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.

Dreadclaw69 wrote: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.

But that's not correct, else we would not know about the shitstorm of mysogynistic insults that were hurled around. As you have pointed out yourself, she already has the "framework" she could point to ... and did. There's no need for yet another one, as it would just repeat the same stuff again.

Dreadclaw69 wrote: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?

I think that responses to properly presented criticism would lend more credibility to the author. Unfortunately, that's just how it would be in an ideal world. On RealEarth, I doubt that anyone would truly change their views - resulting only in an endless back-and-forth that takes up much of the creator's time and thus delays on further episodes. Ultimately, it would be a waste of time, just like the debates I had with Veteran Sergeant about women in the military. And the "waste of time" bit is actually something both of us agree to. So why even bother? All we're doing is pulling off a show for the viewers, defending our opinions without any chance of actually "winning" the debate. And we at least have the advantage of actually using a proper forum, with all the features that come with it.

That video is a documentation, just like the ones we see in TV. There you can't debate with the author either. You watch it, form your opinion, and then maybe discuss it with people you know.

Dreadclaw69 wrote: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?

No, because this is a forum. YouTube isn't. It's a popular platform for hosting videos, which is all the creator needed.
The very limited comment section on YT simply isn't intended to support proper debates, and in this case would only get flooded with so much crap that proper discourse is impossible, especially given the character limit, as well as the influence a majority can take on the comments, such as downvoting anything that does not conform to their views, and upvoting what does. You'd end up with majority-approved opinion in the "best comments" section, yet not see potential reaction to it (regardless of how valid or invalid) since the respective answers have long since vanished into the backdrop. I believe an uploader's responses are shown in a separate section nowadays, yet even so that'd mean you have one person facing an army of opponents, even though other users might love to chime in as well.

Her previous videos allowed comments, and this happened: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/
Honestly, I don't know if *I* would want to bother to read through such comments to dig up one or two who might be worth responding to (which there actually were) either, at least not on every single video I'm uploading (if I would upload anything to YT).
Being subjected to such a massive amount of negativity and outright hatred can be disheartening. In not bothering, she saves herself a good amount of time and mood. If she had bothered to respond, nothing would change either. So what's the sensible thing to do here?

Dreadclaw69 wrote: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?

Sort of. It shouldn't be necessary, but society isn't perfect. At times it feels as if people just don't perceive it as an issue if you don't scream loud enough, but instead just accept "the bitching" (hah, fittingly even this word is sexist ) as part of daily routine. A matter of sensitivity, if you will.
Also, society currently seems to face a weird trend of polarisation - promoting sexism and equality at the same time via different (or even the same) outlets. It's no real surprise that the debates become more hot in response, as people are subjected to and thus influenced by conflicting material, almost forcing them to develop a natural resistance to either one or the other.

It's all a bit chaotic, and I think it will take a few generations more until civilisation figures out a sensible balance - be it with portrayal or perception, or both. But hey, at least we're moving!

Dreadclaw69 wrote: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?

In essence, yes. Else we wouldn't have dakkanauts comparing half-naked women to half-naked men and call it the same thing - or (to flip the table, just for fairness' sake) criticising such opinions. A whole lot of stuff is just a matter of current cultural perception. Take the age of consent, for example - which not only varies hugely by country, but also by era.

Sure, there's a definition in the dictionary. "Prejudice or discrimination based on sex". But where do prejudice and discrimination start? The lines are drawn individually, else we wouldn't have a thread like this. Just think back a few months and recall some of the controversial developer comments. "Girlfriend Mode" - sexist comment or not? Debate starting in 3 ... 2 ...

LordofHats wrote:From what I can tell she's catching more flak for taking money to make the video than anything (around the internet that is).

Nah. See screenshot in the link.

Thank you Lynata for typing out what I was too lazy to say but was thinking.

I don't get the criticism for kickstarter. It's expensive to make videos, even review videos. The equipment, software, and supplies needed can easily run thousands of dollars, which she opened to crowd sourcing so like minded people who wanted to see the content she was going to make could invest.

We have kickstarters for everything these days, including PLENTY of Youtube based videos. Why should she be excluded and why should we cry foul when she succeeded. She capitalized on the publicity like any business savvy person would.

