
Go on over to Twitch and check out a few girls channels. I don't have a lot of sympathy for girls who wear a low cut top, position a camera at a high angle and watch free money roll in then complain about being objectified..
As I loathe and hate the term "gamer", I don't spend much time thinking who is one and who isnt. And for that, I'm happier. But personally I don't have problems with people that do with his time whatever they want.
I have seen too much porn to claim the high ground in that kind of discussion.
EDIT: In response to your edit, yeah, thats hipocrisy for their part, but at the same time... does it matter?
My main problem with it is that I'm not a moderately attractive girl to get free money from nerds.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Galas wrote:This discussion could benefit from someone quoting actual studies (With a good methodology) about the whidespread of low-key sexim.
There's a profundity of such studies available for anyone who cares enough to go and look, but the issue is that those who have a serious enough problem with feminism won't do that. It's like any political position, if they're a die hard against something, most people will go to any extreme not to budge even an inch because so much of their world view is predicated upon it. Anything that agrees with you is accepted without question and anything that disagrees (if consulted at all) is rigorously examined for faults and discounted on minor factors.
Personally, I don't consider myself feminist, I disagree with many of their principles and methods if not with the final goal.
See, I find it good to make a distinction between being a 'feminist' (someone who believes women should have equal rights, opportunities, and treatment to their male counterparts), and being one of the thirty odd University based extreme 'Feminazis' who actually espouse stuff about female superiority, and the horde of 15 year oldTumblrinas who blow things up to ridiculous proportions because they're in a little bubble and have a poor understanding of most of the concepts they actually talk about (which is fine, we all start somewhere).
Unfortunately, those who want to have a problem with feminism (I'm not talking about you here guv, you're being very reasonable) inevitably conflate them all together in a big mixing pot so that they can talk about how 'toxic' feminism is. It gives them something to rant against. To them, feminism is more of a political position than a simple belief with regards to societal attitudes, which turns it into something they can fight/oppose without having to reconcile themselves to the concept that they might be actively fighting to oppress people.
Then you can say all the women who disagee with you are likely those darn feminists, and all the men only do it because they're trying to get into the ladies pants (that usually being the primary obsession/motivation of the person in question projected onto other people).
752
Post by: Polonius
Formosa wrote: Polonius wrote: Formosa wrote: Polonius wrote:Wait, are people here actually arguing that there is no sexism against women in society at large?
This stuff is pretty well documented. There are studies, literally hundreds of high profile cases in the media, and plenty of personal stories.
I supposed if your female friends and family have never shared any sexism with you, it could mean one of two things: 1) that you only know women that have had a completely different experience than most women, or 2) the women in your life have not shared their sexist experiences with you.
Nah I’m arguing with blowing it out of proportion and using circumstantial evidence to back it up, the “I saw it happen therefore it always happens everywhere” argument, it’s clearly nonsense and used to either close an argument down or provoke and emotional response.
But if it's pretty well documented to being common, then personal accounts make sense, right? I mean, there's evidence that low grade harassment toward women does happen all the time, if not quite everywhere.
It kind of seems like you want to acknowledge sexism, but then not actually do anything about it.
Its pretty well documented is it? cool, provide those documents from a reputable/reliable source, you have essentially claimed that its rampant, so back that up.
https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/newsroom/newsn/2700/new-research-proves-gender-bias-extraordinarily-prevalent-in-stem-careers
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/12/14/gender-discrimination-comes-in-many-forms-for-todays-working-women/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-pay-gap-is-way-too-entrenched-to-be-solved-by-women-alone/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/half-women-stem-have-experienced-gender-discrimination-work-study-finds-n836116
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/aug/10/half-of-women-uk-have-been-sexually-harassed-at-work-tuc-study-everyday-sexism
https://www.nsopw.gov/(X(1)S(lcnxya1pq1atwvcxw420muju))/en-US/Education/FactsStatistics?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1#reference (A study that estimates that 18% of American women have been raped at some point in their life)
That was with a few minutes of searching. So, women are more likely to report gender discrimination than men, less likely to be hired in STEM than men, are paid less even after controlling for every possible variable, about half are harassed at work, and about a fifth are raped at some point in their life. I feel comfortable calling this "wide spread sexism."
110703
Post by: Galas
Sim-Life wrote: Galas wrote: Sim-Life wrote: Galas wrote:Personally, with the "Female gamers are worshipped" affirmation, I have to disagree. If they where worshipped in general, you wouldn't have people arguing if a girl is a true gamer or a poser based in how pretty she is.
