[QUOTE=Jackald;40527679]That's debatable. As I said before, it prevents an exclusively sex-negative viewpoint.[/QUOTE]
no it doesn't
"sex-negative" is not a thing
[editline]4th May 2013[/editline]
there is an antisexual facebook group and livejournal
that's about it dude
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40527666]Except she is specifically targeting a group of people who are doing the bullying, and then when they bully her, she says they are being bullies. Your logic is that because a person thinks Obama is a reptile, bullies attack that person, so obviously Obama is a reptile because someone on the internet disagrees. These are two entirely different scenarios that you are saying are related because bullies are involved.
[/QUOTE]
Sigh. She had a theory about male players trying to maintain male dominance of gaming community and she's using the blacklash as proof. She's not simply calling them bullies. And if backlash is proof of accusations then "reptilion obama" nuts are onto something.
This is not my logic. I'm the one calling bullshit on it. How could it be my logic ffs...
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40527722]no it doesn't
"sex-negative" is not a thing
[editline]4th May 2013[/editline]
there is an antisexual facebook group and livejournal
that's about it dude[/QUOTE]
Its called Sex-negativity its a thing.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-negativity[/URL]
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;40527710]Not making an argument, I was telling you I did watch it, she doesnt have a point, still dont get what shes trying do with these videos.
She nitpicked very exclusive examples to back up her claims, yet leaves out everything else, by doing this and only focusing on some specific details it makes it seem like thats all there is, she has tunnel vision, and its bad.[/QUOTE]
It's pretty obvious by now that she never intended for this to go anywhere. In an entire year she's only put out one video, and other than that she's been traveling around giving lectures and things that she's likely being paid for. She only calls herself a feminist because internet feminists/tumblr feminists/social justice warriors are the most gullible people on the planet and will jump to defend anything she does no matter what. All her videos do is point out shit we already know, she just figured out how to monetize it.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;40527760]Its called Sex-negativity its a thing.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-negativity[/URL][/QUOTE]
"on social conservative or religious ground."
im sorry since when was sarkeesian a social conservative and not a feminist?
[QUOTE=Jackald;40527761][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-negative[/url]
It's called other things, i'm just referring it to as that in my argument.[/QUOTE]
that refers to antisexualism which is not present in even the slightest form in any one of her videos i'v seen.
from what i'v seen, she believes that women should be in charge of their sexuality, which is sex-positive in nature.
[QUOTE=Jackald;40527797]Call it what you want, it's the viewpoint that women acting sexually and dressing provocatively is a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
when does anita say the women "acting sexually" is a bad thing?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40527778]"on social conservative or religious ground."
im sorry since when was sarkeesian a social conservative and not a feminist?
[/QUOTE]
Im sorry, since when I even say anything about that? I just linked you that its a real thing, nothing else.
i mean it isn't like anita is there in some turtle neck sweater saying everyone else should cover themselves. she seems to just think the women shouldn't be expected to be portrayed in manners that would objectify them.
[editline]4th May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jackald;40527817]She supports segregation of women in japanese trains, thinks bayonetta is a bad character for her sexuality etc.[/QUOTE]
when did she say this??
[editline]4th May 2013[/editline]
not the bayonetta thing, the japanese train thing
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40527818]i mean it isn't like anita is there in some turtle neck sweater saying everyone else should cover themselves. she seems to just think the women shouldn't be expected to be portrayed in manners that would objectify them.
[editline]4th May 2013[/editline]
when did she say this??
[editline]4th May 2013[/editline]
not the bayonetta thing, the japanese train thing[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Nibwoddle;40523544]Holy shit this video was just infuriating. The guy misses the point, speaks with a pretentious, condescending discourse, and makes himself look like an oblivious neckbeard all at once. While I'm hardly an advocate for Sarkeesian's method of conveying her views, to say that gender is a non-issue in games as a medium is just stupid. I much preferred this series as a deconstruction of her campaign:
[video=youtube;p6gLmcS3-NI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6gLmcS3-NI[/video][/QUOTE]
Around the end somewhere. Also Anita being sex negative is covered in this video at 3:50.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk5F-S_hI&feature=player_embedded[/media]
ok apparently she praised women train cars? where? when? what is the context?
