Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Fafnir wrote:
The way we interpret "feminist" is kind of broken.

Honestly. That's probably because of people like Anita Sarkeesian. Go watch some of her other stuff. She exemplifies the stereotype:




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
I like how not having comments on Youtube is akin to being a fascist that ignores dissension and avoids debate.

Apparently the youtube comment area is now a reasonable, scholastic discussion board. I must have slipped into the Mirror Mirror universe.

As was pointed out in the rebuttal it's not that she blocked it that's the problem. It's that she blocked all her videos but one, the one advertising her kickstarter proposal, so that all attention would be focused on that one video rocking it to the top YouTube's listings. The problem is that she's opportunist. But then who isn't?

I think one of the problems with that, both perceived and real, is how we've seen sexuality in society as dichotomous.
With race, once we came to realize that it really doesn't have much effect on the value of a person, the whole idea between the differentiation of race kind of fell apart, at least in most media (we're not perfect, but generally, the idea is that a person of any ethnicity should be treated as any other).

With men and women, yes, there are some markable differences. And they're easily more engrained into us than racial differences. Granted, at least from the people I've met.
Sure, not all feminists will agree, and many won't stand for the same things, but part of that comes from the fact that the differentiation between sex and gender is so very complex to begin with. Especially with the way sex, gender, and heteronormativity has been engrained into the culture we currently live in.

 LordofHats wrote:
As was pointed out in the rebuttal it's not that she blocked it that's the problem. It's that she blocked all her videos but one, the one advertising her kickstarter proposal, so that all attention would be focused on that one video rocking it to the top YouTube's listings. The problem is that she's opportunist. But then who isn't?

Wow that is an incredibly poor and self serving interpretation of events.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Do you think it's a teensy bit unreasonable to criticise her for not opening herself up to abuse in comments and bombing the rating of the video just for the topic? I'm having a hard time seeing how there'd be a productive "discussion" in the youtube comments.

I think it is unreasonable for her to refuse to deal with dissenting viewpoints that are expressed in a constructive and mature manner, I do not believe that she should ignore someone simply because (s)he has an opposing perspective. I do not think that she should be subject to abusive or insulting comments. That is why I think that she should have some sort of standard for comments posted, so that way people can better see the rationale for what is and is not permitted. Without that, and what was highlighted in the second rebuttal video, she is leaving herself wide open to accusations that she is distorting the debate to shore up her position and refusing to hear those who disagree with her, which is academically dishonest at best.


I will state though that on reflection I'm not impressed with what she has to say so far. All she is doing is echoing what others have said before, but she is doing it on youtube to try and get her name established. I haven't seen anything of hers that suggests a way forward, or how things can be changed.

Okay. I don't see how disabling comments and rating is "refusing to deal with dissenting viewpoints" though. It seems entirely rational to me to not want to spend 40 hours a day deleting abuse from your youtube comments.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
The way we interpret "feminist" is kind of broken.

Honestly. That's probably because of people like Anita Sarkeesian.

It's probably because of people fixating on them. I won't speculate on why people fixate on them, but they're - as suggested by the fact that you never seem to actually meet these people, just hear about them - incredibly rare to the point of nearly being mythical.

Either way, it would probably help to discuss what she actually says in the video instead of who she is.

That Jimquisition video was fun, too.

 Ahtman wrote:
I like how not having comments on Youtube is akin to being a fascist that ignores dissension and avoids debate.

Apparently the youtube comment area is now a reasonable, scholastic discussion board. I must have slipped into the Mirror Mirror universe.

I don't think anyone said that youtube was reasonable, in fact I'm pretty certain that I described youtube as 'one of the cesspools of the internet". That being said, if someone posts a comment that is non-confrontational and politely disagrees I do not think that person's comment or question should be ignored. If you are willfully depriving legitimate questions and concerns because it doesn't suit your position then the question must be asked, do you really have the courage of your convictions? Is it so fragile that it cannot stand to be tested?

That is one of the reasons why I believe if she was seriously interested in open and honest debate under the videos were comments have been enabled, and changing how women are portrayed in video games, that she should at least have some policy for the youtube community to state what is and is not tolerated. Otherwise, as the rebuttals point out, she can very easily open herself to accusations of deliberate inconsistency in how she treats comments, even from people who have helped fund her project. Whether she likes it or not she has established herself as a public figure and she must hold herself to a reasonable standard of conduct.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Whether she likes it or not she has established herself as a public figure and she must hold herself to a reasonable standard of conduct.

Not that I'm disagreeing with the intention of your point. But that's sounding like a classic paradox to me!

