No Brianna, it's not law enforcement; it's you.

In response to this:
http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/brianna-wu-fbi-death-threats-gamergate/

>I need to tell you something terrifying. If someone threatens to murder you on the Internet, the odds are all but certain that law enforcement will do nothing. It doesn’t matter who you are, it doesn’t matter how serious the threats are. Help is not coming.

This is because law enforcement needs a reasonable threat, something called "clear and present danger." Words on the internet don't really amount to much, and for you to want help on a non-existent threat is a waste of everyone's time. You surely cannot be this stupid after all these threats.

If someone truly wanted to murder you, 1) they wouldn't tell anyone, and 2) they'd have already tried. Isn't too hard to figure this whole process out, but maybe I've read too much murder mystery and real crime stories to deduce this.

>I should know, I’ve had 49 death threats in the last six months. My name is Brianna Wu, I’m the head of development of Giant Spacekat. We are a team of mostly women that make story-based games. Since October, I’ve been targeted relentlessly by the hate group known as Gamergate, a mob of extremist fringe gamers hellbent on silencing prominent women in the game industry.

a) Anyone popular, or anyone who's had anything to say on the internet gets death threats, like myself, and many other youtubers, people with blogs, columns, etc.
b) Twitter is not exactly a place of sound mind and calm debate. Medium is the message, and all that. Best not to take it so seriously.

And for you to make these claims, you must:
I) First prove that Gamergate is a hate mob
II) Then prove that it's full of fringe gamers
III) Then prove that it's hellbent on silencing prominent women in the game industry. Also explain how it intends to do that, since I haven't heard or seen that happening at all for 7 months.

You also might want to stop harassing yourself.

And if you think you're a "prominent woman in the game industry"? I believe you've already listened to Roberta Williams

https://twitter.com/jaredbrickey/status/529251683298471936

I've oodles of evidence showing it's a diverse group of men and women from all sorts of sexual and ethnic backgrounds, but I believe you're already aware of that.

No one is stopping women, or men, or anyone for that matter, from allowing prominent women in the game industry to...communicate? I don't know what you're talking about, and I'm sure social media platforms would like to know how this is even possible.

Please explain to me, how, a bunch of internet trolls, are stopping you, or any other women in gaming, from doing your job. Cause the only thing I see is your patreon, and your professional victim complex.

>As my dog Crash was dying in December, Gamergate sent me pictures of mutilated puppies and kittens to emotionally terrorize me. They threatened to detonate bombs at PAX East if I attended. When I speak at colleges, I look under the stage with a flashlight. Between Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and myself, they have sent hundreds of specific, violent death threats.

Evidence, please.

>If someone threatens to murder you on the Internet, the odds are all but certain that law enforcement will do nothing.

This is because they're trolls. They're just trying to get a rise out of you. It seems to be working. Usually, an experience that is repeated over a large period of time decreases it's emotional reaction. So unless you're having nervous and psychotic fits of epilepsy every morning, I suggest you go back to game making, and provide some evidence on your claims.

Here are the facts:
1) 100% of those messages are untrue.

Here's my suggestion:
1) Stop listening to 100% of them.

>Even more disturbing than the threats is the reaction from law enforcement, which has been nothing. Justice for all does not apply when women use the Internet.

As I stated before in my first response, law enforcement needs to be able to see a reasonable threat. Anyone on the internet has the freedom to say whatever they like (within the Community Guidelines/ToS of that communication service provider, e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc.) The laws on the books are very clear regarding freedom of speech. This means, yes, they can make death and bomb threats, as ugly as that is.

Now, if you're implying that that shouldn't be allowed? You need to target specific platforms of such communications, or, try to get the 1st Amendment amended.

>That may be about to change. My Massachusetts house representative, Katherine Clark, has had enough. A former prosecutor who has dealt with domestic violence cases, she heard my story and wondered why nothing had been done. Recently, she held a meeting with the FBI, trying to assess how seriously they were taking my case.

Mostly a waste of time which will do absolutely nothing, but I'm curious what kind of grand plan they think they'll have. I'm sure the taxpayers will love it.

>Her message for law enforcement is clear, “The FBI needs to make Gamergate a priority.”

They need to monitor the hashtag daily? Don't they do that already? Unless a new bill is being introduced to start policing the internet, nothing's going to happen. (I hear those SOPA/PIPA bills aren't very popular with the electorate.)

And what about people not under the FBI's jurisdiction? Shall this be a global policing of free speech? How far are you willing to go before the FBI "does something"? Let's protest outside the next G8 or what not.

And what exactly do you want the FBI to do? Find people who wrote negative Tweets and charge them with...what, exactly?

>The hate group Gamergate exploded

Prove to me it's a hate group, when they've donated to charities (some promoting women in gaming) and have fought for ethics in journalism since the beginning.
http://gamergate.me/charity/
https://medium.com/@kindraness/5-benefits-of-gamergate-that-shouldn-t-be-ignored-c8336269db26
http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php/GamerGate
http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=GamerGate_Achievements
Notice the list of accomplishments are all related to charity, the removal of funding from certain sites, bad characters and catching their behavior (see Zoe Quinn http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2014/12/margaret-pless-zoe-quinn.html), and of course, ethics in journalism

>in the national consciousness in October when they made threats against me that went viral. This group promising to restore ethics in game journalism vowed that my dead,

Prove threats were made by members of #gamergate.

Promises? Where and when did anyone promise? While some small victories have been achieved in the policies being changed on certain websites (see the link above), it's an ongoing, watchdog-like struggle. Which is why #gamergate is still going strong.

