[The E]

Yes, I am saying that most of the people who are currently engaging in internet harassment are probably not psychopaths as defined by the clinical term.

[TrashMan]

Ah, yes, I wondered what the american right wing thought about this. Which apparently is that there is no actual misogyny problem, that games explicitly aimed at teenage males and serving teenage male stereotypes are perfectly alright.

I fail to see the problem.

Sure, you can argue that is always better to target a wider audience, but there is nothing inherently WRONG with creating content tailored to specific audiences and tastes.

Irritating to those who don't share those tastes and aren't the target? Sure.
Even more irritating if it's too common? Yes.
But WRONG? Not really.

I for example hate blatant, pointless fanservice and lolis in anime. Yes, I think it would be better if there is less of it. but I cannot really call it wrong (in most cases at least)

[The E]

Yes, definitely everyone who disagrees with Anita is a mysoginistic psychopath. Of course they are. It's not like there are millions of people who disagree with Anita (I am not exagerating here, she has multiple million views, and I don't think it irrational to infer some millions of those are critical of her), and it's not like it's obviously inevitable that a small percentage (0.5%? 1%?) of those are loud immature brats or just downright psychopaths. No, of course not, let's paint them all like the psychos they truly are. *ALL OF THEM*.

This is the biggest mistake Anita and all of the more "progressive" bloggers and opinion makers made here. They conflated criticism with mysoginy. Anita only addresses the worst parts of her haterz, and by doing that, she is only admitting the existence of "trolls and monsters", ignoring perfectly reasonable and polite but firm disagreements with her. She never addressed any criticism. She merely states "I'm so persecuted, look at these twitter trolls, therefore I am right". This further fuels frustration and anger, it's like she found this perpetual machine of offense taking. I kind of admire her in a machiavellian way (I even hope she's being deliberate at this, the alternative is that she's really stupid and unaware of the monster she is creating with her selective behavior).

But is it absolutely necessary that Sarkeesian responds to what you believe is rational and sane and nuanced criticism? Where in the critic/audience contract is it stipulated that a critic MUST respond to criticism of her own work, and must do so publically? Sure, usually such a dialogue results in better work, but I don't think that there is an inherent duty to participate in the debate. Just like you are free to ignore her, she is free to ignore you.

The end result is that anyone who agrees with her conflates people who disagree with her with the kind of shout you are stating here. Let me just ask you this question: Did I ever sound like someone who is gonna threaten anyone of rape if they disagree with me? Did Sommers sound like that kind of person? Why are you painting everyone with the lowest common denominator?

No, neither you nor Sommers strike me as the kind to participate in internet hate brigades of the shouty, rapey kind. But you, personally, do come across as having more than a few axes to grind with people like Sarkeesian who you deem to be bad representatives of their particular viewpoints or philosophies; I get the impression that you are disagreeing with her because you find her disagreeable, not necessarily because her points are bad.

They are being deliberately drowned by Anita and people like her, who only highlight and admit those kinds of people as their only critics. Actual scholars and thinkers in the best enlightenment fashion actually engage their best critics and ignore the trolls, for they are the "noise" that is in the way to reach truth. Not Anita. She does the exact opposite.

I would put it to you that a critic is not required to lend her platform to her critics in turn.

Sure, you can argue that is always better to target a wider audience, but there is nothing inherently WRONG with creating content tailored to specific audiences and tastes.

Of course there isn't. But there is something wrong with assuming a given audience to be the default audience, which is what the games industry (especially the big high profile part of it) is rather fond of doing.

[Luis Dias]

Yes, I am saying that most of the people who are currently engaging in internet harassment are probably not psychopaths as defined by the clinical term.

This is fair. Do you still think that solely engaging with idiots while ignoring every civil argument at all (and portraying every criticism as the former as if the latter doesn't even exist) is the proper intellectual behavior one would expect from ideological movement leaders?

But is it absolutely necessary that Sarkeesian responds to what you believe is rational and sane and nuanced criticism? Where in the critic/audience contract is it stipulated that a critic MUST respond to criticism of her own work, and must do so publically? Sure, usually such a dialogue results in better work, but I don't think that there is an inherent duty to participate in the debate. Just like you are free to ignore her, she is free to ignore you.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to ask someone who is spearheading a movement to defend it from criticism, either by debate, conversation, addressing criticism, etc. It's not that Anita is not doing this, no one from this movement is doing this. They don't even admit this criticism exists, they merely point to abuse, and only in the manner to further their own argument - that is, they only seem to regard this "interaction" as one more rethorical tool to have.