I think a public forum would be helpful, but youtube itself is not that forum.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Okay. I don't see how disabling comments and rating is "refusing to deal with dissenting viewpoints" though. It seems entirely rational to me to not want to spend 40 hours a day deleting abuse from your youtube comments.

You don't understand how not allowing an opposing point of view on your work is "refusing to deal with dissenting viewpoints"? I thought it was pretty clear. I'm not saying that she should be subject to abuse, I have been pretty clear on that I thought, nor should she publish abusive, nasty or trolling comments. However if someone is posting a genuine, well thought out counterpoint and she refuses to engage with that person then she is not engaging with that person or what their argument is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Whether she likes it or not she has established herself as a public figure and she must hold herself to a reasonable standard of conduct.

Not that I'm disagreeing with the intention of your point. But that's sounding like a classic paradox to me!

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but how so? She is someone pursuing an academic and activist career in a public manner. Her conduct and comments will be used to judge her, her arguments and her credibility for possibly the length of her career.

Public figures.... Reasonable standard of conduct....

T'was a joke.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Okay. I don't see how disabling comments and rating is "refusing to deal with dissenting viewpoints" though. It seems entirely rational to me to not want to spend 40 hours a day deleting abuse from your youtube comments.

You don't understand how not allowing an opposing point of view on your work is "refusing to deal with dissenting viewpoints"? I thought it was pretty clear. I'm not saying that she should be subject to abuse, I have been pretty clear on that I thought, nor should she publish abusive, nasty or trolling comments. However if someone is posting a genuine, well thought out counterpoint and she refuses to engage with that person then she is not engaging with that person or what their argument is.

What I don't understand is why youtube comments are required to be the venue for this opposing point of view. There's a whole Internet out there and she isn't preventing anyone from posting on any of it. She can even choose to reply using her youtube channel and include links to the dissenting opinion in question if she wants to. Filtering through abusive youtube comments potentially takes a large amount of time, not to mention emotional energy. It is not free.

That said, I didn't really see a lot in the video to disagree with anyway. It seemed like a pretty factual account of things - not much of a debate topic.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
What I don't understand is why youtube comments are required to be the venue for this opposing point of view. There's a whole Internet out there and she isn't preventing anyone from posting on any of it. She can even choose to reply using her youtube channel and include links to the dissenting opinion in question if she wants to. Filtering through abusive youtube comments potentially takes a large amount of time, not to mention emotional energy. It is not free.

That said, I didn't really see a lot in the video to disagree with anyway. It seemed like a pretty factual account of things - not much of a debate topic.

Just because you do not see anything to debate does not mean that others share your perspective.

Youtube comments are the most viable venue for opposing points of view because she publishes her videos there, it is a central hub for people to exchange ideas on her videos. If someone posts an article on, for example, a news site were comments are enabled should people take their discussions elsewhere? Forcing people to take their discussions elsewhere because they disagree with someone fractures the debate.

She has little problem in sifting through comments to enable comments supportive of her, or finding abusive comments to publish to garner support during her kickstarter campaign.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
Public figures.... Reasonable standard of conduct....

T'was a joke.

Ah! Sorry, my misunderstanding

No probs.

I don't know much about youtube, but would 'video responses' still be allowed to be attached? Or does the original poster need to agree to them.

This thread barely took less than ten posts to devolve in to whining about how "feminism sucks" by people who have no goddamned clue what feminism actually is. Not that I expected any better.

The video was interesting, but I kind of expected more out of a video which was funded by actual money instead of just time and effort.

 Compel wrote:
No probs.

I don't know much about youtube, but would 'video responses' still be allowed to be attached? Or does the original poster need to agree to them.

From what I understand according to the videos earlier in the thread I do not believe that any response can be published to the original video without Anita Sarkeesian's permission.

While I don't agree with her strict control of published comments (personally I prefer free speech even when it's unpleasant, better to shame the donkey caves), given the level of blind, irrational hate in this thread alone-- never mind on Kickstarter or Youtube-- I can hardly blame her for it. The offensive comments will only make the discussion die.

So freedom of speech should only apply when people agree with what is being said? I'm not saying that she should publish or concern herself with nasty comments. What I am saying is that she has no problem going through and publishing and responding to comments that favour her, while ignoring those comments that disagree with her no matter how well written and polite they may be.

What are your feelings on the fact that she had no issue trawling through offensive comments and publishing them on multiple venues when she had a direct financial interest, then when she got the money she clamped down?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So freedom of speech should only apply when people agree with what is being said?

Ahem.

