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.

 Forar wrote:


People being unhinged or unhealthy is not justification.

There is NO *opinion* that should lead to threats against your safety. Calling someone a donkey cave is one thing. Threatening to find them and harm them is another.

Some people being crazy (in terms of serious mental illness or just being terrible people) doesn't change that this is unacceptable behaviour. Not uncommon or surprising, but unacceptable all the same.

I'm not really sure what you would consider justification. No sane person would make threats against another person just cause of an opinion. But the fact is insane people do exist. Their behavior is unacceptable and I agree with you on that if it wasn't clear.

But again,crazy people exist in real life and sometimes they get attached to video games. I'm not sure, am I supposed to pretend this isn't possible?

Sining wrote:
Most hatred is anti-society if you want to define thus, and you might have been better off just stating that first instead of going into your personal definition. And I think most people would be confused when you start trying to rewrite the meaning of words. Good job blaming us though. It's totally not your fault that we didn't know your definition of misogyny is anti-society.

The fact that you continue to claim I mis-defined misogyny despite several clarifications is just more evidence that your argument is a strawman and a red herring.

Sining wrote:
A red herring about what?

You keep wanting to talk about dictionaries instead of dealing with my actual argument:

 Manchu wrote:
Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.

 Bromsy wrote:
I think the only answer you should have given to that particular argument is "Only Sith deal in absolutes." That would have been the end of it.

Ah yes, Obi-Wan's subtle confession that he is a Sith.

 Manchu wrote:
[

 Bromsy wrote:
I think the only answer you should have given to that particular argument is "Only Sith deal in absolutes." That would have been the end of it.

Ah yes, Obi-Wan's subtle confession that he is a Sith.

The irony is delicious

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Your meaning is vague, and your second point is the problem. Why not say "Hatred is hostile to society generally"? If hate is hostile to society (which I agree it is) why specifically link misogyny, which is understood to mean hate of women, to include men and women? It seems unnecessarily confusing and has resulted in a side conversation about definitions.

How is that a problem? Why does someone's argument need to be defined more broadly in order for it to be a valid opinion?

Specifically we're talking misogyny because it's relevant to the topic at hand. This is a thread tackling that specific issue, therefore that specific issue is going to be utilized when people make or refute points.

What is the point of your questioning? Legitimately curious how you think the answers to anything there would matter, in any way, shape, and form. I don't get how you, or anyone, could be confused about this.

 Manchu wrote:

Sining wrote:
Most hatred is anti-society if you want to define thus, and you might have been better off just stating that first instead of going into your personal definition. And I think most people would be confused when you start trying to rewrite the meaning of words. Good job blaming us though. It's totally not your fault that we didn't know your definition of misogyny is anti-society.

The fact that you continue to claim I mis-defined misogyny despite several clarifications is just more evidence that your argument is a strawman and a red herring.

Sining wrote:
A red herring about what?

You keep wanting to talk about dictionaries instead of dealing with my actual argument:

 Manchu wrote:
Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.

 Bromsy wrote:
I think the only answer you should have given to that particular argument is "Only Sith deal in absolutes." That would have been the end of it.

Ah yes, Obi-Wan's subtle confession that he is a Sith.

 Manchu wrote:
Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.

You did mis-define misogyny. There isn't any real claim about it.

You keep wanting to talk about dictionaries instead of dealing with my actual argument:

And what is your actual argument? That misogyny is anti-society? I'm curious here, because I don't remember an actual argument by you unless you're talking about your claim that a shooting was spurred by misogyny, which I already replied to but haven't received any replies from you except your famous quote above.

Sining wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Sining wrote:
Most hatred is anti-society if you want to define thus, and you might have been better off just stating that first instead of going into your personal definition. And I think most people would be confused when you start trying to rewrite the meaning of words. Good job blaming us though. It's totally not your fault that we didn't know your definition of misogyny is anti-society.

The fact that you continue to claim I mis-defined misogyny despite several clarifications is just more evidence that your argument is a strawman and a red herring.

Sining wrote:
A red herring about what?

You keep wanting to talk about dictionaries instead of dealing with my actual argument:

 Manchu wrote:
Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.

 Bromsy wrote:
I think the only answer you should have given to that particular argument is "Only Sith deal in absolutes." That would have been the end of it.

Ah yes, Obi-Wan's subtle confession that he is a Sith.

 Manchu wrote:
Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.

You did mis-define misogyny. There isn't any real claim about it.