[editline]4th May 2013[/editline]
none of this explains why sarkeesian is not "sex-positive". only some woman who identifies as a sex-positive feminist saying that anita doesn't qualify.
it's meaningless because it doesn't explain or elaborate on anything.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;40527740]Sigh. She had a theory about male players trying to maintain male dominance of gaming community and she's using the blacklash as proof. She's not simply calling them bullies. And if backlash is proof of accusations then "reptilion obama" nuts are onto something.
This is not my logic. I'm the one calling bullshit on it. How could it be my logic ffs...[/QUOTE]
Just saying something over and over doesn't make it true.
Sarkeesian believes there are people out there who want to maintain the status quo where gaming media isn't criticized because it makes them feel uncomfortable. To back up this accusation she has a mountain of people screaming insults and physical threats against her. This proves the point that people are uncomfortable with her theories enough to try and bully her into silence.
Conspiracy Theorist Bob believes that the president is a reptile. To back up this accusation he has a mountain of people screaming insults and physical threats against him. But that doesn't matter because it doesn't prove one way or another than Obama is a reptile, it proves that there are rude people on the internet. If the FBI or Homeland Security broke into his house, arrested him, and confiscated then destroyed his hard drives then that might be proof.
The idea isn't that when someone takes any position and receives criticism it makes that position right, it's that when someone takes a very specific position against an entrenched idealogy and individuals that support that idealogy lash out, it shows that said individuals are upset with their world view being challenged, which was her only point in that CNN interview.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;40527710]Not making an argument, I was telling you I did watch it, she doesnt have a point, still dont get what shes trying do with these videos.
She nitpicked very exclusive examples to back up her claims, yet leaves out everything else, by doing this and only focusing on some specific details it makes it seem like thats all there is, she has tunnel vision, and its bad.[/QUOTE]
Can you go into more detail? I'm glad I coaxed you out of your typical posting style of just saying things are bad or terrible without really defending your position but your argument here seems rather vapid and empty.
-snip
(comment already responded to)
[editline]4th May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jackald;40527817]She supports segregation of women in japanese trains, thinks bayonetta is a bad character for her sexuality etc.[/QUOTE]
What relevance does this have to the whole sex-postive/sex-negative thing your trying to discuss? It doesn't really support your point (the japanese train car part not the Bayonetta part).
For anyone who is citing Investig8veJournalism as a source on how feminists ought to act, I wouldn't exactly take the words of a mysogynist seriously on that topic. I'm no feminist but you have to watch out for bias like that.
[QUOTE=JustGman;40527763]It's pretty obvious by now that she never intended for this to go anywhere. In an entire year she's only put out one video, and other than that she's been traveling around giving lectures and things that she's likely being paid for. She only calls herself a feminist because internet feminists/tumblr feminists/social justice warriors are the most gullible people on the planet and will jump to defend anything she does no matter what. All her videos do is point out shit we already know, she just figured out how to monetize it.[/QUOTE]
When she doesn't release a video:
"Clearly it was a scam"
When she releases a video but slower than her critics prefer:
"Clearly it was a scam"
You aren't allowed to have it both ways. And who are these gullible social justice warriors? The TED conference? EA? Adam Sessler? CNN? Your attempts to make her supporters look insignificant might have worked back when her only supporters were tumblr feminists and twitter folks but now that she has garnered widespread support amongst arguably important organizations and individuals it's a poor tactic to attempt. Keep in mind that it would never have gone this far if it wasn't for the indignant rage and hatred for something daring to criticize a media for it's portrayal of women. Something, as you said, everyone already knows, which is a terrible argument to be against something anyway.
But nope. Angry young males of any idealogy, whether it be uncomfortable gamer or outright misogynistic Mens Rights Activist, railed against her, made flash games showing her getting beaten, made criticism videos, wrote essays, and all it did was make her far more popular than she would have been. Even now, when no one is really talking about her, we have people keeping this thread bumped to the top of the section with useless comments like "We already know what she is talking about" or "I don't get her point ergo she doesn't have one".
It's not tumblr feminists keeping Sarkeesian topical, it's people who just can't let it go.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40527937]Just saying something over and over doesn't make it true.
