[MP-Ryan]

You still haven't explained how they're weak and undermine her point.

Pages 5-8.  De minimus.

I'm starting to feel like it's Groundhog Day.

To be very brief in recap, her use of the ship kidnapping in AC, the ghostly voice in BioShock, and the sequence with the named female PC in RDR (all from T vs W 2) are all trivial because these are games set either in our universe or a close approximation of our universe in which violence directed toward women was historically common, particularly among men who wished to portray themselves as powerful, and these depictions are therefore arguably reasonable in a historical context.  It's a relevant and emotion-based method of narrative construction in those contexts.  Given the very good ammunition she has in other games or in other points of those same games, the inclusion of arguably-reasonable depictions like these in her argument is either laziness, as she appeals to quantity rather than quality of examples, or intentionally designed to be contentious, which makes for a waste of everyone's time and undermines her core arguments.

[MP-Ryan]

You think my conduct is improper, then report it.

I had hoped that wouldn't be necessary and you'd be reasonable and own up to your mistake and move on, but pretty soon you're going to need a field for all those strawmen you're busily constructing.  Wish granted.

[karajorma]

Aren't you avoiding the real issue here? You equate "Jew" to "contentious examples"?
No, what you really mean to compare is "Jew" to "Feminist".

No, that isn't what I meant. I consider your attempt to characterise me as having said that as a bad faith argument and I'm reporting your post.

[Luis Dias]

So we can also conclude that Heir is a good alternative to Sarkesian, therefore answering to Akalabeth's ridiculous demand that we should produce one.

And did someone say JEW? omg this thread is filled with holocaust deniers i mean it must be so, someone said JEW omg omg omg

[Flipside]

This is one case of zealotry that I recommend we end with fire.

[Ulala]

I am way more interested in what the "silent majority" of people who play games actually think and believe, for I think it is this bigger group which will influence the market in the future.

I'm not sure the majority cares.

Taking myself as an example: some games I've been playing lately are Smite, Planetary Annihilation, and Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker HD. I haven't really given it any thought before now, but I wouldn't say any of those games are blatently sexist.

I guess you could argue Smite is because most of the female gods have large breasts. Most of the male gods have large muscles, though. Is equating the two sexist? I don't really know, I just want to play and win my match. Am I a misogynist now?

Planetary Annihilation has a female computerish (reminds me of the original Command & Conquer) voice that notifies you of enemy attack or resource depletion. Why not a male voice? Is that sexist? I don't really know, I just want to build enough planetary thrusters on this moon to crash it into my enemy's planet. Am I a misogynist now?

Zelda, well, she's kind of a damsel in distress at one point I guess, right before the last dungeon of the game when Ganon captures her. After you find her, she helps you defeat Ganon by shooting him with Light Arrows while you slash him up. But then, maybe Link should be shooting him while Zelda slashes him up. Or you should get to play Zelda and search for Link. Because the game doesn't give you that option, is it sexist? I don't really know, I just want to continue the adventure. I don't feel like a misogynist.


Granted, none of these games are Hitman or GTA5 (I haven't played either of them), but I wanted to try to give you a look at what at least one person who plays games thinks and believes. I don't really think about sexism in the games that I play, but maybe the games that I play aren't sexist. Or maybe I don't care enough and I'm a misogynist. I really don't know. I just want to play. I really think most gamers just want to play. *shrug*

[swashmebuckle]

If her intention is to make people uncomfortable both with the rampant sexism in evidence in the games and within the community at large (which I think is the case), then weaker examples that help trigger revealingly vitriolic and self righteous tirades from her detractors really don't undermine her position at all. It might not win her debate club credit, but it gives other feminists some minor points to disagree with so that they can feel like independent thinkers and gives the real miscreants enough rope to hang themselves with.

This is where you and I disagree.  I don't think giving people who would otherwise support your work "minor points to disagree with" is a good way of writing in support of social change.  Sticking to primary egregious examples to support one's argument is a tried and true method because it works.  Prof don't give bonus marks for weak supporting points mixed with strong ones for a reason.