You keep wanting to talk about dictionaries instead of dealing with my actual argument:

And what is your actual argument? That misogyny is anti-society? I'm curious here, because I don't remember an actual argument by you unless you're talking about your claim that a shooting was spurred by misogyny, which I already replied to but haven't received any replies from you except your famous quote above.

You two arguing about the definition of misogyny is frankly hitting troll level. Build a bridge and get over it already.
Besides a more important issue has arisen. Was Ben Kenobi secretly a rival Sith Lord?

It's our way of showing UST.

And yes. Yes he was

Sining wrote:
You did mis-define misogyny. There isn't any real claim about it.

Nope:

 Manchu wrote:
Misogyny is not just anti-woman; it is anti-everyone. Hatred of women is hostile to society generally.

That is an argument, not a definition.

Sining wrote:
I don't remember an actual argument by you unless you're talking about your claim that a shooting was spurred by misogyny, which I already replied to but haven't received any replies from you except your famous quote above.

Oh really? Let's show the "famous quote" in context:So are you ready to actually talk about how misogyny is bad for everyone, including using violence to prevent people from speaking on gender issues, or do you want to keep deflecting the actual topic of the thread with a dictionary?

 Frazzled wrote:
You two arguing about the definition of misogyny is frankly hitting troll level.

Frazzled, you live under glass bridge. Please don't throw stones.

Anyway turning in for the night. Let's all just agree threats are bad and hopefully they catch whoever did this


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Good job with the editing though

Frazzle? The truth is before you. Why do you think that Luke went dark for a moment in the final episode?

Anyways, to the threats I don't think it's just quite crazy people. The catch is, I think most people are generally adjusted. But then you toss in puberty, the mess that is personal opinions, the fact that people polarize into my group and everyone else, tensions flair, and everything escalates. People take things they shouldn't take personal and go absolutely nuts about it because, in part it's what humans do. We'll flip out over the most trivial of things. Toss in a bit of anonimity? Things get even worse.

Why am I dismissive of it? Because I'm frankly cynical. There's already been many death threats to that individual just as per the usual drama that hits the fans, trolls are in it, people that are just swept along are doing it, and people post stupid stuff all the time. Granted there are some people that are earnestly screwed in the head like Elliot (although I'd argue he hated pretty much everybody but himself. The dude had mental problems medically and it was more I'm perfect, all other dudes are barbaric dogs, and women are the bones. Thanks for reminding me how twisted that was), lots of SJWs, and so on. At that point, it's not that I'm pleased and if it earnestly occurred, I'd be upset even if I think that her analysis is wrong in its premise, execution, and manipulation of events like politicians do. Honestly on this one, this is a bit too extreme for even myself and it should be checked into just in case. It's very possibly a troll but just in case, cops certainly should check in on this one.

I don't like what she'd say but if, by some convoluted chance it somehow twists into positive development, I'll be glad to toss away the grizzled brown haired rugged white man and, for the love of everything, to have stories that are good and characters that aren't bland carbon cut outs.

 SRSFACE wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Your meaning is vague, and your second point is the problem. Why not say "Hatred is hostile to society generally"? If hate is hostile to society (which I agree it is) why specifically link misogyny, which is understood to mean hate of women, to include men and women? It seems unnecessarily confusing and has resulted in a side conversation about definitions.

How is that a problem? Why does someone's argument need to be defined more broadly in order for it to be a valid opinion?

Specifically we're talking misogyny because it's relevant to the topic at hand. This is a thread tackling that specific issue, therefore that specific issue is going to be utilized when people make or refute points.

What is the point of your questioning? Legitimately curious how you think the answers to anything there would matter, in any way, shape, and form. I don't get how you, or anyone, could be confused about this.

Vagueness is a problem with communication, especially written forms of communication. Manchu wrote something that at least one other poster on here understood to change the meaning of a definition of a word. It caused confusion and created a side conversation about definitions and meanings. I was simply clarifying where Manchu's statement was vague and caused confusion.

As for your other points I am not sure I follow. What do you think I don't understand? What misogyny is? I understand what misogyny is. I did not understand what Sining and possibly other readers thought was Manchu's revised definition of misogyny which was "hate of men and women". Manchu later clarified that that definition is not what he thinks misogyny means, but rather that misogyny like other forms of hate are detrimental to society. But his initial wording seemed to modify the definition of misogyny to include not just women but everyone. That is what I was addressing in the post you quoted. I am not disputing the validity of misogyny being discussed in this thread, as it is relevant. I was addressing where vague wording threw the conversation into a tangent. It seems you misunderstood my post entirely.

