At this point, the campaign of death threats, harassment, and general bitterness aimed toward Anita Sarkeesian's videos is reason enough for me to appreciate that Anita Sarkeesian's videos exist.

Even if you presume each and every one of her arguments are banal tripe, it tells you a lot about the people she's aiming them at when their response to banal tripe is to either threaten its creator with death and violence or try to assassinate her character.

I don't know if Anita Sarkeesian brings up any good points re: gaming and feminism, but when gamers respond to a feminist attacking games by calling her a stupid whore, I can't help but remember that these are game production companies' customers -- so it makes sense that they'd build a game that panders to that type.

But also, yeah, you'd have to be pretty blind not to notice that video-games -- like pretty much all narrative mediums -- reflect the culture that produces them, and are usually only interested in reinforcing that culture.

A while back, Dragon Age 2 allowed you to romance any romance-able character regardless of your character's gender. A bunch of gamers flipped their shit -- because somehow the fact that someone else could play a guy, and have a romance with any other guy character -- that was ruining their experience. Being more inclusive was breaking their fucking *immersion*, see?

I'm really glad when a game production company decides not to pander to this nonsense -- but I can definitely also see why it's way easier for them to just follow the narrative. It is way easier to just make a game where you save the princess, because hardly anyone complains -- and whenever you dare to reverse it, you get a massive shitstorm akin to what Anita Sarkeesian deals with.

"A bunch"? Precisely how many constitute "a bunch"? Dragon Age II wound up selling almost 3 million units, so unless the number of gamers getting butthurt over gay romances is something in the area of one million or more, then I fail to see how those sentiments "reflect the culture". Anecdotally, the only reactions I saw in regards to Dragon Age's queer romance options (which are present in both I and II, as well as three Mass Effects) were positive.

Now, I do agree with you that the argument, that such-and-such a feature should not be implemented on the grounds it might break "player immersion", is patently ridiculous. You and I are on the same page there! To the best of my knowledge, however, this argument has never been used (at least not in recent memory) *by publishers* to block a feature that would be considered progressive-friendly (such as gay romance). This exact argument *has* been invoked, on occasion, by publishers themselves in order to justify denying gameplay options in certain titles - most notably, EA's long-standing decision to deny The Sims players the option to participate in religious or spiritual traditions, CA's decision to crack down on the Total War modding community, and various minor instances of sex-censorship (mostly in regards to explicit female nudity). It's worth noting, of course, that all of these real-world examples of the immersion-by-censorship argument are completely in keeping with the principles of leftwing political-correctness. If anything, the evidence would indicate that the gaming industry (and therefor gaming culture, assuming your theory is correct) is very much in line with the interests of Social Justice Warfare.

One final question to you, Mister the Hippo: when was the last time you played a game where you had to save a princess in a castle?

The 'bunch of gamers' I was referring to were in the DA forums. I didn't claim that the game industry was opposed to social justice; just that I understand how it's in their interest to pander to the sort who would call Anita Sarkeesian a whore. I don't think censorship is at all in line with justice, social or otherwise (and I really don't care about 'leftwing political-correctness', or political dichotomy in general). And to answer your last question, about three weeks ago: SMB3 is pretty much one of my favorite games ever, and I loaded up an emulator on my phone to play through it again.

Of course, that probably wasn't your point. I don't know what your point was. If you legitimately don't see the 'save the princess in a castle' trope a lot in modern popular gaming, then... you must not play a lot of modern popular games.

Either way, if your goal here is to win, then let me help you out with that: You win. I lack the energy and conviction to hold this discussion with you, because I know all you're going to do is -- consciously or unconsciously -- misrepresent anything I say in favor of making me look like yet another supporter of 'leftwing political-correctness'. That's the narrative you've bought into, and you're sticking to it.

So, yeah. Congratulations. You have won an argument on the internet.

The line of reasoning being used here is fucked up. Can a person really definitively say that the reaction to Sarkeesian is misogyny? I would argue that misogyny (in this case) is indistinguishable from run-of-the-mill internet trolling, in that people attack you based on what they perceive you'll be most offended by.