>mutilated corpse would be on the front page of Jezebel. They swore that I would be choked to death with my husband’s severed genitalia.

Stop listening to the trolls.

>Gamergate is so infamous that they’ve even made a Law and Order: SVU episode, “The Intimidation Game,“ where a character based on me, Sarkeesian, and Quinn that is kidnapped and sexually assaulted. The most surreal moment of my life was seeing a character based on me get my same death threats word for word.

And anyone with half a brain, or even a causal gamer, can see just how ridiculously bad the plot and references were. It was more of a parody than an infamous depiction of anything resembling gaming, gamers, or whatever gamer culture is. (My opinion on prime time police procedurals having anything to do with reality is a whole other topic.)

Additionally, you need to get over yourself and this professional victim blaming. I would think if you're that serious you'd be better than that.

>Here’s what the public doesn’t know about this threat. I know who sent it to me. The Saturday after this happened, I was contacted by an extremely credible source. Their voice shook with fear as they told me this person was “fucking psychotic.” They told me they were terrified and hoped law enforcement would act quickly for their safety and mine.

>I know the name of the man that sent me the “dead mutilated corpse,” threat. I have specific information about this man’s location police can use to prosecute him. I contacted the FBI with this information the Saturday after these tweets went viral, expecting a quick arrest.

>But nothing happened. That was six months ago. Their continued inaction is absolutely unacceptable.

Why? What's the story you're not telling us? How is it "absolutely unacceptable"?

...wait, are we talking about that poor excuse for a comedy routine? AKA, a hoax, by Jace Connors?
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/24/8099531/gamergate-jace-connors-threats-comedian-hoax

>On my hard drive sits this case and five others like it, all meticulously documented. All with names, all with ample evidence for prosecutors to act on. I’ve repeatedly sent this information to law enforcement. There’s an entire employee at my company whose job it is to document these threats and respond to requests from law enforcement.

So you're paying someone to...copy and paste screen caps of people saying bad things to you? Jesus, how much money do you have?

Brianna, here's an idea. Stop giving a shit. Make your games. Don't listen to anyone else except yourself. You'll lead a much happier, productive live. We'd all appreciate it.

>A look at the statistics on online harassment is depressing. Legal expert Danielle Citron has documented only 10 cases of law enforcement prosecuting cyber-stalking between 2010 and 2013. That’s out of 2.5 million estimated cases, according to Department of Justice statistics.

>This isn’t a situation where we need new laws passed. According to Citron, the laws are very clear here. It is a crime “to transmit threats of bodily injury in interstate commerce.” The problem is that law enforcement has no idea how to react to these crimes.

So you don't want new laws or stricter rules on websites or communication systems...you want what, exactly? Police to just start arresting people for saying mean things?

>I now know more police officers that work in Arlington, Mass., than I do people that live on my block. They’ve been extremely polite and professional when I contact them with threats, but it’s also clear they’re not in a position to act. Many do not even know what Twitter is or what an IP address is. And, to be fair, local police are understandably focused on keeping local order.

Yes, police, FBI, follow strict guidelines and don't act on personal vendettas, moral codes, or other such nonsense.

>That leads to the question: Whose job is it to prosecute these threats? As a former prosecutor, Rep. Katherine Clark seems to feel this is the jurisdiction of the FBI. But among the FBI’s 15,000 agents that are funded through your tax dollars and mine, there doesn’t seem to be any division specifically tasked with prosecuting these crimes.

Considering the threats aren't credible, no one. If you've been getting so many threats and sending them to authorities, and they haven't acted: doesn't that tell you that professional law enforcement doesn't see a problem? Are you not listening to them?

If you're trying to tell me the FBI are wrong, in what way? You haven't explained that at all. It's just your opinion, and you're not even offering an alternative. You just want senders of negative Tweets to be "prosecuted".

So, let's say these people are "prosecuted". What are these people going to be charged with?

>There should be. Gamergate has grown into a hate group that threatens the stability of the $60 billion a year game industry. They stopped the women of my company, Giant Spacekat, from showing our upcoming game Revolution 60 at PAX East.

1) Prove Gamergate has grown into a hate group. First to yourself, oh logical game developer.

Also, $80 billion. That's a lot of money, and one of the the many reasons #gamergate wants ethics in journalism.

Brianna, if you want to know why people get harassed online, it's this: when they say and do stupid shit. (Hint: mirror.) Other reasons involve being popular, being controversial, being for or against something, or having a pulse. Which category do you think you fit into?

>The FBI is tasked with prosecuting domestic terrorism. Tech journalist Peter Cohen quite correctly called the actions of Gamergate “emotional terrorism,” the idea being to intimidate, bully and silence anyone speaking out for diversity in games until they quit. It’s a playbook they’ve run on countless women now.


Luckily, emotional terrorism isn't a thing, nor is it a law that can be broken. See how wonderful English is? You can't prosecute someone for a law that doesn't exist.

And many other "tech journalists" say many other differing things. Are they wrong?
Erik Kain
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/09/gamergate-is-not-a-hate-group-its-a-consumer-movement/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/
Allum Bokhari
http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/
Kelly Maxwell
https://medium.com/@CriticalKelly/dear-gaming-journalists-why-im-still-here-c5f4ce3fa871
Chris von Csefalvay
http://chrisvoncsefalvay.com/2014/12/07/Gamergate.html

>After Representative Clark met with the FBI, she called their reaction “disappointing,” but there’s a glimmer of hope on my side. Since that meeting, the FBI has massively stepped up communication with me. They tell me to be patient, as these cases take time to build.

