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.
2014/10/16 22:42:50
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
Manchu wrote: There is no reasonable, good faith explanation for being offended by this comparison
...that you see.
The comparison is valid -- blaming a woman for receiving death threats is as misogynistic as blaming a woman for being raped.
Let alone the fact that a lot of hate she gets isn't because she's a woman, but because she's desperately looking for attention by presenting misinformation, lying etc. There's a more fitting general term for it, but since it contains a fascist term, I don't wanna give you reasons. If you posted stuff like her, I'd hate you just as much as her. You would not get the same amount of attention, however, as you're not a woman and cannot hide behind "feminism".
You still don't (want to?) understand why your statement is so offensive. Not a SINGLE woman will dress up sexy, go out looking to get raped. NO such woman is ASKING to get molested, harassed or even raped.
Anita purposefully stirs up hatred. She WANTS to get (negative) attention. Death threats (as rare as they are) are a part of this.
Your problem is that:
a) You don't seem to see the difference between those two cases.
b) You seem to assume that it being logical to get negative attention immediately means that it's justified to so people.
Do you really need the rape comparison to make a point?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 22:48:59
Manchu wrote: By all means, clarify your point that death threats are part of the negative attention that Sarkeesian wants.
The question is: does Anita purposefully provoke (negative) emotional responses? Yes. Does this include angry e-mails? Yes. Does this include angry comments? Yes. Does this include angry letters? Yes. Does this include death threats? Yes.
The difficult thing to get here is that the motivation for everything might differ. You immediately assume that her haters are misognists. Which is short-sighted and wrong. Does this mean that they automatically aren't misognistic? No.
I assume that you do understand that there is a difference between "wanting" something in particular and in general.
tl;dr: If you purposefully stir up hatred, you get hatred. Which form that hatred then takes can differ widely.
If we're talking bad comparisons, it's like someone running down the street, insulting another guy.
A: The other guy insults him back. You'd say "Okay, that's not too bad and ok."
Your problem is that you do not see that both reactions belong to the same reasoning and are on the same reaction scale - just on another end.
B: The other guy beats him up. You'd say "WOAH! Now where did THAT come from?!"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 22:52:17
Sigvatr wrote: I assume that you do understand that there is a difference between "wanting" something in particular and in general.
So she wants death threats generally but not necessarily this specific one? Or she wanted some other kind of death threat? Or only death threats like this?
Manchu wrote: So she wants death threats generally but not necessarily this specific one? Or she wanted some other kind of death threat? Or only death threats like this?
Well, I am still confused by your post. It says the same thing. You say she wanted death threats and then you say you assume I know the difference between wanting something generally and specifically.
So -- again, which kind of death threats do you think Sarkeesian wants? or are you saying she is not particular, she wants any kind of death threats?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 22:56:30
Manchu wrote: Well, I am still confused by your post. It says the same thing. She wanted death threats and the you say you assume I know the difference between wanting something generally and specifically.
So -- again, which kind of death threats do you think Sarkeesian wants? or are you saying she is not particular, she wants any kind of death threats?
Well she has gotten threats about being murdered and raped.
You say she wanted this? I mean, yes, as a matter of fact you have already posted ITT that Sarkeesian wanted death threats. But now are you saying, no she only wanted nasty comments saying she should be raped and/or murdered but not actual threats?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 22:58:50
Manchu wrote: Well, I am still confused by your post. It says the same thing. You say she wanted death threats and then you say you assume I know the difference between wanting something generally and specifically.
So -- again, which kind of death threats do you think Sarkeesian wants? or are you saying she is not particular, she wants any kind of death threats?
What I read out of it:
Sarkeesian WANTS reactions, comments, etc. (general)
Sarkeesian is getting death threats (specific) which are a FORM of reaction... It's a particular form of reaction she shouldn't want, but still a reaction.
2014/10/16 23:02:35
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
Manchu wrote: I mean, yes, as a matter of fact you have already posted ITT that Sarkeesian wanted death threats.
Oh, okay, so you admit to being forced to twist a user's posts to make a point. Why do you even ask me to elaborate on my point if you then ignore it to begin with?