Of course a person like Anita is going to draw a lot of anger and hatred. Any prominent SJW is going to. Equality might be a noble goal, but thought control and censorship is a way that's guaranteed to have the opposite of intended effect.

>>The line of reasoning being used here is fucked up. Can a person really definitively say that the reaction to Sarkeesian is misogyny?

I don't think that the line of reasoning here is that the reaction to Sarkeesian is misogyny. It is that one visible critic is using a fucked up line of reasoning. Misogyny is barely mentioned. Personally, I think the motive for threats, harassment, and character assassination is secondary.

>> I would argue that misogyny (in this case) is indistinguishable from run-of-the-mill internet trolling, in that people attack you based on what they perceive you'll be most offended by.

I think you must live in a world in which many things are indistinguishable from many other things.

>>Of course a person like Anita is going to draw a lot of anger and hatred. Any prominent SJW is going to. Equality might be a noble goal, but thought control and censorship is a way that's guaranteed to have the opposite of intended effect.

It looks like "thought control" and "censorship" are two things that are, to you, indistinguishable from other things. However, I agree with you that people are angry. I was just reading something from some idiot who thinks that the reaction to Sarkeesian is indistinguishable from run-of-the-mill internet trolling.

Whether or not you call it misogyny is irrelevant; threatening people with harm for criticizing something is fucked up -- and when the response from a community is 'Oh come on that's not *really* fucked up', that's even more fucked up.

Anyway, I haven't watched any of her videos, but I'd be genuinely surprised if she's calling for thought control and censorship. If she is, then that's bullshit. But I expect she's just calling for game developers to provide more interesting, detailed, and rich portrayals of women -- and gender -- in their video-games.

Of course, most people can't parse something like that as anything except an attack on themselves. But even *if* she's calling for censorship and thought control, you still don't threaten people -- and when threats *do* occur, you don't hand-wave them away by saying 'Well it's not a big deal, you should just get over being threatened'.

The root cause of this hysterical overreaction isn't misogyny per se, it's the sense of the last little sliver of male privilege being threatened. To be honest, I'd really like to see these guys get to keep their horrible games. Most of them don't have girlfriends anyway, they might as well have fun in their cartoon world. I know a guy who is a standup, decent guy who is good to everyone but has some appalling tastes in entertainment.

If they could have just managed to live with the criticism, it would have been fine, but they just can't resist pulling down the clubhouse over their heads. I just googled the news on Anita Sarkeesian, no surprise, the world outside the clubhouse is taking her side. It didn't have to be this way.

Right, I'm sure no sexism was involved in all those attacks on Anita. If the person criticizing their toys were male, I'm sure the gamerbro legion would have called him a cunt and threatened to rape him, too.

I think a lot of you are overthinking and probably overestimating your typical Internet numbnuts. When have they ever responded to anything with anything other than hate and threats?

Thank you, Mister the Hippo! That was very nice of you.

The thing that annoys me about you giving this one star is the near-certainty that you didn't watch it.

I watched the first 5% or so. Some computer generated voices ( or not? I can't tell anymore, so many of you seem to have lost the ability to emote ) were arguing about whether the sun rises in the east or the west. West was greatly disparaged for his foolish opinion which made us all feel a lot better about ourselves and helped alleviate the angst generated by the many real and pressing failures all around us.

Was that a reasonable summary?

And there it is.

Anyone who is only going to watch part of this should probably skip to the end.

OK, I fast forwarded to 23:00 or thereabouts. Exactly as expected. Gosh I feel so good about myself.

I, too, was expecting you to feel good about yourself. What kind of surprised me was that I felt better about Thunderf00t.

"To the exclusion of all other issues." Oscar, you do know that people are capable of paying attention to more than one thing in their lives, right? Did no one tell you about that? Did I just open a magical new world of astonishing possibilities to you? Are you about to burst into song? Can the song feature a rap bridge by special guest star Niki Minaj? Ha ha, just kidding, you can't afford her.

Just because it's not surprising doesn't mean it shouldn't be battled against.