I'm perfectly ok with being in the minority on this point. I just really doubt whether many people would be engaged like this, hammering out points on page 20 of an unrelated forum, educating themselves, watching the Heir video etc. if the Sarkeesian video was an immaculate white paper.

The key point is that the vast majority of people are already basically on Sarkeesian's side, but they have little incentive to invest time. Without the ****storm, maybe some of her supporters would retweet the link? Probably at least her family and college friends. What Sarkeesian did instead was give everyone an excuse to argue on the internet (something that people really love doing, I'm sure you would agree).

The problems Sarkeesian & company are pointing out aren't things that should be illegal or even considered immoral, they're just backwards and inappropriate for mainstream fare. Issues like that don't need ironclad authoritative essays. It's just crappy art. What they need is publicity, exposure, light, what have you. Now she is an internet celebrity and can be interviewed any time a politician's child is caught running over hookers in GTA online. None of this would have been possible without her being wrong on the internet.

[Luis Dias]

To further establish on how I'm not some sort of TF minion or bot or whatever it is that any bad faith commenter will bring up just to stir up the conversation, here's a good takedown on TF's, especially for a newcomer:

[AdmiralRalwood]

these depictions are therefore arguably reasonable in a historical context.

If they are "arguably reasonable" then actually make the argument that they are reasonable. Asserting your premises and saying that an argument for some conclusion "can be made" is not the same thing as actually having argued it.

For someone so critical of Ms. Sarkeesian's method of presenting an argument, yours seems awfully lacking.

[Flipside]

I'm pretty sure the community supporting her purpose in general would be a lot larger, however, if people stopped attacking every criticism of those videos as implied sexism.

The argument that the attention can do good is a valid enough discussion point, a lot has been achieved by being noticed, however, the habit of interpreting everything that doesn't wholly agree with her as implied misogyny or a personal attack that this has led to, I think, drives away a lot of people who would otherwise openly support her goals, but just don't want to get caught up in the ****storm that any form of dissent seems to cause.

[MP-Ryan]

these depictions are therefore arguably reasonable in a historical context.

If they are "arguably reasonable" then actually make the argument that they are reasonable. Asserting your premises and saying that an argument for some conclusion "can be made" is not the same thing as actually having argued it.

For someone so critical of Ms. Sarkeesian's method of presenting an argument, yours seems awfully lacking.

My purpose has never been to argue if these trivial examples are or are not unequivocably sexist.  I've been taking issue with Sarkeesian's work for the simple reason that she uses trivial examples among the very egregious ones when there is actually no need to do so and it undermines her point instead of supporting it... a statement I've now repeated probably half-a-dozen times.  I've no interest in making the argument conclusively one way or the other for those three examples because it is entirely a matter of subjective interpretation... which is the reason I highlighted them to begin with.

In other words, I've been criticizing Sarkeesian's methods and work product, not her broad themes or her as a person.  Perhaps this discussion would be more productive and civil if people could separate <the criticism of Sarkeesian's work as poorly done> from <statements that she is a bad person, or that she has no point and there is no sexism in games>.  Nobody here is saying the latter.  The "if you dare criticize anything to do with us then you're completely against us!" mentality that occurs among some groups of feminists really needs to end; it's not conducive to reasoned discussion.  Or, in other words:  what Flipside said.

[AdmiralRalwood]

these depictions are therefore arguably reasonable in a historical context.

If they are "arguably reasonable" then actually make the argument that they are reasonable. Asserting your premises and saying that an argument for some conclusion "can be made" is not the same thing as actually having argued it.

For someone so critical of Ms. Sarkeesian's method of presenting an argument, yours seems awfully lacking.

My purpose has never been to argue if these trivial examples are or are not unequivocably sexist.  I've been taking issue with Sarkeesian's work for the simple reason that she uses trivial examples among the very egregious ones when there is actually no need to do so and it undermines her point instead of supporting it... a statement I've now repeated probably half-a-dozen times.  I've no interest in making the argument conclusively one way or the other for those three examples because it is entirely a matter of subjective interpretation... which is the reason I highlighted them to begin with.

