[Grizzly]

Is not the word "feminist" likewise a highly charged word,

No.

[Goober5000]

Ordinarily I wouldn't have approved your post -- as it was subject to post moderation -- but it turned out to be your last word on the subject...

Guideline not followed.

Actually, it was.  I issued you a forum warning which didn't affect your ability to post.  Then Scotty increased it to invoke post moderation.  Now comes the formal action: you've been monkeyed.

Moderators are apparently exempt from the rules governing personal attacks.

An accurate description of your behavior is not a personal attack.

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".

You continue to miss the point of Karajorma's post.  Karajorma was criticizing the way that Anita presented her points.  You characterized that as blaming her because of her self-identification.  That is a mischaracterization of Karajorma's point.  You've confused "criticize the way someone makes the argument" and "criticize the person" in my list.

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.

MP-Ryan is not "blaming the victim".  He's criticizing the method of presenting the argument, just as Karajorma was.

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

Done.  Now that will be quite enough from you on this thread.

[AdmiralRalwood]

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.

No definition of "trivial" is offered on page 6.

Including trivial examples limits her target audience to people who already agree with her.

You're going to need to explain the logic behind that one.

[Luis Dias]

Yes, prima facie I would have to agree with you Admiral, in fact it is the trivial examples that are allegedly spread throughout all games that are the real problem here, sexism and objectification "normalized" and banalized (the banality of evil). However, this also highlights the problem of the kind of presentation that Anita takes: she is not interested in trying to bring you to understand this point, she just asserts it and expects you understand her from the get go. It would be far more charitable (in terms of speaking to an audience generally alien to your POV) if you did all the leg work that Manveer Heir does in his presentation, guiding you from A to B to C to D... in order for you to understand where he's at.

As an example, if Anita's purpose is to highligh the "banality of evil" in these games regarding objectification of women, then she should probably guide the listener from the most eggregious examples to the more banal ones and clearly state why these banalities are even worse than crushing a woman under a heavy door knob for precisely being banal. There's never an attempt to justify precisely why these things are bad, we are just expected to accept they are so, irrespectively of our natural suspicion of being fed some kind of gish gallop arbitrary stuff that is self-selected to depict women badly treated (and for instance ignoring all the violence done against men).

In this sense, it is not enough to state women are badly treated in games, because any rational skeptic will obviously think as if men aren't badly treated, I mean wtf is this ****?, you must *show* how these treatments are far biased against women. And sometimes she does this (like when she compares the treatment between men and women being mugged in watch dogs), but most times she doesn't. She just name drops a lot of situations and expect we believe they are a fair representation.

This is why I linked to Manveer. He never goes beyond what his own basic unbiased and fairly objective research can tell all of us, and that's enough to paint a dark picture of gaming. He picks the 25 most revered games in 2013 from some metacritic list and runs basic questions like "how many games are white male protag only?" and stuff like that. And the result is indeed a big eye opener. He then goes on to show actual scientific literature in studying these things and so on. That's the way to do the argument.

[Lorric]

Is not the word "feminist" likewise a highly charged word,

No.

Yes.

[karajorma]

Is not the word "feminist" likewise a highly charged word,

No.

Yes.

It's been a long time coming but if that is the level of debate you want to take part in here, you aren't going to take part in any debates on here any more.

You're perma-banned from Gen Discussion until further notice.

[AdmiralRalwood]

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.

I'm sure that's one of Ms. Sarkeesian's beliefs, but it is not the purpose of the Tropes vs. Women video series.

This video project will explore, analyze and deconstruct some of the most common tropes and stereotypes of female characters in games.  The series will highlight the larger recurring patterns and conventions used within the gaming industry rather than just focusing on the worst offenders.

[Luis Dias]

It's been a long time coming but if that is the level of debate you want to take part in here, you aren't going to take part in any debates on here any more.

You're perma-banned from Gen Discussion until further notice.

well that escalated quickly...

(should you even be in command of that particular decision, regarding the fact that you are involved in that discussion? I dunno, makes me uneasy of ever saying anything challenging any of your positions... )

[karajorma]

Given that he's been reported a ridiculous number of times this month, and you haven't been, you're pretty safe.

Besides, what makes you think this is only my choice? It's been the point of view of most of the moderators for quite a while now that he needed time off.

[Luis Dias]

Sorry it's not my intention to initiate yet another moderation conversation here. It was just startling like watching someone beside me being suddenly sniped. I'll move along.

[deathfun]

I'm sure that's one of Ms. Sarkeesian's beliefs, but it is not the purpose of the Tropes vs. Women video series.