Sarkeesian WANTS reactions, comments, etc. (general)
Sarkeesian is getting death threats (specific) which are a FORM of reaction... It's a particular form of reaction she shouldn't want, but still a reaction.
Precisely. That's my point.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 23:04:46
I understand perfectly. You have admitted to believing that Sarkeesian has asked for death threats and now you are trying to get out of that by making some ridiculous distinction without a difference between Sarkeesian setting out to elicit negative attention (including but not limited to death threats) as opposed to Sarkeesian specifically seeking out death threats.
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
Sigvatr wrote: a) I wasn't trolling at all. Anita is purposefully attracting negative attention.
That's a pretty big tinfoil hat you have there.
How, exactly, do you know the motivations and goals of Sarkeesian beyond speculation and arguing as if your preferred possibility is the only possible truth?
I remember having asked half a dozen times before in similar threads about how people are so good about knowing motivations, with only answers like 'use google' 'look at twitter' and so on.
I have yet to recieve an actual waterproof answer.
FWIW, she may well be aware that she is risking death threats by doing what she does. I very strongly doubt that the death threats, nor any other harassment et cetera ad nauseam, are goals of hers. They are simply inevitable, yet no less outrageous, side effects. And I very strongly suspect (but, of course, I can't prove) that Anita sees it in the same way.
To put it another way: If I go out digging, chances are I'll get tired. But I don't go dig just to get tired, I am trying to dig up something. Getting tired is not nearly as large a problem as death threats, but neither is digging as large a thing as what Anita is doing, so it evens out.
TL;DR: Until you find some waterproof evidence that Sarkeesian is a selfish fraudster and attention seeker-for-profit, I am calling BS.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2014/10/17 00:08:05
Manchu wrote: I understand perfectly. You have admitted to believing that Sarkeesian has asked for death threats and now you are trying to get out of that by making some ridiculous distinction without a difference between Sarkeesian setting out to elicit negative attention (including but not limited to death threats) as opposed to Sarkeesian specifically seeking out death threats.
So you're claiming that death threats are not a negative emotional reaction?
Sigvatr wrote: a) I wasn't trolling at all. Anita is purposefully attracting negative attention.
How, exactly, do you know the motivations and goals of Sarkeesian beyond speculation and arguing as if your preferred possibility is the only possible truth?
Other Anita thread. Lying, misrepresenting etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/17 00:09:46
Manchu wrote: I understand perfectly. You have admitted to believing that Sarkeesian has asked for death threats and now you are trying to get out of that by making some ridiculous distinction without a difference between Sarkeesian setting out to elicit negative attention (including but not limited to death threats) as opposed to Sarkeesian specifically seeking out death threats.
So you're claiming that death threats are not a negative emotional reaction?
There is no way the statement you quoted could mean that. I even posted "including but not limited to death threats."
The information cascade part is the most important part, that and the "where is that army?" to a cheering mass crowd, especially considering she is part of a PR company that has been manipulating the media. Ad Hominem attack in 3... 2.... 1...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/17 05:31:36
Rick Priestley said it best:
Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! The modern studio isn’t a studio in the same way; it isn’t a collection of artists and creatives sharing ideas and driving each other on. It’s become the promotions department of a toy company – things move on!
2014/10/17 09:11:35
Subject: Re:'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
If you cannot post without using offensive terminology and/or language then it's better you don't post at all.
Last warning.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2014/10/17 09:47:50
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
Manchu wrote: I understand perfectly. You have admitted to believing that Sarkeesian has asked for death threats and now you are trying to get out of that by making some ridiculous distinction without a difference between Sarkeesian setting out to elicit negative attention (including but not limited to death threats) as opposed to Sarkeesian specifically seeking out death threats.
So you're claiming that death threats are not a negative emotional reaction?
There is no way the statement you quoted could mean that. I even posted "including but not limited to death threats."
So you do consider death threats being a negative emotional reaction?
Sigvatr wrote: Do you think that there is no difference being merely being famous and intentionally provoking a negative emotional response?
Are you saying she is being intentionally provocative?