In other words, I've been criticizing Sarkeesian's methods and work product, not her broad themes or her as a person.  Perhaps this discussion would be more productive and civil if people could separate <the criticism of Sarkeesian's work as poorly done> from <statements that she is a bad person, or that she has no point and there is no sexism in games>.  Nobody here is saying the latter.

Except you haven't actually made a cogent argument that her work is poorly done. You're saying that it is poorly done and seem to expect agreement with this point as a given; when asked why it's poorly done, you say that some of her examples are trivial and weaken her point... and again, seem to expect agreement with this point as a given. When asked how they're trivial and weaken her point, you say "it can be argued" that the examples are actually reasonable and therefore trivial... but again, you don't actually make the argument. At each step of the way, you fail to actually deliver on the original point.

Are you actually arguing that the examples are trivial regardless of whether or not they're examples of sexism?

[Flipside]

It's self-replicating though. There are small parts of the videos which are contestable in their interpretation, that's healthy and fine. People contest these parts as people do and some of the people reading those responses in turn decide to attack Ms. Sarkeesian claiming that it is 'irrefutable proof' that she is wrong. These tend to get publicized, making them 'larger than life' aspects of the entire video. And so, because these are the parts that are drawn attention to, they detract from the overall message.

People will peer review this work, nothing will prevent that, and part of the purpose of peer review is to suggest ways in which the reviewer feels the work could be advanced, improved or clarified. Now, those contentious points may have been added for the advancement of publicity, they may have been inflated simply by their own attention, or they may simply have failed to communicate their point in a manner that convinced the reviewer, MP-Ryan has simply said what he himself felt about the video and the way it has been publicly received and dealt with, he's pointing out weaknesses in the presentation as he sees them.

That is why he is saying that 'it could be argued', because he is pointing out where points of contention might be raised, in his opinion, and where the work might need shoring up, he's not saying that he is arguing that, which is why he's not providing an answer to that specific question, he's saying that it would be possible to argue that and therefore some more work might be needed to counter-attack that argument.

MP-Ryan said that the project had 'weaknesses', I think people are misinterpreting that term a little. From an analytical point of view a weakness does not mean it is wrong, it means that there are parts of the axiom which need to be stressed further to be proved.

Edit : And I'll also point out that, where MP-Ryan has directly disagreed with her work, he has already posted his reasons why, because of nature of the games involved and the possibility of arguing that the sexism shown there was contextual, he's entitled to that opinion without being told he is attacking the author merely by stating it.

[MP-Ryan]

There is a communication breakdown here.  Part of it is my fault, since I'm using a legal standard of 'reasonable,' which means what another objective everyperson would believe is appropriate and understandable given the same information at hand.  Perhaps I have also not been clear that I am critiquing her methodology and choice of content, and not necessarily her general conclusions.  With that in mind:

1.  A number of her examples can be subjectively and reasonably argued as being either examples of sexism, or not examples of sexism, depending on the subjective interpretation of the audience member.  The three examples I selected earlier can be reasonably argued to not be sexism on the basis of historical representation and narrative building, or reasonably argued to be sexism as they are creative decisions in the design process and not absolutely essential to the game (which brings in the counter-argument that nothing is essential to any game, and so forth).

2.  There are many, many examples of blatant and egregious sexism in video games which are, in essence, indefensible.  We can all think of examples.  My go-tos are character art, particularly in the depiction of clothing and armour for female and male characters in identical roles, or the overemphasis or absurdities regarding female breast depiction in games.  These are commonly recognized as sexism and are generally supported as examples of sexism in mass media.  There are many others.

3.  Therefore, I characterize some examples cited as sexism as trivial - those that can be reasonably argued for and against - and some examples as egregious - those only the most ardent of anti-feminists would typically argue against.  So, to answer your last question, yes - if an example can be reasonably argued in both directions, sexist or not sexist, then it is trivial for the purposes of a critical analysis.  This doesn't imply a values judgement that it is just fine, or absolutely terrible - it simply means it is unimportant as it is not at a level of significance appropriate to support an analysis.