 Lynata wrote:
Honestly, I don't know if *I* would want to bother to read through such comments to dig up one or two who might be worth responding to (which there actually were) either, at least not on every single video I'm uploading (if I would upload anything to YT).

Lynata's right really.

Honestly, how many times would any of you be bothered to read through comments like "you stupid [c-bomb], I hope you get raped to death", or "My [male organ] was made for raping and that's just what i'll do, one of these days i'm going to [sex act] all over you", or "You are a daft stupid [c-bomb] and deserve to be called such.", or "Shut the [expletive] up [c-bomb]", or "You stupid [c-bomb], all you need is a good [expletive]ing and then you’d be less uptight.", or "I hope you get raped to death with a gorsebush", and should I really even bother going on?

This is the kind of response women get. Then these people complain about being "censored" in situations like this.

 Melissia wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I have continually pointed out that the reason she catches this hate has everything to do with her behavior not her gender

And I have pointed out that you are wrong.

Her being a woman really IS the reason she catches so much flak on the subject. Gamers, or even nerds in general are far more willing to be vicious, cruel ,and hateful towards women than men.

I dunno I got some lovely PMs when I started my thread on women in the modeling hobby and I'm certainly not a woman.

 Melissia wrote:
Youtube comments are worse than 4chan.

And you really have to try hard to be worse than 4chan.

Not even close, I've at least seen some good YouTube comments can't say that I've ever seen anything of substance on 4chan.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I've at least seen some good YouTube comments

I haven't! Even the "good" ones tend to suck because of the character limitation.

You can find gold everywhere - yes, even on YouTube or 4chan (at least on /tg/). It's just not something to expect and I wouldn't advise anyone who doesn't have a thick skin to read through the stuff.
The ability to just roll eyes and move on instead of feeling compelled to get into an argument helps, too, for you can only lose.

 Lynata wrote:
You can find gold everywhere - yes, even on YouTube or 4chan (at least on /tg/). It's just not something to expect and I wouldn't advise anyone who doesn't have a thick skin to read through the stuff.
The ability to just roll eyes and move on instead of feeling compelled to get into an argument helps, too, for you can only lose.

I personally like to assume that behind every frothing, illiterate lunatic is a sane, coherent individual who thinks they're being funny. I don't always manage to assume this, but it goes a long way to just laughing at egregious lunacy and moving on.


On the topic of this video and the maelstrom surrounding its creator, you have a half-rate hack raising more money than many people make in half a decade of full time work to make a video reiterating a tired, rather insipid point? That's just outright obscene. Compound it with the fact that receiving unfocused vitriol is part and parcel of being a public figure, and the death threats that get tossed in whenever anything remotely politicized is involved, and the situation makes sense without having to fall back on a persecution complex. She made an obscene amount of money doing a pointless, inflammatory (politicized) thing, unanonymously, on the internet. What do you expect to happen? Anyone who did that would get treated horribly, regardless of their gender or what they were saying.

Inflammatory, maybe. Pointless? No. Although that goes back to what I mentioned about individual perception earlier.

For instance, I've recently read a study assuming that rich people give less to charity (in percent of their earnings) than the poor because they don't see the suffering themselves and thus assume "it's not that bad". Interestingly, the really poor people were donating even more than the middle class (an example given was a guy who had to get by with 6 dollars a day, but bought a $1 cheeseburger for a homeless dude).
Different topic (albeit no less relevant), but you see what I'm getting at here?

Agreed about the lunacy, though.

The sad thing is that those people tend to receive recognition, approval and applause from other lunatics, tho. That is somewhat dangerous insofar as these people might then carry such "values" back into their daily life outside the internet, thus basically "normalising" such opinions. Even when voiced in a less offensive manner, it's the sentiment that counts.
Maybe I'm just being too negative, but I don't have much faith in humanity in general.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
You can find gold everywhere - yes, even on YouTube or 4chan (at least on /tg/). It's just not something to expect and I wouldn't advise anyone who doesn't have a thick skin to read through the stuff.
The ability to just roll eyes and move on instead of feeling compelled to get into an argument helps, too, for you can only lose.

