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.

nomotog wrote:

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.)

Huh? My wife finished the game with the Silent Assassin achievement which means that you have to kill noone (!) but your targets.

/e: Thread getting kinda OT.

 Sigvatr wrote:

nomotog wrote:

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.)

Huh? My wife finished the game with the Silent Assassin achievement which means that you have to kill noone (!) but your targets.

/e: Thread getting kinda OT.

That is tricky but doable I think. The game would likely count the john woo stuff as your targets. Also I can imagine someone just running past some of the more fidly sneaking bits. It's just important to understand that HM:A isn't like say blood money where you are a stealth assassin trying to take out your targets subtly as possible. Many levels you have no targets and other levels your not going to take out your target in a sneaky way.

The issue is less about what you must do to get some achievement and more about what the developers have chosen to allow you to do.

But I agree this is getting OT. I understand people are asking about how Sarkeesian allegedly lied, misrepresented, or at least exaggerated in her last Feminist Frequency video but it seems the question has now been answered so we can move on.

The key takeaway is that Sarkeesian's critics think her comments regarding Hitman: Absolution demonstrate that she is either (or both) not actually familiar with the games she uses as examples or (/and) such examples are purposefully meant to mislead/troll the audience.

How is this relevant to this thread?

For the sake of argument, let's assume Sarkeesian's critique of Hitman: Absolution is totally off-base. Are

- hateful diatribes
- sexist slurs
- threats of rape
- threats of murder
- threats of raping/murdering friends and family
- threats of murdering bystanders at a lecture

reasonable and proportionate responses to a bad argument about a video game?

 Manchu wrote:
You guys are quoting me but not arguing against any point I made.

no, you are ignoring the fallout from your conclusions and avoiding answering pertinent questions.

you made a point about the games treatment of women, I asked you for the correct way to handle it, so what is the answer?

 easysauce wrote:
you made a point about the games treatment of women

No. Here is the point I made:

 Manchu wrote:
Rather, the point is developers choose what kind of play happens in a game.

Here's a restatement of that point:

 Manchu wrote:
The issue is less about what you must do to get some achievement and more about what the developers have chosen to allow you to do.

Actually, you can't compare HM: A and Skyrim and then make the leap to Fallout 3; they are different games; Fallout 3 even had the Pint Sized Slasher missions. We are also then talking about a series with a perk literally called "Child Killer".

Also, Reporting Crimes in Skyrim is totally different than reporting you in HM: A; Skyrim you don't have to commit crimes, it's there if you want it, where as Hitman you HAVE to trespass (And be potentially discovered) as it's a core part of the game.

Slag232 -- please use spoiler tags if you are going to quote long chains of quotes.

I will edit the one you just made but please do this yourself going forward.

ALSO - as mentioned above - the discussion comparing Skyrim with Hitman is leading us off-topic. If anyone wishes to continue that discussion (on game design), please start a thread in the video games sub-forum. I am going to delete any further posts on that topic. Thanks

http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54180

Just in case no one saw this, USU has confirmed that Sarkeesian didn't cancel her event because of the threat, which the FBI and local PD confirmed was minimal to no risk, but because USU students who have been issued CCW permits might have the gal to carry at the presentation and USU would not violate state law and disarm them.

 Manchu wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
you made a point about the games treatment of women

No. Here is the point I made:

 Manchu wrote:
Rather, the point is developers choose what kind of play happens in a game.

Here's a restatement of that point:

 Manchu wrote:
The issue is less about what you must do to get some achievement and more about what the developers have chosen to allow you to do.

and I specifically asked you something about that point.

since you have seem an issue with what they CHOOSE to let you do, as does anita

how we get a choice that is acceptable,
do we treat women in games just like men (killable, dragable et all)?

or do we treat them like children (immune to effects)?


what is the non sexist answer here? how do we handle this without being sexist according to you?

 Manchu wrote:


For the sake of argument, let's assume Sarkeesian's critique of Hitman: Absolution is totally off-base. Are

- hateful diatribes
- sexist slurs
- threats of rape
- threats of murder
- threats of raping/murdering friends and family
- threats of murdering bystanders at a lecture

It's...sad how you still haven't realized the difference between there being a reason for an action and a justification for an action but continue to insinuate that everyone disagreeing with you assumes that the former is the same as the latter.