Yes. Purposefully mispresenting content and lying to get your stuff right / justify the means is pee-poor and highly offensive / provocative.
I already stated that the death threat most likely was a /b/tard (again: no insult, it's an official term) thinking it's funny and "ok". I believe that there always is variation between two extremes. Do you?
How do you think she is misrepresenting content and lying?
We've had this discussion countless times, and its been proven countless times. Instead of repeating that discusion, I suggest you go back and read the previous threads.
No. I mean I do understand that makes me sound like some kind of nasty word, but no I'm not going to go and look it up. I don't care to poor through the dozens and dozens of threads on Ania. I won't do that and to be fair I wouldn't make anyone else do that. (If you want, your welcome to throw this statement back in my face should I slip up and tell you or someone else to look something up.)
Using only one example:
She claims that Hitman: Absolution allows you to be able to desecrate a womens bodies and that the game supports you to derive perverse pleasure in the doing of such. This is all because one of the missions takes place in a strip club, and there are girls in the back that you walk past.
Problems with this statement:
- You are deducted points for killing those women; the game actively discourages you from killing them.
- The only way to get those points back is to hide the bodies, after which you cannot pull them back out; you are actively encouraged to get RID of the bodies, not to play with them.
- Out of the top 20 Youtube Let's Plays of the game, only one played with the bodies; it's not a common occurance.
So the game neither supports it, nore are people compelled to do so.
The game lets you do it. Is that not support? I actually mean that as a question. There is a lot of ambiguity in what a game supports. I can see arguments to be made that if a game lets you do something then it is supporting it. After all it gave you the place and ability to do it when it didn't have to. (Skyrim doesn't let you kill kids because they don't want to support that kind of play. ) On the other end, you are argue that because the game punishes you for doing something that means it doesn't support it after all your told don't do that. It's like giving someone a citrate and then saying "Now make sure you don't smoke."
For the comparison to Skyrim Kids;
In Skyrim, kids are not actively trying to kill you. Sure, neither are the chickens, but as it is you really have no reason to want to kill kids in the game (Unless you just want to be a dick).
In Hitman, the women in question are still "enemies"; if you mess up they can turn you in, raise the alarm, and other such things. To allow the polygons the ability to actively "attack" you in such matter but not allow you to do anything about it is bad game design.
That's why it's different.
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
2014/10/17 15:30:17
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
I don't think the point is kids in Skyrim are the same as women in Hitman. Rather, the point is developers choose what kind of play happens in a game. Bethesda chose not to support gameplay where you can be violent to children. IO chose to support gameplay where you can be violent toward women bystanders (and so did Bethesda).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/17 15:30:48
Manchu wrote: I don't think the point is kids in Skyrim are the same as women in Hitman. Rather, the point is developers choose what kind of play happens in a game. Bethesda chose not to support gameplay where you can be violent to children. IO chose to support gameplay where you can be violent toward women bystanders (and so did Bethesda).
At the same time though, it wouldn't make sense in Hitman to have a mission "require" you to kill, and hide the body of your target, but then turn around and disallow any such thing in another mission, regardless of whether "you" are trying to hide a man or a woman in a closet/laundry basket, refrigerator, etc.
2014/10/17 15:37:28
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
She claims that Hitman: Absolution allows you to be able to desecrate a womens bodies and that the game supports you to derive perverse pleasure in the doing of such. This is all because one of the missions takes place in a strip club, and there are girls in the back that you walk past.
Problems with this statement:
- You are deducted points for killing those women; the game actively discourages you from killing them.
- The only way to get those points back is to hide the bodies, after which you cannot pull them back out; you are actively encouraged to get RID of the bodies, not to play with them.
- Out of the top 20 Youtube Let's Plays of the game, only one played with the bodies; it's not a common occurance.
So the game neither supports it, nore are people compelled to do so.
The game lets you do it. Is that not support? I actually mean that as a question. There is a lot of ambiguity in what a game supports. I can see arguments to be made that if a game lets you do something then it is supporting it. After all it gave you the place and ability to do it when it didn't have to. (Skyrim doesn't let you kill kids because they don't want to support that kind of play. ) On the other end, you are argue that because the game punishes you for doing something that means it doesn't support it after all your told don't do that. It's like giving someone a citrate and then saying "Now make sure you don't smoke."