4.  When constructing a critical analysis of a subject, you typically select a number of examples (depending on the length of your piece) which conclusively support the argument you are attempting to make to an audience which is assumed will treat your work with a critical eye and may disagree with you.  The examples you select are the strongest of those available  to support your point.  Selecting arguable examples which dilute your argument or provide cracks in your conclusions which can be dissected serves to undermine your analysis, as it can be viewed through the lens of de minimus - e.g. your selected examples are predominantly trivial evidence for your argument, therefore the critical analysis based upon it has predominantly trivial conclusions because the perceived problems you are critiquing are so minor that they do not deserve the level of attention you fix upon it.

5.  Sarkeesian's work mixes examples of the trivial with the egregious - meaning examples which can be argued against by a reasonable viewer, and examples that cannot.  This serves to undermine her basic premise, as it creates noise, diversion, and focus on the weakest aspects of the supporting evidence for her argument.  Effectively, it allows her critics to re-focus her discussion and analysis onto the weight of small pieces of her evidence, rather than the broad argument.  As a method of critical analysis, it is profoundly unsound; if your objective is to foster a change of view among an audience, your action should be to create the strongest argument possible using the best evidence available to you which forces those who critique your work to elevate their criticisms to that level of evidence - meaning they have to provide the strongest level of alternative evidence in order to refute your critical analysis.

6.  Alternatively, some have suggested that Sarkeesian may have consciously used trivial examples among the egregious ones in order to open up additional room for attention-drawing debate.  I find this equally misguided as I believe it vastly overestimates the benefit of such a vitriolic debate, particularly in light of the well-documented Internet rage directed at women who express an even mildly controversial opinion.

[AdmiralRalwood]

1.  A number of her examples can be subjectively and reasonably argued as being either examples of sexism, or not examples of sexism, depending on the subjective interpretation of the audience member.  The three examples I selected earlier can be reasonably argued to not be sexism on the basis of historical representation and narrative building, or reasonably argued to be sexism as they are creative decisions in the design process and not absolutely essential to the game (which brings in the counter-argument that nothing is essential to any game, and so forth).

2.  There are many, many examples of blatant and egregious sexism in video games which are, in essence, indefensible.  We can all think of examples.  My go-tos are character art, particularly in the depiction of clothing and armour for female and male characters in identical roles, or the overemphasis or absurdities regarding female breast depiction in games.  These are commonly recognized as sexism and are generally supported as examples of sexism in mass media.  There are many others.

3.  Therefore, I characterize some examples cited as sexism as trivial - those that can be reasonably argued for and against - and some examples as egregious - those only the most ardent of anti-feminists would typically argue against.  So, to answer your last question, yes - if an example can be reasonably argued in both directions, sexist or not sexist, then it is trivial for the purposes of a critical analysis.  This doesn't imply a values judgement that it is just fine, or absolutely terrible - it simply means it is unimportant as it is not at a level of significance appropriate to support an analysis.

This, at last, explains the bizarre usage of the word "trivial". There is no such thing as "trivial" sexism. There is conscious sexism and unconscious sexism; Ms. Sarkeesian is dedicated to pointing out both kinds, not just the most obvious instances of conscious sexism. Yes, her videos could be made to focus on those "egregious" examples that "only the most ardent of anti-feminists would argue against", but that would be not only "preaching to the choir" (in that the most ardent of anti-feminists are not her target audience), but also not very useful.

At this point, MP-Ryan, I think it's time to ask you a clarification about another thing you seem to be taking for granted in this conversation: what is Ms. Sarkeesian's "argument"? What is her "main point"? Because I do not think you would answer that question in the same manner as I would.

[MP-Ryan]

This, at last, explains the bizarre usage of the word "trivial". There is no such thing as "trivial" sexism. There is conscious sexism and unconscious sexism; Ms. Sarkeesian is dedicated to pointing out both kinds, not just the most obvious instances of conscious sexism. Yes, her videos could be made to focus on those "egregious" examples that "only the most ardent of anti-feminists would argue against", but that would be not only "preaching to the choir" (in that the most ardent of anti-feminists are not her target audience), but also not very useful.

My usage of trivial was explained way back on page 6. I think you need to read my post above again, because you appear to have misunderstood point 3.  If she focused only on the egregious examples, she broadens her target audience, not limits it.  Including trivial examples limits her target audience to people who already agree with her.

