[QUOTE=quinaquin;46364784]What I took from what she's saying is that while Mirror's Edge is a positive portayal of women in a video game, the gameplay is kind of off putting for a lot of people. I don't really know the context for this, but that's what I get from it trying to imagine why someone would say it. It'd make sense if people were asking what she thought about the game, which seems likely because it's generally considered a really good game when it comes to not shitting on women.[/QUOTE]
she emphatically and clearly stated that women don't like hard videogames and we seriously have to split hairs about whether that's what she's saying or not
If Gabe Newell said that Valve was going to make Steam easier to use because complex programs put off women, he would be fucking crucified. This is absurd. This is why people are mad.
[QUOTE=quinaquin;46364825]Not that it's hard, just that the controls are kind of confusing and weird and take some getting used to for some people. Mirror's Edge is pretty easy once you get the hang of it.[/QUOTE]
As for that criticism, she's wrong. Mirror's edge is a shining diamond in the mountain of shit that is "EA Publications in the last 6 years"
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46364774]She's been exploiting the violent white noise of the internet for profit for years, using it to squirm out of criticism and shame anyone who doesn't fall into lockstep with her absurd philosophical and sociological claims.
Gamergate is just another example of that. 95% of the tweets made using the hashtag aren't harassment, but that doesn't matter when Anita Sarkeesian can go on national television and use the five percent to tar the whole and make everyone involved look like a sexist.[/QUOTE]
That's why it's so easy to do. She doesn't know shit about video games but she knows how to play internet mobs like a fiddle, both the ones that blithely agree with her and those that hate her with unnecessary and absurd vigor.
It happened when her Kickstarter showed up and it's happening now with gamergate. It's going to keep happening until people just ignore her and her echo chamber supporters.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;46364493]Ok I just want to clear up a couple things since there have been misunderstandings
Yeah harassment hurts and shit, I know myself from experience I've been harassed so many times in real life and death threats ARE terrible, okay? I wanted to get that out of the way. It's just wrong to send someone a death threat over the internet due to your anonymity. My definition of harassment is different than your guys and I apologize for this because it makes me look bad. I should have said this earlier and I do kind of regret not saying anything about my view. (To be honest, I think I should take a look at my definition and see if it actually makes sense or not because the backlash so far has really put things into perspective).
But when shit like this is spouted out:
[IMG]http://puu.sh/cvJlv/22eaf39a4e.png[/IMG]
I get really fucking mad. I get mad that someone with this much influence on people can spout this kind of bullshit ya know? It makes me feel like she kind of deserve the backlash she's getting, but maybe it's my anger talking to be honest
I do have anger problems and, I think this applies to everyone, being angry makes you sometimes spout shit out.
I will shut up and leave the thread to open debate to other forum members[/QUOTE]
What's bullshit about this though? It's true that men are disproportionately responsible for mass-shootings, I think it's as logical a conclusion as any to blame the awful expectations placed on them by the gender role system for this. I'm not trying to start a shitstorm on this, I'm just wondering what other people's opinions on it are. She's clearly not talking about video games here, it's just a suggestion about what might be the cause of this disproportionate representation.
[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;46364798]she doesn't say that. she says [I]some[/I] games have women in them for a variety of reasons, most of them not very good (i.e. serving as eye candy "background decoration", having them killed brutally to make the game look mature and dark, etc).
the devs aren't evil misogynists that want gamers to derive sexual pleasure from beating/killing women, they mostly put those things in games because they make for easy visual storytelling, which is what she criticizes, because while the intention isn't inherently sexist, the imagery itself still is.[/QUOTE]
go watch her latest video before talking about it
she says that, line for line. About Hitman, yeah, but if she could apply that to Hitman she could apply it to fucking [I]anything.[/I]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46364834]she emphatically and clearly stated that women don't like hard videogames and we seriously have to split hairs about whether that's what she's saying or not
If Gabe Newell said that Valve was going to make Steam easier to use because complex programs put off women, he would be fucking crucified. This is absurd. This is why people are mad.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, if Gabe Newell said that, I'd be insulted. I don't think Anita said that women don't like hard video games, so I'm not insulted.
The biggest mistake people are making is assuming Sarkeesian is stupid. She is far more tactful than basically everyone else involved in the anti-GG movement.
[QUOTE=Flyingman356;46364855]What's bullshit about this though? It's true that men are disproportionately responsible for mass-shootings, I think it's as logical a conclusion as any to blame the awful expectations placed on them by the gender role system for this. I'm not trying to start a shitstorm on this, I'm just wondering what other people's opinions on it are. She's clearly not talking about video games here, it's just a suggestion about what might be the cause of this disproportionate representation.[/QUOTE]
She specifically says it is "always" men and boys doing shootings when, in 1979, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(San_Diego)]a 16 year old girl shot up a Cleveland elementary school.[/url] And that was a quick, 10 second Google search.
