Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Beat Bandit]

All of Ted's responses.

Makes sense that you wouldn't expect someone making videos on a subject to have experienced the material they're talking about, since clearly you're not actually paying attention to things she says or does to still be defending her the ways you are.

Obviously I don't take my responses to her videos seriously because I don't take her videos seriously. But how about you defend her with more than 'no u' and actually tell me what she means when she says those things, because it's what I'm hearing.

(protip: if your response to one of her topics is being unwilling to assert a point she is making unless the person who created the material tells you it's okay to think that's what she meant, you're probably not putting a lot of critical thought into your analysis.)

[Zaratustra]

Well, what does it mean when someone says 'your game is sexist'?

Your game offends me as a woman/man/tumblr - in that case, well, I feel bad about it, but your opinion is going to be tabulated with all the other people that are/aren't offended by the game. Since I have received roughly zero complaints otherwise, trying to discover just what permutation of genders and races is less offensive is largely pointless.

Your game is actively supporting the societal system that keeps women/other oppressed gender/third oppressed gender down - Well that is fucking complicated to determine, isn't it. Well, probably, but I can't spontaneously cease to be white, male or Protestant, or will female programmers or musicians to come into existence nearby and aid me. (Believe me, i've tried.)

So, while I do appreciate the feedback (even if small and disconsiderate of the full context of the work) I'm not sure what I could do to make the issue go away.

[Ted Belmont]

All of Ted's responses.

Makes sense that you wouldn't expect someone making videos on a subject to have experienced the material they're talking about, since clearly you're not actually paying attention to things she says or does to still be defending her the ways you are.

Obviously I don't take my responses to her videos seriously because I don't take her videos seriously. But how about you defend her with more than 'no u' and actually tell me what she means when she says those things, because it's what I'm hearing.

(protip: if your response to one of her topics is being unwilling to assert a point she is making unless the person who created the material tells you it's okay to think that's what she meant, you're probably not putting a lot of critical thought into your analysis.)

Protip: if my responses seem like I'm not putting a lot of critical thought into them, it's probably because I was on the bus and didn't feel like putting too much effort into validating your straw man arguments. :-) :-) :-)

EDIT: and also because I was researching / writing a blog post about the blanket octopus, which I am frankly way more interested in than I am in having an argument about whether Anita Sarkeezian is trying to censor videogame developers or whatever.

[Beat Bandit]

EDIT: and also because I was researching / writing a blog post about the blanket octopus, which I am frankly way more interested in than I am in having an argument about whether Anita Sarkeezian is trying to censor videogame developers or whatever.

Seriously Ted?

This one isn't even a part of the actual conversation at hand anymore, but you're better than the sort who posts content, then decides they're actually way to busy to talk about it.

[Crouton]

Something that bother's me about her arguments/research is that I can't help but wonder if she's come across games that offer valuable counterpoints to her analysis, and intentionally avoided bringing them up as a result.

[Ted Belmont]

That's something you're taught to do in basic English composition, so uhh, sure?

[Brentai]

"Anita might not actually have the kind of knowledge of the subject that she needs to make her statements carry any weight."

Welcome to where I was back at video 1, you guys.

[Crouton]

Better question then. Which is more sexist, the nerds defending the status quo by raging against everything she says, or the nerds who defend her position because they want to bang her? Personally I think the latter since whiteknighting contributes to the notion that women are helpless and need defending.

[Joxam]

Of course, those of us here who defended her position were, largely, not doing it because we wanted to bang her. I for one, only defended her position until the breadth of her work was there to judge. As it has not conclusively proved anything or put forth any new, valuable or even very coherent arguments, I have stopped defending it. I just wasn't willing to call her completely out of the race until I'd seen everything she had to offer.

[Brentai]

First you have to figure out how many people are shooting the messager and how many are shooting the message.

What I want right now, and I'm serious, is for Aisha Tyler to do these same exact videos, making whatever changes she feels she needs to make.  That would probably make the question of who's angry at what a lot clearer.

[A²]

"Anita might not actually have the kind of knowledge of the subject that she needs to make her statements carry any weight."

Welcome to where I was back at video 1, you guys.

That still doesn't stop people from assuming that if you disagree with her, you're a misogynist.

Here's what bothers me most: I'm pretty sure at the start of this discussion, which got spread across like five fucking threads on these boards, I mentioned that someone dug up her thesis and earlier work before feminist frequency. And it was awful from an academic standpoint. Instead of trying to educate or present something, Anita declares a worldview and tells you why it's right, even when it's profoundly wrong or has several holes in it. She starts at what she wants to say, and then goes backwards, cherry-picking and as we see here, just fucking making shit up, to fill it in.

Maybe after this video people will stop caring about her and she can go spend all the money on blow or what the fuck ever.