That is a fair point about the initial intention of the series

However, by pointing out tropes and recurring patterns, there is a side effect of that purpose dabbling into how sexism is pervasive. Whether or not it's intended, it's the effect the viewer receives by watching. Whether or not the effect the viewer receives is because of bias is left in question, but my overall point is that original intent sometimes doesn't match up with received message. A lot of that could be due to how the video is presented, and a lot could be due to people getting angry and making it about that.

In the end, where we are now and how/why we got here in terms of the discussion matters more than the original intent of the video series.

[Meneldil]

@MP-Rayan re setpieces: [sorry for not quoting anything in particular, there's been a lot posts on the subject]
I never understood Sarkeesian's argument to be that women can't work as a setpiece in a videogame, providing historical/cultural background. I understood her problem to be with how these setpieces are presented.
For example, "sex workers get killed" is a context, while "you enter the building and find yourself surrounded by sexualized naked female bodies" is a certain way of presenting that context. And it goes without saying that "sex workers get killed" isn't in fact a theme games usually explore; more often the context would be something like "innocent bystanders get killed", and dead prostitutes just a way of presenting that, which makes the choice even more dubious. Now that's not what happens in hitman (their marketing campaign on the other hand is a particularly shocking example), and the egregious examples are not what you object to, but I'm just trying to illustrate what my issue with these "setpieces" is and what I interpret hers to be.

As for the egregious vs. trivial ["can be argued against" is a strange use of that word but alright], I understand your point and the logic behind it, but I think it's worthwhile to consider things from her or other people in the similar position's perspective. She's making a video about the objectivization of women background characters in video games, and she's including all the ways she thinks video games objectivize women or rather contribute to the more general phenomenon. Contesting a single example among dozens she's put forth theoretically does little damage to the general point, and it is in fact to be expected that people will disagree with some of them.
But, you say, she can't go around talking to the choir, she needs to presume hostile audience, and hostile audience will tear her apart for every example they don't find egregious enough. Of course there's then the question of how egregious does she need to go to get the best results, but that's a technicality and I'll agree there'd be a way to make yourself more credible and less of a target in the eyes of a certain part of the general demographic, and a more effective and wider reaching argument is what you are interested in.
The problem I have with that is that first of all the choir most certainly does need to be preached to; it needs to be set in motion (or at least have more momentum added to it) because it's the more important agent of the social change, and it's hard to set it in motion by being in essence dishonest, ie by talking only about the things the majority deems appropriate or egregious enough to talk about. (Do note that she couldn't talk candidly about anything else anywhere really, because it would end up in the critics' compilation of all the wrong things she'd said n years ago just the same).
You can think her videos are badly done, her theories lacking and her data unsubstantiated, but I don't believe that "she didn't dilute her opinion enough" is a good criticism, even if fighting only the most solid battles can seem effective in the short term.

[Zacam]

Is not the word "feminist" likewise a highly charged word,

No.

Yes.

It's been a long time coming but if that is the level of debate you want to take part in here, you aren't going to take part in any debates on here any more.

You're perma-banned from Gen Discussion until further notice.

Actually, feminism IS a highly charged word, if only because people continue to debate what it even means and everybody is passionate about what their own "brand" of it actually IS or means for them. And that leads to discussions and usage of the word as being fairly charged.

So, we'll need to discuss this matter, but I really don't think this is the appropriate course of action to take here, especially not in terms of ever attaining anything of any positive value. And while you may think it was a long time coming, there is still the point that you are involved in the conversation rather immediately.

Which is one of the reasons why, despite my own opinions and perceptions, I've yet to engage in any of these conversations.

[Grizzly]

I disagree with "feminism" being a highly charged word on a level which is comparable to "jew", which is what Aklabeth claimed. I'd say that there are some very important distinctions (rooted in historical context) between the two.

[Luis Dias]

You can think her videos are badly done, her theories lacking and her data unsubstantiated, but I don't believe that "she didn't dilute her opinion enough" is a good criticism, even if fighting only the most solid battles can seem effective in the short term.

I think that pin pointing the exact problem in Sarkeesian has been hard, at least for me, since I've been hedging and swinging in some different directions. It's in my nature to listen and research about everything involved from very different viewpoints, and some times the result is messier than if I just sticked with first impressions and just be a sheep to someone with a sharp clear message about this whole thing. I think it's worth the trouble though.

Having said this, there are some issues that span a lot of activists that are loosely connected with Anita (I'm talking about feminists in general) that really rub me on the wrong side and make, I think, matters way worse than they could be if they were a lot more minimalistic and focused.