[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;46364798]she doesn't say that. she says [I]some[/I] games have women in them for a variety of reasons, most of them not very good (i.e. serving as eye candy "background decoration", having them killed brutally to make the game look mature and dark, etc).
the devs aren't evil misogynists that want gamers to derive sexual pleasure from beating/killing women, they mostly put those things in games because they make for easy visual storytelling, which is what she criticizes, because while the intention isn't inherently sexist, the imagery itself still is.[/QUOTE]
Except her criticism of the portrayal of women in games is equally applicable to men in those very same games, often more so. The only one which applies primarily to women is the imagery of sexual exploitation, which is very rarely done for titillation, and is usually done to make the player disgusted at the people who run the strip club or brothel or whatever.
[QUOTE=Banned?;46364884]She specifically says it is "always" men and boys doing shootings when, in 1979, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(San_Diego)]a 16 year old girl shot up a Cleveland elementary school.[/url] And that was a quick, 10 second Google search.[/QUOTE]
She said always first then sent out a second tweet saying 98%.
This is splitting hairs over the main point though that the vast majority of school shootings are carried out by males, which is an incredibly interesting statistic.
[QUOTE=Flyingman356;46364855]What's bullshit about this though? It's true that men are disproportionately responsible for mass-shootings, I think it's as logical a conclusion as any to blame the awful expectations placed on them by the gender role system for this. I'm not trying to start a shitstorm on this, I'm just wondering what other people's opinions on it are. She's clearly not talking about video games here, it's just a suggestion about what might be the cause of this disproportionate representation.[/QUOTE]
you see nothing wrong with jumping on an international tragedy to inject an unfounded and unsupported ideological claim
if I said "Is it a coincidence that 99% of suicide bombers are Muslim? Clearly there's a problem with Muslims which needs to be fixed."
Even if you're the kind of person who thinks a laughably simplistic blanket statement like that could ever possibly come close to actually accurately explaining the situation, you must realize that the same people fellating Anita would be tearing apart anyone something even remotely like that. Even if you don't see what makes that statement abhorrent, you must see the double standard.
whatever happened to those kickstarter videos lol
[QUOTE=Banned?;46364884]She specifically says it is "always" men and boys doing shootings when, in 1979, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(San_Diego)]a 16 year old girl shot up a Cleveland elementary school.[/url] And that was a quick, 10 second Google search.[/QUOTE]
It's really kind of silly to reference an almost 40 year old shooting if you are trying to get your point across.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46364900]She said always first then sent out a second tweet saying 98%.
This is splitting hairs over the main point though that the vast majority of school shootings are carried out by males, which is an incredibly interesting statistic.[/QUOTE]
coopting raw numbers to support an emotional appeal for your unfounded political beliefs is disingenuous and manipulative, full stop.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;46364897] The only one which applies primarily to women is the imagery of sexual exploitation, which is very rarely done for titillation, and[B] is usually done to make the player disgusted at the people who run the strip club or brothel or whatever.[/B][/QUOTE]
Some times sure but I certainly wouldn't say usually. Frankly Sarkeesians apparent disapproval with brothels, stripclubs, prostitution et al can be dismissed out of hand as creative license. It's typically not about titillation nor is it to give the player motivation to despise the owners or pimps. It's usually there to fill out the world and add to the immersion. Her argument that such establishments aren't "necessary" could be applied to everything. Video games are art and are intrinsically unnecessary in and of themselves.
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;46364922]whatever happened to those kickstarter videos lol[/QUOTE]
She still isn't finished making them. She releases one every 6 or so months to make sure she is perpetually in the limelight.
AGG has got to be one of the most successful misinformation campaigns in recent history.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46364599] she's an unabashed sex negative feminist and I have a great deal of trouble thinking a sex negative feminist is right.[/QUOTE]
That's interesting, the last time I heard anyone using the terms sex negative/sex positive unironically was someone saying they opposed her because she was sex positive.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46364870]The biggest mistake people are making is assuming Sarkeesian is stupid. She is far more tactful than basically everyone else involved in the anti-GG movement.[/QUOTE]
She is a stupid critic, but a savvy political actor. If she isn't completely disingenuous, then she has to be kind of stupid.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46364906]
if I said "Is it a coincidence that 99% of suicide bombers are Muslim? Clearly there's a problem with Muslims which needs to be fixed."
[/QUOTE]
No where near being similar to what Sarkeesian said. This is an outright fabrication of her point.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46364929]coopting raw numbers to support an emotional appeal for your unfounded political beliefs is disingenuous and manipulative, full stop.[/QUOTE]
The only person making an emotional appeal, from what I can see, is you, establishing the moral boundaries from which we can use "international tragedies" to discuss relevant issues.
What political belief was she pushing?
If we're talking about mass shootings, sure you can look at the stats of men who commit mass shootings
but you can also look at the violence women commit.
It's like the distinction between suicide. Men shoot themselves (i.e, more "final" means of suicide), and women take pills (less final means of suicide).
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;46364947]That's interesting, the last time I heard anyone using the terms sex negative/sex positive unironically was someone saying they opposed her because she was sex positive.[/QUOTE]
Wait, there's a word for this. . .