I personally like to assume that behind every frothing, illiterate lunatic is a sane, coherent individual who thinks they're being funny. I don't always manage to assume this, but it goes a long way to just laughing at egregious lunacy and moving on.


On the topic of this video and the maelstrom surrounding its creator, you have a half-rate hack raising more money than many people make in half a decade of full time work to make a video reiterating a tired, rather insipid point? That's just outright obscene. Compound it with the fact that receiving unfocused vitriol is part and parcel of being a public figure, and the death threats that get tossed in whenever anything remotely politicized is involved, and the situation makes sense without having to fall back on a persecution complex. She made an obscene amount of money doing a pointless, inflammatory (politicized) thing, unanonymously, on the internet. What do you expect to happen? Anyone who did that would get treated horribly, regardless of their gender or what they were saying.

Putting aside the research showing that no, "anyone" would not have had the same response, I think your... er, fervour, maybe? would be better turned against the people doing the abusing than the one committing the great crime of posting a video on youtube. It'd be nice to live in a world where it was possible to post a youtube video without getting threats of rape and murder, don't you agree?

I'm also not sure how discussing video game tropes is "inflammatory" or "politicised," especially if the point is so "tired" and "rather insipid."

Lynata wrote:For instance, I've recently read a study assuming that rich people give less to charity (in percent of their earnings) than the poor because they don't see the suffering themselves and thus assume "it's not that bad". Interestingly, the really poor people were donating even more than the middle class (an example given was a guy who had to get by with 6 dollars a day, but bought a $1 cheeseburger for a homeless dude).
Different topic (albeit no less relevant), but you see what I'm getting at here?

People who feel powerless are more generous and empathic than those who don't, it's not restricted to the realm of money. Just thinking about being powerful makes people behave in a measurably more callous manner.

Agreed about the lunacy, though.

image

The sad thing is that those people tend to receive recognition, approval and applause from other lunatics, tho. That is somewhat dangerous insofar as these people might then carry such "values" back into their daily life outside the internet, thus basically "normalising" such opinions. Even when voiced in a less offensive manner, it's the sentiment that counts.
Maybe I'm just being too negative, but I don't have much faith in humanity in general.

This is a pretty complex issue. I think a good bit of the frothing lunatics are reasonable people being facetious, either because they think it's funny, because they think it will undermine the point they're endorsing, or because their "social circle" of sorts is doing it and group conformity (for whatever reason) is a strong impulse, even when they're completely anonymous in the context of both the circle and their actions. Then you have kids, who are stupid and don't know better, and should just be disregarded as white noise. And finally, the actual lunatics, who aren't worth engaging at all. I take both a dim and a positive view of humanity, which is rather necessitated by the great personal variations exhibited by humans.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Putting aside the research showing that no, "anyone" would not have had the same response, I think your... er, fervour, maybe? would be better turned against the people doing the abusing than the one committing the great crime of posting a video on youtube. It'd be nice to live in a world where it was possible to post a youtube video without getting threats of rape and murder, don't you agree?

I'm also not sure how discussing video game tropes is "inflammatory" or "politicised," especially if the point is so "tired" and "rather insipid."

What she did was wrong and highly visible. What they're doing is just so much gibbering white noise. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if a good bit of the worst of it came from people who actually agree with her, come to think of it, since it devalues legitimate criticism of what she's done (and it is much more this than what she's said: she's neither the first nor the best to say more or less the same thing, yet she got an obscene sum of money for it (more than most people make in half a decade; more than a fair number make in an entire decade).

No, no studies suggest that. There's the bit about Xbox live being a hostile cesspool, which should surprise exactly no one. Trying to claim women receive more hostility as public figures is rather myopic; public figures are magnets for vitriol and criticism. Perhaps women receive dumber vitriol, but not more.


It's "inflammatory" because it's a politicized issue, which always garners frothing rage from at least some people. And it's pointless because it's just reiterating an old point, poorly at that.

It’s an interesting take but what I think she clearly missed one of the big pictures. Video gaming for the longest time has been very much a boys club. Just a fact. People who made, developed, designed and marketed these games in the 80’s and 90’s was pretty much men. Now a days it’s a much more diverse crowd in the gaming world but still the people that are going to wait in line for opening night AAA game releases are still largely men.