For the comparison to Skyrim Kids;
In Skyrim, kids are not actively trying to kill you. Sure, neither are the chickens, but as it is you really have no reason to want to kill kids in the game (Unless you just want to be a dick).
In Hitman, the women in question are still "enemies"; if you mess up they can turn you in, raise the alarm, and other such things. To allow the polygons the ability to actively "attack" you in such matter but not allow you to do anything about it is bad game design.
That's why it's different.
Children can report crimes in skyrim. (Like 99% sure they can. Even chickens can report crimes.) Then in fallout 3 kids can kill you. even. It's not really that different.
You make an argument that is it bad game design and I can see that, but the reason that would be bad game design is kind of telling. They can spot you you and turn you in. If you don't knock them out and if you don't put their bodies in that convent crate, then at risk of their "attack". It's almost as if the game is wanting you to do it. you to do it. (It's a next zero on your score and dose make the level safer.)
It can't be said for sure that this is the case. Like i said before there is a lot of ambiguity in this subject.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/17 15:39:51
2014/10/17 15:42:09
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
Children can report crimes in skyrim. (Like 99% sure they can. Even chickens can report crimes.) Then in fallout 3 kids can kill you. even. It's not really that different.
You make an argument that is it bad game design and I can see that, but the reason that would be bad game design is kind of telling. They can spot you you and turn you in. If you don't knock them out and if you don't put their bodies in that convent crate, then at risk of their "attack". It's almost as if the game is wanting you to do it. you to do it. (It's a next zero on your score and dose make the level safer.)
It can't be said for sure that this is the case. Like i said before there is a lot of ambiguity in this subject.
Ideally, the way the devs "want" you to play, is in such a way that you get the Silent Assassin rating. To do this, you have to be good enough to NOT knock anyone out, not attract any attention, not do ANYTHING other than touching the specific "target" of the mission.
2014/10/17 15:42:45
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
Manchu wrote: I don't think the point is kids in Skyrim are the same as women in Hitman. Rather, the point is developers choose what kind of play happens in a game. Bethesda chose not to support gameplay where you can be violent to children. IO chose to support gameplay where you can be violent toward women bystanders (and so did Bethesda).
more games contain violence towards males (innocent or not) then females,
But if a game had no women in it to be violent towards (as often happens) you would call that sexist too as there were no women....
so what is the correct choice here?
Do we treat women the same as men, and make them killable (even if bystanders) exactly the same way as is the case in this example?
or do we need to only kill male fictional characters, and protect plygonal women the same way we protect polygonal children?
again, double standard here that needs to be addressed
(much like the numerous previous hard, pertinent questions about double standards regarding sexism)
2014/10/17 15:46:10
Subject: 'Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to cancel university appearance
Children can report crimes in skyrim. (Like 99% sure they can. Even chickens can report crimes.) Then in fallout 3 kids can kill you. even. It's not really that different.
You make an argument that is it bad game design and I can see that, but the reason that would be bad game design is kind of telling. They can spot you you and turn you in. If you don't knock them out and if you don't put their bodies in that convent crate, then at risk of their "attack". It's almost as if the game is wanting you to do it. you to do it. (It's a next zero on your score and dose make the level safer.)
It can't be said for sure that this is the case. Like i said before there is a lot of ambiguity in this subject.
Ideally, the way the devs "want" you to play, is in such a way that you get the Silent Assassin rating. To do this, you have to be good enough to NOT knock anyone out, not attract any attention, not do ANYTHING other than touching the specific "target" of the mission.
Nope. Actually one of the problems people had with HM:A (apart from the sex stuff that oddly enough we haven't even got to yet.) A good chunk of the game practicality forces you to fight. In a hand full of places it literally forces you to shoot people in the face. (Slow motion john woo style.) It has that assassins creed sickness where the game wants you to use every ability unless you forget that it is there. This is another reason why it's so hard to figure out what the game wants you to do.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/10/17 15:53:05