Sarkeesian believes there are people out there who want to maintain the status quo where gaming media isn't criticized because it makes them feel uncomfortable. To back up this accusation she has a mountain of people screaming insults and physical threats against her. This proves the point that people are uncomfortable with her theories enough to try and bully her into silence.
Conspiracy Theorist Bob believes that the president is a reptile. To back up this accusation he has a mountain of people screaming insults and physical threats against him. But that doesn't matter because it doesn't prove one way or another than Obama is a reptile, it proves that there are rude people on the internet. If the FBI or Homeland Security broke into his house, arrested him, and confiscated then destroyed his hard drives then that might be proof.
The idea isn't that when someone takes any position and receives criticism it makes that position right, it's that when someone takes a very specific position against an entrenched idealogy and individuals that support that idealogy lash out, it shows that said individuals are upset with their world view being challenged, which was her only point in that CNN interview.
[/QUOTE]
In other words "when the accused person/group backlashes it means your accusations against that person/group are right". It's fucking retarded.
Lets say that conspiracy theorist bob thinks that half of the world is populated with reptilions. To back up this accusation he has a mountain of people screaming insults and physical threats against him. This proves the point that people are uncomfortable with his theories enough to try and bully him into silence. Right? No. This logic is fucking stupid. We used it in elementary school. We would accuse someone of doing something and when he would defend himself we would say something like "only the guilty argues with accusations".
Want another example? Someone would make a huge article that facepunch is a hub for child porn, we would start defending facepunch and attack the people who said it, but then that would be proof of the theory, wouldn't it?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40527937]Just saying something over and over doesn't make it true.
Sarkeesian believes there are people out there who want to maintain the status quo where gaming media isn't criticized because it makes them feel uncomfortable. To back up this accusation she has a mountain of people screaming insults and physical threats against her. This proves the point that people are uncomfortable with her theories enough to try and bully her into silence.
Conspiracy Theorist Bob believes that the president is a reptile. To back up this accusation he has a mountain of people screaming insults and physical threats against him. But that doesn't matter because it doesn't prove one way or another than Obama is a reptile, it proves that there are rude people on the internet. If the FBI or Homeland Security broke into his house, arrested him, and confiscated then destroyed his hard drives then that might be proof.
The idea isn't that when someone takes any position and receives criticism it makes that position right, it's that when someone takes a very specific position against an entrenched idealogy and individuals that support that idealogy lash out, it shows that said individuals are upset with their world view being challenged, which was her only point in that CNN interview.
Can you go into more detail? I'm glad I coaxed you out of your typical posting style of just saying things are bad or terrible without really defending your position but your argument here seems rather vapid and empty.[/QUOTE]
In her first and only video so far, she attacks peach, mario, and miyamoto for starters.
But she forgets to leave out the time Peach was made was in a time when gaming was largely arcades, games were also in the earliest infancy of there life, this is extremely important because back then, games did not have characterization like today, stories like today, and tbh, any sort of real message or meaning, the points of games were quick fun, something you didnt think about but just played.
No one thought any less, or any more of any of the characters of Donkey Kong, no one gave a fuck about Paula(Peach) or Mario, the only reason you were saving Paula was because it was only there to give the game a point.
Also was obviously based off of king kong, so they didnt even come up with it.
But the thing is, this carried over to Mario for the entire Nes/Snes and I would even say to today, Mario and Peach are people NO ONE gives a fuck about, she talks about peach being just this "reward" or "object" when the best way to put it is, shes nothing, same for Mario.
They are the two most bland characters, no one gives a fuck when Peach gets stolen, you dont feel anything, you dont care when Mario dies or falls down a pit, and thats the point, Nintendo knows this, and this is why they did it, because the ENTIRE point of Mario games are for the fun gameplay.
No one gives a fuck about Mario stories in the platforming games, like the entire fucking point of SM64 was Peach made you a cake, so went to her house, but Bowser was there, so then you go collect stars and throw baby penguins off cliffs.
Even to this day with Mario Nintendo still uses this very old practice, sure they both have a little more character now, but they are still very bland, now I am strictly talking the "Main" games as so she puts it, so no spin offs, which is even more retarded to her point because shes leaving out the games that GIVE them a chance to even become characters, such as Paper Marios, Super Mario RPG(peach is a party member and isnt even the focus of the story) and the Super Star Saga games.