>Prosecuting Gamergate is not about justice for me or the women of Giant Spacekat. It’s about introducing consequences into the equation for men that treat harassing women like a game. In Grand Theft Auto, if you threaten to murder someone, police will pursue you, you’ll get “busted,” and lose $100.

>It’s sad when Grand Theft Auto has more consequences for criminal behavior than real life.

(aside: just so you know, Brianna, Grand Theft Auto is a crime, in reality. In the game, you can get chased by cops for many more heinous crimes. See how art mirrors reality?)

I think your last sentence says it all: your grasp on reality isn't quite the same as it is for the rest of us. Definitely not the same as what the police, FBI, or any other professional law enforcement agency believe, and therein lies your apparent problem: acceptance.

One might say you need to accept that people are going to disagree with you, in less than rational ways. And that nothing is stopping you from doing your job.

But until someone points a gun to your head, you're nothing more than the Boy who Cried Wolf.

In reality, you like this. Why wouldn't you want your narrative of GamerGate being a hate group? Of course you think that the women in SVU is a depiction of you. It's all about you, Brianna.

It's all about you and your ego. Oh, and money.

Why would you want to stop being an entitled rich kid? After all, as a result of GamerGate, and patreon, you're making over $3,400 a month. Why not make money off your invented pain, or whatever you call poo-poo emails? Considering your Revolution 60 game was nothing more than an offensive joke, and did nothing to promote women or make them look strong or whatever feminist ideology you and your writers believe in (A Mike Tyson tattoo? Wow. Progressive), how else are you gonna make a buck?

Keep on trolling (yourself), Brianna. We're keeping tabs.

Finish him? Honey, you haven't even started.

The fine ladies at Ubisoft Montreal. You can't tell, but they're being harassed.

http://this.org/magazine/2015/03/10/finish-him/

Originally I called out the author ("HIGH INQUISITUR SJW") on the article of this post on twitter in a polite manner stating it to be "opinionated and baseless." She immediately responded saying I should "eat a bag of dicks." I was then dogpiled by her followers, as I simply asked for references and links to the articles she apparently did her research on. The dogpiling was done by her children-like followers, who, mostly just swore and acted like children. These were by apparently older gentlemen and ladies. Quite appalling behavior.

The author holds a PhD. Apparently not in science or English/essay writing.

All I wanted was evidence for the claims this person made. And to hopefully add said evidence as links within the article, so I can understand what she was talking about.

After she swore at me, and continuously showed off her childlike maturity, she eventually produced links to various articles, then retreated back to her childish antics. This is too little, too late; revealing yourself first to be an ad hominem-spewing invalid earns you no points; I expected an apology first. One doesn't reluctantly answer a simple question after repeated asking and being treated like the target of a schoolyard bully, and expect me to respect such a person. As well, these links must be associated with the opinions involved within the claim, like, linking directly from a statement, or a citation, or a biolography, a hyperlink, etc. She could've been talking about the flying spaghetti monster and then just mentioned "Read X book by Lovecraft" and it would have had the same value.

So, I decided to analyze the baseless, opinionated article itself on its own merits.

>The feminist battle for Gamergate victory isn’t done
And what is this feminist battle for Gamergate? Did it ever start? Which campaign? How's the campaign going? And which flavor of feminism? When did it even have a victory? What are you even talking about?

#NotYourShield, which has several examples of women, minorities, feminists, those of various sexualities and beliefs, et al, are all in support of #GamerGate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYqBdCmDR0M
http://digg.com/video/the-female-gamers-in-support-of-gamergate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbj6_K31Kls

(There's dozens of these, but I found these all in under a minute.)

Now, the 3rd wave of feminism, or radical sex-negative feminists, are a whole other ball of looney. If that's the flavor of feminism you're referring to, I must simply ask: who are you kidding?

>When it comes to feminism and Gamergate, I want to say that feminism—unquestionably—won. But then I think: at what cost? Maybe it’s better to say: we know unequivocally we are on the right side of Gamergate.

Again, what type of feminism, when, and what was the struggle? And how is it she, or people are on the "right side of Gamergate?"

Whenever a radical feminist does something, she reveals herself to be a radical: off. Generally, not very rational. Lacking evidence, relying on dogma. So the cost must be from her own validity, character, and generally the amount of laughter the average person generates.

Or perhaps the author is referring to feminists in #GamerGate who are in the "right side of Gamergate", somehow? What's the "wrong" side of Gamergate? Again: what are you even talking about?

Let's keep in mind there are actual feminists who are pro #gamergate. Christina Hoff Sommers being one of the more well known.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RVlCvBd21w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqSwzFy5w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMw39meKmzY

So really -- and this is no surprise when talking to opinionated ideologues with no references to the articles they post -- I have to ask again: what are you even talking about?

>There was a Mission Accomplished moment in October 2014, when the New York Times published an article that seemed confused about what Gamergate was and why it was happening—not in a fumbling, tech-illiterate sense, but more of a sense of incredulity. The writer, Nick Wingfield, appeared to be saying: “So you’re harassing women … for liking video games. Huh.”

You mean this article?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women-video-game-threats-anita-sarkeesian.html

Yes, and Nick gets it wrong. As most SJWs and feminists seem to get it (opinions) wrong.