I have no demands for Anita. She does what she pleases. However, if you ignore everyone who disagrees with you while hammering on your agenda, all the while propping up in every media engaging with the fact that trolls are trolling her (therefore she's right), well, what amount of respect can you expect from those who disagree with her? Not much.

Again, this is not a legality issue. It's a huge opportunity being wasted. For all of us. Because I *honestly believe* that a kind of a Socratic and Dialectic approach with some debates and so on regarding this issue would have probably reached a huge consensus in all sides regarding many many issues.

No, neither you nor Sommers strike me as the kind to participate in internet hate brigades of the shouty, rapey kind. But you, personally, do come across as having more than a few axes to grind with people like Sarkeesian who you deem to be bad representatives of their particular viewpoints or philosophies; I get the impression that you are disagreeing with her because you find her disagreeable, not necessarily because her points are bad.

I'd love to see her points being fought a lot more in an actual dialogue. I think many of her points would fall down, and many more would not. This is something I enjoyed immensely in the "New Atheist Movement". Here were 4 guys (and a lot more on the sides) willing to discuss their reasoning against the theists in all dimensions, scopes and issues, and the amount of debate and dialogue that exists on the internet (mostly youtube) right now has been one of immense source of maturity and knowledge of my own consciousness regarding that particular question. Ideas were fought and tested. They were either destroyed or endured. Some remain in limbo (and that's also great, not every question is resolved).

Not with this branch of feminist criticism. Either you accept it or you don't. If you do, you're with the good guys. If you don't you're a mysoginist right winger #gamergate white male basement dweller dudebro virgin. There is simply no possible debate, because all these discussions mostly dwell on the aspects of the characters of those who promote these views and their detractors. But why? Well, just look at Anita's twitter TL. Just look at any Gamasutra or Polygon editorial about the subject. There's no discussion. There's only these Truths and then there's these assholes we must condemn until they fail to exist.

I would put it to you that a critic is not required to lend her platform to her critics in turn.

Where did I speak about "lending" anything? I don't even regard her decision to close her youtube channel to discussion as something bad (unlike many others did). I found that decision to be a good one (it let me watch her videos without all the noise below them, it was a good design decision so to speak).

However, the fact remains. There is no discussion. She made a lot of money with this and has been unwilling to debate it whatsoever. I even think she is unwilling to do so because she knows so little about the material she criticizes, and that would be used against her in any debate, etc., but still I think it's a waste that no one is willing to actually engage her critics in the fashion I outlined above. We all lose with this, and the internet becomes increasingly polarized. It's just not useful to state The Higher Truth to the Masses and expect them to eat it up.

Of course there isn't. But there is something wrong with assuming a given audience to be the default audience, which is what the games industry (especially the big high profile part of it) is rather fond of doing.

That's the Chicken and the Egg problem, more than anything.

[TrashMan]

But you, personally, do come across as having more than a few axes to grind with people like Sarkeesian.

That wasn't aimed at me, but I find that in discussions like this, it is a rarity to come across people who DON'T feel like they have some axe to grind.

There's no discussion. There's only these Truths and then there's these assholes we must condemn until they fail to exist.

Truth.
Now I must condemn all who oppose it until they fail to exist.

[zookeeper]

do come across as having more than a few axes to grind with people

Well that seems to fit most of the people (with precious few exceptions) who post a lot in these kinds of threads.

[The E]

Yes, I am saying that most of the people who are currently engaging in internet harassment are probably not psychopaths as defined by the clinical term.

This is fair. Do you still think that solely engaging with idiots while ignoring every civil argument at all (and portraying every criticism as the former as if the latter doesn't even exist) is the proper intellectual behavior one would expect from ideological movement leaders?

No. But then, I don't see what Sarkeesian is doing as a deliberate suppression of the sane middle.

I have no demands for Anita.