One of those fallacymagiggers
I just can't seem to. . .
Oh well, probably not important.
[QUOTE=quinaquin;46364861]Yeah, if Gabe Newell said that, I'd be insulted. I don't think Anita said that women don't like hard video games, so I'm not insulted.[/QUOTE]
what can't she say at this point
"all she said was that the story in Gone Girl was too complicated and moved too quickly for females to understand! she didn't say women can't follow complicated stories!"
the only reason nobody is offended is that she's given the benefit of the doubt, despite not once ever doing anything to earn it.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46364976]If we're talking about mass shootings, sure you can look at the stats of men who commit mass shootings
but you can also look at the violence women commit.
It's like the distinction between suicide. Men shoot themselves (i.e, more "final" means of suicide), and women take pills (less final means of suicide).[/QUOTE]
It's really important to take the time to actually read the things people say. Take for instance the fact that she never says anything about men except the initial statistic. She doesn't say nor imply that there is something wrong with men that causes them to do these shootings. She instead blames "toxic masculinity". This is how I interpreted it a few days ago when the tweet was live.
[QUOTE] The "toxic masculinity" she is referring to is the combination of the fact that men, significantly moreso than women, see violence as a means to solve problems and the idea that men are encouraged to "bottle up" their emotions. To say nothing of the inherent masculinity of firearms themselves. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;46364897]Except her criticism of the portrayal of women in games is equally applicable to men in those very same games, often more so. The only one which applies primarily to women is the imagery of sexual exploitation, which is very rarely done for titillation, and is usually done to make the player disgusted at the people who run the strip club or brothel or whatever.[/QUOTE]
that's the problem that she addresses, it's mostly not done for titillation, it's for storytelling and to goad the player into doing shit, aka, [I]using[/I] the sexualization and gruesome violence on women as a cheap way to advance the storyline.
people have this weird notion that what she's against is the portrayal sexualized women, but what she talks the most about by far is the way said women are used (like objects) to add certain traits to the game ("maturity" and "edginess") or quickly advance the story and then discarded never to be mentioned again.
there are better, way more creative ways to encourage the player to move forward or to set the tone for a game, and even then, the imagery sarkessian criticizes wouldn't be as big a deal if it wasn't so grossly prevalent in AAA games. so prevalent, in fact, that it doesn't even have the intended effect anymore because it's been done so many times.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46365001]It's really important to take the time to actually read the things people say. Take for instance the fact that she never says anything about men except the initial statistic. She doesn't say nor imply that there is something wrong with men that causes them to do these shootings. She instead blames "toxic masculinity". This is how I interpreted it a few days ago when the tweet was live.[/QUOTE]
That's a valid critique and totally not an original idea of hers at all.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46364972]No where near being similar to what Sarkeesian said. This is an outright fabrication of her point.
The only person making an emotional appeal, from what I can see, is you, establishing the moral boundaries from which we can use "international tragedies" to discuss relevant issues.
What political belief was she pushing?[/QUOTE]
that "toxic masculinity" is the cause of violence, and that as long as it exists all men are potential mass shooters and psychopaths
I mean that's what she said, she isn't exactly being subtle
it's the exact same statement and the exact same logic, the difference is the subject.
[QUOTE=quinaquin;46364784]What I took from what she's saying is that while Mirror's Edge is a positive portayal of women in a video game, the gameplay is kind of off putting for a lot of people. I don't really know the context for this, but that's what I get from it trying to imagine why someone would say it. It'd make sense if people were asking what she thought about the game, which seems likely because it's generally considered a really good game when it comes to not shitting on women.[/QUOTE]
She said the controls were too hard for a woman. That's not me or anyone else taking her words out of context, that's just what she said.
My girlfriend can play Mirrors Edge. clearly, this is not true and she's making a sexist generalization.
[editline]29th October 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;46365012]that's the problem that she addresses, it's mostly not done for titillation, it's for storytelling and to goad the player into doing shit, aka, [I]using[/I] the sexualization and gruesome violence on women as a cheap way to advance the storyline.
people have this weird notion that what she's against is the portrayal sexualized women, but what she talks the most about by far is the way said women are used (like objects) to add certain traits to the game ("maturity" and "edginess") or quickly advance the story and then discarded never to be mentioned again.
there are better, way more creative ways to encourage the player to move forward or to set the tone for a game, and even then, the imagery sarkessian criticizes wouldn't be as big a deal if it wasn't so grossly prevalent in AAA games. so prevalent, in fact, that it doesn't even have the intended effect anymore because it's been done so many times.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't she lambast Bayonetta for being a bad representation of a woman even though she's super strong, smart, and determined on top of a variety of other qualities, thus being a strong female, albeit sexualized character?
I don't even watch Stephen Colbert in the first place so I guess I'm not missing much?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46365022]SDoesn't she lambast Bayonetta for being a bad representation of a woman even though she's super strong, smart, and determined on top of a variety of other qualities, thus being a strong female, albeit sexualized character?[/QUOTE]
She also said her only positive characteristic is that she is a single mom.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
