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.

The reason I cannot stand Anita's videos is because of her intellectual dishonesty, cherry-picking and blatant (you could basically say deliberate) misrepresentation of the subject material to "prove" a point.

A good example.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The reason I cannot stand Anita's videos is because of her intellectual dishonesty, cherry-picking and blatant (you could basically say deliberate) misrepresentation of the subject material to "prove" a point.

There is not a single thing in this post which is true.

 Manchu wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
If the goal was to show her method is flawed... Well he failed miserably

As I mentioned, his goal was to attack Sarkeesian. And that is the most fundamental difference between his vid and ones like it on the one hand and Sarkeesian's on the other.

That wasn't his goal, that's your opinion.

He attacked her arguments and methodology of cherry picking to meet the narrative you're trying to present. Attacking someones arguments is not attacking the person.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The reason I cannot stand Anita's videos is because of her intellectual dishonesty, cherry-picking and blatant (you could basically say deliberate) misrepresentation of the subject material to "prove" a point.

A good example.

Examples aren't gonna matter, dude.

Yeah, her whole series is like that. No, nobody who takes her seriously is going to care.

 Melissia wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The reason I cannot stand Anita's videos is because of her intellectual dishonesty, cherry-picking and blatant (you could basically say deliberate) misrepresentation of the subject material to "prove" a point.

There is not a single thing in this post which is true.

How so?

He just showed you a video with proof which shows that it IS true.

 Ashiraya wrote:
What's with the trend of having borderline offensive splash images on the videos you use as arguments?

The one above implies 'feminists cry like babies' by combining that text and that image. How is that not rude?

It's merely sensationalism. It's common in all forms of media, especially in news. It can be irritating yes, and even rude sometimes, but it's by no means unique to critics of Feminism.

You should see Thunderfoots videos on Creationists, he's by no means singling Feminists out for rude treatment.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The reason I cannot stand Anita's videos is because of her intellectual dishonesty, cherry-picking and blatant (you could basically say deliberate) misrepresentation of the subject material to "prove" a point.

A good example.

Wait... No one else sees a tall building in a game and immediately thinks "I wonder what would happen if I jumped off?" Just me

 Melissia wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The reason I cannot stand Anita's videos is because of her intellectual dishonesty, cherry-picking and blatant (you could basically say deliberate) misrepresentation of the subject material to "prove" a point.

There is not a single thing in this post which is true.

Really? So everything in that video was false?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The reason I cannot stand Anita's videos is because of her intellectual dishonesty, cherry-picking and blatant (you could basically say deliberate) misrepresentation of the subject material to "prove" a point.

There is not a single thing in this post which is true.

Really? So everything in that video was false?

She didn't watch the video.

 LordofHats wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The reason I cannot stand Anita's videos is because of her intellectual dishonesty, cherry-picking and blatant (you could basically say deliberate) misrepresentation of the subject material to "prove" a point.

A good example.

Wait... No one else sees a tall building in a game and immediately thinks "I wonder what would happen if I jumped off?" Just me

Not, its not just you.

I try to hit as many things on the way down as possible, like an aerial game of pinball.

Leaping off skyscrapers in GTA and trying to faceplant yourself on top of a pedestrian is quite entertaining.

That video has already been linked. It wasn't impressive before, watching it through a second time did not raise its quality. If you want to claim that it has any points which need to be raised, there's nothing stopping you from typing out what those points are and posting them here. As it is, I have no intention of doing a word-by-word refutation of a video while having lunch between accounting and management classes.

sirlynchmob wrote:
He attacked her arguments and methodology of cherry picking to meet the narrative you're trying to present.

You already made that claim and I already responded to it.

 Manchu wrote:
It is not a sincere argument. It is a parody -- a caricature of feminists generally and explicitly an attempt to discredit Sarkeesian by falsely equating her arguments to nonsense.

That's what got us to this point:

 Manchu wrote:
I was actually referring to your argument that either I think that parody is sincere or I must think that men should be stabbed. Do you think that is a sincere argument.

DELETED

Question answered.

 Melissia wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The reason I cannot stand Anita's videos is because of her intellectual dishonesty, cherry-picking and blatant (you could basically say deliberate) misrepresentation of the subject material to "prove" a point.

There is not a single thing in this post which is true.

No, for once he do have a point. There is a clear misrepresentation here. While I am not agreeing with him on the bigger picture, that section was clearly a misrepresentation.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So everything in that video was false?

