Anita Sarkeesian discussion



  • @iamshodan:

    Have you? No, seriously, have you?

    I have, which I thought would have been obvious by how I use facts and information to present my position. I guess your ability to understand this is about as coherent as your ability to argue, which seems to only consist of flipping a question instead of answering it



  • @iamshodan:

    Now, Firefly, do you think there's a valid reason for comparing Anita and Jack?

    All I asked is if you could pull a quote showing where she said that video games are directly causing real-life sexism in order for you to back up your claim that she did. (as an aside, I can't say I care for your tone in this thread)

    As for the tweets neon posted, those all read to me that she believes our culture's idolization of stereotypical "masculinity" is negatively impacting men as well, in that men are being pressured into being that stereotypical macho dude when that isn't necessarily who they are.



  • @Firefly:

    All I asked is if you could pull a quote showing where she said that video games are directly causing real-life sexism in order for you to back up your claim that she did. (as an aside, I can't say I care for your tone in this thread)

    All right, here goes: How about, "The more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected," meaning that the more you think video games have no influence on you, the stronger the influence becomes. I mean seriously, we've been talking about this during the summer. Where have you been back then?

    @Firefly:

    As for the tweets neon posted, those all read to me that she believes our culture's idolization of stereotypical "masculinity" is negatively impacting men as well, in that men are being pressured into being that stereotypical macho dude when that isn't necessarily who they are.

    You're missing the point, Firefly. No matter how you slice it, what she said there was still a misandric thing to say and it really just boggles my mind how you're not seeing that.

    Just watch the videos I posted. The guys who made them know the true nature of those tweets.

    neonwalrus, please help me talk some sense into these two….



  • @Riles:

    I have, which I thought would have been obvious by how I use facts and information to present my position.

    No, you don't, you used biased interpretations.



  • @iamshodan:

    All right, here goes: How about, "The more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected," meaning that the more you think video games have no influence on you, the stronger the influence becomes.

    This has nothing to do with you pulling a quote showing where she said that video games are directly causing real-life sexism in order for you to back up your claim that she did. You're spouting some inarticulate proverb that doesn't have anything to do with what she's asking you to provide

    @iamshodan:

    Just watch the videos I posted. The guys who made them know the true nature of those tweets.

    What basis do you have that those guys know the true nature? Do they know the true nature because they created those videos? This is completely circuitous. You're using the conclusion to validate the proof

    Your proof for statements you make are irrelevant proverbs instead of written proof. Your explanation for peoples' credibility are their videos declaring their own credibility. You have expressed disturbing fits of misogyny in the past on these very forums, and now you are requesting for someone else to pick up the slack on an argument that you yourself began

    All you have to do is address two different things. One, you should provide proof that Sarkeesian (literally Sarkeesian, not someone else who's paraphrasing her) said video games are directly causing real-life sexism. Two, if you are unable to provide this proof and concede that her argument is that video game sexism invokes possible real-world sexism, you should explain why you believe this theory of potential sexism isn't a valid one

    You can reject her conclusion, I couldn't care less whatever conclusion you draw from your twisted little mind in regards to the theory, but you can't reject the theory itself, because there is nothing in the world (yet) to suggest that video games never encourage sexism in the real world

    @iamshodan:

    No, you don't, you used biased interpretations.

    Saying "She never said that" is not a biased interpretation. I won't apologize for using a burden of proof here since I'll have a lot of difficulty finding proof that doesn't exist

    It really is incredible just how much your extreme misogyny has warped your entire being into an incomprehensible mess of flesh, trash, and reasoning



  • @Riles:

    Two, if you are unable to provide this proof and concede that her argument is that video game sexism invokes possible real-world sexism, you should explain why you believe this theory of potential sexism isn't a valid one

    You can reject her conclusion, I couldn't care less whatever conclusion you draw from your twisted little mind in regards to the theory, but you can't reject the theory itself, because there is nothing in the world (yet) to suggest that video games never encourage sexism in the real world

    lol… u wot? I have run out of can'ts to even....

    On the first point, injecting Jack Thompson into the debate is relevant because his claim was violence in games was injecting violence into real life. This is easily disputed by statistics and studies that have come out after the fact. What IS the connection between the two? They are both people making, or inferring, claims that video games negatively influence human behavior. The same old T.V censorship crap wrapped up in a shiny new package.

    But let's presume for purposes of discussion that she is not outright making this claim. It is still heavily implied, and running with your question posed on the matter of her simply suggesting a possibility it is negatively affecting human behavior; she is still the one making the suggestion, or "claim", ergo the burden of proof is laid upon her to support her theory.

    You don't get to turn it around and spin it as "what proof do you have it ISN'T happening" when you are making the accusations. You are essentially trying to force someone to prove a negative - that is not how Science works.