Go on over to Twitch and check out a few girls channels. I don't have a lot of sympathy for girls who wear a low cut top, position a camera at a high angle and watch free money roll in then complain about being objectified..
As I loathe and hate the term "gamer", I don't spend much time thinking who is one and who isnt. And for that, I'm happier. But personally I don't have problems with people that do with his time whatever they want.
I have seen too much porn to claim the high ground in that kind of discussion.
EDIT: In response to your edit, yeah, thats hipocrisy for their part, but at the same time... does it matter?
My main problem with it is that I'm not a moderately attractive girl to get free money from nerds.
Sex sells.
Is a cheap marketing strategy but it works. To try to fight it is like fighting agaisnt windmills. You can accept that fact. You are not a moderately attractive girl. I'm sure you aren't an olimpic athlete or a nobel-winning scientist either. We need to recognise our limitations and live with them.
97571
Post by: Sqorgar
Ketara wrote:
There's a profundity of such studies available for anyone who cares enough to go and look, but the issue is that those who have a serious enough problem with feminism won't do that. It's like any political position, if they're a die hard against something, most people will go to any extreme not to budge even an inch because so much of their world view is predicated upon it. Anything that agrees with you is accepted without question and anything that disagrees (if consulted at all) is rigorously examined for faults and discounted on minor factors.
Yes, EVERY STUDY SHOULD BE RIGOROUSLY EXAMINED FOR FAULTS. That's just fething common sense, even if you agree with it.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Sqorgar wrote: Ketara wrote:
There's a profundity of such studies available for anyone who cares enough to go and look, but the issue is that those who have a serious enough problem with feminism won't do that. It's like any political position, if they're a die hard against something, most people will go to any extreme not to budge even an inch because so much of their world view is predicated upon it. Anything that agrees with you is accepted without question and anything that disagrees (if consulted at all) is rigorously examined for faults and discounted on minor factors.
Yes, EVERY STUDY SHOULD BE RIGOROUSLY EXAMINED FOR FAULTS. That's just fething common sense, even if you agree with it.
Edit: No wait, my misreading there, you just emphasised that every study should be examined for flaws. Which is true. Not sure what it has to do with my point, but sure. You'll get no disagreement with me (or likely anyone) on that score.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Sqorgar wrote:I'd argue that while women are treated differently in the gamer community, I won't agree that they are treated worse. I have not seen any evidence that this is true. Everything I've seen happens to men and women alike, often in equal measures (I just got teabagged in Fortnite), and it seems like the true difference isn't in how they are treated, but how much they are offended by their treatment.
Man, I play games with my wife and she most definitely has been treated differently as soon as she speaks in voice chat, and in no way have the two of us gotten that treatment with anything like parity - I don't think I was harassed even once solely because I'm a man, to be honest. Anecdotal yadda yadda.
752
Post by: Polonius
Ketara wrote: Sqorgar wrote: Ketara wrote:
There's a profundity of such studies available for anyone who cares enough to go and look, but the issue is that those who have a serious enough problem with feminism won't do that. It's like any political position, if they're a die hard against something, most people will go to any extreme not to budge even an inch because so much of their world view is predicated upon it. Anything that agrees with you is accepted without question and anything that disagrees (if consulted at all) is rigorously examined for faults and discounted on minor factors.
Yes, EVERY STUDY SHOULD BE RIGOROUSLY EXAMINED FOR FAULTS. That's just fething common sense, even if you agree with it.
Edit: No wait, my misreading there, you just emphasised that every study should be examined for flaws. Which is true. Not sure what it has to do with my point, but sure. You'll get no disagreement with me (or likely anyone) on that score.
Also, even if a study is flawed, it doesn't prove the null hypothesis. Basically, we have oodles of studies that show some form of pervasive sexual discrimination. Even if they are all flawed (which starts to get absurd), they are still evidence of pervasive discrimination. It's not like there are barrels of studies showing no discrimination.
Look at one of the studies I linked to above, that roughly half of UK working women have been sexually harassed. Even if that study was off by an order of magnitude, that still means that one in twenty women have been sexually harassed. Which still sounds pervasive to me, but YMMV.
42288
Post by: Ghool
Who is this person that has begun a heated debate over sexism, not only in gaming, but now society at large?
Seriously, I had no idea who Sarkeesian was until all the outrage for her presence at GenCon started popping up everywhere.
Maybe we should just forget about all the politics and emotional outrage, and start playing some games together, and have more painting days?