In 300 years people may rightfully say "I can't believe people let their kids play these sexist, degrading things" in the same way we might rightfully say "How could anyone be ok owning another human being?"

Well, I would hope they wouldn't consider them morally equivalent -- but otherwise, yeah. A lot of pop video-game narratives today may likely be looked upon as artifacts of a culture that waged war against positive gender identities, particularly in regards to women.

Oscar, so you're saying "I don't play videogames so I don't care"?

Unless you all can come up with a compelling substitute for the horde of teenage boys who consume this media, you're pretty much stuck with this material. You're confusing the dog and the tail, is what I am saying.

Oddeye, I too dream of a future where we can get into our virtual 3D immersive genocidal murder simulators and be accepted as who we are, regardless of sexual identity. Let's fight together, brother!

The compelling substitute is the horde of people who want to consume interesting media, but won't play big title games because the majority of them pander to teenage boys.

Also see: Comics.

If you're in the business of marketing games, the teenage boys are a "tapped market", everyone else in the world is an "untapped market". If you want to expand, and you do, you aim for the virgin territory. This has got to be what the big publishers are thinking.

Personally, I'll say yet again, it's not the material that I find objectionable, it's the hysterical overreaction to criticism.

So put up some money and time and write those games. What is stopping you? It's never been easier, believe me. I wrote my first arcade game in 8 bit assembler, it was not so easy you know? Now I doubt you even need to know how to code as such.

So what is stopping you, or Anita, or her many supporters? Honest question here.

If you read the comments section of videogame websites you'll see that there is more and more people tired of the same old retarded shit.

And I can introduce you to quite a few people ( myself included ) who are fed up with the endless regurgitation of hollywood comic book movies. Batman XVIIII anyone?

But here we are. Guess who buys movie tickets.

I'm working on a game as a hobby project. So, there's that, I guess?

But I don't think that working on a game is a prerequisite to discussing the problems with games.

We ARE making our own games, and the response to them has been just as ugly as the response to Sarkeesian's work. Just look at what's happening to Zoe Quinn.

Also if someone is making too big a deal about something it's the people throwing temper tantrums and sending rape threats over someone analyzing and criticizing games, not those of us responding to them. Though I'll let everybody dying of cancer know that coming up with a cure for cancer and saving their lives was less important than you posting on a video site Mr postalot.

Also, it's not the 80s anymore. The average gamer isn't a teenage male anymore. The average gamer is out of college, and there are about as many women as men playing games now.

It's because of dickheads like this skunkmonkey that I don't say I am an atheist. I don't want to be associated with aggressive, fundamentalist "Your religion is BULLSHIT, retarded caveman!" atheists, the kind that would absolutely not accept supernatural beings regardless of if any tangible evidence were to be found.

Now I just say "My views are based on science, which is in turn shaped by evidence and as such they are subject to change. GOD IS DEAD"

Also "Amazing Atheist" and such. Whatever the fuck they believe, don't attach me.

Penn Gilette.

IOU *****, JHM

And a change of earrings, amirite?

I used to hate Sarkeesian 'cause I thought her videos were pretty stupid. In fact, I still think they are pretty stupid, but the reaction she has sparked has been absolutely brilliant, and not just because it's entertaining to watch sperglord gamers rant away frothing at the mount, but because it finally made videogame developers realize that a lot of people are tired of the shit they produce.

I don't expect the industry to change overnight and to only have games as brilliant as Journey, Portal, The Last of Us, Shadow of the Colossus, Silent Hill 2 and The Walking Dead, and in fact, I think we'll go through a stage where we'll have the same corporate retarded games but with female and gay characters tacked on to appease the changing demographic, but it is a step in the right direction.

You mean Bioware games?

Now why does that response make it seem like you're a total douchenozzle, Nominal?

Well, he kind of does have a point. Bioware games do manage to be more inclusive, but the "romance" options are embarrassingly written regardless of whatever combination of hetero/gay male/female character you are playing. That said, the fact that those options are available is still a step in the right direction.