    A big problem in these issues, is it is hard to find properly done, reputable studies. The few that are out there, are often cherry picked by either side of a debate to represent their viewpoint. In a lot of cases it has been admitted there is no direct causative evidence supporting claims that video games influence violent behavior. So when someone also shows me a graph overlay of violent video game sales/consumption vs violence statistics for that given population area, and the violence figures show an actual decline in violence, I become a little skeptical about people claiming video games influence violent behavior in young people. And as such until I see some real concrete evidence that young boys are being turned into sexist, misogynistic woman hating monsters who want to rape every girl they see, I won't give the idea much entertainment.

    Just by sheer virtue of the suggestion, -I- should be a sexist, misogynistic woman hating rapist. I've been playing games since I was a kid, as have many others on this forum. I've gone from Mario to DOOM to Final Fantasy to Call of Duty to Tomb Raider and back again.. I've played tons of games with female protagonists that were not helpless little damsels in distress. I've played plenty of games where I had to save a girl... so what?

    I have chosen to withdrawal from romantic aspect of society, because I don't like being bullshitted by the opposite sex. I'm a fairly nice guy, I treat people with respect and courtesy, and I've been burned by the whole "nice guys finish last" cliche. Statistically I'm just looking at the probability I will meet someone else I care to spend the remainder of my life with, and I did not like the odds.

    But you know what? I'm not "bitter" about it, I simply don't care anymore. And it wasn't video games or media that implanted this view of women into my head. It's the ones getting up on any platform they can, being angry, yelling, making false accusations, calling themselves "feminists" in support of these kinds of arguments against games and other cultural entities. It's the people being parroted in the press as having presented brilliant eye-opening narratives for discussion, who run when confronted with actual facts (that's assuming they don't run from the idea of an actual debate first).

    It's the people perpetuating myths and misrepresenting statistics about violence against women, who happily preach their crap in Academic settings unopposed. It wasn't video games that has slanted my view about women and their motives in these modern times. It was actual, real world, women. Oh the irony.

    (edited for further exposition near the end)



  • @Neco:

    On the first point, injecting Jack Thompson into the debate is relevant because his claim was violence in games was injecting violence into real life.

    This isn't true. Thompson's claim is that violence in video games is conditioning children into being cold-blooded murderers. Your explanation is a severe understatement of what he believes is happening

    @Neco:

    What IS the connection between the two? They are both people making, or inferring, claims that video games negatively influence human behavior. The same old T.V censorship crap wrapped up in a shiny new package.

    Again, you are severely understating Thompson's claims. He's not inferring that video games negatively influence human behavior. He's stating that video games are actively conditioning children into killing people. There's no inference there, and it troubles me that you are unable to identify the difference in severity between the two.

    @Neco:

    But let's presume for purposes of discussion that she is not outright making this claim.p It is still heavily implied, and running with your question posed on the matter of her simply suggesting a possibility it is negatively affecting human behavior; she is still the one making the suggestion, or "claim", ergo the burden of proof is laid upon her to support her theory.

    She IS outright making the claim. Thompson isn't. And, again, you misunderstand completely, because I'm not debating whether or not her claim is true or not. I'm claiming that her question - "Are video games encouraging sexist behaviors?" - is a valid one, which is what the majority of you are saying is not valid, mainly because there ISN'T any proof currently available that suggest one way or another. There IS proof that violent video games do NOT promote violence, which is why Thompson is always dismissed for continuing to push the issue. How can you reasonably dismiss a question that hasn't been answered yet?

    @Neco:

    You don't get to turn it around and spin it as "what proof do you have it ISN'T happening" when you are making the accusations. You are essentially trying to force someone to prove a negative - that is not how Science works.)

    I haven't done that at all. I haven't asked you to prove that sexism isn't happening, because I already know there's no evidence one way or another. What I CAN say - and HAVE been saying - is that violence isn't happening, because I already know that there's evidence supporting this. This article was just published online today (here's the original study, if you care enough to pay money for it), and it is neither the first nor the last to offer proof that violence in video games doesn't beget violence

    There is no such study for sexism in video games, which is exactly why the entire argument is currently worth discussing. To deny people of that by saying Sarkeesian is the same as Thompson is unethical at best



  • @Riles:

    You have expressed disturbing fits of misogyny in the past on these very forums, and now you are requesting for someone else to pick up the slack on an argument that you yourself began

    @Riles:

    It really is incredible just how much your extreme misogyny has warped your entire being into an incomprehensible mess of flesh, trash, and reasoning

    I… am... NOT!!! a misogynist. What if I were to say that a man deserves to get raped? What if I were to say that Dick Cheney deserves to get raped (which he does)? Would you call me a misandrist for that?