I did like the Starfox part but once more I think she missed the mark a little as well. You know why they went with Starfox instead of a new character. Same reason they make a new Call of Duty every year instead of a new series. Franchising. Starfox is already well known name that will bring in money. The other is an unknown property and when money is on the line businessmen will always turn to the one that will turn a profit.

Plus the Double Dragon beginning is still one of the best opening scenes off all time. It is the purest form of motivation any gamer needs. Should never be changed.

The people that do Extra Credits went over this trope anyway long ago and in a much broader fashion then she did. Didn’t feel like I wasted my time watching it but can tell her view is a little too narrow.

 Melissia wrote:
I already provided a link that shows that women, or more specifically female voices, are three times more likely to be insulted in an FPS game like Halo. Or if you're in to comic books-- you goddamned better be a walking encyclopedia as a woman, or you're a "fake geek girl". On the internet, unless you post a picture with your tits out, you're a guy (and if you do, you're an attention whore). A man criticizes a popular nerdy intellectual property, gets told he is an idiot and he sucks; a woman does the same thing, they say they hope she gets raped to death.

And the media pointing out every time it happens doesn't make it common place. I'm not super active in geek culture where I live, but I go to the LGS, the Gamestop, I'm a member of clans and guilds in numerous games, and I have NEVER noticed a particular hatred directed at the women I've encountered (anecdotal of course).

And the reason I disregard you're link is because it's not the point. It fails to account for how much hate is being directed at Anita while other commentators talking about the same issue fail the get as much negative attention. I refuse to buy into some fantasy, where everyone shakes their heads and agrees that women are poorly represented in video games, but suddenly switch to calling women whores and sluts just because a women said it.

Go look at the comments on this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GISjqP6fpw

Here you have a girl making a video about stereotypes directed. There are more than a few insulting comments. And yet, she's receiving nothing comparable to what is being directed at Anita.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXtSOsoEOC8

And this one. I actually like this one a lot and there's virtually no negative comments directed at her in the comments (some of them are even... dear god they're constructive ) She even brings up your point that women get singled out by the boys club, and the comments are largely positive and in agreement with what she says. I'm even gonna repost the video just because this is the person people should be listening to, not Anita Saarwhatsernameicantspellit:




Seriously. Drop the delusion. She is not getting this hate because she's a woman. I'm sure some people are just hating on her cause she's a girl but you're just painting everyone with brush by claiming that it's nearly everyone. No one even knew who she was until the Kickstarter controversy happened and she sparked a lot of that hate on purpose to advance her agenda.

And I mean, I can go to youtube and find dozens of really hateful videos directed at girl gamers (quite a few now directed at Saarkesian), so I'm not trying to pretend hate isn't there. But no one gets as much hate as she's getting just for being a girl and honestly at this point I think she's becoming a detriment to the cause more than anything. Do some research into who this person is. It doesn't take long to realize she has purposely tried to garner as much hate as she can so that she can then use that hate to advance herself. And it's not recent either. She's been doing it for several years.

I daresay I never predicted the one where the monkey poop pile that is Youtube comments suddenly have value.

The funny part being that said poop is used by Anita to further her own agenda at her own convenience.

I'm not going to complain too much about her because we do need a discussion of these sexiest tropes.

Honestly she's probably set the cause back numerous steps. No one will change their mind watching her, and as her fame soars, more people will become familiar with her and associate her with the cause which is only going to harden resistance because she is far too easy to criticize and extremely unlikable as a person. Now, even if someone shows up with a well done and thoughtful commentary on the issue, they'll have to deal with all the backlash she created (backlash she even went out of her way to create as a means of promoting herself) on top of all the other challenges of getting people to listen in the first place. So really she's might be doing far more harm than good.

Youtube comments are worse than 4chan.

And you really have to try hard to be worse than 4chan.

Tis true. The only place worse imo is Yahoo! News comments. Welcome to the den of the galaxies worst scum and villainy where everyone is still convince Obama is actually a Muslim out to destroy us from within and that Glen Beck is a truly brilliant man destroyed by a liberal media conspiracy.

Anyway, I'm having a harder and harder time taking this woman seriously.

Because she really shouldn't be but now the gamers of the world have created a beast that cannot be slain. Don't feed the trolls indeed.