A clear strawman. Do you really think "not a single thing in this post is true" is the same thing as "everything in that video was false"?

 Melissia wrote:
That video has already been linked. It wasn't impressive before, watching it through a second time did not raise its quality. If you want to claim that it has any points which need to be raised, there's nothing stopping you from typing out what those points are and posting them here. As it is, I have no intention of doing a word-by-word refutation of a video while having lunch between accounting and management classes.

Because you can't. As the video says, it's black and white: She cherry-picked a tiny segment out of a much larger game, misrepresented the way that part of the game is played (killing the women and dragging them around, something you're explicitly not meant to do so much so that there's a built in disincentive), and claimed that the game "reinforced" the stereotype of "women as decoration" as a result when in reality what's shown in her video is vastly removed from how people actually play the game.

That's dishonestly, and she does it constantly in her videos.

 LordofHats wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The reason I cannot stand Anita's videos is because of her intellectual dishonesty, cherry-picking and blatant (you could basically say deliberate) misrepresentation of the subject material to "prove" a point.

A good example.

Wait... No one else sees a tall building in a game and immediately thinks "I wonder what would happen if I jumped off?" Just me

This is actually were describing a video game is harder then describing a movie. You have to account for player agency. A game could be many shades of whatever based on the actions of the player. Then you get into the fuzziness of what is allowed what is encouraged and what is required and what all that means. I mean if a game allows you do do something is that a form of silently encouraging it? Why dose skyrim block the killing of children? Are the stars in GTA a punishment or a reward? It's really complex to try and figure that out.

 Melissia wrote:
That video has already been linked. It wasn't impressive before, watching it through a second time did not raise its quality. If you want to claim that it has any points which need to be raised, there's nothing stopping you from typing out what those points are and posting them here. As it is, I have no intention of doing a word-by-word refutation of a video while having lunch between accounting and management classes.

Anita: "Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure in desecrating the bodies of virtual female characters". (Important bits in bold)


So by her statement, that means that players of Hitman are

A) Supposed to kill these characters.
B) Supposed to actually toy around with them.



The problems come from the fact that THE GAME DOCKS POINTS IF YOU KILL THEM. Points. The things you are rated by. Are subtracted. Subtracted, as in taken away. That means you're score is lower, and this isn't golf.

YOU. ARE. NOT. SUPPOSED. TO. KILL. THEM.

Her statement has thereby been proven null and void, black and white, clear as crystal. She loses. She gets NOTHING. Good Day, Ma'am.

/Willy Wonka.

Having never played a Hitman game, but seeing the name come up again and again in this thread as something being unfairly railed against I decided to look it up.

Looking at the achievements for Hitman I see an achievement for "Killing something beautiful", with an icon that depicts a woman in underwear and heels in the middle of removing her bra, supposedly attained for killing a character named Layla. In contrast to the achievements for killing the male characters, this seems to call a great deal of attention to the character's gender and sexuality.

At minimum that seems strong support to the idea that Hitman is at least in some capacity tying a woman's sex and sexual appeal to the violence against her in way that does not happen for men.

Maybe this is an isolated case and not evidence of a broader trend in the series, but I've seen little from the industry that would make me skeptical of it.

Layla is one of the game's villains. You get achievements for killing pretty much all the villains in that game.

 Manchu wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So everything in that video was false?

A clear strawman. Do you really think "not a single thing in this post is true" is the same thing as "everything in that video was false"?

Ok Manchu. But let's stick to the video, as that's kinda the salient point here, and not my post introducing the video.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
While I am not agreeing with him on the bigger picture, that section was clearly a misrepresentation.

I think LoH addressed this already:

 LordofHats wrote:
Wait... No one else sees a tall building in a game and immediately thinks "I wonder what would happen if I jumped off?" Just me

 Chongara wrote:
Having never played a Hitman game, but seeing the name come up again and again in this thread as something being unfairly railed against I decided to look it up.

Looking at the achievements for Hitman I see an achievement for "Killing something beautiful", with an icon that depicts a woman in underwear and heels in the middle of removing her bra, supposedly attained for killing a character named Layla. In contrast to the achievements for killing the male characters, this seems to call a great deal of attention to the character's gender and sexuality.

At minimum that seems strong support to the idea that Hitman at least in some capacity tying a woman's sex and sexual appeal to the violence against her in way that does not happen for men.