You did not yet (want to?) realize that noone in this thread argues from that point of view or even assumes the above mentioned. On the internet, even disagreeing with someone in a YouTube comment can be a reason for all of the above mentioned things. Being better in an online game most often yields to strangers telling me how my mom is in bed, that I should get cancer, die, get raped etc. etc. Your extremely heavy bias is obvious and it clouds your ability to openly talk about a topic.

Sigvatr -

It is obvious that people have responded to Sarkeesians videos in an overwhelmingly negative way.

Why do you think it is useful or relevant to state what is obvious again and again?

Is there some reason why you are doing so?

Actually you are not just saying people are making threats because they are irritated by Sarkeesian.

You have actually said Sarkeesian wants a negative response.

And you explicitly included death threats as part of that negative response; so you have stated that Sarkeesian wants death threats.

Here are your exact words:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Anita purposefully stirs up hatred. She WANTS to get (negative) attention. Death threats (as rare as they are) are a part of this.

 Sigvatr wrote:
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.

Here again is the relevant question:

 Manchu wrote:
For the sake of argument, let's assume Sarkeesian's critique of Hitman: Absolution is totally off-base. Are

- hateful diatribes
- sexist slurs
- threats of rape
- threats of murder
- threats of raping/murdering friends and family
- threats of murdering bystanders at a lecture

reasonable and proportionate responses to a bad argument about a video game?

Keep in mind that no one questions whether the bulletted items above are "probable" or "realistic." They HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED. The only remaining issue here is whether they are a reasonable and/or proportionate and/or appropriate response to someone making a bad argument (even assuming the argument is bad) about a video game.

so, manchu

are you not answering questions that show the double standard then?

if you, and/or anita, have issue with what developers choose to let you do in video games, what is the correct choice?

should women be treated just like men, be killable ect?

should they be untouchable like children?

or should they be their own special class in video games?

4th option????

its a simple question on the point you made, please stop avoiding it and doing the run around, I read your post, I asked a question on it (politely) and you keep avoiding it.

 Manchu wrote:

You have actually said Sarkeesian wants a negative response.

Yep. Go back to my previous posts.I said that she explicitely provoked (negative) emotional responses. She WANTS attention and the CONSEQUENCE or SIDE EFFECT of getting GENERAL ATTENTION is that you get BOTH positive AND negative reactions - which include a lot of things, as already having been portrayed above.

And you explicitly included death threats as part of that negative response; so you have stated that Sarkeesian wants death threats.

Wrong conclusion, as above and above. And above. As portrayed above, she WANTS attention IN GENERAL. A death threat is NOT what she wants. She WANTS an emotional response. A death threat is a FORM of such an emotional response. It's a SIDE EFFECT of what she wants to achieve.

Keep in mind that no one questions whether the bulletted items above are "probable" or "realistic." They HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED. The only remaining issue here is whether they are a reasonable and appropriate response to someone making a bad argument (even assuming the argument is bad) about a video game.

So do you think that this is in question in this very thread?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
so, manchu

are you not answering questions that show the double standard then?

This thread isn't supposed to be about Hitman. It's clear that it is hypocritic to complain about these 2 (?) women when you slaughter hundreds of men but that has already been discussed in length in the other thread.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54180

Just in case no one saw this, USU has confirmed that Sarkeesian didn't cancel her event because of the threat, which the FBI and local PD confirmed was minimal to no risk, but because USU students who have been issued CCW permits might have the gal to carry at the presentation and USU would not violate state law and disarm them.

Well thats very different. So it had nothing to do with the threats, just her rabid anti-gun view (or she was trying to create a furor).

 Sigvatr wrote:
As portrayed above, she WANTS attention IN GENERAL. A death threat is NOT what she wants. She WANTS an emotional response. A death threat is a FORM of such an emotional response. It's a SIDE EFFECT of what she wants to achieve.

This is a distinction without a difference.

- You say she wants negative responses.
- You say death threats are part of that negative response.