Such characters are made to appeal to a male audience.

The perhaps instead of decrying the oversexualization of women, the discussion should be shifted to the real issue which is the dominance of the male demographic in the market (assuming it is a 'problem' in the sense that it's nature of the beast and can't really be solved like finding the value of x). Unfortunately feminists are too busy spamming the League of Legends forums complaining about Akali's side boob for any discussion of the real problem to ever get a mention and Anita and those like her are really only enforcing that.

Good post, Lord of Hats!

 LordofHats wrote:

Ouze, although for some reason you de-attributed me, wrote: I daresay I never predicted the one where the monkey poop pile that is Youtube comments suddenly have value.

The funny part being that said poop is used by Anita to further her own agenda at her own convenience.

Please, enlighten me how she's using the non-existent comments on the video we're talking about to "further her own agenda".

You allow comments, you're "using them to further your agenda".

You turn them off, you're a nazi censor.

 Ouze wrote:
Please, enlighten me how she's using the non-existent comments on the video we're talking about to "further her own agenda".

You allow comments, you're "using them to further your agenda".

You turn them off, you're a nazi censor.

I fail to see why its even a hard concept to understand. She used the ability to pick which comments would be shown in the comments section of her video to block everything but the nastiest comments. She then took a screen shot and posted it on her blog as evidence that people hate her for being 'daring' and 'brave'. She completely manipulated the comments section to her own advantage and even admits it in some of her own. Seriously. Does no one bother watching any youtubes about her, reading any of the news that is now being written about her, or do they just read her blog and assume she's telling the truth?

EDIT: This point is brought up in nearly every lengthy criticism leveled against her (and she then blocks comments when it's convenient and complains that no one will engage her in discussion).

Come on. This isn't hard...

I've only watched the video in the OP. I know some vague thing about her getting harassed over her kickstarter, but only tangentially. The only comments I've seen are, well, none, since they're disabled.

Do you have any evidence that she blocked positive comments and only allowed negative comments?

There's a video that talks about it at the top of page 2... HBMC linked it as well.

I mean honestly. Go look at some youtube videos. No one ever gets that negative a reaction. I could throw up a video about being a Nazi and killing Jews (godwin!) and I'd probably get a less seemingly negative reaction. It really shouldn't be this hard to point out someone whos obviously manipulating the comments to twist the story in their favor...

OK, so I watched the second one. 11 minutes later, I saw absolutely not evidence at all that she blocks positive comments and allows negatives. No screenshots, no logs, not even really the idea of that. Maybe I watched the wrong one? It was "Burqa Beach Party".

I did hear quite a bit that was noteworthy, though.

At around 6:40 he points out:

She allegedly doesn't have a clear-cut guideline for what comments she allows. As it's her Youtube channel, I'm not sure what the problem with that is. I mean, if I make a a video, I have the right to delete any post that doesn't mention "pancakes" if I feel like it.

"We have no way of knowing if she approves every comment which politely disagrees".

Ok, that proves... nothing. It's like saying "we have no evidence she doesn't kick puppies" "We have no evidence she's not snorting coke off a baby's butt before doing this video". That's a pretty manipulative way of saying something without saying it.

"Her kickstarter video is exemplary of this. She deleted the comments of the 2 videos preceding it, in order to funnel angry youtubers into the only open discussion she has ever facilitated, and closed the discussion when the kickstarter ended".

This is so lol I'm not even sure where to start. She intentionally closed comments on previous threads! Well, I guess people have to post comments about wanting to rape her to death somewhere, huh. It's their god-given right to call her a C-bomb over and over again, and it's her own fault for not allowing them adequate outlets to do so!

The best part about this argument is that the commenters have absolutely no responsibility to their behavior at all. In fact, in this video, they're akin to a natural force that she funnels for destructive use, like a damn full of jerks that she cranks open when she wants. Seriously, what does it say about you that you don't even consider these aspects of it?

She closed the comments once the kickstarter ended! Wow. I hope someone makes sure you tell Yakface and Lego what supervillains they are because they and their agents do the same thing every day.

I'll watch the first one if you guys tell me well, A.) that it's the right one) and that B.) There is an answer to, to repeat my original question, "Do you have any evidence that she blocked positive comments and only allowed negative comments?"