So right there she is leaving out some of the more important Mario games which completely counter her argument of Peach just being some reward or object.
But her worse fault in that video is how wrong she gets the Starfox shit.
Yes I agree, the scene where Fox sees Krystal and the cheesy saxophones start playing is retarded, everyone thought that, actually that entire game is retarded, but very easy to target because of Krystal.
But then she talks about what the game was before, Dinosaur Adventures, she says you played as Krystal, but was changed to Fox, because they gotta appeal the majority of players and use Fox, a male and well known character, yet completely left out the fact that you didnt just play Krystal, you played also as her Brother, Saber, you used an item to switch between the two.
She left that out to make her point on starfox adventures, her information was wrong, this is why I think shes shit with these video game videos, I have no idea what she wants, to be it sounds like she wants pandering, like characters should be portrayed better, but in what ways? Why? I just have no fucking clue on what she hopes to achieve with these videos.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;40528052]Want another example? Someone would make a huge article that facepunch is a hub for child porn, we would start defending facepunch and attack the people who said it, but then that would be proof of the theory, wouldn't it?[/QUOTE]
Not unless you were to defend/reply with child porn.
Because that would be the point of the hypothetical article.
Just like how Sarkeesian talked about how the gaming culture has a huge problem with [everything that's been said above] and gamers replied with [I]exactly that[/I], which proved her point.
If I were you I'd analyze my train of thought a bit more before I post...
[QUOTE=Jackald;40527554]
Broadly speaking, there are two camps of feminists; sex positive and sex negative feminism. Both have very valid arguments.
- Sex positive feminists believe that a woman flaunting her sexuality, dressing in skimpy outfits, or being very strong willed or even a bit of an nymphomaniac is a good thing, since it's women being in a position of power rather than a chaste princess or something like that; think slutwalks and Amanda Palmer.
- Sex negative feminists believe that a women shown flaunting her sexuality is actually just pandering to men, and she shouldn't be showing off her sexuality to please men, since this actually puts men in a position of power; by appealing to men with their sexuality, they are denigrating themselves. Personally I think this is quite damaging, as it has similar overtones of the "they deserve it for dressing sluttily" argument for rape charges.[/QUOTE]
where did you get this bullshit from
sex-negative feminism doesnt exist, there are no self-proclaimed sex-negative feminists
you really are just pulling this out of your ass, there were two camps during the 70's where the debate was about [b] prostitution[/b] and [b]pornography[/b]
sex-negative was a strawman smear directed at feminists who were against pornography and prostitution, with very VERY different rationales
[quote]An example I would give would be that she considers Bayonetta to be an inherently bad character for her strong, highly sexualized nature.[/quote]
sex-positive feminists would likely say the exact same thing. you'd know that if you actually knew any sex-positive feminists. naomi wolf is one of the most prominent sex-positive feminists, and she considered unattainable fetishistic characters to be bad for women because they deposit a hetero-normative sexuality thats designed around what a man wants rather than what a woman can be
stop twisting historical narratives to attack ppl on the internet thx
it's like attacking a website for being racist, then the reply from the website is "fuck u nigger"
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;40528310]Not unless you were to defend/reply with child porn.
Because that would be the point of the hypothetical article.
Just like how Sarkeesian talked about how the gaming culture has a huge problem with [everything that's been said above] and gamers replied with [I]exactly that[/I], which proved her point.
If I were you I'd analyze my train of thought a bit more before I post...[/QUOTE]
But people werent saying things like "I hope you die/get raped" or getting attacked for being a girl because of video games, people were doing it because its the internet and shes a girl, a completely different beast and using this to prove a point is pretty retarded, because once again, its a minority and nothing close to the whole.