I always knew XBox Achievements would lead us down a dark path.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
not my post introducing the video

But:

 Melissia wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The reason I cannot stand Anita's videos is because of her intellectual dishonesty, cherry-picking and blatant (you could basically say deliberate) misrepresentation of the subject material to "prove" a point.

There is not a single thing in this post which is true.

I mean, that is pretty specifically about your post introducing the video.

But anyway, it looks like we are currently discussing the video so ...

 Chongara wrote:
Having never played a Hitman game, but seeing the name come up again and again in this thread as something being unfairly railed against I decided to look it up.

Looking at the achievements for Hitman I see an achievement for "Killing something beautiful", with an icon that depicts a woman in underwear and heels in the middle of removing her bra, supposedly attained for killing a character named Layla. In contrast to the achievements for killing the male characters, this seems to call a great deal of attention to the character's gender and sexuality.

At minimum that seems strong support to the idea that Hitman at least in some capacity tying a woman's sex and sexual appeal to the violence against her in way that does not happen for men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWKF6cxygt8

Character does not appear to be a stripper and the samurai get up is rather out there....

 Chongara wrote:
Looking at the achievements for Hitman I see an achievement for "Killing something beautiful", with an icon that depicts a woman in underwear and heels in the middle of removing her bra, supposedly attained for killing a character named Layla. In contrast to the achievements for killing the male characters, this seems to call a great deal of attention to the character's gender and sexuality.

Well, Anita should have mentioned this rather than misrepresenting something from the game. I mean, if you are loosing point for killing the girls, you are not encouraged to do it, clearly.

 Lynata wrote:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Then do yourself and everybody else here a favour and go WATCH them. Second hand information does not make an informed opinion.

Why? I'm not judging Sarkeesian's videos, I am judging the reactions to them. Which as it looks like consists of about 40% namecalling, 35% slander, 20% baseless claims and maybe 5% actual criticism. And the last part of the discussion is obviously getting drowned out.
I find the public's response to the videos far more interesting and revealing than those videos could ever be. I already have my own opinion on the issues she's talking about anyways.

Your opinion is STILL poorly informed, because you have not familiarized yourself with the content being discussed and therefore you're not equipped with the information you need to objectively judge the reaction.

Claiming that you don't need to see the source material to judge the reaction to the source material is like calling critics of Christian and Islamic theology bigoted because they say mean things about the two religions whilst not bothering to actually study the Bible and Koran yourself to find out why those critics are saying those things.

And in any case when its presented to you, you ignore that "5% actual criticism", or label it as bigoted; thereby dismissing it without actually refuting any of the points made. Same goes for Melissia.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Layla is one of the game's villains. You get achievements for killing pretty much all the villains in that game.

She is still referred to as “something beautiful” because she is a woman.

 Manchu wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
While I am not agreeing with him on the bigger picture, that section was clearly a misrepresentation.

I think LoH addressed this already:

 LordofHats wrote:
Wait... No one else sees a tall building in a game and immediately thinks "I wonder what would happen if I jumped off?" Just me

I do not see how that address anything.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Layla is one of the game's villains. You get achievements for killing pretty much all the villains in that game.

Right, I acknowledged the achievements for killing male characters.The issue I'm pointing out is that hers stands in stark contrast to the others. The achievements for the male characters don't have sexualized depictions of them and don't refer to their them as an object in possession o fa desirable quality. Clearly everyone is the subject of violence in this universe, but a female character is the only one that seems to have had it framed with eroticism.

 Chongara wrote:
Having never played a Hitman game, but seeing the name come up again and again in this thread as something being unfairly railed against I decided to look it up.

Looking at the achievements for Hitman I see an achievement for "Killing something beautiful", with an icon that depicts a woman in underwear and heels in the middle of removing her bra, supposedly attained for killing a character named Layla. In contrast to the achievements for killing the male characters, this seems to call a great deal of attention to the character's gender and sexuality.

At minimum that seems strong support to the idea that Hitman at least in some capacity tying a woman's sex and sexual appeal to the violence against her in way that does not happen for men.

Maybe this is an isolated case and not evidence of a broader trend in the series, but I've seen little from the industry that would make me skeptical of it.

Oh HM:A has some issues with women. I have played it and it's creepy on many levels. The actually strip club level is one of the less creepy sexual moments.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And in any case when its presented to you, you ignore that "5% actual criticism", or label it as bigoted; thereby dismissing it without actually refuting any of the points made. Same goes for Melissia.

Not for me, right? I am good?