Uhhh, yes you do:

I think it's perfectly legitimate to ask someone who is spearheading a movement to defend it from criticism, either by debate, conversation, addressing criticism, etc. It's not that Anita is not doing this, no one from this movement is doing this. They don't even admit this criticism exists, they merely point to abuse, and only in the manner to further their own argument - that is, they only seem to regard this "interaction" as one more rethorical tool to have.

Demanding to respond to criticism is a demand.

Again, this is not a legality issue. It's a huge opportunity being wasted. For all of us. Because I *honestly believe* that a kind of a Socratic and Dialectic approach with some debates and so on regarding this issue would have probably reached a huge consensus in all sides regarding many many issues.

But this is a debate that cannot be had on the internet. It can be publicized on it, but it can't be mediated by it. Scholarly debate is good, yes, but it does mean getting scholars in a room together to have it, and the internet, as far as rooms go, is pretty horrible.

[Luis Dias]

I must clarify myself. I don't have any demands from Anita the person. But if she goes to venues like TEDx and XOXO and whatnot parading herself as some kind of movement leader, then I can assume that she is trying to fit in a "movement leader's shoes" at least a little bit. I *do* demand that Anita, the movement leader, to engage in critical dialogue. If she (and any others) fail to do so, the only crime that has been commited is one of waste and useless noise amplification. She will still be an influence, albeit a terribly limited one, and many many people out there will have their hears and eyes closed to whatever some feminist in the future might want to say.

But this is a debate that cannot be had on the internet. It can be publicized on it, but it can't be mediated by it. Scholarly debate is good, yes, but it does mean getting scholars in a room together to have it, and the internet, as far as rooms go, is pretty horrible.

It's the 21st century man, stop talking like it's 1971.

[MP-Ryan]

I fail to see the problem.

Sure, you can argue that is always better to target a wider audience, but there is nothing inherently WRONG with creating content tailored to specific audiences and tastes.

There is if those specific audiences and tastes are assumed and not empirically-driven.  I think we can all agree that many AAA publishers are displaying a greater tendency to force the release of games that appeal to the lowest common denominator, and not the broad swath of relatively complex human beings that play video games.

It's also a problem if those games reinforce negative stereotypes, and many games have an unfortunate habit of reinforcing negative stereotypes of various minorities (including women, though they are not actually a minority).

[MP-Ryan]

But is it absolutely necessary that Sarkeesian responds to what you believe is rational and sane and nuanced criticism? Where in the critic/audience contract is it stipulated that a critic MUST respond to criticism of her own work, and must do so publically? Sure, usually such a dialogue results in better work, but I don't think that there is an inherent duty to participate in the debate. Just like you are free to ignore her, she is free to ignore you.

Hold up.

Sarkeesian is - or at least, purports to be - an academic interested in opening discussion of misogynistic elements in video games.  On that basis, she actually does have an obligation to respond to critique of her work in order to defend her position.  This is, like it or not, part of the academic process, particularly in the social sciences and liberal arts.  That her work is not occurring in peer-reviewed journals is irrelevant; I would expect the same standard from any author who is using academic/scholarly methods to critique a social issue to a wide audience to effect change.

The fact that she is unwilling to do this and - as Luis has pointed out - simply uses the misogynist 'noise' as a demonstration that her point is correct without engaging with the actual, tangible, and reasonable critique of her work is the main reason I have difficulty accepting her as an academic who is interested in a reasoned and logical movement for change.

Sarkeesian is in many ways a drive-by forumite - she throws out a lot of statements which she may or may not back up adeuately, depending on the examples, then only shows up to quote the people being nasty to her afterward rather than engaging with the large body of legitimate questions and criticisms.  That is not a scholarly/academic approach, and it is not an approach to this very sophisticated issue that I can really respect.

It is not enough to state merely that there is a problem (or that there isn't).  You must explain why, particularly when there are counter-arguments that offer alternative explanations.  I do agree with Luis that Sarkeesian does display one of the troubling hallmarks of parts of the modern feminist movement, in which there are fundamental truths that are not questioned and which the rational criticism of is never properly addressed.

[swashmebuckle]

This thread is homing in on what makes Sarkeesian so effective. That drive-by poster analogy is right on the money, but that's what the internet is! This isn't a conversation here, it's a communal exercise in grinding axes and throwing stuff at the wall (forum board, whatever) and seeing what sticks.