Its a vocal minority.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;40528095]In her first and only video so far, she attacks peach, mario, and miyamoto for starters.[/QUOTE]
Replying to everything said about the main Mario series:
She never said the trope wasn't simplistic or seemed confused why Nintendo or Miyamoto would rely on it as a storytelling crutch. She even explains that it's use goes back hundreds of years and when film was first taking off a lot of motion pictures used the damsel in distress trope because it's a very easy way to set up a story. You have a protaganist, something he wants, and the bad guy. The problem with the trope is that it waters down characters into essentially objects. The point about Peach being a ball in play between Mario and Bowser illustrates this well. She doesn't really do anything or have any character, which even you seem to agree with, other than to exist as something for people to get. Whether or not you have an emotional attachment to the character or not doesn't mean she is or isn't being literally objectified.
[QUOTE]Even to this day with Mario Nintendo still uses this very old practice, sure they both have a little more character now, but they are still very bland, now I am strictly talking the "Main" games as so she puts it, so no spin offs, which is even more retarded to her point because shes leaving out the games that GIVE them a chance to even become characters, such as Paper Marios, Super Mario RPG(peach is a party member and isnt even the focus of the story) and the Super Star Saga games.
So right there she is leaving out some of the more important Mario games which completely counter her argument of Peach just being some reward or object. [/QUOTE]
I agree that she isn't entirely honest when she just sweeps games where Peach is more than an object under the rug. That said, I don't think it invalidates her point that Mario games in the main series tend to use the trope a lot.
[QUOTE]
But then she talks about what the game was before, Dinosaur Adventures, she says you played as Krystal, but was changed to Fox, because they gotta appeal the majority of players and use Fox, a male and well known character, yet completely left out the fact that you didnt just play Krystal, you played also as her Brother, Saber, you used an item to switch between the two.
She left that out to make her point on starfox adventures, her information was wrong, this is why I think shes shit with these video game videos, I have no idea what she wants, to be it sounds like she wants pandering, like characters should be portrayed better, but in what ways? Why? I just have no fucking clue on what she hopes to achieve with these videos.
[/QUOTE]
I'm wary about criticizing her interpretations of games I haven't played (which is why I don't touch the Bayonetta arguments) but from what I can tell the problem is less that they removed Krystal as the main player character but more the fact that they added insult by objectifying her as a sexy idol to recover. It seemed like such a bizarre turn around. The fact that you played as a male character by switching between the two in the original concept doesn't matter because, as far as I am aware, Saber is never the object of lust nor the win condition of the game.
The point of her videos is to exhibit popular tropes in video game plots, writing, and gameplay and criticize them, while hopefully at some point offering good examples of how to break these stereotypes.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;40528310]Not unless you were to defend/reply with child porn.
Because that would be the point of the hypothetical article.
Just like how Sarkeesian talked about how the gaming culture has a huge problem with [everything that's been said above] and gamers replied with [I]exactly that[/I], which proved her point.
If I were you I'd analyze my train of thought a bit more before I post...[/QUOTE]
Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait. Raidyr said that being bullied into silence by the group you attacked is proof that the accusation against the group is right. The content of the replies wasn't mentioned. Also, it's the fucking internet. Start screaming "racism", you'll be called a nigger. Start screaming "sexism" you'll be told to get back to kitchen. And probably by the same group of people too. The only proof this is of, is of the fact that there are people who act like complete assholes on the internet. And it's common knowledge too, no need to prove it.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;40528416]Also, it's the fucking internet.[/QUOTE]
Oh okay, my bad. I guess it's okay to harass a person and make games about beating her up because it's [I]the fucking internet[/I].
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;40528416]Raidyr said that being bullied into silence by the group you attacked is proof that the accusation against the group is right. [/QUOTE]
In this very specific case where the accusation is that there is a section of the male gaming community that wants to shut her up, not in general. I've explained this several times.
Also, "it's the internet" just doesn't suffice, sorry. Of course anonymity creates assholes and women everywhere have to deal with sexist bullshit but the level of outrage over Sarkeesian and her projects, let alone the tenacity of it, is quite unique.
[editline]4th May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;40528514]Oh okay, my bad. I guess it's okay to harass a person and make games about beating her up because it's [I]the fucking internet[/I].[/QUOTE]
Also this. "Things are just like that and there is nothing you can do" defeatism never helped anybody.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40528377]Replying to everything said about the main Mario series:
She never said the trope wasn't simplistic or seemed confused why Nintendo or Miyamoto would rely on it as a storytelling crutch. She even explains that it's use goes back hundreds of years and when film was first taking off a lot of motion pictures used the damsel in distress trope because it's a very easy way to set up a story. You have a protaganist, something he wants, and the bad guy. The problem with the trope is that it waters down characters into essentially objects. The point about Peach being a ball in play between Mario and Bowser illustrates this well. She doesn't really do anything or have any character, which even you seem to agree with, other than to exist as something for people to get. Whether or not you have an emotional attachment to the character or not doesn't mean she is or isn't being literally objectified.