Oh hey I haven't checked back here since writing that but now it's "douchenozzle" for suggesting that Bioware games are poorly written with lazy interchangeable omnisexual relationships - indistinguishable from slash fiction - in a lame PR attempt to claim groundbreaking exclusivity.

Truly you guys are the modern day freedom rider followers of Mratin Luther King, preaching and practicing harmony, and not vindictive individuals desperately hunting for petty condemnation.

good troll

Yeah, I don't really agree with most of his takes on religion but he's dead on when it comes to feminism, SJWs, and phony victimhood.

Anita is fucking scum and I die a little more inside every time I hear some beta white knight go out of their way to tell people to ignore any and all criticisms of her.

Oh, and this guy really needs to watch his past videos on Anita. He spent those videos doing nothing but examining and blowing her claims out of the water.

He should also read this bit on Wikipedia's entry on Ad hominem:

"Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact."

One of the annoying factors of living in a sexist culture is that it's nearly impossible to defend someone who happens to be a woman without being accused of white knighting.

Also, if someone feels victimized, I think that -- unless they are using your willingness to take them seriously against you -- you should take them seriously. I don't really believe in false victimhood; just people who make it hard to to take their claims seriously.

>>Anita is fucking scum and I die a little more inside every time I hear some beta white knight go out of their way to tell people to ignore any and all criticisms of her.

Really? How much more dying do you have to do? I'm hoping not a lot. DQL , just because ad homonym is not always fallacious doesn't mean that calling someone "fucking scum" counts as "criticism"

>>One of the annoying factors of living in a sexist culture is that it's nearly impossible to defend someone who happens to be a woman without being accused of white knighting.

That's the way it's set up. On purpose. Women, especially women who are feminists are unmercifully attacked, and that frames the discussion from that point on. Anita Sarkeesian has actually been extraordinarily successful with feminist frequency, but the evironment of the internet creates an artificial condition where she's a "damsel" and her defenders are white knights.

When MRAs use the term "white knight", I think it's especially ironic because it's such a derogatory way of looking at men. If a man would only support feminism out of sexual desperation, it follows logically that men really ARE pigs! People who use the term are forever people whose opinions I don't have to take seriously.

I really enjoyed typing this, because with any luck this will make Dairy Queen Latifah die a little inside.

Next time someone calls you a white knight, ask yourself if the supposed "damsel" isn't more successful than you AND the person who is accusing you.

Something else that bugs the fuck out of me: Exactly what does it cost for me to believe this woman when she claims the threats were bad enough that she had to move? Nothing. Does believing her claim in any way validate her arguments regarding sexism in video games? Not unless you suck at logic.

So what's the problem? Why is the response "she's clearly lying for attention", rather than "well, it's terrible if that's true, but I still think all her points re: video games are shit"?

Unless she is actually saying "Because people have threatened me, my points are valid", there is absolutely no reason not to disbelieve her. Even if she IS saying that, you can still believe her and just point out that that is a stupid argument.

@DiaryQueenLatifah

Ergh, I don't want to nag you on this, but it's a bit of a responsibility to refrain from using the term White Knight when so many clueless people can use it and get away with it. It's pretty much the equivalent of "I too so can use the N-word cause other people use it too so don't bitch about me!"

@DairyQueenLatifah

>>He should also read this bit on Wikipedia's entry on Ad hominem:

"Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact."

What the fuck? It cut off the lower half of my message. Fucking shit.

What I said was that the only ad hominem that I am aware that has any weight to it are those that refer to the subject having a mental disability. It's such a slim margin that the whole devil's advocate of the definition just seems pointless especially since there has been rise of disability, mental impairment exposition.

Counterpoint: Go get laid. It'll calm you down, some.

Counterpoint @Nominal: The Christian Right and Republicans still indulge in it but the internet makes it more difficult for them to keep it up due to the prospect of some of them only having loose ties with them and their ideologies with the only ones to stay are the ones who have an emotional/psychological damage/agenda to keep them in tow. But personally, those who have civil rights in mind, no matter the century or current demographic, will not stay in one group of people or one knee-jerk for long.

