Wednesday, 24 September 2014

A final response to the nonsense that is the Cult of Anita Sarkeesian

The fellow responder responded again. Apparently he had more to say.

This will be my last response. I can only take so much bullshit. This takes up a bit too much of my time.
"I'm actually sorry to hear that "all the examples of feminists [you']ve talked to were calling [you] sexist and misogynists just for disagreeing with them." I don't think these terms should be used lightly. Accusing an individual of misogynism is a severe accusation (that's why I would be also hesitant to call a piece of art e.g. a videogame misogynist in its entirety, because bits of it could be considered sexist). There are feminists who take it to the extreme , though. Anita Sarkeesian is just not one of them. ]"
Anita and co. love throwing around the words "sexist" and "misogynist" just for playing games. Instead of instigating a useful, intelligent discussion, (e.g. by allowing comments on her videos) people who disagree with her are automatically sexist and/or misogynist. Do I have to quote her again?
"Denying or dismissing the sexism that permeates our culture is, in and of itself, a form of sexism."

Anita has always taken to generalized extremes. If I dare disagree with her biased, context-removed facts and explanations, I'm a sexist.
"Well I'm pretty sure she got the jist of it by now. 2+ years of the whole "You're a lying, stealing, manipulating feminazi"-stick should be more than enough to make her realize, what people didn't like about her videos. "
You don't know this. We don't know what she thinks. Stop guessing.

What we do know, from her, is that the Damsel trope is bad somehow, yet, she has made herself out to be one. Oh no! Hateful messages to me! What will I do? I know: profit (Provide my Paypal links!)

We've already established she lied about being a gamer, playing the actual games, and either being ignorant or stupid of the narrative in stories (e.g. Hitman, Borderlands 2, etc), or lies about them to the audience. Go google if you need help.

Let's try this again: I provided a link before: Just go here and tell me how many you think are critical and how many are trolling.

Let me help you with that.
"I think it's pretty obvious why. I would assume because of concerted efforts to flag and downrate her videos. You make it all sound so simple as if we were talking about a well-mannered discussion between amicable rivals hushing things out over lunch and not a +2 years witchhunt fueled by rage and hate. "
1) Anyone can flag her videos at any time: she has no control over this.
2) There's nothing wrong with up voting or down voting videos. Again, look at the comments and you tell me how well mannered they are, or if it's just constant swearing and death threats. Votes tell us who actually watches these videos and likes the content. The only reason you remove those votes is because the author feels bad when lots of people don't like their videos. Anita can't take any of it.
3) Of course we hate someone who calls us sexists and misogynists without proof. Who wouldn't? Again: are you even listening to her videos?
"I mean it's pretty conveniant to insult someone in an argument, just to complain later on about the person not answering anymore. YouTube gives you the possibility to disable comments. One of the reasons YouTube does that are (I guess) incidents like this one, when people stop being constructive and succumb to hate mongering. "
Oh boo-hoo. Anita can't take any comments. Then why should we listen to her? She knows if she was ever in a debate, she'd get torn to shreds. Like all feminists have been over the decades. Like you would. Why do I know this? Because it's just your opinion. You have no evidence, you have no reason or logic. Just "women are subjugated throughout history in media!" So? That's life buddy. To remove that from stories is lying.

All Anita ever posts on her blog and twitter are positive reviews, and news articles on her stuff, or, for her to amp up her pro-victim card. Not once does she ever say "hey, this critic has something interesting to say, let's listen objectively" in a respectful manner. You know, how scientists and people who actively want to find the truth? Who are humble and start off with "I don't know, let's find out."

When does she ever say something about one of her critics? Is she perfect? Can she not acknowledge one of them, at all?
"Those accusing me of misrepresenting Hitman Absolution don’t understand my argument. I humbly suggest they watch my video again, carefully."

thunderf00t tears her apart.