So how is a confused writer/journalist/whomever...making a "Mission Accomplished" moment, referring to what mission we still don't know of, when he's not even clear what he's talking about? Because he's a writer in the New York Times? Are you "feminists" (of unknown denomination) have any concept of (again) what you're talking about?

This article, which came out at about the same time, explains this, or Nick's folly:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/16/gamergate-abuse-feminist-new-york-times-anita-sarkeesian

Now if you don't know what #gamergate is, there's plenty of evidence to show you. Simply go on twitter and search the hashtag. The link below goes into detail, but it really comes down to ethics in not just gaming journalism, but journalism in general.
http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php/GamerGate

>The article was published right after Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist critic best known for her YouTube series “Tropes vs. Women in Video Games,” cancelled an appearance at Utah State University after she received an anonymous threat of a shooting massacre were the talk to go ahead (as a concealed carry state, security at the event could not guarantee no one with a gun would be allowed in the building while Sarkeesian was speaking).

Yes, and that was, as stated by Utah Police, that "there was no threat to students, staff or the speaker, so no alert was issued."
http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54179

There was no reason to worry. As 100% of every threat she's gotten has been. Baseless trolling.

And what's wrong with a state that has a concealed carry law? Wouldn't she feel even more safe if those who wanted to see her speak had shown up with guns to protect her? Arguably, Utah seems to have a rather decent gun crime rate in comparison to other states (2011):
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

>Sadly, Sarkeesian has long been the target of sexist attacks—ever since she first launched a Kickstarter campaign in 2012 to support the series. “The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weeks-long campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture,” Wingfield wrote.
http://theralphretort.com/new-york-times-disregards-facts-about-gamergate/

And where's the evidence for this claim? How does this have anything to do with #gamergate? Anita Sarkeesian has had critics since her original stint on youtube, and with the Tropes series, even more. Nick goes on, quote:

The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage. The more extreme threats, though, seem to be the work of a much smaller faction and aimed at women.

Yet he himself offers no evidence to show this is a part of #GamerGate. He continues:

While the online attacks on women have intensified in the last few months, the dynamics behind the harassment go back much further.

Oh, so it started before Ms. Sarkeesian and other women were being "threatened"? GamerGate never existed then. So it seems (from what Nick's telling us) that #GamerGate had nothing to do with these so called threats in the past or present.

>New York Times may have been removed from the specifics and scope of the Gamergate conflict, yet it was clear the only response could be “this is baffling and terrible.”

What's so baffling?

1. We don't know who's causing these attacks.
2. The attacks themselves are nothing more than negative messages, sent over twitter. Considering the volume of them, whose effects have amounted to nothing more than mean spirited language -- who cares?

>As an outsider’s perspective, it was invaluable and it illuminated something that was at once crucial and deeply disheartening: that it was even more terrible, and equally baffling, for the women caught up within Gamergate—we are on the wrong end, in the middle of something incomprehensible and horrific. And since October, Gamergate has only become more ridiculous.

The only thing ridiculous is your reasoning here.

• There's no evidence showing #GamerGate is behind any of these attacks (at least, none that the article, or you, have shown.)
• Who is "Gamergate-we"? Feminists? Which? Considering there are feminists in GamerGate, I fail to see what you're talking about, let alone how it's incomprehensible and horrific.
• What happened since October that's become more ridiculous?

Here's a timeline in case you need some help there, chief:
http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=Timeline/Full



Now, go through all that and tell me what you're talking about.

>Even former avowed Gamergaters have hung up their trilbies and abandoned their positions as everything became more extreme and untenable—or they suddenly found themselves on the opposing side of the harassment campaign.

And these people are...?

And again: what harassment campaign? Saying things doesn't make them true.

>Those within the industry openly made statements against Gamergate, including: gaming companies such as Blizzard and the Entertainment Software Association (commonly know as the ESA and gaming’s top trade group);

And there have been many developers who are for and against #GamerGate, with varying (and sometimes ignorant) positions.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/features/12383-Game-Developer-GamerGate-Interviews-Shed-Light-on-Women-in-Games

So...what's your point?

And here's Blizzard Matthew Schnee retracting on statements made of #GamerGate
http://www.gamerheadlines.com/2014/11/blizzard-engineer-poses-blacklist-gamergate-backpedals/

And here's Blizzard's Mark Kern (of #LetMarkSpeak) in support of #GamerGate, and denouncing the anti-gamer SVU episode
http://www.theralphretort.com/world-of-warcraft-lead-developer-mark-kern-rips-kotaku-polygon-021215/

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/03/gamergate-mark-kern-calls-for-devs-to-stand-against-corrupt-media/
https://www.change.org/p/kotaku-lead-the-way-in-healing-the-rift-in-video-games
Mark Kern, who wants harassment to stop on all fronts, and as a result was slammed by Ben Kuchera.
https://storify.com/x_glitch/ben-kuchera-on-the-topic-of-mark-kern-s-petition

Oh yeah. No problem with game journalists here.

As for ESA, the only publication I can see regarding them is from gamasutra:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/227857/Amid_GamerGate_controversy_ESA_speaks_out_against_harassment_in_game_industry.php

Gamasutra. Home of Leigh Alexander. Ms. "Gamers are Over"/"I am game journalism". Part of the giant "Gamers are Dead" articles that happened in August 2014. No kidding they would be against #GamerGate -- a movement about ethics in journalism -- when they're the exact part of the problem.

>publications like Game Informer, Polygon, and Giant Bomb;

Polygon. Home to Chris Plante, also part of the "Gamers are Dead" articles. No kidding?