I completely agree with the paragraph starting with the line "I used to think this person was wrong when I limited myself to their message, but now I agree with them based solely on the opposition's reaction" is such a blindly dangerous philosophy. But you want to know what the benefit of that is? The people who do react in that way turn out to be thinly veiled petty, whiny fucking children. If there was an example of the quick-satisfaction that most people chime in on about the internet stagnating others, they would be a prime example. Just think of Ben Stein's little monument to how religion doesn't get a fair chance in being taught side-by-side with science all due to "Well if they're going to be learning then they should get a fair and balanced argument." I believe that was when he was being interviewed on his documentary.

I kind of see your point with the opinion of SJW's and MRA's not being enemies, but I think a lot of people would rather associated as an emotionally delinquent, ignorant, knee-jerk SJW and later berate them for their ignorance and stupidity than be associated with an MRA. Mostly due to the reasoning perpetuated by MRA's (It was always like this. This is how it's always been) doesn't prove or mean jack shit.

Your first paragraph sort of dissolves into a mess where it shifts focus with out acknowledging it.

I understand that even "eye for an eye" in the monument of ambiguous hate speech is terrible and should not be condoned, but this isn't unbalanced wages, this is the entertainment industry. Expecting anyone to do a civil march and not be ridiculed is a pipe dream. There people out there who think that some of the censored 11 were not that bad because "black people and minorities sing and dance when they're poor, just like anyone else does when they're poor and these are just some really lovely and whimsical caricatures". I doubt any one is going to take the power of entertainment seriously especially when it's obvious that you can have a life outside of entertainment, entertainment isn't that necessary when compared with feeding yourself and taking care of responsibilities

I doubt anyone is going to take the power of entertainment seriously and to me that is the sole problem with anti-Sarkeesian's. Not just people in general.

Sorry, I have to go but I have to add more to this.

>>How out of control is it? Even POE founder Kthor Jensen was posting calls for gamers to be executed (before being forced to take them down by his employer and apologize)

Well, I'm against that. Dear God, nominal, are you really so easily trolled?

Fuck you. The more law-abiding anitaphobes have engaged in two years of intellectually dishonest (unless they're idiots) personal attacks and character assassination, against someone who was being stalked, threatened and harassed, which certainly encouraged the criminal element. Now, to agree with her relatively innocuous criticisms because of the psychotic reaction is indeed shoddy criticism, but if you're going to start complaining about haters, and getting all weepy about how it's "dangerous", I think you should relax and eat a bag of cool ranch flavored dicks.

No one here has made the claim that because people are threatening Sarkeesian, she must be right. Anyone who makes that claim is stupid.

I have not seen people threatening gamers with violence. Given your predilection toward misattributing statements of belief ('humans will be plagued by this until extinction') with calls for genocide ('we should kill all humans'), I'm skeptical of your analysis. Nevertheless, if it's true, that's stupid and terrible and people shouldn't be doing that. Of course, that fact doesn't make thunderf00t any less wrong on this issue.

See? I validate the possibility that such threats exist, state they are terrible, then point out that their existence does not invalidate my point. Why is that so hard for people to do?

>> I love Anita discussion because it is now a fascinating Sociological look at what happens when people (usually young) who grew up with traditional progressive values suddenly discover the benefits of being a reactionary: it feels GOOD to lash out in undying hatred towards a group you're convinced is unquestionably evil incarnate based on kneejerk emotional responses rather than any kind of study or introspection.

Can't you just TASTE the persecution complex? Who's the damsel, NOW, bitch?

Get laid, fuck you, eat dicks, weepy damsel bitch.

Thank you, Mr Solution and the always sane JHMF. Truly you set the standard for reasoned debate (at least Shoebox tried) while destroying my theory that many people are in this just for the 2 minutes of hate.

John do you honestly not see the cognitive dissonance at at work in yourself? I say that it's frightening to see recent trends of traditionally progressive causes being co-opted by reactionary hatred, including wishes of violent harm on people you don't like, and your response is that it's just typical internet trolling and I'm being a weepy bitch with a persecution complex?