I agree that she isn't entirely honest when she just sweeps games where Peach is more than an object under the rug. That said, I don't think it invalidates her point that Mario games in the main series tend to use the trope a lot.
I'm wary about criticizing her interpretations of games I haven't played (which is why I don't touch the Bayonetta arguments) but from what I can tell the problem is less that they removed Krystal as the main player character but more the fact that they added insult by objectifying her as a sexy idol to recover. It seemed like such a bizarre turn around. The fact that you played as a male character by switching between the two in the original concept doesn't matter because, as far as I am aware, Saber is never the object of lust nor the win condition of the game.
The point of her videos is to exhibit popular tropes in video game plots, writing, and gameplay and criticize them, while hopefully at some point offering good examples of how to break these stereotypes.[/QUOTE]
But let me ask you this.
She is criticizing these tropes, and offering examples on how to break these, but should that really happen?
Are these tropes really that bad, because I know they arent made as some sort of social agenda, but more as plot devices just so the game has some sort of meaning, which games have really moved away from, at least now games have bigger stories, and more characterzation.
But if shes wanting tropes like this to go away, let me ask why? That is pandering, thats not wanting a game with a very simple person saves the girl story, why should something like that go away? Its not harmful, yet she makes it seem like it is?
Also she puts a spin on her words, she tries making words like "Object" and "Reward" like these buzzwords, where as they have a bad meaning towards what they are describing, yet, I dont think in my entire life have I ever been like "Aww yeah my reward is Peach!" it was more like, "Fuck yeah I got 120 stars, where the fuck is that canon to take me to the roof" so I guess my reward was an actual object.
Or any game really, anytime I beat a game its not the characters being the reward, the reward is ME beating the game itself, yet she words it as if these characters are just rewards and objects when people dont think that.
The worst part is, shes attacking fucking old ass games with her entire Damsel in Distress video.
Double Dragon, Ghouls and Goblins, etc... You know games you pumped quarters into, they didnt have a lot of fucking time to really get an in depth story in one of those because arcade games were nothing more than quick fun.
She then says that Mario and Nintendo is what pushed the trope forward in gaming, when in fact, the trope is probably one of the OLDEST in history, its simple, and universally easy to understand.
Also she uses a spinoff game of Mario to make her point on that peach being a ball thing, but I guess she cant talk about any Mario RPGs.
[editline]4th May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;40528514]Oh okay, my bad. I guess it's okay to harass a person and make games about beating her up because it's [I]the fucking internet[/I].[/QUOTE]
Its not, his point is, its the internet, this isnt happening to her exclusively, the internet is a cancerous place, and exploiting the vocal minority to prove your points is a very cheap tactic because its extremely easy to get those toxic comments to be made, and she knows it, its baiting.
Its probably the easiest fucking thing in the world.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;40528514]Oh okay, my bad. I guess it's okay to harass a person and make games about beating her up because it's [I]the fucking internet[/I].[/QUOTE]
Where the fuck did I say it's okay?
I'm just saying it's what happens. It's not proof of the theory. The only thing it proves is that there are people on the internet who act like assholes.