First, Anita really boils my brain for having this knack of absolutely dismissing or ignoring any positive, sincere, friendly or polite criticisms of her. What is her daily focus on twitter, on talks, on her videos, whenever? To show psychopathic trolls attacking her and asking her audience if this isn't sexism. If this isn't mysogyny. Now think about this for a second. Who would ever disagree with this? Only the same nutjob trolls who attacked her. The rest of the audience is like "omg yeah you're right". But she's right about what? That there are mysoginist creeps in the internet? Come on, the sky is blue too, how have we advance the discussion in any way shape or form if the only people she addresses are the psychopathic trolls?

Think about that: the only people she respects enough in order to respond to them are the darkest participants of the discussion. And everyone who disagrees with her is swiftly swept under those same trolls' group by her allies, handwavingly, mindlessly. "Oh you disagree with her? Are you crazy? Have you seen the attacks on her? It's a blatant evidence of mysoginy! How can you possibly disagree with her?" is what it boils down to.

Focus on this particular problem for a moment, consider other prominent people who have fought for social change in some way and compare this behavior. Think about Richard Dawkins for instance. Do we conflate all the hate mails, threats and attacks he is the target of daily with the criticism against his positions? No we don't. And why don't we? Well, probably because for starters Dawkins himself never made that mistake in the first place. He shrubs the trolls and deals with them in comical "hate mail reading by the fireplace" videos, all the while discussing and debating his viewpoints in a civil, respectful manner with all the civil, respectful people who don't agree with his take on the world. In this manner, he is inviting us to politely address him and think rationally about his positions, to disagree with reason not emotion, because that's the way he deals with us himself. This is respect for the audience.

What makes matters worse, Anita herself profited for this lack of respect she had with her audience. By merely addressing the critics who were abusers and rude to her (and ignoring the rational parts of their own tirades, focusing only on the "feelings" displayed within), by showcasing how hated she was, she managed to get 160k dollars in her pocket. This means that there's no incentive whatsoever for her or any other "activist" to go for the rational route and addressing with generosity the big majority of people who are not commited to any position here and are just trying to learn a thing or two here and might have reasonable questions and doubts regarding the things she said. Much better to either ignore these questions or screenshotting those less polite as examples of the widespread "mysoginy" she's such a target of.

How can this woman possibly be a good example of anything? I mean, I admire her tenacity and preserverance, but her methods are lacking and have created a complete polarization, divisiveness and hatred on an issue that should and would probably be ****ing consensual if these people had any tact whatsoever.

[The E]

How can this woman possibly be a good example of anything? I mean, I admire her tenacity and preserverance, but her methods are lacking and have created a complete polarization, divisiveness and hatred on an issue that should and would probably be ****ing consensual if these people had any tact whatsoever.

By being an agent of change? No matter what you think of her methods, fact is that her points have been discussed and ackknowledged, and are being discussed and ackknowledged, by an increasing number of game developers both high- and low-profile. As such, she is highly successful in what she set out to do; that she isn't engaging with her audience in ways you'd want her to doesn't impact that.

Also, I hope you're aware that Twitter is the single worst medium for serious critique in existance, do you honestly expect anyone who gets the number of mentions and replies someone like Sarkeesian gets to actually read every single one of them and reply to the ones that are seemingly rational?

[Luis Dias]

No, I expect prominent figures with a strong opinion to address the most reasonable criticisms and argue why they are wrong in a rational way, while ignoring the lower brained shenanigans go down the toilet swiftly. Instead she does the opposite: ignore any reasonable criticism and showcase the trolls. And you cannot escape the nagging suspicion that she does this self-servingly, that is, by ignoring reasonable challenges she's effectively protecting herself from addressing said challenges and avoiding everyone else seeing how she is failing at this, and by showcasing the trolls she's effectively portraying all her detractors as mysoginist monsters thus proving her "point".

The idea she hasn't the "time" to address reasonable critics is not serious. I cannot take that idea seriously. She created a 501c non-profit org to advance these ideas, gathered hundreds of thousands of dollars and now she hasn't the time to take questions seriously, but she has the time to be on twitter and other venues parading her most trollish critics as evidence for her predicament?

By being an agent of change?

****ing hell. It's precisely this ****ty rethorical gambit that infuriates me. Where did I state that the problem is that she is an "agent of change"? This is exactly what I wrote about. Whenever someone criticizes her, this kind of ****ty snark response comes back. Can't you at least read what I actually said before replying?

[The E]

No, I expect prominent figures with a strong opinion to address the most reasonable criticisms and argue why they are wrong in a rational way, while ignoring the lower brained shenanigans go down the toilet swiftly. Instead she does the opposite: ignore any reasonable criticism and showcase the trolls. And you cannot escape the nagging suspicion that she does this self-servingly, that is, by ignoring reasonable challenges she's effectively protecting herself from addressing said challenges and avoiding everyone else seeing how she is failing at this, and by showcasing the trolls she's effectively portraying all her detractors as mysoginist monsters thus proving her "point".