This is understandably very disappointing for people who believe in academic rigor and tradition, but academics should know that Socrates is just another meme. His method isn't a description of how things actually work or a good path to social change. You change things by getting popular and making people feel uncomfortable. What is this, our fourth thread of buttcheek-clenching discomfort on this same topic? Super effective.

Until we live in a world where what you've got to say means more than what and who you are, we'd better get comfortable with people using provocative postures (teehee) to agitate for social change.

/Drive-by

[Luis Dias]

That was very cynical but probably very insightful as well. I'll ponder over that one.

[Lorric]

This thread is homing in on what makes Sarkeesian so effective. That drive-by poster analogy is right on the money, but that's what the internet is! This isn't a conversation here, it's a communal exercise in grinding axes and throwing stuff at the wall (forum board, whatever) and seeing what sticks.

This is understandably very disappointing for people who believe in academic rigor and tradition, but academics should know that Socrates is just another meme. His method isn't a description of how things actually work or a good path to social change. You change things by getting popular and making people feel uncomfortable. What is this, our fourth thread of buttcheek-clenching discomfort on this same topic? Super effective.

Until we live in a world where what you've got to say means more than what and who you are, we'd better get comfortable with people using provocative postures (teehee) to agitate for social change.

I too was particularly impressed by MP-Ryan's drive by poster analogy.

However, I for one don't want to get used to a World where we have to get comfortable with people using provocative postures to agitate for social change. Riling up the trolls in order to use that as a vehicle to push your own agenda and trying to silence all voices of dissent instead of winning hearts and minds is not something which should be in any way encouraged, quite the opposite, it should be staunchly opposed imo.

These tactics aren't going to win hearts and minds, they just establish an us vs. them dynamic and force people to take sides. Push people to the margins and try to make them be quiet. Sarkeesian can't go into debate because she'd get shown up. I'd love to see her have to debate with MP-Ryan and see how that turns out.

We shouldn't have to be comfortable with such tactics. Shouldn't have to be comfortable with people trying to force their will on us and put us in boxes if we don't confirm to their World view. And we don't have to be if we don't let it happen. There is a reason why this topic is so difficult and it's because of the tactics people use, because of how hard they make it to stand against them, instead of having a friendly and inclusive discussion it always has to be turned into a you're either with us or against us kind of thing. You're either a feminist or a bigot. If you don't go with everything Sarkeesian says you're the enemy.

[deathfun]

Yes, I am saying that most of the people who are currently engaging in internet harassment are probably not psychopaths as defined by the clinical term.

Sociopaths*
She didn't define them as psychopaths, she defined them as sociopaths ie people who can't tell the difference between right or wrong, lacks moral responsibility

To which threatening people with death threats and rape sort of falls into that category of "lack of moral responsibility"

Could also just categorize those sorts of people as "idiots". The other point related she conveyed alongside that being is they don't maketh the communityeth, and any culture that encompasses such a large amount of people are going to have a wide variety of people types, misogynists and sociopaths included. It's the majority % of person type that are included in the culture that people are forgetting about *which is what she was pointing out*

That's really all I needed to say, carry on

[TrashMan]

I fail to see the problem.

Sure, you can argue that is always better to target a wider audience, but there is nothing inherently WRONG with creating content tailored to specific audiences and tastes.

There is if those specific audiences and tastes are assumed and not empirically-driven.  I think we can all agree that many AAA publishers are displaying a greater tendency to force the release of games that appeal to the lowest common denominator, and not the broad swath of relatively complex human beings that play video games.

It's also a problem if those games reinforce negative stereotypes, and many games have an unfortunate habit of reinforcing negative stereotypes of various minorities (including women, though they are not actually a minority).

90% of things in life and assumed and not empirically driven.

Also, are all stereotypes negative, what stereotyes are negative, are sereotypes negative by default, etc.. it's a whole nother debate. For one I'd say stereotypes exist for a reason that is the human brain. It won't be goign away.

[MP-Ryan]

Sociopaths*
She didn't define them as psychopaths, she defined them as sociopaths ie people who can't tell the difference between right or wrong, lacks moral responsibility

In clinical psychology, a sociopath and a psychopath are exactly the same thing.  Nowadays it's called anti-social personality disorder.

[MP-Ryan]

90% of things in life and assumed and not empirically driven.