Game Informer, Giant Bomb, IGN, as stated by Brianna Wu -- "They are the primary reason this problem exists."
http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/02/gamergate-ign-game-informer-giant-bomb-are-the-problem-says-brianna-wu/

She's out to lunch anyway, but after Coffee and Apologizing, and being attacked by her own extreme-feminist followers, who can follow any of this crap?

>and creative luminaries such as Tim Schafer
BWAHAHAHAHA!

Creative luminary? The only thing that guy needs to be creative over is a new sock drawer. (He'll just have to ask Wu, Quinn and Sarkeesian.) Oh right, and those games he was working on that have gone way over schedule. Gotta love those Kickstarter people who can't seem to manage all that money, and fail to deliver when over paid, huh? (HINT: Anita Sarkeesian)

Oh right, and apologize for being a racist bigot.

>and Damion Schubert.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews/12390-Damion-Schubert-GamerGate-Interview
Not exactly winning any points for any side. He seems more like a confused fellow as to what GamerGate actually is.

>Some statements where measured, like the ESA’s assertion that “There is no place in the video game community—or our society—for personal attacks and threats.” But others weren’t. Schubert called it “an unprecedented catastrofuck,” which remains one of my favourite combinations of words ever. Even the vaguest of questions about the legitimacy of the movement seemed to evaporate.

Schubert is confused what it is, and the ESA doesn't like harassment. Great. Well, none of us like harassment, but we all know what #GamerGate is -- it's about ethics in journalism. (Unless, someone has ample evidence to show otherwise.)

What is "the vaguest of questions about the legitimacy of the movement seemed to evaporate."? How did it evaporate? Coming from Damion? Seriously, how can you not even know "what gamer gate is" when we're constantly telling you it's about gaming journalism, when our goals have always been about gaming journalism, and our achievements been been about gaming journalism?

We also like giving to charities. Some in support of women to the game industry. We're nice like that.
http://gamergate.me/charity/
http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=GamerGate_Achievements

>And yet—and yet—it is still happening. On January 11, Zoe Quinn wrote a piece called “August Never Ends” on her blog Dispatches from The Quinnspiracy. It charted her struggles to get the legal system to do something about the avalanche of hate spewing her way. She talked about how demolished her life was and continued to be by the campaign. She wrote, in full: “The same wheels of abuse are still turning, five months later. I’ve been coming to terms that this is a part of my life now, trying to figure out what to do about it, and how to move forward with so many people trying to wrap themselves around my ankles. It’s been hard to accept that my old life is gone and that I can never get back to it. But I’ve found purpose in the trauma, in trying to stop it from happening again, to use my experience to show how these things are allowed to happen, and to further a dialog on how to actually stop it. If I can’t go home, maybe I can at least get out of this elevator shaft. Maybe I can help end August. Maybe you can, too.”

Trauma from...tweets? Are you serious? Ever heard of the block feature? (Of course you did, dear. You blocked me.)

ZQ literally made and slept in her bed (all 5 of them -- those with connections to games and games journalism.) Her harassment of those in Wizardchan. The money she stole for her own Game Jam that never happened, etc. She is an unethical, horrible person.

It's called: you reap what you sow.

While no one here advocated harassment, shall we now give sorrow and support to adulterers, thieves, nepotists, and those who doxx themselves and cry "I'm being harassed!"?
http://thespectacularspider-girl.tumblr.com/post/95179284529/zoe-quinn-fake-doxx-hack
http://howtonotsuck.com/viewarticle.php?id=95
http://imgur.com/a/4VOcx
http://i.imgur.com/Gy2n50g.png

>As much as there is hope here, and grim determination, and a strength of will that is barely fathomable, there is also so much pain and loss. Quinn’s piece is not the sort of thing that gets written looking back on a hard and well-fought victory—it’s the barest beginning, starting to see the light at the end of the darkest tunnel, the way out of the elevator shaft. Quinn has since gone on to found Crash Override Network, an anti-harassment network that attempts to help victims of Gamergate rebuild their lives and careers after the threats, doxing, and sabotage—a way to provide the support Quinn found lacking in the community. Today, she is taking the extra step to help others. That is victorious. That is what willpower is.

Yes, a completely useless site with no legal power, so people can whine to others about how they feel about some dingbats on twitter. Because they're too stupid to put their phones down, or use the block option, or learn to read and argue properly (instead of acting like disgruntled children. Ring a bell?)

And now she's started another site with Randi "This is all intentional" Harper called OAPI, another person who's doxxed herself, so they can talk to people have harassed online (presumably also by themselves.) Which is supposedly the same thing, only it'll "study" abuse patterns...probably so they can whine about being abused more believably in the future. In their totally not biased metrics.
http://theralphretort.com/randi-harper-intentionally-leaks-address-0305015/
http://theralphretort.com/randi-harper-tries-to-bully-neutral-writer-into-silence-0308015/
http://onlineabuseprevention.org/

>But the cost—my god, the cost. Crash Override Network and services like it are necessary. Certainly, people are going to be suffering the ramifications of this trauma for years, if not their entire lives and careers.

Crash Override is necessary for who?

The ramifications and truama of...twitter...for years? What?

If anyone's seriously being threatened or harassed online, we have the police and the FBI. Till then, it's just words. Use the block feature. Get over yourself.