She doesn't understand the flaws in her videos. She will not address specific questions, and, like the various proponents on twitter, will just parrot "watch it again." Do you get it? This isn't because she knows it's not criticism. She either doesn't give a shit, or knows once she responds, her arguments will be revealed for the pseudo-intellectual bullshit they are. It's like arguing against someone who isn't listening: like any other entrenched mind. They don't care what you have to say. They want to indoctrinate you with their shit. "Just watch it again." A critic who can't take criticism! That is pathetic. Why should we listen to anything she has to say? Their ideology is like religion to these fools.

"Listen and believe!" What is this, a church? The cult of Anita.
"That's something we all have to deal with, but if some people (especially performer, artists etc) decide not to read the comment section or even decide to disable comment alltogether, because they don't want to face these mean spirited attacks anymore, why not respect that?"
Because she's a critic. If a critic can't be criticized, they are ipso facto a hypocrite. They have absolutely no business dishing out criticism if they can't take it. Do you get this yet? Do you understand how criticism works? Do you understand freedom of speech, and how through arguing, we come to the truth? Anita doesn't care for the truth, just her opinion. If she were to open up a dialog, she'd get destroyed by logic, reason and evidence. Why? Because she's not a gamer, doesn't do proper research, and has only her biased feminist sex-negative theology to fall back on. She's a con artist.

The reason she's getting harassed is because she is saying and doing stupid shit. Now thunderf00t's twitter is taken down. Why? Because Anita thinks thunderf00t is harassing her. When does her one-sided "I can never be wrong" ego take a break? She's pathetic, and now an outspoken critic of hers has lost another means of expressing himself. All because of Sad little Snowflake Damsel Anita.

If she was serious about her points, and had lots of empirical evidence, she'd relish in arguing and debating. She's be up for all kinds of interviews and argue her ideas. But she's not. She only takes things that show her in a positive light, or as the victim. She's just an opportunist, trying to make money, pushing a bullshit agenda that won't help anyone, especially not gender roles in gaming. <-- And yes, you should read all three parts.
"My point is: To say she's just trying to shut her critics up/out, is kind of ridiculous, considering the amount of 'criticism' and personal insults she faces. I'm not saying, she is infallible or should be exempt from criticism, Big Brother style. Not at all. But I think you're trying to make her out as this conniving mastermind, solely on the ground that she disabled comments after experiencing a shitstorm of epic lenght and proportion."
The only thing ridiculous here is your understanding of why she doesn't allow comments, and doesn't respond to criticism.

If enabled, let's say you don't want to hear/read the comments. Here's an idea: Don't. Read. Them.

The difference is, critics have taken to other forms of the internet, not just youtube in critique videos, but on blogs, twitter, tumblr, and the like. And like you wrote, considering the amount of 'criticism' and personal insults she faces, she should be able to determine which are critics and which aren't. The outcry is in part because she's a hypocrite and didn't enable comments. This causes stupid, feminist-leaning people to send her money. Because she's getting bad emails! :(

But she doesn't care about contrary opinions. So why should we care for her words?

I don't think she's a mastermind. She's a sad little snowflake with a bigger megaphone, spouting feminist nonsense.

And when someone makes big claims, one requires big proof. Big scrutiny. Big criticism.

When someone doesn't respond to criticism, when ones cries wolf (Giant Male Chauvinist Wolves Who Control Everything) and doesn't back up their assertions? Then that person is easily dismissed.

The problem is people like you. People who believe in this shit without understanding what she's saying. This is where she gets her platform for people to care. And money.
"Should she respond to her critics? Honestly, I don't know."
How many times do I have to repeat myself here?

If a critic cannot respond to criticism, they are a hypocrite. They have no business saying anything.

I don't care if they get death threats. I don't care if someone writes them poo-poo emails. I don't care if they get mafia-style warnings in their home. If they have something to say that's so vitally important, you grow a goddamned pair and fight. Or you shut your goddamned mouth.

Anita doesn't fight. She releases asinine videos and stops talking about it. Except when she's invited and paid to come and talk about her Victimhood(c).