 Lynata wrote:
But that's not correct, else we would not know about the shitstorm of mysogynistic insults that were hurled around. As you have pointed out yourself, she already has the "framework" she could point to ... and did. There's no need for yet another one, as it would just repeat the same stuff again.

The reason that we know about the storm of misogynistic insults is because she sifted through and published the most inflammatory for sympathy and financial gain (and if a video above is correct, may have incited some of these comments). By only publishing the worst of the worst she may be giving a false narrative and distorting the opposing viewpoint i.e. that anyone who disagrees with her can only result to vicious personal attacks on her, threats, etc. and she is removing any reasonable middle ground to further polarise the debate.

Can you post a link to her framework then please?

 Lynata wrote:
I think that responses to properly presented criticism would lend more credibility to the author. Unfortunately, that's just how it would be in an ideal world. On RealEarth, I doubt that anyone would truly change their views - resulting only in an endless back-and-forth that takes up much of the creator's time and thus delays on further episodes. Ultimately, it would be a waste of time, just like the debates I had with Veteran Sergeant about women in the military. And the "waste of time" bit is actually something both of us agree to. So why even bother? All we're doing is pulling off a show for the viewers, defending our opinions without any chance of actually "winning" the debate. And we at least have the advantage of actually using a proper forum, with all the features that come with it.

I'm glad that we agree on the potential issue over the author's credibility.
Not exposing your argument to critique does not make an argument stronger, it undermines it because the author believes that their argument is so weak that it cannot be examined. This is what Anita Sarkeesian has been doing. She posts her videos and allows no discussion, she speaks to crowds sympathetic to her cause but she does not allow any critical discussion of her work. Instead she frames her detractors as evil males who would cause her serious physical harm if given half a chance.

 Lynata wrote:
That video is a documentation, just like the ones we see in TV. There you can't debate with the author either. You watch it, form your opinion, and then maybe discuss it with people you know.

The very limited comment section on YT simply isn't intended to support proper debates, and in this case would only get flooded with so much crap that proper discourse is impossible, especially given the character limit, as well as the influence a majority can take on the comments, such as downvoting anything that does not conform to their views, and upvoting what does. You'd end up with majority-approved opinion in the "best comments" section, yet not see potential reaction to it (regardless of how valid or invalid) since the respective answers have long since vanished into the backdrop. I believe an uploader's responses are shown in a separate section nowadays, yet even so that'd mean you have one person facing an army of opponents, even though other users might love to chime in as well.

TV is a different medium to youtube. TV is very clearly divided between the narrator and the audience and allows no participation. Anita Sarkeesian choose her venue freely, she could have used any number of reliable hosting sites and made the videos available through her site. Instead she choose youtube knowing full well the limitations of that platform.
I have been clear throughout in saying that she need not publish abusive comments, but the fact that she refuses to publish polite counterargument is telling.

 Lynata wrote:
Her previous videos allowed comments, and this happened: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/
Honestly, I don't know if *I* would want to bother to read through such comments to dig up one or two who might be worth responding to (which there actually were) either, at least not on every single video I'm uploading (if I would upload anything to YT).
Being subjected to such a massive amount of negativity and outright hatred can be disheartening. In not bothering, she saves herself a good amount of time and mood. If she had bothered to respond, nothing would change either. So what's the sensible thing to do here?

Given the fact that she had little problem in sifting through comments when she could make money from it and frame the debate in her favour (without the allegations that she or her supporters helped stir up the hornet's nest) I find it hypocritical in the extreme that she cannot respond to genuine criticism about her work.

 Lynata wrote:
Sort of. It shouldn't be necessary, but society isn't perfect. At times it feels as if people just don't perceive it as an issue if you don't scream loud enough, but instead just accept "the bitching" (hah, fittingly even this word is sexist ) as part of daily routine. A matter of sensitivity, if you will.
Also, society currently seems to face a weird trend of polarisation - promoting sexism and equality at the same time via different (or even the same) outlets. It's no real surprise that the debates become more hot in response, as people are subjected to and thus influenced by conflicting material, almost forcing them to develop a natural resistance to either one or the other.