>In the games publication Giant Bomb’s discussion forums, game developer and tech writer Brianna Wu wrote “I was talking to Zoe Quinn this week, who told me about a folder on her computer called, ‘The ones we lost.’ And it was young girls that wrote her saying they were too scared to become game developers. I started crying because I have another folder just like it.” Wu went on to excoriate those who had not yet spoken out about Gamergate or who were not actively making policies to hire, support, and defend the women targeted, stating “I would suggest every man in this industry has a hell of a lot of soul-searching to do about the part they played in creating this situation.”

Absolute nonsense.

Nothing is stopping women, men, boys, girls, etc., from either going to school to get into gaming, or to actually being game developers, designers, artists, animators, etc. Nothing. No one.

Hello, Ubisoft:
https://www.facebook.com/UbisoftMontreal/photos/pcb.901074256581416/901068146582027/
(The image I used at the top.)

I really like this quote on the post, directly from JJB of Deus Ex:HR fame:

Jonathan Jacques-Belletête LOL, See here's what's funny. You guys actually think that what is written or happens in the gaming press and what goes on in video game dev studios are one and the same. The reality is that they are worlds apart. All the girls in this picture had their jobs way before the events or the people you guys are mentioning here. Some of them, whom I know really well, I used to work with as far as 12 years ago. Never forget this kids: what game studios and game developers do is pretty much always completely different from how the gaming media perceives it. We're on the inside. They are not. They can only speculate.

GamerGate has actively supported and donated to causes that want females in gaming.
http://gamergate.me/charity/

>For every visible woman who has stepped away from their platform, how many less vocal or less well-known participants have we lost? In the wake of Gamergate,

The wake? It ain't dead, honey.
http://topsy.com/analytics?q1=%23gamergate

>for instance, Kathy Sierra, a tech writer who was once the target of hacker and horrible person weev, walked away from the online persona she’d built as Serious Pony to insulate herself from further violence. Jenn Frank, who had built a nine-year career out of writing about games and was deluged with hatred for a Guardian piece about how women in the games industry are attacked, announced publicly that she was leaving the industry out of fear for her family’s safety. How many young women have chosen not to enter the industry at all? How many game developers have left the industry? How many journalists? How many women stopped participating in online communities and massively multiplayer online and co-op games? How can we possibly know the real numbers of the ones we lost?

Not sure how Sierra is related to #Gamergate, but harassment is bad regardless.
http://seriouspony.com/trouble-at-the-koolaid-point

As for Jenn Frank:
http://i.imgur.com/HkWh7j2.png

>The thing is, we can’t. It’s going to take years to sort out the impact on the industry, on the community, on the way games are made and played.

Why are you even bothering to "sort out" the impact on the industry, et al? What does that even mean? What's the scope?

>Years before we figure out what games journalism can possibly look like in a post-Gamergate world.

Hopefully more ethical and with journalists being called out for their infractions. Like, actually getting fired, how any other actual journalist would in any news publication for breaking rules in journalism.

>Years before we can even begin to get a grip on the personal trauma suffered by so many after such a massive campaign of harassment and violence.

It's called being a pro victim and making $$$ in the process.

>And before any of that work can be done, Gamergate has to end first. It’s an inevitable victory, perhaps, but one that’s going to leave deep, presently unfathomable scars.

BWAHAHAHA!

#GamerGate is for ethics in journalism. The metrics seem to show it isn't dying anytime soon.

And again, what is a "victory"? How is it inevitable? If #GamerGate really was about harassment, really was a hate movement, and they did all these evil, illegal things, they'd have been found, rounded up by the FBI and charged.

But that never happened. And it's not.

It's about a bunch of gamers fighting for ethics in journalism.

It's about a bunch of gamers arguing with ideologues who want to force their agenda where it shouldn't belong.

People of various creeds will continue to fight against marxist-feminist beliefs regardless of the topic or context. As for actual sex-positive feminists, egalitarians, and the like, they don't seem to have a problem with #GamerGate.

But to paint everyone with a broad brush just because professional victims say "GamerGate is harassing me"? Sorry, anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it. The legal world doesn't work like that, nor does the physical one.

And those that do use the #GamerGate hashtag and harass people? There's already a method by using the hashtag with "harassment patrol" associated with a user. It does not discriminate pro or anti, and simply group reports the harassing party.

So good luck on your writing skills. You're going to need (any) evidence and more than shoddy articles that don't amount to much to prove anything.

Making a game, looking for talent; Dragon Age Inqusition Plot Analysis in the works

You might've noticed I haven't been doing too many videos (at least, of my analyses) lately. This is due to me and a few others trying to come up with a game concept along with a Story Worth Telling™.

It all started with Fixing ME3. My team was going to go all out, but we realized it's not our IP. Sure, you guys would like it, but it's so much work for little return. So, we're doing our own thing.

(Note: I will be doing a Dragon Age: Inquisition plot analysis. Bioware is on very shaky ground, so it took me a while to finally check it out. Such, DAI is very important, and will determine the level of respect I have for the company. I wanted various opinions from those who have tried, to see if it's worth the praise it's getting.)

We're at the point where we need some new blood: creative types. Not just visual artists, but engineers of all sorts. (Specifically, I think a creative director would be key.) So if you're interested in jumping into indy gamedev...now's your chance.

We're all learning Unity3D. We have a nice series of video tutorials for learning the basics if you're interested in learning. Everything else is good ol game design, and writing.

So, if you ever wanted to make a game based on a Story Worth Telling™, hit me up. Leave a comment here, message me at smudboy at yahoo dot com, or leave a message directly to my youtube account.

RE: The Sarkeesian Conspiracy

Ah, the joys of youtube.