90% of statistics are made up.  (In case you're unfamiliar with that phrase, it means your statement has no actual point as it has no actual basis).

Also, are all stereotypes negative, what stereotyes are negative, are sereotypes negative by default, etc.. it's a whole nother debate. For one I'd say stereotypes exist for a reason that is the human brain. It won't be goign away.

There are positive stereotypes and negative stereotypes.  That would be why I differentiated.  Stereotypes are heuristics.  They serve a purpose, but they become problematic when they are used consistently in a definitive way, particularly the negative ones.  Negative stereotypes have a habit of reinforcing particular traits as a negatively defining attribute of a group, to the exclusion of positive stereotypes, and are often exaggerated.

[Lorric]

That was very cynical but probably very insightful as well. I'll ponder over that one.

Let me give you something else to ponder. The very video you shared with us. Manveer Heir. There is another way, and you showed it to us.

No one had anything but good things to say about Manveer Heir. I watched it too and he held me for the full sitting. He went to significant lengths at the start to make sure he wasn't putting anyone on the defensive, to make sure all minds were open to his words. I wasn't with him 100%, but I was with him at least 75% of the way, and I would listen to him talk him again. He came across to me as a man of charisma, passion and conviction, a man looking to effect positive change with a forward thinking and positive mental attitude. Compare his way of presenting examples to follow as opposed to Anita and her endless "this is bad, this is wrong, this is bad, this is wrong..." to Manveer's "This would be a good / better way because X, Y ,Z, this is an example to follow, this is good but could be better..."

[Aesaar]

But is it absolutely necessary that Sarkeesian responds to what you believe is rational and sane and nuanced criticism? Where in the critic/audience contract is it stipulated that a critic MUST respond to criticism of her own work, and must do so publically? Sure, usually such a dialogue results in better work, but I don't think that there is an inherent duty to participate in the debate. Just like you are free to ignore her, she is free to ignore you.

Hold up.

Sarkeesian is - or at least, purports to be - an academic interested in opening discussion of misogynistic elements in video games.  On that basis, she actually does have an obligation to respond to critique of her work in order to defend her position.  This is, like it or not, part of the academic process, particularly in the social sciences and liberal arts.  That her work is not occurring in peer-reviewed journals is irrelevant; I would expect the same standard from any author who is using academic/scholarly methods to critique a social issue to a wide audience to effect change.

The fact that she is unwilling to do this and - as Luis has pointed out - simply uses the misogynist 'noise' as a demonstration that her point is correct without engaging with the actual, tangible, and reasonable critique of her work is the main reason I have difficulty accepting her as an academic who is interested in a reasoned and logical movement for change.

Sarkeesian is in many ways a drive-by forumite - she throws out a lot of statements which she may or may not back up adeuately, depending on the examples, then only shows up to quote the people being nasty to her afterward rather than engaging with the large body of legitimate questions and criticisms.  That is not a scholarly/academic approach, and it is not an approach to this very sophisticated issue that I can really respect.

It is not enough to state merely that there is a problem (or that there isn't).  You must explain why, particularly when there are counter-arguments that offer alternative explanations.  I do agree with Luis that Sarkeesian does display one of the troubling hallmarks of parts of the modern feminist movement, in which there are fundamental truths that are not questioned and which the rational criticism of is never properly addressed.

A thousand times this.  The value of an argument, whether it's correct or not, strongly depends on how well you defend it.  If you either won't or can't, then there's no reason you should be treated any more seriously than a random Reddit comment.

[Aardwolf]

Sociopaths*
She didn't define them as psychopaths, she defined them as sociopaths ie people who can't tell the difference between right or wrong, lacks moral responsibility

In clinical psychology, a sociopath and a psychopath are exactly the same thing.  Nowadays it's called anti-social personality disorder.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

(background story) I remember in Psych101 we had group research projects, my group did anxiety disorders (sort of a general treatment), another group did anti-social personality disorder... maybe they did their research wrong, or maybe the prof's clarification was sloppy, but the takeaway I had was that the "social" in "anti-social" actually meant (or could mean) "societal".

I.e. it's a diagnosis by which a person who is a societal malcontent, regardless of their direct social interactions, may be institutionalized.

So unless someone tells me social strictly means social, never societal... **** that part of the DSM V, I'll stick with the vernacular meanings, TYVM.