 Melissia wrote:
I don't agree with her strict control of published comments

Melissia wrote:While I don't agree with her strict control of published comments (personally I prefer free speech even when it's unpleasant, better to shame the donkey caves), given the level of blind, irrational hate in this thread alone-- never mind on Kickstarter or Youtube-- I can hardly blame her for it. The offensive comments will only make the discussion die.

This. From what I've seen of the internet's reaction to the initial kickstarter, nothing good could have possibly come out of it.
The idea that some sort of "policy of standards" would have prevented abusive comments and sexist jokes to flood the comments section and detract from the video's actual content is naive at best, a desperate attack on the creator's assumed intentions and the video's validity at worst. YouTube doesn't work that way, and I think that, actually, everyone here knows this.
From how I see it, the video was created to raise awareness and to inform, not as a platform for debate. That will happen elsewhere. I'm fairly sure the author will still receive a load of flak or even threats for posting this without an open comments section on YT.

This thread, too, will not be heading in a good way, judging from some of the previous comments. But that isn't exactly surprising, given the overlap between dakka/40k and "the internet".

Dreadclaw69 wrote:What I am saying is that she has no problem going through and publishing and responding to comments that favour her, while ignoring those comments that disagree with her no matter how well written and polite they may be.

"Well written and polite" debate happens elsewhere. The goal of the campaign is to raise awareness, as the "well written and polite" discussions have been going on for years by now. Hardliners debating hardliners until someone gets tired and leaves serve no-one. You may as well organise a talkshow with the Pope and Dawkins and see what good that'll do for the relationship between christians and atheists.
Unfortunately, things such as these are entirely a matter of perception, and either you "feel" that something is wrong and needs improvement, or you don't. That's it.

Also, the comments for this video are closed entirely. YT also offers an option for having comments require authorisation by a video's creator before they appear, but she did not make use of it.

Surely there's got to be the argument though that this could be doing more harm than good? If people agreeing with the principle of it all are actually being actively put off?

How so? Even assuming that some people truly agreeing with the principle come away with a negative impression of this video, would they suddenly change their mind on the whole issue?

The only way I could see it doing more harm than good is that it could serve as rage ammunition for those people ranting on about "feminazis" ... but even then, they would have done so anyways, and the controversy would only serve to draw in more attention.

Sometimes you gotta yell to make someone notice. Coincidentally, Germany currently sees a lot of furore regarding sexism in politics, and there, just like in reaction to the situation in video games, a lot of people stood up and complained that it's all just a load of hot air and not worth talking about.
And personally, I think that such defensive reactions only make it even more worth talking about.

The only way I could see it doing more harm than good is that it could serve as rage ammunition for those people ranting on about "feminazis" ... but even then, they would have done so anyways, and the controversy would only serve to draw in more attention.

They already take every chance they can to do that anyway. You can see it on this very forum, time and time again.

Oh god, Feminist frequency. I watched it once, this women is the sterotypical feminist. Throughout her video she gave no real insight that no one didnt actually already know(the only new thing i learned what that donkey kong was supposed to be a pop-eye game) She gave no insights into various thing(She brought up the monkey thing, but no one mentioned how it cam to be)
I'ts intriguing, but she doesnt put anything new into the discussion.

 Melissia wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So freedom of speech should only apply when people agree with what is being said?

Ahem.

 Melissia wrote:
I don't agree with her strict control of published comments

I read that, and then the justification that you gave after it, I was trying to clarify your position. So do you agree with what she did in sifting through comments to find the nastiest ones that she could publish when it would further her financial interests?

 Lynata wrote:
[]This. From what I've seen of the internet's reaction to the initial kickstarter, nothing good could have possibly come out of it.
The idea that some sort of "policy of standards" would have prevented abusive comments and sexist jokes to flood the comments section and detract from the video's actual content is naive at best, a desperate attack on the creator's assumed intentions and the video's validity at worst. YouTube doesn't work that way, and I think that, actually, everyone here knows this.
From how I see it, the video was created to raise awareness and to inform, not as a platform for debate. That will happen elsewhere. I'm fairly sure the author will still receive a load of flak or even threats for posting this without an open comments section on YT.

I don't use youtube in any great way, and don't have an account with them.
I'm not saying that a policy of any sort would have prevented offensive comments. What I am saying is that it would give the author more credibility to have a framework that she can point to as to why comments that were not offensive were not published. Otherwise she is leaving herself open to the accusation (as mentioned in a rebuttal video earlier in the thread) that she is only publishing comments favourable to her.
Can I ask your thoughts on her not entertaining comments with an opposing view (not offensive comments) but having no problem sifting through vile comments to publish them when she has a financial interest?