As I have asked before, where is the line you want to draw between negative responses she wants and negative responses she doesn't want?

 Sigvatr wrote:

Keep in mind that no one questions whether the bulletted items above are "probable" or "realistic." They HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED. The only remaining issue here is whether they are a reasonable and appropriate response to someone making a bad argument (even assuming the argument is bad) about a video game.

So do you think that this is in question in this very thread?

I explicitly identified it as the "relevant question."

 Sigvatr wrote:
This thread isn't supposed to be about Hitman. It's clear that it is hypocritic to complain about these 2 (?) women when you slaughter hundreds of men but that has already been discussed in length in the other thread.

I think I can put this one to rest by saying I think Sarkeesian's argument about Hitman is so exaggerated as to actually undermine her overall argument rather than support it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well thats very different. So it had nothing to do with the threats, just her rabid anti-gun view (or she was trying to create a furor).

You should read the letter. It actually does not say Sarkeesian did not cancel because of the threat.

manchu wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
so, manchu

are you not answering questions that show the double standard then?

This thread isn't supposed to be about Hitman. It's clear that it is hypocritic to complain about these 2 (?) women when you slaughter hundreds of men but that has already been discussed in length in the other thread.

this is a thread talking about treatment of women/mysogeny and the facets of it.

That does not mean I can only talk about how mysogenistic society is,

Bringing up the other side of the discussion is very pertinent.

You cant just open a thread that deals with things like "damsel tropes" and not be willing to discuss "disposable male" tropes as well, they are part of the same issue.

But thank you for the answer, yes it is hypocritical of anita to expect the polygonal women to be treated differently from polygonal men.

this is relevent, because if she expects women to be treated differently then men in video games with respect to violence, then its reasonable to assume she expects women to be treated differently in real life with respect to violence.


the fact is, this whole thread is about how the violent threats against her are more special then the threats against anyone else.

which is anti feminist, anti male and anti equality in general.

at best she is a hypocrate, at worst she is scamming the people who donate to her.

the fact that no one is even allowed to question her integrety, lest they be labled a mysogenist/ect, discredits her and her followers.

 Manchu wrote:
This is a distinction without a difference.

- You say she wants negative responses.
- You say death threats are part of that negative response.

It's important to make that distinction and the "(negative)" is also important as she not only looks for negative attention, but also for positive attention in the form of self-affirmation and money. Furthermore, intentionally provoking negative responses does not have to yield to the latter. A lot of people provoke negative emotions without asking for death threats. If you do not make said distinction, as portrayed above, then you come to a wrong conclusion.

Provoking negative responses is the cause or the reason for death threats. Cause and effect are not identical.

As I have asked before, where is the line you want to draw between negative responses she wants and negative responses she doesn't want?

She is the one to say and know what kind of attention she wants or not. I can't. She could even be embracing those death threats as they harden her victimization cocoon. I can't tell. The thing is: she intentionally provoked people and now has to deal with the backlash that caused.

I explicitly identified it as the "relevant question."

So how did you come to the conclusion that this has not been answered yet?

 easysauce wrote:
the fact is, this whole thread is about how the violent threats against her are more special then the threats against anyone else

No. This thread is about the fact that she received a threat for the reason that she was going to speak publicly about video games. The fact that this is totally unacceptable does not make similar threats to anyone else more acceptable.

I see we're still using the "she shouldn't have dressed that way" rationalization, as well.

 Manchu wrote:
No. This thread is about the fact that she received a threat for the reason that she was going to speak publicly about video games..

This is a very good example for why you have to be precise. Your statement is very misleading because it's too broad. To further exaggerate it:

 Manchu wrote:
No. This thread is about the fact that she received a threat for the reason that she was going to speak publicly.

This certainly isn't what you wanted to say yet at the same time...it's correct. But it conveys a wrong image.

A lot of people openly speak about video games. Or criticize them. But they have not received death threats.

 Sigvatr wrote:
She is the one to say and know what kind of attention she wants or not. I can't.

But you have and are doing exactly that:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Anita purposefully stirs up hatred. She WANTS to get (negative) attention. Death threats (as rare as they are) are a part of this.