I want an honest debate. I want ideas to be backed by evidence. She cannot do these things; same with her followers. If we can't get feedback from her, then her thoughts and opinions are to be ignored.

"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."  -- David Hume.
"But to be fair, at this point the number of level-headed critics of her work seems insignificant compared to the number of hate spewing maniacs"
And that's fair how? That's you trying to justify her silence with bullshit.

If she's as smart and serious about her claims, she'll be able to respond to criticism, and ignore the "hate spewing maniacs." She hasn't, she can't, she won't.

There are dozens of criticisms about every goddamned word she spouts, every fact she makes a point of, every reference she footnotes. Even if she does make a worthy point, it's mired by her intellectual dishonestly and blatant bias. She ends up revealing herself to be the sexist, the racist, and the xenophobe, not the "problematic tropes" in the games she talks about. Don't give me this bullshit about "oh, she's so repressed! Oh there are so many trolls! It's a deluge of violence!"

Do you know how many asinine, intolerant, biased, hate spewing feminists there are on twitter? I'd say close to 95% of the people I respond to on there are. You can't have a discussion with these people. Are these the kind of people you want in gaming, or in general, you want to talk to? I certainly don't. They're vile, horrible creatures that have no place in discourse or the rational sharing of ideas. They don't care for evidence, and if you try to explain things, you're labeled a sexist/misogynist.
"And incidentally, others HAVE adressed the allegations in her place. To a degree that it feels like all has been said. I mean, it's mostly the same adhominem [not a Gamer/didn't play the games/stole/biased/profits from victimhood (WTF??)/quality of the video didn't improve after kickstarter (yeah...)]  attacks over and over again anyways. To a degree, that it feels like it is more about disqualifying her as a person, so one doesn't have to engage with the content of her videos than anything else."
Really? Show me one. I haven't seen any video responses. The blog and news posts I've seen were all biased, misinformed, opinion pieces "Alas, a woman in distress! Save Damsel Anita!" (Much like the original one I responded to.) It's as if their head has been removed, and all this leftist-feminist-propaganda has been filled in.

The quality of her videos haven't changed. What, she got new header graphics? That doesn't even cost $1k+.

As for her backer rewards, yeah, she screwed those people over.

Calling her not a gamer is not an ad hominem. It's the truth. It's her own words. How much more evidence do you need?

She's profiting from all the negative feedback. It's called being a professional victim "Alas, I am such the damsel! Here's my paypal link!" For saying how Damsels in Distress are "problematic" (yet not bad!), she's making herself out as the hypocrite. What, she can't defend herself from criticism? That's right, she can't, and happily posts those who do.

And so what if someone attacks her with vitriol and anger? Those are ignored. Much like how we can ignore her misinformed, biased ramblings: they have no weight.
"Even the amount of hate Sarkeesian faces would seem kind of silly at this point, if it wasn't so represantative for the bigger issue, namely the treatment of women in the videogame industry."
There is no mistreatment of women in the video game industry. Nor is that the bigger issue. Nor is that the issue Anita has brought up. Stop making this stuff up.
"It's not stealing though and I doubt that there is any ground for legal matters."
As I stated before, my lawyer, who knows his copyright/trademark law, says there is.
"1. She didn't sell stolen art on t-shirts. Nor does she currently sell her show on DVD. In fact she is not making       any money whatsoever by selling her show. Which means Feminist Frequeny is still non profit. So I don't             think the t-shirt example is making a lot of sense. "
The t-shirt example was from a real world story my lawyer explained. I don't know where you're going with this.