 Lynata wrote:
"Well written and polite" debate happens elsewhere. The goal of the campaign is to raise awareness, as the "well written and polite" discussions have been going on for years by now. Hardliners debating hardliners until someone gets tired and leaves serve no-one. You may as well organise a talkshow with the Pope and Dawkins and see what good that'll do for the relationship between christians and atheists.
Unfortunately, things such as these are entirely a matter of perception, and either you "feel" that something is wrong and needs improvement, or you don't. That's it.

Also, the comments for this video are closed entirely. YT also offers an option for having comments require authorisation by a video's creator before they appear, but she did not make use of it.

So rather than provide a forum for people to discuss what she has said in a mature manner people should go elsewhere? By that logic would it be permissible, or even sensible, for someone to start a thread on this site and then insist that any discussion take place on other sites?
If she is raising awareness she is doing it by repeating what others have said, but better, in front of a camera and with the academic language diluted except when it suits her to establish her credentials. If the well written and polite discussions have been going on for years does that mean they are at a dead end and the only way if to become more extreme?
"things such as these are entirely a matter of perception, and either you "feel" that something is wrong and needs improvement, or you don't. That's it." - maybe I'm missing something, but are you saying that there is no evidence of sexism in gaming, that it can only be divined by a feeling?

 LordofHats wrote:
That's because as a trope Damsel in Distress is really just a plot point. It can appear almost anywhere in the plot an author wants it to be, and ultimately what it means is quite varied. Equating all damsels in distress to disempowered objects to be won shows a remarkable lack of experience. I can think of at last a half dozen female characters off the top of my head that had DoD moments, and none of them are by any means weak characters in need of big strong men to protect them 24.7,

Not to mention that in the KOTOR games you can play as a woman, rescuing a woman, and you have at least 2 other women in your group who don't require rescuing and are both very strong capable characters on their own.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So do you agree with what she did

Ahem.

 Melissia wrote:
I don't agree with her strict control of published comments

This isn't rocket science. The answer to your question was RIGHT FREAKING IN FRONT OF YOU.

One can disagree with someone but still empathize strongly with why they did what they did.

It's probably because of people fixating on them. I won't speculate on why people fixate on them, but they're - as suggested by the fact that you never seem to actually meet these people, just hear about them - incredibly rare to the point of nearly being mythical.

For the same reason Al Sharpton and Sarah Palin still end up in the news. Because they want attention and they know how to get it. Find the dumbest most inane comment possible that some people will by into and scream it at the top of your lungs. Profit. Same thing happens to Christians, Democrats, Republicans, and pretty much anyone. Modern media. Focusing all the attention on the loudest and the dumbest elements of modern society.

Either way, it would probably help to discuss what she actually says in the video instead of who she is.

Discuss what? She points out and derides a now mostly dead trend in games that is only continued on by Nintendo for the sake of being nostalgic. There's not that much to be discussed after pointing out she really doesn't have a point.

I'm fairly sure the author will still receive a load of flak or even threats for posting this without an open comments section on YT.

From what I can tell she's catching more flak for taking money to make the video than anything (around the internet that is). There are already some memes popping up about it. Setting aside how much I really don't like this person, from a simple marketing stand point 'Damsel in Distress' may not have been the best subject for her to kick off her series. Something more relevant today would likely have yielded better results. The games she's talking about are either to distant in the past for most to care, or sacred cows one may never insult. Cause their sacred.

 Melissia wrote:
One can disagree with someone but still empathize strongly with why they did what they did.

So do you agree with what she did in sifting through comments to find the nastiest ones that she could publish when it would further her financial interests?

 LordofHats wrote:
From what I can tell she's catching more flak for

... being a feminist and not keeping her mouth shut.

The gaming culture, 40k included, is quite hostile to women. Women are three times more likely to be insulted or harassed than men in first person shooters, [url=]http://www.themarysue.com/academic-study-game-harassment/for example[/url]. I've gotten death threats for saying "I wish this game let me play as a woman" before, and while it's just anecdotal evidence, still, from my experience, gaming communities as a general whole, from FPS games to RTS to MMOs, are much less likely to attack me if I use an androgynous or masculine username than when I use a feminine one.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So do you agree with

I've answered your question three times now. No matter how many times you ask the question, the answer is STILL right there in front of you, and it's not changing.

My own personal perspective is that, to quote CP Scott, "The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
I've answered your question three times now. No matter how many times you ask the question, the answer is STILL right there in front of you, and it's not changing.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to provoke a hostile reaction. I get that you value free speech but are prepared to put limits on it. But I haven't seen an answer to whether you think she was justified in ignoring polite dissenting voices, but will publish vile comments when it suits her financially. If I've missed it then I apologise.
(edited to update quote)

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
But I haven't seen an answer

Yes you have.