It's all a bit chaotic, and I think it will take a few generations more until civilisation figures out a sensible balance - be it with portrayal or perception, or both. But hey, at least we're moving!

For someone who is trying to bring about systemic change through her videos it seems ironic, if not outright hypocritical, that she is a part of the system and the culture that she wished to change. Although judging by her thesis this is maybe unsurprising.

 Lynata wrote:
In essence, yes. Else we wouldn't have dakkanauts comparing half-naked women to half-naked men and call it the same thing - or (to flip the table, just for fairness' sake) criticising such opinions. A whole lot of stuff is just a matter of current cultural perception. Take the age of consent, for example - which not only varies hugely by country, but also by era.

Sure, there's a definition in the dictionary. "Prejudice or discrimination based on sex". But where do prejudice and discrimination start? The lines are drawn individually, else we wouldn't have a thread like this. Just think back a few months and recall some of the controversial developer comments. "Girlfriend Mode" - sexist comment or not? Debate starting in 3 ... 2 ...

So if there is no evidence of sexism at all then how do we combat it if it is just a feeling? How do we know were to effectively target or make changes to social norms, mores and rules? Lines may be drawn individually but collecting and correlating them expose areas where work needs done and efforts focused.
Discrimination starts when two people who are more or less identical are treated differently because of some difference i.e. hiring between two people with identical experience and education. However in some cases people have no issue with discrimination when it favours them

 Ouze wrote:
"Do you have any evidence that she blocked positive comments and only allowed negative comments?"

Apparently my belief that people would be capable of thinking critically while watching someone's behavior was misplaced... We're talking about a person who moderates their comment page, ends up approving all the negative ones, and produces a comment page that is nothing but a straight line of insults and hate while she claims to moderate her comments solely to prevent this which you apparently missed in that video. She then produces a screenshot of the insults and decries how unfair everyone is being to her. To add cake to the plate, she spammed 4chan with links to her kickstarter page and then ended up shocked when 4chan spammed her back.

That I'm the only one, who can sit her looking up information about this person, and am apparently the only one to realize what she is doing, saddens me deeply.

Ok, so there is absolutely no evidence this happened, and it's just a made-up story from tin-foil crazy hat land. Got it, thanks.

So, moving on.

Are you guys also alleging she sockpuppeted all those hundreds or however many offensive comments? Because, if she didn't, lets hear the rationalization for why those were all OK. I'd love to hear more people explain why it was actually her fault people posted they wished to rape her to death.

 Ouze wrote:
Because, if she didn't, lets hear the rationalization for why those were all OK.

In the eyes of many people, including several responses in this thread, those responses were okay because she's a feminist, and therefor she is a BadPerson™ and deserves the abuse heaped upon her.

This kind of abuse is not irregular. It's the standard abuse that female feminists have received for years-- death threats, rape threats, general verbal abuse, all for the crime of being a woman trying to speak up for woman's rights. I've received all of these myself.

How many of you have ever been afraid for your very safety because someone emailed your your address, and said that they were going to come rape you so that you'd shut up? This is, sadly, ALSO not an uncommon occurrence. THIS has also happened to me-- and I was fourteen-fifteen at the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
And the media pointing out every time it happens doesn't make it common place

"The media" ignores it, just like you are. You are incredibly ignorant and you don't know what the HELL you're talking about.

 Ouze wrote:
Are you guys also alleging she sockpuppeted all those hundreds or however many offensive comments? Because, if she didn't, lets hear the rationalization for why those were all OK. I'd love to hear more people explain why it was actually her fault people posted they wished to rape her to death.

I don't think anyone is condoning the vile responses that she got, much less blaming her for the content of the messages. What, I believe, people have been critical of her for has been for stirring up trouble and then using the more responses (again, I am not saying that the vile responses were justified) to further her own agenda and financial interests.

 Melissia wrote:
In the eyes of many people, including several responses in this thread, those responses were okay because she's a feminist, and therefor she is a BadPerson™ and deserves the abuse heaped upon her..

I am not one of those people and I would not think highly of anyone who thought that such abuse was ok.

 Ouze wrote:
Ok, so there is absolutely no evidence this happened, and it's just a made-up story from tin-foil crazy hat land. Got it, thanks.