Why is another person that's incredibly vocal about their hang-ups and issues, causing such a sensation? Who cares?
I think that's a better solution than screaming outrage at every turn because of some yahoo on the internet screaming on the top of their soapbox about whatever issue, real or imagined, there is this week.
I'll keep painting my minis, playing some games with my wife and kids, and ignore all the outrage for whatever there is to be outraged against this week.
When did this all become so political and polarized? This hobby is supposed to bring people together, not cause rifts and factions.
752
Post by: Polonius
Ouze wrote: Sqorgar wrote:I'd argue that while women are treated differently in the gamer community, I won't agree that they are treated worse. I have not seen any evidence that this is true. Everything I've seen happens to men and women alike, often in equal measures (I just got teabagged in Fortnite), and it seems like the true difference isn't in how they are treated, but how much they are offended by their treatment.
Man, I play games with my wife and she most definitely has been treated differently as soon as she speaks in voice chat, and in no way have the two of us gotten that treatment with anything like parity - I don't think I was harassed even once solely because I'm a man, to be honest. Anecdotal yadda yadda.
My wife once stopped into the GW store to pick up an order for me. She didn't feel harassed or anything, but she could feel the mood shift when she walked in. It was clear the employee wasn't used to female customers. (She's not exactly sensitive about that stuff either.)
34439
Post by: Formosa
Polonius wrote: Formosa wrote: Polonius wrote: Formosa wrote: Polonius wrote:Wait, are people here actually arguing that there is no sexism against women in society at large?
This stuff is pretty well documented. There are studies, literally hundreds of high profile cases in the media, and plenty of personal stories.
I supposed if your female friends and family have never shared any sexism with you, it could mean one of two things: 1) that you only know women that have had a completely different experience than most women, or 2) the women in your life have not shared their sexist experiences with you.
Nah I’m arguing with blowing it out of proportion and using circumstantial evidence to back it up, the “I saw it happen therefore it always happens everywhere” argument, it’s clearly nonsense and used to either close an argument down or provoke and emotional response.
But if it's pretty well documented to being common, then personal accounts make sense, right? I mean, there's evidence that low grade harassment toward women does happen all the time, if not quite everywhere.
It kind of seems like you want to acknowledge sexism, but then not actually do anything about it.
Its pretty well documented is it? cool, provide those documents from a reputable/reliable source, you have essentially claimed that its rampant, so back that up.
1: https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/newsroom/newsn/2700/new-research-proves-gender-bias-extraordinarily-prevalent-in-stem-careers
2: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/12/14/gender-discrimination-comes-in-many-forms-for-todays-working-women/
3: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-pay-gap-is-way-too-entrenched-to-be-solved-by-women-alone/
4: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/half-women-stem-have-experienced-gender-discrimination-work-study-finds-n836116
5: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/aug/10/half-of-women-uk-have-been-sexually-harassed-at-work-tuc-study-everyday-sexism
6: https://www.nsopw.gov/(X(1)S(lcnxya1pq1atwvcxw420muju))/en-US/Education/FactsStatistics?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1#reference (A study that estimates that 18% of American women have been raped at some point in their life)
That was with a few minutes of searching. So, women are more likely to report gender discrimination than men, less likely to be hired in STEM than men, are paid less even after controlling for every possible variable, about half are harassed at work, and about a fifth are raped at some point in their life. I feel comfortable calling this "wide spread sexism."
1: New York..... Does not support your claim that its rampant in UK
2: 42% of US woman...... disregarding as does not support your claim that its rampant in UK.
3: Also US
4: Also US
5: The everyday sexism project is not a reliable source.... but cudos for finally finding one in the UK!
6: Also US....
I can see that you only took a few minutes as you didnt even read your own articles haha, all you have shown here is that some biased articles show there may be an issue in the UNITED STATES, but lets play devils advocate here, could the same issues not be happening in the UK, sure, but you still need to prove that its rampant as you have claimed, I maintain that is a tiny minority and quite rare, prove me wrong, please.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Polonius wrote:My wife once stopped into the GW store to pick up an order for me. She didn't feel harassed or anything, but she could feel the mood shift when she walked in. It was clear the employee wasn't used to female customers. (She's not exactly sensitive about that stuff either.)
OTOH, my local GW has a shopgirl running the store the last couple times I've gone to pick up a MTO.
I certainly hope that she wasn't oppressed by my masculine presence, despite my best efforts to be polite during the 90 seconds it took to complete the pickup.