You can't pretend that it's not what usually happens on the internet and when it does happen in reply to you go "oh, see? this is proof I was right". This was nothing that wasn't expected to happen.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40528530]In this very specific case where the accusation is that there is a section of the male gaming community that wants to shut her up, not in general. I've explained this several times. [/QUOTE]
Oh "in this specific case". You're just making shit up, as much as she does. All the hostility against her proves is that there are assholes on the internet, not that a section of gaming community organized to take her down.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40528530]Also, "it's the internet" just doesn't suffice, sorry. Of course anonymity creates assholes and women everywhere have to deal with sexist bullshit but the level of outrage over Sarkeesian and her projects, let alone the tenacity of it, is quite unique.[/QUOTE]
How's that unique? It's only unique to you because feminism is the favorite shitstorm topic on facepunch. There's always a lot of trolling when a person who seems easy to troll uploads a video. Remember jessi slaughter for example? She had it even worse. There's just a lot of bullies on the internet.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40528530]Also this. "Things are just like that and there is nothing you can do" defeatism never helped anybody.[/QUOTE]
Where the fuck did I go "Things are just like that and there is nothing you can do"? What do you even refer to? That there are bullies on the internet or that women are poorly portrayed in video games? I never denied that any of those can be changed. I just said that a lot of trolling and flaming is to be expected in reply to a video like she posted, and that it's not proof of her theory but proof that there's a lot of bullies and trolls on the internet.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;40528618]But let me ask you this.
She is criticizing these tropes, and offering examples on how to break these, but should that really happen?
Are these tropes really that bad, because I know they arent made as some sort of social agenda, but more as plot devices just so the game has some sort of meaning, which games have really moved away from, at least now games have bigger stories, and more characterzation.
But if shes wanting tropes like this to go away, let me ask why? That is pandering, thats not wanting a game with a very simple person saves the girl story, why should something like that go away? Its not harmful, yet she makes it seem like it is?[/QUOTE]
Tropes aren't inherently bad. If this were the case 99% of the things humans create to entertain themselves or each other would be bad. They are just language devices that get re-used over and over and become ubiquitous.
I don't see how wanting the trope to go away is pandering, and I'm not even sure she wants or expects tropes like the damsel in distress to disappear, because that would be an incredibly unrealistic notion. I think we can all agree that the damsel in distress motif is so common because it's incredibly simplistic and easy to integrate into practically any story. I think the point is for us to recognize what is happening with the characters and critically think about what is happening through the story, not that this trope should be extinguished from common human creativity. I could be wrong though, that's just my interpretation.
[QUOTE]
Also she puts a spin on her words, she tries making words like "Object" and "Reward" like these buzzwords, where as they have a bad meaning towards what they are describing, yet, I dont think in my entire life have I ever been like "Aww yeah my reward is Peach!" it was more like, "Fuck yeah I got 120 stars, where the fuck is that canon to take me to the roof" so I guess my reward was an actual object.
Or any game really, anytime I beat a game its not the characters being the reward, the reward is ME beating the game itself, yet she words it as if these characters are just rewards and objects when people dont think that.[/QUOTE]
It's not a buzzword. Peach is literally an object in most of the Mario games. She does absolutely nothing but get captured by Bowser then freed by Mario at the very end. Spinoff games and one or two from the main series tried to change this a little and give her some characterization but her ultimate story and gameplay purpose was still to just exist to be something to acquire.
Peach is the archetypical video game damsel in distress, one that has been criticized far longer than Sarkeesian has been on the scene. She is just the most obvious.
[QUOTE]The worst part is, shes attacking fucking old ass games with her entire Damsel in Distress video.
Double Dragon, Ghouls and Goblins, etc... You know games you pumped quarters into, they didnt have a lot of fucking time to really get an in depth story in one of those because arcade games were nothing more than quick fun.
She then says that Mario and Nintendo is what pushed the trope forward in gaming, when in fact, the trope is probably one of the OLDEST in history, its simple, and universally easy to understand.
Also she uses a spinoff game of Mario to make her point on that peach being a ball thing, but I guess she cant talk about any Mario RPGs.[/QUOTE]
Again, nobody is saying that the trope isn't simplistic and a good fit for early games that needed some way to communicate a plot or objective to the player, just that it was something that happened. Though it could be argued that, given how many games resisted using the specific damsel in distress trope, not all the blame could be placed on arcade hardware and short deadlines but more on just good old fashioned laziness.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40528828]Tropes aren't inherently bad. If this were the case 99% of the things humans create to entertain themselves or each other would be bad. They are just language devices that get re-used over and over and become ubiquitous.