Is this some double layer of performance art trolling you've got going on or do you honestly not make the connection between your response and the reactions to Anita's death threats?

Progressive causes being co-opted by violent (in words or deeds) reactionaries is not a recent trend; it's actually a very old one. Some people respond violently because they care about some of the people being threatened, or have experienced being threatened themselves -- and are angry. Other people just enjoy yelling violent things, and see this as a guilt free opportunity to indulge.

Either way, I don't think it helps. The voice of reason is always gentle; the louder you get, the harder it becomes to hear it.

(If it helps, I'm not in this for hate; I'd much prefer to love people than hate them. I'm in this because it distresses me how quickly we invalidate people's experiences, and how prone we are to shoving people into a narrative that paints them as lying fuckfaces merely because what they're saying challenges our paradigm.)

Nominal, let me make three points:

1. You are a weepy bitch with a persecution complex, and you should eat a bag of dicks.

okay, that's about it, actually.

I'm seeing this sort of thing all over now. As the attention of the world at large starts to turn toward this controversy, the anitaphobes are realizing that the world isn't on their side (never was) and they're circling the wagons and -- guess what-- playing the victim card!!

It's stupid and hateful to say that all gamers are to be executed, but it's not directed at a specific person, and it's not remotely possible. That makes it not much of a threat. It's also from a specific person with a name. It's very different from "I will rape your cunt with an iron rod" which is based on a real example of an anonymous message to Anita.

It's not that I endorse the statement about executing gamers, it's that seeing you get all excited about it is just about the most pathetic thing I've ever seen on the internet, outside of maybe TFL. You must be missing the "shame chromosome".

Once again, I believe that gamers should be free to game, and critics should be free to criticize. And you should eat a bag of dicks.

To Nominal's reference to Tipper Gore.

The problem with Tipper Gore's persecution of media and entertainment on the subject of influencing others has a huge oversight. Something has to had happened to said person to push them into those ideations such as suicide, aggressive, chauvinistic and gender roles. Even if she had a hold on the internet, it wouldn't change a thing due to the entertainment industry, including game publishers and makers, founding their own ratings system organizations.

Also, who in their right mind would listen to Tipper Gore and the Christian Right's spiels on this shit if they weren't hopelessly socially and emotionally detached and broken in the first place. The Christian Right has been blatantly persecuting people on such things as a simple concept of two consenting adults of the same gender marrying/having sex/existing and Tipper Gore was blatant fear mongering social vigilante warring against rap, hip-hop and punk despite country at the time having just the same amount of depression, unnecessary violence and rebellious tenses.

Personally, I really don't know why you brought up Tipper Gore. She is such a blatantly weak contender on media morality/censorship/moderation/restraint what ever she wants to call it that I doubt anyone who has stepped outside and actually converses and socializes with more than one circle would know that.

Also, Nominal, that whole "You're just in it for the hate" is really turning into a smug doucheminder of the whole echo chamber effect on the internet. I doubt there's anyone on PoEtv who isn't aware of that crap unless they are that perversely interested on joining a group and as far as my experience goes with this site there have been plenty who have been ousted (Preybymail, early Gmork off of the top of me head)

Also, while writing this, I just realized that I have more respect for DairyQueenLatifah than I do for you. Seriously, I just thought of it and that first paragraph on the subject of "traditional progressive values" shows giant red flags of you being a total wiener.

>>If the internet had existed back during the Tipper Gore thing then you could guarantee that she'd be getting them same comments, and you guarantee Christian groups would have pointed it out as proof that heavy metal turns people evil.

That would also be fucked up. I have no idea how this is supposed to change anything.

Probably no one is going to read this, so I'll be brief. Two points:

The harassment of Anita Sarkeesian, Catie Wayne, and Laci Green all had one thing in common: THE IDENTITY POLITICS of the internet. People doing crazy horrible things in defense of being A GAMER, a TRANS, an OLDFAG.

I'm not sure that it was exclusively men who threatened Laci Green.