42288
Post by: Ghool
Polonius wrote: Ouze wrote: Sqorgar wrote:I'd argue that while women are treated differently in the gamer community, I won't agree that they are treated worse. I have not seen any evidence that this is true. Everything I've seen happens to men and women alike, often in equal measures (I just got teabagged in Fortnite), and it seems like the true difference isn't in how they are treated, but how much they are offended by their treatment.
Man, I play games with my wife and she most definitely has been treated differently as soon as she speaks in voice chat, and in no way have the two of us gotten that treatment with anything like parity - I don't think I was harassed even once solely because I'm a man, to be honest. Anecdotal yadda yadda.
My wife once stopped into the GW store to pick up an order for me. She didn't feel harassed or anything, but she could feel the mood shift when she walked in. It was clear the employee wasn't used to female customers. (She's not exactly sensitive about that stuff either.)
Does being shy and awkward around women automatically make one a sexist?
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Polonius wrote: Ouze wrote: Sqorgar wrote:I'd argue that while women are treated differently in the gamer community, I won't agree that they are treated worse. I have not seen any evidence that this is true. Everything I've seen happens to men and women alike, often in equal measures (I just got teabagged in Fortnite), and it seems like the true difference isn't in how they are treated, but how much they are offended by their treatment.
Man, I play games with my wife and she most definitely has been treated differently as soon as she speaks in voice chat, and in no way have the two of us gotten that treatment with anything like parity - I don't think I was harassed even once solely because I'm a man, to be honest. Anecdotal yadda yadda.
My wife once stopped into the GW store to pick up an order for me. She didn't feel harassed or anything, but she could feel the mood shift when she walked in. It was clear the employee wasn't used to female customers. (She's not exactly sensitive about that stuff either.)
Social anxiety is different from sexism.
34439
Post by: Formosa
Ghool wrote:Who is this person that has begun a heated debate over sexism, not only in gaming, but now society at large?
Seriously, I had no idea who Sarkeesian was until all the outrage for her presence at GenCon started popping up everywhere.
Maybe we should just forget about all the politics and emotional outrage, and start playing some games together, and have more painting days?
Why is another person that's incredibly vocal about their hang-ups and issues, causing such a sensation? Who cares?
I think that's a better solution than screaming outrage at every turn because of some yahoo on the internet screaming on the top of their soapbox about whatever issue, real or imagined, there is this week.
I'll keep painting my minis, playing some games with my wife and kids, and ignore all the outrage for whatever there is to be outraged against this week.
When did this all become so political and polarized? This hobby is supposed to bring people together, not cause rifts and factions.
Thats the problem mate, people like sarkeesian have caused these issues to either come out or fanned the flames and thus caused issues in the first place, where as before it would just be nerds being socially awkward, now its seen as some sort of sexual discrimination with little to no thought as to the underlying reason for said behavior, its also caused people to become overly sensative to the issue, which again further compounds any problem as they start seeing problems where there are none or atributing ill intent where there is none.
Never atribute to malice that which can be atributed to stupidity.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Wow. So, there was a sub-tangent that started in the UK, Polonius said "wait, are we saying sexism doesn't happen in society at large?", was asked for cites, provided them, and then they were all dismissed because they weren't specifically for the UK? Despite that not being what was asked for?
That is literally the lamest gak I think I've ever seen on this forum.
34439
Post by: Formosa
Ghool wrote: Polonius wrote: Ouze wrote: Sqorgar wrote:I'd argue that while women are treated differently in the gamer community, I won't agree that they are treated worse. I have not seen any evidence that this is true. Everything I've seen happens to men and women alike, often in equal measures (I just got teabagged in Fortnite), and it seems like the true difference isn't in how they are treated, but how much they are offended by their treatment.
Man, I play games with my wife and she most definitely has been treated differently as soon as she speaks in voice chat, and in no way have the two of us gotten that treatment with anything like parity - I don't think I was harassed even once solely because I'm a man, to be honest. Anecdotal yadda yadda.
My wife once stopped into the GW store to pick up an order for me. She didn't feel harassed or anything, but she could feel the mood shift when she walked in. It was clear the employee wasn't used to female customers. (She's not exactly sensitive about that stuff either.)
Does being shy and awkward around women automatically make one a sexist?
haha we all said the same thing at the same time
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Ghool wrote:Does being shy and awkward around women automatically make one a sexist?
WHY NOT BOTH?!?
TBBT
|
|