I don't see how wanting the trope to go away is pandering, and I'm not even sure she wants or expects tropes like the damsel in distress to disappear, because that would be an incredibly unrealistic notion. I think we can all agree that the damsel in distress motif is so common because it's incredibly simplistic and easy to integrate into practically any story. I think the point is for us to recognize what is happening with the characters and critically think about what is happening through the story, not that this trope should be extinguished from common human creativity. I could be wrong though, that's just my interpretation. [/quote]
There's not much critical thinking to be done. X was kidnapped by Y so Z has to rescue X, just because X is a female character doesn't mean it's sexist.
[quote]It's not a buzzword. Peach is literally an object in most of the Mario games. She does absolutely nothing but get captured by Bowser then freed by Mario at the very end. Spinoff games and one or two from the main series tried to change this a little and give her some characterization but her ultimate story and gameplay purpose was still to just exist to be something to acquire.
Peach is the archetypical video game damsel in distress, one that has been criticized far longer than Sarkeesian has been on the scene. She is just the most obvious.[/quote]
In a lot of them Mario is barely a character, he may as well be an object too. It's simple and people try too hard to over analyze things. There's no complicated plot or evil misogynist undertones. None of the characters are deep, they're just there for the player to interact with.
[quote]Again, nobody is saying that the trope isn't simplistic and a good fit for early games that needed some way to communicate a plot or objective to the player, just that it was something that happened. Though it could be argued that, given how many games resisted using the specific damsel in distress trope, not all the blame could be placed on arcade hardware and short deadlines but more on just good old fashioned laziness.[/QUOTE]
And that kind of laziness is usually unacceptable nowadays. There's still lots of shit characters but at least they seem human instead of being emotionless cardboard cutouts.
Nintendo clearly hates females and are part of the Male Illuminati to oppress strong womyn.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;40528733]Where the fuck did I say it's okay?
I'm just saying it's what happens. It's not proof of the theory. The only thing it proves is that there are people on the internet who act like assholes.
You can't pretend that it's not what usually happens on the internet and when it does happen in reply to you go "oh, see? this is proof I was right". This was nothing that wasn't expected to happen.[/QUOTE]
Right, it's expected that people will be assholes on the internet, so we shouldn't point out how wrong being an asshole on the internet is. Everyone knows this already, it's common knowledge, shut up Anita, stop making videos, stop talking.
Stop making me feel uncomfortable because my world view is being challenged.
[QUOTE] Oh "in this specific case". You're just making shit up, as much as she does. All the hostility against her proves is that there are assholes on the internet, not that a section of gaming community organized to take her down.[/QUOTE]
But they did. Websites like Gather Your Party, forums like r/mensrights, and individuals like thunderf00t and Investig8veJournalism all used social media to loosely (her words) organize against her. if it was just general internet assholery this thing would have died months ago. Instead we are still seeing videos and articles like this, insipid attempts at character assassination while simultaneously completely missing the point.
[QUOTE]
How's that unique? It's only unique to you because feminism is the favorite shitstorm topic on facepunch. There's always a lot of trolling when a person who seems easy to troll uploads a video. Remember jessi slaughter for example? She had it even worse. There's just a lot of bullies on the internet.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I remember Jessi Slaughter. I remember that story dying within months because people stopped caring and it left the general consciousness of the internet. But a year after Sarkeesians kickstarter gets funded and months after her first video is produced we still have people like thunderf00t making videos talking about how she is just in it for the attention and that she is going far too slow by his standards. This tells me that that a lot of people still have a chip on their shoulder about the whole thing and want to keep it alive rather than slinking back to making videos about how hard being a young white male in America is.
[QUOTE]
Where the fuck did I go "Things are just like that and there is nothing you can do"? What do you even refer to? That there are bullies on the internet or that women are poorly portrayed in video games? I never denied that any of those can be changed. I just said that a lot of trolling and flaming is to be expected in reply to a video like she posted, and that it's not proof of her theory but proof that there's a lot of bullies and trolls on the internet.[/QUOTE]
Bullies and trolls that are loosely organized and unusually tenacious. She struck a nerve and she wants to show everyone how exposed it is.
[QUOTE=JustGman;40528951] It's simple and people try too hard to over analyze things.[/QUOTE]
no such thing. the whole point of feminist analysis is to analyse things, your perception of what is "too much" analysis is irrelevant
if you dont like feminist analysis then why bother watching a video that is obviously about that
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