If she's a non-profit, we should be able to see the donations she has made. Why hasn't she shown what she donated, and where it went? Why hasn't she told us what money went where, like so many other Kickstarter campaigns? Seriously, why can't she do this?
"2. She raised money by Kickstarter and people can support the show by making donations. Getting donations is not selling stuff, so legally she should be in the clear. "
It doesn't matter if she's selling stuff or not. She's receiving money from copyrighted content. Anything past $200 becomes a big deal.
"3. As far as I know the legal situation around LPs is a grey area to say the least. She never used the                    commentary and she used mostly cut scenes anyways, if I'm not  mistaken. Fan Art is only legal under Fair         Use anyways. "
Not if you're making money off it. Again, past $200, eyebrows start getting raised.
"4. Plagiarizing aka not acknowledging the creator is an ethical, not a legal issue. At least that's what wikipedia      says. Again, I'm not a lawyer."
This is a copyright issue, not a plagiarism one, so this is moot.
" 5. While I may think it is unprofessional and unethical, it seems to be perfectly legal in the US to use                      art/games footage under Fair Use without permission. "
If she didn't ask for permission, and didn't credit the source, then yes, it is an issue. Again: passed $200, things get dicey. Would you like to talk to my lawyer about this? You seem to have a hard time understanding copyright law.

Listen to if you need to see the problems.

This might be easier if you don't like reading.
"For fuck's sake that is not the internet being a dick, that is straight up evil."
A bunch of radical individuals do not reflect the group. You get that in every group. They're harmless.
 "FilmcritHulk from Badass Digest wrote a powerfull piece about the ending of Mass Effect and the 'GIVE ME' Culture, which shows: Gamer are guilty of the exact behaviour they accuse the so called SJW of.
While I and many others lobby for more diversification in gaming narratives, fully aware and perfectly fine with the fact that there is and will always be porn in video games (as Angry Joe put it so eloquently), these 'fans' really pressured Ubisoft into CHANGING the narrative, just because THEY felt mistreated. Yeah, so much about feeling entitled."
I am smudboy. An outspoken critic of the Mass Effect franchise. Go to my channel to find out. Film Critic Hulk is either a parody account, or simply doesn't understand the absolute nonsense that is ME3's ending, and the travesty that is the franchise.

When a ME player is entitled, it is because that is what the trilogy was selling us on: a game where, your choices matter, which will all come up to a brilliant, galaxy changing complex ending. What we got were 2 Deus Ex devices, 3 colors, and absolute nonsense.

When a game or literary critic analyzes a game and its story, they take it apart for what it is, and what it's trying to be. Anita doesn't. She sees as she thinks they should be due to her ideology, and takes things out of context, deems these slices as sexism or misogyny, and the other extreme example as victory for Feminism. She infers that gamers who like such games are either blind, or willing sexists, and implies the creators of said games are sexist.

That video you linked to was of a girl -- who just re-copied Angry Joe -- for his complete misunderstanding of what the ruckus about Anita is all about.

Not sure what Ubisoft has to do with anything. As for Mass Effect EA/Bioware, the Extended Cut, a free DLC for ME3, was released as a result of fan outcry. Unfortunately, it didn't change the narrative or the ending: it made it worse. This is why Bioware is on shaky ground right now, and if they don't hit it out of the park with Dragon Age Inquisition, they're toast. Their new IP, which looks like a pile of crap, isn't helping.
"Gamers want Games to be acknowledged as an artform, rightfully so,"
No we don't: they are an artform. We don't give a shit if others think otherwise.

Oh right. That was Roger Ebert. But he actually argued how games were not art. Because hes an actual critic, and did response pieces and interviews on the topic.

And you can disagree or agree with him, but at least he actually took the time to do so.

Oh right. I forget. Anita isn't a game critic. She's a "culture critic". Whatever the hell that even means.

However, if some pompous ass tried to make a series of "X Vs. Art" in gaming, showing how things in games aren't art, and try profiting off it, calling us all "unrefined people who don't know art." Oh dear.

Do you get it yet?
"and they demand that video games should be respected as a medium of storytelling in its own right. But when criticism crops up, then it's just a game, just escapist entertainment right? Why again is analyzing tropes in video games from a feminist point of view breaking the gaming industry? 
1. Games need a lot more "maturing" to be considered a medium of storytelling on par with literature. And that includes having sexism, misogyny, and any other controversial theme to be taken seriously, as they are in literature, the arts, etc. It's people like you and Anita who are bringing down the artform. But some games don't want to be. And that's perfectly fine.
2. It's never just a game.
3. Let me tell you this: does a PETA member that criticizes the leather interior of a Cadillac, have any business talking about animal cruelty in the automobile industry? I would say no.