I get it, you have strong opinions about how these concepts should be portraited, and how the people portraiting those concepts should conduct themselves. I disagree with them. Let's leave it at that.

By being an agent of change?

****ing hell. It's precisely this ****ty rethorical gambit that infuriates me. Where did I state that the problem is that she is an "agent of change"? This is exactly what I wrote about. Whenever someone criticizes her, this kind of ****ty snark response comes back. Can't you at least read what I actually said before replying?

You asked, more rhetorical than anything else, "how can this woman be a good example of anything?". The answer is, by showing that culture can still be influenced by single people, that one person with a message and perseverance and tenacity can make that message heard.
You want your prophets to be a certain way. I want them to be something else, and Sarkeesian is closer to that something else than most.

EDIT:
To get away from the pro/con Sarkeesian thing, let's get back to the original thread. Here's a good post by Bob Chipman on the subject: http://moviebob.blogspot.de/2014/09/a-long-post-about-gamergate.html?spref=tw

[Luis Dias]

I'm deeply disappointed with your criteria. The kind of divisiveness behavior she's so fond of is what I think is part of a particular american mindset of polarization through drama-queening, overreaction, that is shredding their entire nation and now they are kind of exporting the same mechanisms.

Take one of her recent retweets, about the #fappening, claiming that this scandal was about "nothing less than terrorism against women". Do you enjoy this kind of obviously ridiculous rethoric? It's not even wrong to make these claims, and yet we are innundated by this ****ty stuff. Did anyone get angry when previously some men's nude photos or sex tapes or whatever were released and shared by the same media that is now being so moralistic about this?. No. Why not? Because it's not a big ****ing deal, as it wasn't a big ****ing deal whenever prominent men had hate mail or death threats.

But let this happen to feminist leaders or feminist icons (like Jennifer Lawrence omg) and suddenly it's mysoginy and terrorism. ISIS level, probably. No, I'm not making **** up, the article writer brings Al Quaeda up as a reference.

This is the kind of "revolution" these people are interested into. Well I'm not, and I try to at least show why it's more than ****ing reasonable to not be.

e: I'll read that article. But just by skimming I could already facepalm at it, especially when he mentions the transformers analogy. Jesus he's oblivious isn't he.

[The E]

Take one of her recent retweets, about the #fappening, claiming that this scandal was about "nothing less than terrorism against women". Do you enjoy this kind of obviously ridiculous rethoric? It's not even wrong to make these claims, and yet we are innundated by this ****ty stuff. Did anyone get angry when previously some men's nude photos or sex tapes or whatever were released and shared by the same media that is now being so moralistic about this?. No. Why not? Because it's not a big ****ing deal, as it wasn't a big ****ing deal whenever prominent men had hate mail or death threats.

Strangely enough, there is seemingly no market whatsoever for pics of celebrity cock. I cannot remember any time in which a leaked nude picture of a male celebrity was newsworthy (except in cases where female celebrities were also present in the picture).
You say it's not wrong to claim this as terrorism against women, and yet, when someone makes that claim, it's wrong? I misread that part.

But let this happen to feminist leaders or feminist icons (like Jennifer Lawrence omg) and suddenly it's mysoginy and terrorism. ISIS level, probably. No, I'm not making **** up, the article writer brings Al Quaeda up as a reference.

Really? Let's look at that reference, shall we?

The final link is online radicalisation. In a 2009 study, the law professor Cass Sunstein explored the role that group psychology plays in the radicalisation of jihadis. “Social networks can operate as polarisation machines because they help to confirm and thus amplify people’s antecedent views,” he wrote. He quoted Marc Sageman on al-Qaeda: “The interactivity among a ‘bunch of guys’ acted as an echo chamber, which progressively radicalised them collectively
. . . Now the same process is taking place online.” It would be hard to design a better echo chamber than a tightly knit, insular internet forum. We already know that groups tend to drift to extremes, as members move with the prevailing wind (and moderates leave). Add a dash of alienation and a sprinkle of resentment and you have the perfect crucible for extremist behaviour.

So, from the top: We have an article that explores the how and why of the reaction feminism gets on the internet. One point addressed is that of radicalization of small, tightly knit groups. The article cites a study that cited a person on the behaviour of al-Qaeda, with the citation being so general as to apply to any radicalized group. Then the writer of the article suggests that a similar process of radicalization happens in the anti-feminist crowd.

That, as far as I am concerned, is not a questionable writing decision. There's a difference between saying "These mechanisms are the same ones we saw in al-Qaeda" and "These people are literally al-Qaeda", and it applies here.