[Joxam]

Aisha Tyler is fucking amazing by the way. As far as gamer/nerd girls go in pop culture she's kicking ass and taking names like I don't think anyone has done so far. Now her, I don't mind saying, I find rather fetching, in a manly fashion.

[Crouton]

That's something you're taught to do in basic English composition, so uhh, sure?

Perhaps, but in basic scientific composition, we're taught to acknowledge all the facts we come across and not just those that pertain to our hypothesis. The purpose of research and practical application is to find out whether or not our argument holds water.

So A in English, F in Science.

What I want right now, and I'm serious, is for Aisha Tyler to do these same exact videos, making whatever changes she feels she needs to make (which are probably substantial).  That would probably make the question of who's angry at what a lot clearer.

Seconded.

[Ted Belmont]

whiteknighting

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Ted Belmont]

EDIT: and also because I was researching / writing a blog post about the blanket octopus, which I am frankly way more interested in than I am in having an argument about whether Anita Sarkeezian is trying to censor videogame developers or whatever.

Seriously Ted?

This one isn't even a part of the actual conversation at hand anymore, but you're better than the sort who posts content, then decides they're actually way to busy to talk about it.

Okay, fine: here's my post about the blanket octopus.

Also, something I didn't mention: when the blanket octopus mates, the male rips off one of his own limbs and uses that to fertilize the eggs, and then he dies. Misandry!

[Ocksi]

I'd like to see specific criticism of the video (or her others), because right now "defending Anita" is specifically just defending her, which is stupid and pointless because if you have to defend her, you're not defending her arguments and that puts the discussion in exactly the wrong context. The thing I've noticed with all three videos here and elsewhere is people attacking her rarely break down her message or even really address her point at all and cherry pick her examples for places she is wrong/mistaken.

The issue with that cherry picking is that while she may not give appropriate context of why something is happening in a game, that's not a point she's ever making. Her points are all examples of it existing regardless of context, which I think is for the most part valid because Anita is effectively offering the list at the bottom of any TVtropes page. I wish there were deeper discussion and I feel like (or at least hope) that's the direction this series is supposed to be going, but after all three releases it really feels like people are way more interested in arguing specific examples than the big picture she's trying to address.

Like I said, I'd like to see the direction her videos go overall to see if they even reach a point to facilitate discussion, because I'm generally on her side about this and would like to talk about it with people. But, again, the issue seems to be that she is simply saying "women in video games get damsel'd all the goddamned time and it's getting ridiculous after 30 years" and the majority of people against her stance just want to prove why this or that game isn't actually a damseling so she must be full of it. And I definitely think the absolutely ludicrous uproar over the DK romhack or even the stupidity of the response to her Kickstarter campaign pretty much justify her overall stance on this.

[Mongrel]

I just want to take a moment out to say that the whole idea of "white knighting always = wanting to fuck the person/thing you are defending" is among some of the more idiotic things on the internet.

Lots of people can and will defend a person or idea out of a hazy and ill-informed idea that it's "Good" and that by defending it (i.e. by being white knights), they too are "Good" by extension. There is actually nothing new about that sort of behaviour. The idea has had a long and illustrious career, one which long predates the internet or modern women's rights movements.

Perhaps in some cases, there is an additional layer of wanting to bang the subject/victim, when the defendee is a woman, but that's not mandatory by any means. Plenty of "white knights" are honestly offended at the implication that that they want to sleep with their "charge", but that doesn't mean they're not ignorant or that their positions aren't overreactive or otherwise asinine. 

I mean, plenty of people love to be the hero and will play the role - as they understand it - to the hilt. It's just that many of those people are also morons.

[Thad]

Ted: Beat Bandit's right.  All your responses really ARE just "nuh-uh" nonsense, and you can do better.

Beat Bandit: Ted's right; your argument style seems to consist primarily -- and I'm not just talking about this thread -- of humorously rephrasing an exaggerated version of what you believe your opponent is saying.  Or, to put it another way, debating strawmen.  I think if you spent some time actually considering and responding to what people ACTUALLY say instead of seemingly-willful misinterpretations of their words, you'd have much more productive conversations.  There's plenty of room for criticism of Sarkeesian's work without an endless litany of "So/Got it, So/Got it."

Crouton: Holy shit, man, here I was thinking Stupidest Post in This Thread was a legitimately tough competition and you just walked away with it like you never even broke a sweat.

[Smiler]

What I want right now, and I'm serious, is for Aisha Tyler to do these same exact videos, making whatever changes she feels she needs to make.  That would probably make the question of who's angry at what a lot clearer.

This wouldn't work because I've seen stream chats of the Ubisoft E3 presentations. For some reason gamers really hate Aisha Tyler because she is a black woman.

[Ted Belmont]

I...think that was the point Brent was trying to make?