 Sigvatr wrote:
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.

 Ouze wrote:
I see we're still using the "she shouldn't have dressed that way" rationalization, as well.

Yep. This is why I have to ask:

 Manchu wrote:
For the sake of argument, let's assume Sarkeesian's critique of Hitman: Absolution is totally off-base. Are

- hateful diatribes
- sexist slurs
- threats of rape
- threats of murder
- threats of raping/murdering friends and family
- threats of murdering bystanders at a lecture

reasonable and proportionate responses to a bad argument about a video game?

 Manchu wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
the fact is, this whole thread is about how the violent threats against her are more special then the threats against anyone else

No. This thread is about the fact that she received a threat for the reason that she was going to speak publicly about video games. The fact that this is totally unacceptable does not make similar threats to anyone else more acceptable.

no but its been claimed it makes the lone "threat makes" indicative of issues as a whole.

thats the part where anitas threats are being elevated,

you wooulnt claim threats made by muslims mean all muslims are terrorists,

yet its been claimed (by you) that the threats against anita paints a larger group then just the threat makers as mysogenist

 Manchu wrote:
But you have and are doing exactly that:

Still not understanding the (intended) cause-effect relation as I see.

 easysauce wrote:
you wooulnt claim threats made by muslims mean all muslims are terrorists

No, I wouldn't claim that.

The equivalent on-topic claim here would be: a man made a misogynistic threat, therefore all men are misogynists.

I would not and have not made that claim.

First, we don't even know if it was a man who made the threat.

Second, if I made that claim I would be calling myself a misogynist.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Still not understanding the (intended) cause-effect relation as I see.

You just posted that you can't say what kind of attention Sarkeesian wants. You have already posted that she wants negative attention. I don't think I am missing anything. Putting "negative" in parentheses does not change anything about your contradictory claims. You argued Sarkeesian wants death threats. I understand why you want to get out of that. It is a shamefully misogynistic thing to say.

"You should read the letter. It actually does not say Sarkeesian did not cancel because of the threat."
You mean this part:

When our law enforcement personnel spoke about security measures, she was concerned that state law prevented the university from keeping people with legal concealed firearm permits from entering the event, and chose to cancel.

 Frazzled wrote:
You mean this part:

When our law enforcement personnel spoke about security measures, she was concerned that state law prevented the university from keeping people with legal concealed firearm permits from entering the event, and chose to cancel.

Yes. That part does not say that Sarkeesian did not cancel because of the threat.

Thats your interpretation. Mine is the opposite. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats your interpretation. Mine is the opposite. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

It's not a matter of interpretation.

The letter said she had concerns about carry concel at her event. It does not say whether those concerns were or were not related to the threat.

Someone who has been threatened with a shooting spree would probably be concerned about being in a room potentially full of people secretly armed with guns.

Your "interpretation" is a misreading (willful or otherwise) of the letter.

 Manchu wrote:
Maybe part of the issue is the word "expect."

"Expect" can connote something that should be the case:

Example - "I expect my son to do his best in school"

"Expect" can also connote something that probably will be the case:

Example - "I expect the sun will come up tomorrow"

In the first sense -- no one should have to expect death threats because of speaking in public.

In the second sense -- it is realistic for Sarkeesian to expect death theats in a misogynistic culture.

right there manchu,

you flat out said, the only reason she would expect death threats is in a mysogenistic culture.

You give two choices, either no one expects death threats, which obviously isnt the case as she very much expects them (fact is everyone expects them on the internet, and every famous person expects them through the internet+ other means)

the only other choice you offer being that only a mysogenistic culture would cause the expectation of threats for anita.


might not be what you mean, but thats what you said.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats your interpretation. Mine is the opposite. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

It's not a matter of interpretation.

The letter said she had concerns about carry concel at her event. It does not say whether those concerns were or were not related to the threat.

Someone who has been threatened with a shooting spree would probably be concerned about being in a room potentially full of people secretly armed with guns.

Your "interpretation" is a misreading (willful or otherwise) of the letter.

Sure it does. Good to see you can't admit a person can have a valid opinion that differs from your own.