    Also, you are using argumentum ad hominem. Stop it. All you're doing is verbally attacking me directly and claiming that it's enough to discredit me. Apparantly you're not letting the fact that I said this:

    @iamshodan:

    Look. Whenever I see a person commit horrible atrocities, whether that person is real or fictitious, I, like most other people, end up demanding that the person receive some kind of punishment for their sins. However, my ideas of comeuppance tend to be rather… for lack of a better word... twisted. Whenever I see or hear about someone committing horrible things, I tend to dehumanize them. And when I do, I tend to propose very extreme measures in punishing them. For example, whenever I hear about an NFL Football player abusing and attacking his wife, I vocally say that I believe that the football player should be mercilessly beaten or killed. And whenever I vent out my rage over a person doing cruel and despicable things, I don"t care if that person is a man or a woman. I just say that if a person should perform cruel and sadistic acts, then cruel and sadistic acts should be acted upon her in return. My saying, Minerva deserves to get raped was just an example of that. And I am going to confess something to you right here and now: when I made such posts on the old Funimation website, Ninja_Shinigami_Mage succeeded in talking some sense into me. And to be honest, I actually felt dirty for saying anything about anyone deserving to get raped. And I felt dirty for writing that fanfiction where I had all of those horrible things happen to her, even by the hands of Natsu and Erza. So I actually took that fanfiction and tossed it into the recycle bin. And after Minerva started to redeem herself in Chapter 388 and onward, I felt even dirtier and was even glad that I threw that fanfic away. So when I heard Firefly and thorstwin express hatred for Minerva, I do agree that they have valid points, but I thought I would inform them of the extent of my hatred back in 2013 so I can scare them into thinking, Wow! I"m glad I don"t hate her that much.” Plus, when I asked Mashima to have a later villain rape her, I specifically told him not to glorify it. In fact, I asked him to completely demonize it and have Erza call that very villain out on it. And while I don"t say that any sadistic male characters deserve to get raped, I do sometimes say that they should be castrated or beaten to death, which may be just as bad.

    Okay, I would like to give out a formal apology for being such a heartless psychopath by writing what I did. It was stupid, selfish, and downright sick.

    through your thick skull. But two can play at the argumentum ad hominem game, you bigoted misandric troll!

    FInally, why don't you watch the videos about sexism in video games that Christina Hoff Sommers made. And I really hope you don't diss her. It's bad enough when Kotaku and Polygon did that.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqSwzFy5w
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RVlCvBd21w

    http://www.gamesreviews.com/news/09/christina-hoff-sommers-weighs-gamergate-run-gawker-journalist/



  • Riles, I purposely understated (and perhaps used some poor word choices in the process) some things, in order to try and be more neutral in my presentation. I have NOT read this entire thread, but from the bits I've seen near the end, it seems I have misinterpreted the intent/nature of some of your more critical replies. If that is the case, then I apologize.

    How can you reasonably dismiss a question that hasn't been answered yet?

    I don't so much see myself as dismissing the question, so much as dismissing/being fed up with the effect the question is having by the way those who pose the question have been pushing its narrative in the media. I guess I would equate it to the reactionary "I bet he played dem vidya games!" responses to mass-shootings. People (the general public) seem to latch onto it because of confirmation bias and don't bother to go out and do any research or hear what others are saying.

    Ask 10 women what sexist is and you'll likely get 10 different replies.
    http://games.on.net/2013/01/is-the-cyberpunk-trailer-sexist-we-ask-women-gamers-what-they-actually-think/

    Obviously, debating sexism et al, is not as clear cut as debating a more generic term like "violence".
    Meanwhile I get an earful of crap about being a sexist misogynistic shitlord "harrasser", because I disagree with someone on Twitter or w/e.



  • @Neco:

    Riles, I purposely understated (and perhaps used some poor word choices in the process) some things, in order to try and be more neutral in my presentation. I have NOT read this entire thread, but from the bits I've seen near the end, it seems I have misinterpreted the intent/nature of some of your more critical replies. If that is the case, then I apologize.

    It's no problem. This thread has gotten pretty long, and a lot of people are arguing about completely different things

    @iamshodan:

    I… am... NOT!!! a misogynist. What if I were to say that a man deserves to get raped? What if I were to say that Dick Cheney deserves to get raped (which he does)? Would you call me a misandrist for that?

    Also, you are using argumentum ad hominem. Stop it. All you're doing is verbally attacking me directly and claiming that it's enough to discredit me. Apparantly you're not letting the fact that I said this:

    through your thick skull. But two can play at the argumentum ad hominem game, you bigoted misandric troll!

    !



  • I'm just….. my sides won't stop hurting.

    Context



  • Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd I think it's about time this thread gets locked. It's had a good run, and several of you tried your best to keep it civil. But I stated a few pages back that if it ever turned into another screaming & pissing match, I'd lock it up. And I think for some of you, it's reached that point. Better to shut it down right now than let things get out of hand any further.

    If you'd like to continue this discussion elsewhere, by all means, please be my guest. But keep it off this website.