Well here's my comment that was probably marked as spam, and didn't appear yet. So here's a copy.

This all comes due to this.


***
-Reporting in August does not increase the chances of someone else harassing Sarkeesian at a later (August) or even future date.

As to your list:
1) In August, she clearly stated on her twitter she contacted the local police departments, not the federal authorities (FBI). You even made mention of this but dismissed it because of your crack-deductive skills.
2) But she didn't.
3) Speculation.
4) That doesn't happen in regards to digital, police records, databases and backups. The SFPD even has an up to date map of reports based on time and location.
5) Clerical error? Nope. Search terms can be looked for by date and other variables, unless you assume every single piece of data in the report was incorrect (name, date, place, type of crime, etc.)
6) The officer (and Aurini) was very clear on what date ranges he was looking under.
7)    a) That's not procedure. All calls get recorded and reports are filed. Emergency records everything.
    b) Anita clearly stated she contacted police.
8) Then the officer would've said so.
9) Then the officer would've said so (and would've received a response from the software they were using.)
10) Exactly the same as 6.

Police & police departments = SFPD. Not the FBI. The FBI are not the police.

There is no missing record. It simply did not exist.

"I can't imagine a more insignificant anomaly then a single missing letter."
And yet that anomaly can explain someone's origin. Where they learned to spell. What country they're from. For example, Britain, and Canada, spell colour with a u. Yet, this one was spelled without one.

As to your idea that an email's header IP was "spoofed" to show that it came from Britain "is more plausible" is ridiculous; apparently "very easy to do" by your standards, but checking your "insignificant anomaly" of one letter is simply more difficult.

"No one in their right might would put their family at risk like that."
Unless they were, in fact, doing it themselves, and there was no risk.

Counter argument: look at the time index of when those tweets were made. Look how quick those tweets were done from each other, and how fast someone screen capped that twitter feed. How else would they be able to catch one if they weren't hovering over the page, ready to press that print screen button? How fast was this fellow typing 6 tweets within 2 minutes? What is more likely? Someone has very fast typing skills, or someone was copying/pasting such tweets, screen capped them, and then deleted the account?

If the twitter addresses are fake, the FBI won't give a shit.
If they're real, whoopedy doo. What's the best they can do aside from look for IP addresses? Now that the cat's out of the bag, and Anita screwed it up by telling "the authorities" (police) and making the "threat" public, then that death threat maker is long gone. The police tell people (who have actually gone to them for help) to carry on as usual. Don't act suspicious. Let the perpetrator make the next move, the next communication. Nope. She played the professional victim card, again, and continues to do so on twitter.

"Let the FBI handle it. They have more blahblahblah"
Yet all the "news" agencies didn't even think of contacting the SFPD. All it took was one amateur reporter (Aurini) to try it out.

"Don't see a conspiracy, but you do."
And yet they couldn't do an actual investigation by simply contacting the local police for information to fact check. What an idea. And you're trying to say this is a bad practice because "conspiracy"?

"She has no reason to fabricate something that already exists."
Except when it's on her twitter feed: the only place she ever responds to anything. Which is where the "public threat" came in that lasted at most 2 minutes. Oh put she will post positive reviews and videos, and never contradictory ones.

"Mainstream journalists you criticize" "They uncovered the threat from March was actually a bomb threat."
Yeah. A news story about a threat, reported 6 months later? Seemed the ceremony went on just fine. How could anyone ignore that? Because the mainstream media did, and didn't report it for that long time? Why? What was the hold up? Isn't this rather important?

"And you have the audacity of accusing the mainstream journalists of being biased?"
And no one covers or talks to the people on the other side. Excuse me, but have you heard of #gamergate? The 5 guys from 5 guys burgers and fries? Gamasutra's Leigh Alexander? Jenn Frank, Maya Kramer? TechRaptor getting shadow banned from reddit? Ian Miles Chong? GameJournoPros? I could go on but are you paying attention? Don't you see the validity of The Sarkeesian Effect, and why it needs to be something aside from just another youtube or blog response? Shouldn't the other side have some media coverage to be taken seriously?

"No, no it doesn't. It all fits. It all makes sense."
Obviously not. He listed a few more questions. Which you skipped over.

"She has done nothing wrong."
Keep telling yourself that. The rest of us "gamers" who have half a brain can see through her biases pretty quickly.

"And the real open marketplace of ideas."
Yup. Can't wait for Anita to respond to critics after 2+ years. Or open up those comments. Anytime we'll get a free marketplace of ideas. Cause she's extremely open to alternate opinions.

"...anything immoral, are those that are perpetuating the idea that Anita is somehow a scam artist, liar and some kind of professional victim."
1) She is a scam artist, as per her promises for her kickstarter campaign that aren't met nor finished. She invented an issue that doesn't exist. It doesn't matter if other Kickstarter campaigns are also past their due date: it's the same problem.
2) She lied about being a gamer, and lies by omission in her videos, doesn't understand the 3rd person effect, etc. (big list here, but it's late.)
3) She openly profits from victimhood. Which makes her a professional victim.

"You have no evidence to support those claims."
Dozens of youtube videos over the years and numerous blog posts have plenty. Are you even looking? Exactly what kind of evidence do you want in contrary to an opinion? Don't you also mean proof?

"You've convinced yourself it's true."
Jordan and Davis, Jordan especially, have spent years analyzing Anita's work and content. If you think they're in an echo chamber, go and talk to them. Go and debate them. Go watch Jordan's days worth of videos, taking apart Anita's nonsense. There is no sexist problem with video games.