My tin foil hat isn't crazy. It's got a satellite dish accessory!

I'd love to hear more people explain why it was actually her fault people posted they wished to rape her to death.

Heaven forbid I criticize obviously manipulative behavior designed to garner hate and use it as a shield to escape criticism without being a sexist pig whose okay with people saying hateful things on the internet. That's just asking for too much.

It's only "obviously manipulative" to you, because you WANT to see at as such.

It's kind of sickening really. Frankly, I'm probably going to have to leave this thread because I'm getting pissed off at you.

Respectfully, I'd like to hear one of these guys explain it. Not that I'm saying you don't, like, have the right to speak, obviously you do, it's just that I'm utterly fascinated by what I'm reading.

For example,

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The reason that we know about the storm of misogynistic insults is because she sifted through and published the most inflammatory for sympathy and financial gain (and if a video above is correct, may have incited some of these comments)

We've already established there were a storm of misogynistic insults. We've also somehow established that it's somehow her fault. I'd like one of people who made comments like the above to explain why the people posting the comments are totally blameless in this. She published "the most inflammatory for sympathy", but that's.... after the fact, right? I mean, what she did with the comments came after they were made. So please, expand on your post. Tell me how she "incited them". Educate me! Difficulty: Show your work. That means not making a claim ("she only approved negative ones while blocking positive ones") and then posting a link to a video that not only doesn't contain proof, doesn't actually seem to contain the allegation).

 LordofHats wrote:
Heaven forbid I criticize obviously manipulative behavior designed to garner hate

Please, totally legit question - tell me what she did to cause that behavior. I want you to explain specifically to me how she "garnered" those death threats from all these people who had absolutely no choice in the matter, having been incited. I truly wish to hear and will happily admit when I'm wrong. You show me how a random youtuber had absolutely no choice but to email her a image of a video game character raping her, and I'll call you the better man and publicly apologize for my naivete for all to see, right here.

 Melissia wrote:
In the eyes of many people, including several responses in this thread, those responses were okay because she's a feminist, and therefor she is a BadPerson™ and deserves the abuse heaped upon her..

Therefor we may never criticize anything she says or does ever. For any reason. Whatsoever. She is the victim and is beyond reproach.

This kind of abuse is not irregular. It's the standard abuse that female feminists have received for years-- death threats, rape threats, general verbal abuse, all for the crime of being a woman trying to speak up for woman's rights. I've received all of these myself.

I've received death threats on the internet... Guess that means there must be some conspiracy against hat lords on the internet.

How many of you have ever been afraid for your very safety because someone emailed your your address, and said that they were going to come rape you so that you'd shut up? This is, sadly, ALSO not an uncommon occurrence. THIS has also happened to me-- and I was fourteen-fifteen at the time.

That sucks. People are horrible in the world. They're cruel and seem to revel in doing cruel things. Guess I can never criticize you ever again for any reason at all. That would be too insensitive of me. You are now absolved of all criticism from this day forward because something horrible happened to you-

Wait. I got mugged one time while walking down the street. Am I now absolved of all criticism?

"The media" ignores it, just like you are.

I guess every time a news article appears about it were just figments of my imagination then.

You are incredibly ignorant and you don't know what the HELL you're talking about.

Guess so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
It's kind of sickening really. Frankly, I'm probably going to have to leave this thread because I'm getting pissed off at you.

That's okay. I'm leaving. Everyone can go on worshiping the ground Anita Sarkeesian walks on, because she's had a hard life and therefor as someone who really doesn't like her, I must relegate myself to the corner where I may never even suggest anything negative about her ever again.

 LordofHats wrote:
Therefor we may never criticize anything she says or does ever.

Because men are not intelligent enough to criticize without calling her a [c-bomb] and telling her to shut up or you'll rape her to death, I see.


How the feth do you get "worshipping" from "I don't agree with her".

No, that wasn't a question. It's a statement of shock.

 Melissia wrote:
Because men are not intelligent enough to criticize without calling her a [c-bomb] and telling her to shut up or you'll rape her to death, I see.

Wow. Now I have to come back because I have to go through all my posts to find where I called her a c-bomb and threatened to rape her. I really am terrible.