The key to the "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" is the word 'deals' not the word 'absolutes'.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Manchu's revised definition of misogyny which was "hate of men and women"

False.

 Manchu wrote:
Manchu's revised definition of misogyny which was "hate of men and women"

False.

My problem is I can't help feeling that Anita has "cherry picked" in the past threats or just general rude responses to disallow any discussion with her on the credibility of her arguments.
It is like the boy who cried wolf: where has it passed from it being "managed" to her benefit to now out of control.

She wanted money, she got it, she wanted the ear of the masses, she got it, now she also caught the eye of the great unwashed and she is not liking it.
I admit there is this guilty pleasure of wanting to say to her: "It comes with the territory: you want attention, you get the crazies too! The "famous" have had to adapt, so must you. ".

I always felt anything worth having has some cost to it, how many people would trade to be where she is with all the good and bad that goes with it?
I think not many people would pass on that chance.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Please quote the full sentence for context. Otherwise you are putting words in my mouth.

My bad on not quoting the full sentence.

What I want to get across is that my argument was not and is not vague.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
admit there is this guilty pleasure of wanting to say to her: "It comes with the territory: you want attention, you get the crazies too! The "famous" have had to adapt, so must you. "

This is perilously close to justifying death threats. At the very least it assumes famous people necessarily receive death threats.

 Manchu wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Please quote the full sentence for context. Otherwise you are putting words in my mouth.

My bad on not quoting the full sentence.

What I want to get across is that my argument was not and is not vague.

It is vague if it leads people to come to the wrong conclusions about your argument. The last page or so of posts between you and Sining might indicate that your argument caused some confusion. But keep on keeping on. You think your argument is crystal clear even though some people are left scratching their heads wondering how you could argue X means Y, when that isn't even your argument in the first place.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
It is vague if it leads people to come to the wrong conclusions about your argument.

Sometimes people just do not understand an argument regardless of its clarity.

The full record of the argument is in fact available. I have reposted it. I guess I will also summarize it:

It started because I brought up that there has been a recent mass shooting driven by misogyny but none driven by misandry. Sining responded that Elliot Rodger killed more men than women so that could not have been about misogyny. I responded that Elliot Rodger killed men out of jealousy based on his misogynistic belief that women are possessions that he deserves to own more than other men.

In the course of this exchange, I posted that misogyny is not just anti-woman but also anti-society -- this was side by side with the example of Elliot Rodger killing both men and women because of his misogyny.

To me, this actually is crystal clear. If someone who insists all meaning in language can be found in a dictionary thought that was confusing, I really don't think it is because of the words I used.

Moreover, the fact that we are still arguing about the argument despite loads of subsequent clarification shows hesitance to deal with the actual point I made:

Misogyny is bad for everyone in society. Threatening people's lives because they want to criticize gender in video games is the opposite of civilization.

 Talizvar wrote:
My problem is I can't help feeling that Anita has "cherry picked" in the past threats or just general rude responses to disallow any discussion with her on the credibility of her arguments.
It is like the boy who cried wolf: where has it passed from it being "managed" to her benefit to now out of control.

Well, by your own definition, it's like the little boy who only mentioned the biggest wolves when there actually were lots of wolves to chose from.


The problem isn't that she used the worst of the vitriol as a useful example, the problem was she had giant piles of vitriol to choose from in the first place. I mean, I've seen this "point" come up several times in previous threads and it just doesn't make any sense to me.

 Da Boss wrote:
It doesn't really matter that the death threats won't be carried out. It matters that they were made.

The efforts to silence Sarkesian are bad because there should be no problem with letting her speak to people who want to listen to her, or make videos for people who want to watch them. She is not advocating genocide or violence that I have seen, so what's the harm? You may disagree with her and find her videos poorly made and poorly argued, that's fine. Feel free to ignore her. Silencing her is not required, nor should it be desired.

I mean, I hesitate to wade into the whole debate, but I am just surprised that people can have such an extreme reaction to someone pointing out that video games often portray women in a negative light, or develop female characters less than male characters. I would have thought that was obvious. Picking on the specific examples and getting angry over how the arguments are made seems to be like missing the woods for the trees here.

Word.

The fundamental point is that if Sarkeesian's views and arguments were utter nonsense completely unsupported by factual evidence, the best way to debunk them would be to let her speak out and damn herself with her obvious idiocy.