Having Anita talk about feminism in video games is fine. The problem is:

1) She lies ("not a fan of video games.")
2) She lies by omission (Dinosaur Planet, God of War.)
3) She doesn't understand the narrative, and takes things out of their narrative/game play context. (Borderlands 2, Red Dead Redemption, heck every example she brings.)
4) She doesn't understand game play mechanics. (Super Mario Brothers)
5) She doesn't understand storytelling or the role of characters (protagonists? What are those for?)
6) She is biased.

Now, if that PETA member could recommend fake-fur, or synthetic leather materials, that are actually more comfortable, durable, less costly, etc., to produce a luxurious interior, then they'd have a rational, sound argument. Anita isn't doing that. She isn't providing helpful examples, or conclusions. For the most part she's saying "look at this." And the response is "so?" She's just taking things out of context and using her feelings about fictional people with vaginas in video games. It's biased nonsense. Do we have to "feel" like she does to "get it"? No. We're not stupid.

Now, if we had a real feminist, that uses facts, like Christina H Sommers, then we can get to the main issues of whatever the problem is: if there even is one. Seeing men or women abused in fiction, plays, books, movies, games, etc., isn't a problem, and hasn't been for millennia.

Unless you're a Sad Sensitive Snowflake, like you and Anita. Because vagina.
"A good start would be to stop relying on sexist tropes when telling stories" 
Nope. You don't get to tell me, or a writer, designer, developer, etc., how to make or compose a story. And all your whining won't change anything. There's nothing good or bad, right or wrong, with tropes, sexist or otherwise.

I repeat: there's nothing wrong with tropes, sexist or otherwise. The only problem is your Sad Sensitive Snowflake brain.

If you don't like that. Make. Your. Own. Game.
"The 'worldwide Alliance of SJW' does not want to change ALL games and I for one am fiercly opposed to censorship. As it happens, I don't think that violent videogames create violent people and I object to the notion that videogames, that may be considered partially sexist, create sexist gamers. In fact, I think that even assumptions about tendencies (ingame violence against women desensitizes gamers) like Sarkeesian does, are highly problematic. "
Either games influence people, or they don't. They either make us violent and sexist, or they don't.
If you're saying they desensitize us to violence and sexism, then they make us violent and sexist.

If they do, evidence.

Stop trying to beat around the bush. If all you have is a theory, I once again, submit you to Hume's flames.

Now I can go on, but you wrote a lot of bullshit, and you really aren't worth my time. You don't seem to grasp how nonsensical this is, and how one woman with nothing but feelings and sensibility, can't argue her way out of the house of cards she built, that has collapsed upon her.

Any writer can tell any story they want. If you don't like that story, evaluate it for what it is, and what it's trying to be. Not that it fits into your pathetic, sad, sensitive little ideology, because vaginas are bloody, and that all stories with vaginas should be the way you think. That's thought police 1984 stuff. Get out.

But I will constantly bring fascists like you and Anita down who try to impose their will on any art form just because it makes them feel "problematic."

Get out of gaming. Get out of any of the arts.

Unless you're willing to throw away your sad ideologies: you don't belong there. And you never will.

1 comment:

  1. I think the most interesting part is what Thunderf00t (and others I'm sure) pointed out; there's no evidence. There's no citations. On this side of the screen, how and why these bad depictions are actually causing harm, there is NOTHING. Not in the videos or in the links or on her channel or on her own personal webpage, nothing but two, tiny, old studies. That's it? And you have to dig for them. Not one fucking shred of evidence that punching women out in a colorful game world is going to cause real-world problems, but we need to revolutionize a billion dollar industry over the idea? Jack Thompson at least referenced an actual study, flawed and unconvincing it might of been,