At this point, MP-Ryan, I think it's time to ask you a clarification about another thing you seem to be taking for granted in this conversation: what is Ms. Sarkeesian's "argument"? What is her "main point"? Because I do not think you would answer that question in the same manner as I would.

That sexism in games is systemic, pervasive, tacitly accepted and taken for granted, and is ultimately harmful.  All points with which I agree.  I just think she could have made her case in a much better manner.

[Goober5000]

Everybody should keep in mind what happened to the last thread.  This thread will probably end up being closed at some point as well, and sooner than later if it keeps generating the number of moderator reports it has.

Akalabeth Angel, to put it charitably, you are not doing an effective job of presenting your case.  You're arguing emotionally instead of rationally.  You're also misrepresenting the positions of those you're arguing against.  Karajorma gave you a great analogy and not only did you fail to understand it, you interpreted it as nearly the opposite of what he said.  You also mischaracterized MP-Ryan's position and refused to retract it once confronted.  For those reasons, I'm issuing you a forum warning.  Persist in your behavior and I'll put you in the HLP Monkeys group for a few days.

To address the most recent moderator reports: a) yes, Akalabeth Angel was acting irrationally, b) no, "find yourself some integrity" is not an actionable personal attack in the context it was posted, c) people are entitled to their opinions.

To make things even clearer, I will make a list of things that are not the same:

1. Criticizing someone's argument
2. Criticizing the way someone makes that argument
3. Criticizing the person
4, 5, & 6. Substitute "attacking" for "criticizing" in the above three points.

One would be wise to keep those six things straight.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Akalabeth Angel, to put it charitably, you are not doing an effective job of presenting your case.  You're arguing emotionally instead of rationally.  You're also misrepresenting the positions of those you're arguing against.  Karajorma gave you a great analogy and not only did you fail to understand it, you interpreted it as nearly the opposite of what he said.  You also mischaracterized MP-Ryan's position and refused to retract it once confronted.  For those reasons, I'm issuing you a forum warning.  Persist in your behavior and I'll put you in the HLP Monkeys group for a few days.

Sweet, a warning.
But spare me the discourse and don't present subjective interpretation as fact.

I also find it laughable that what you call "mischaracterizing" and "misunderstanding" are somehow against forum rules but questioning someone's integrity or characterizing an individual is not.
Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with the forum rules before rendering judgements in future:

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87037.msg1425036

[Scotty]

If you're going to react like a petulant child when confronted with moderation, you're not going to generate much sympathy for your case.  Warning increased.

[Akalabeth Angel]

What is the purpose of guidelines for forum conduct if they are wantonly ignored?

Case in point:

HLP's moderators will strive to intervene early to correct unacceptable behaviour instead of resorting to immediate formal actions

Guideline not followed.

If you're going to react like a petulant child

Moderators are apparently exempt from the rules governing personal attacks.



As for my alleged misconduct:

The original poster should be self-aware enough that they know that using a highly charged word like Jew in a debate would cause problems . . . Anita makes the same mistake.

Is not the word "feminist" likewise a highly charged word, and therefore perfectly fits into the analogy Karajoma is trying to make?
The answer is yes, of course it is. Turning a misappropriated analogy on its head and demonstrating the logical conclusion to its author is not arguing in "bad faith".


Also I clearly demonstrated here:

Victim blaming is about holding a person responsible.
It's not about saying what they do or do not deserve.

Why attributing MP-Ryans post as "victim blaming" is completely accurate and why his alleged defense:

(not to say I'd deserve personal attacks and all the other bull****, but I deserve to be reasonably critiqued, even forcefully, on my own work).

Is no defense at all.



But feel free to go an edit the forum rules for conduct and add in

. . .not doing an effective job of presenting your case.  . . .
You're arguing emotionally instead of rationally . . . 
misrepresenting . . .
mischaracterized

as all being against forum conduct because apparently that's what I'm being warned for?


I'm not posting for sympathy. I'm posting to illustrate a clear discrepancy between the rules and discipline. Feel free to publicly clarify.