But they aren't. There is a sad core of bitter truth in what she says despite some loose threads of her tapestry like the treatment of male and female bodies in Hitman X.

Everybody knows there is a significant strand of misogyny in gamer and internet culture (as in society and human life as a whole). The real difference is whether people think that is an acceptable position. Obviously misogynists do, and therefore fight against people who fight against it.

The fundamental point is that if Sarkeesian's views and arguments were utter nonsense completely unsupported by factual evidence, the best way to debunk them would be to let her speak out and damn herself with her obvious idiocy.

Even with facts many people still often don't believe in the truth, just what their ideology says is right.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The fundamental point is that if Sarkeesian's views and arguments were utter nonsense completely unsupported by factual evidence, the best way to debunk them would be to let her speak out and damn herself with her obvious idiocy.

Just to get this straight: everyone can agree on her purposefully mispresenting information to fit her needs as demonstrated in her videos.

The thing is that she already is considered a joke, even by the industry. For people not familiar with the role such people take, it's sort of a figurehead. You pick a person to speak on a matter that's "in" in order to show that your company totally cares for the popular topic. People think "Wow, they really care for the topic!" and like the company more. In truth, noones cares the tiniest bit for what said person says. It's a PR thing and it happens in all areas with PR involved. It's a very cheap and effective strategy.

On this specific matter, keep in mind that most people following Anita do not follow her for her integrity or journalistic efforts, they follow her because they're SJW and / or looking for self-affirmation. Or, less specific, they just want to hop on the hypetrain. Those people do not care for facts, else they would not be following to begin with. Choo choo!

The fact that the Montreal Massacre was mentioned in the threat is terrifying. I hope they find the person who did this.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Everybody knows there is a significant strand of misogyny in gamer and internet culture (as in society and human life as a whole). The real difference is whether people think that is an acceptable position. Obviously misogynists do, and therefore fight against people who fight against it.

I think that, while this is all true, there isn't enough of a voice of that minority in whatever meetings are held at the big game companies to determine what games get made... I mean, from an economic position, how many studios are going to make a Duke Nuke'em game, where they replace The Duke with "Princess Peach" ?? (actually, that would be a completely badass game... princess peach carrying around giant guns, driving monster trucks, rocket launchers etc.... all to save the hapless Italian Plumber who keeps thinking that she's been kidnapped )

We obviously won't know how many "pro-women" game ideas have been bandied about in these meetings but get shelved for CoD 300: Waterloo in Space.

This isn't me saying "just get over it" it's more me saying that, I think that there are people in charge who, either out of ignorance, or willful neglect, make decisions regarding their game companies that a rather large segment of our population perceive as being hurtful to them. It's a bit of a meme up in Dakka Discussions, but the whole "vote with your wallet" trope that gets used up there, sadly also does not really work in video games precisely because "so many" people are still happy with whatever latest Call of Duty game has come out, and will come out next year. Personally, the Assassin's Creed thing has been played out (though they are still successful economically), and I would be VERY happy to play another AC game where the main character that the player controls is female, provided they maintained the same level of story and game design quality that previous editions have had.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The fundamental point is that if Sarkeesian's views and arguments were utter nonsense completely unsupported by factual evidence, the best way to debunk them would be to let her speak out and damn herself with her obvious idiocy.

Just to get this straight: everyone can agree on her purposefully mispresenting information to fit her needs as demonstrated in her videos.

The thing is that she already is considered a joke, even by the industry. For people not familiar with the role such people take, it's sort of a figurehead. You pick a person to speak on a matter that's "in" in order to show that your company totally cares for the popular topic. People think "Wow, they really care for the topic!" and like the company more. In truth, noones cares the tiniest bit for what said person says. It's a PR thing and it happens in all areas with PR involved. It's a very cheap and effective strategy.

On this specific matter, keep in mind that most people following Anita do not follow her for her integrity or journalistic efforts, they follow her because they're SJW and / or looking for self-affirmation. Or, less specific, they just want to hop on the hypetrain. Those people do not care for facts, else they would not be following to begin with. Choo choo!

So why do you care?

EDIT Whoops. I seem to have conflated Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn. Shows how much I really care about dumb people being dumb.

You realized the error so why leave it up? It serves no purpose. -Ouze

Yeah, sorry, I'll..


I'll just be... not in this thread.




I will say that this all sounds like dumb people being dumb (including me, apparently!)

Actually, respect where respect is due, you were wrong and you admitted it.

Yeah, so, uh, moving on.