"Harass someone into silence."
By asking questions? By trying to get Anita to say anything to her detractors at all? The woman is beyond reproach. They're asking to talk to her: she has been silent. How can we trust a critic who can't respond to criticism?

Go right now. Go and email Jordan and Davis, and I guarantee they will get back to you and talk to you on the topic.

"But that doesn't mean it's not harassment."
Advice: consult a lawyer before making claims like this. I know a good one if you're that serious.

"It looks like you can dish it out, but you can't take it."
Whether Aurini was joking about legal action or serious isn't the issue. (And if he's serious, there's nothing wrong with going to legal action.) That's a direct response. Funny how I can't find LisaM's tweet anymore.

And going to legal action is very much a form of "taking" it seriously. While Aurini is no stranger to the court system, your accusation that Aurini can't take criticism is baseless.

"This guy is the unibomber"
Seriously. You're making a crack at a guy explaining his reasoning.

"Just because she wasn't a fan of video games in 2010 doesn't mean she's not a gamer. Or a fan of other types of video games."
Compare:
'I'm a gamer and I enjoy games' 'I love games. I'm a fan of games.'
To this:
'I'm not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot about video games in the process of making this.'
'I don't want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads and it's just gross.'

She directly states. "I am not a fan of video games." That contradicts exactly that you claimed. By her own admission.

"People go through phases."
Do movie critics suddenly go through years of their life where they don't like movies? But then suddenly do when it's time to make money off them?
Oh right, she's not a game critic, she's a culture critic (whatever the hell that means. What that means: she has no business critiquing games with any kind of credibility.)

I suppose lying is also a phase. One year you're a liar, then next you're not. Kinda hard to tell, isn't it? Kinda hard to accept anything someone says when they keep going through all these "phases". Why, next year she could totally love violent video games, but hate board games, and find misogyny in card games.

"She attended X -- strange thing for someone to do who isn't a fan of video games."

See "I actually had to learn a lot about video games in the process of making this."

"She noticed many sexist trends --"
No shit.

"2 years later she launched her kickstarter, and you want to tell me she did it all for money?"
Essentially. She was doing just fine with her normal youtube channel. Extra menu graphics aren't worth $150k+.

"From way back in 2010."
She'd be speaking about/for/against sexism if today we just developed Zoetropes. 'called confirmation bias.

"She may not be your kind of gamer, but she definitely believes in what she says."
Oh, we know very well she's a dyed in the wool sex-negative feminist.

"And not being a gamer does not make her a con artist."
That's right. But lying about it does.

"At worst she exaggerated."
No, it's established to be a lie. Read her actual contradictory words above.

"But he exagerrated in his video. Does that make him a con artist?"
So a 2010 video where she's giving an off the cuff presentation where she's talking about being "not a fan of video games", she was just exaggerating? And the interview she was also just exaggerating about "I'm a fan of games"? Which one is it? Which direction do her tastes go -- this year? You know, since she goes through "phases" as you say.

"Because the financials for her charity will be made public."
And what are those financials?

"She's Damseling for dollars."
Yes. She is the thing she has stated is bad -- the Damsel in Distress -- that must be changed from gaming. Yet there she is, the living example of the thing she hates. Which is worse? Being a hypocrite in life, or condemning art because of feelings it was designed to do makes them feel as such?

Quite a strong, independent woman, wouldn't you say?

"No evidence beyond speculation."
Paypal link on her website. Been there for quite some time. Now with monthly recurring donations.

Let's see:
'All Feminist Frequency videos are available on YouTube to watch and share for free without any advertising. We are a 501(c)3 non profit charity and we rely on generous donations from viewers to make these educational videos possible.'

Love that she's a charity, yet requires donations to make these educational videos possible. I thought there was this whole kickstarter thing that happened? And the videos aren't done yet? Why does she need more money again?

We'll see how that $150k+ money's being spent, I'm sure.

"And so far I have seen none."
From the kickstarter, $250 and $500 backers will receive "DVD copy of all Tropes vs. Women in Video Games episodes in the web series. "/entire video collection. The series isn't finished. This was slated for December 2012.
A bump in production quality? I can't really tell. Maybe the CG menu graphics? Don't think that costs $150k+. Make up and hair? A new camera?

"Maybe now you understand how it feels for Anita, and many other women who are trying to bring attention to an issue they believe in."
I thought you wanted proof? Anita hasn't shown proof. Just her opinion. Games do not cause sexism. They can believe all they want, but there is no issue. So we need to show evidence, but Anita and other feminists don't have to, just because they "believe"? Nice double standard.

"Attempting to discredit Anita doesn't address her points."
She discredited herself. We can easily disregard whatever she's saying.
And Jordan and many, many others, have addressed her points, ad nauseum. Seriously, go to his channel and watch his videos. He, and many others, have been tearing her apart for years. And they are willing to dicuss and debate these ideas.

Anita? She won't say anything to critics, criticism, or have an open discussion with these people.

"And there's a reason why the actual arguments against her points hasn't done much to sway popular opinion."
Numerous articles and videos have destroyed Anita's arguments over the years. thunderf00t, Jordan, Aurini, MrRepzion, MundaneMatt, TheAmazingAtheist, at least 3 women I saw recently. They do a hell of a job destroying her "points." I don't know where you've been over the years, but you obviously haven't been paying attention. Do you need links?

"I appreciate all the support I can get."
No thanks. I tend to like listening to people without biases or agendas.

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

The fellow responder responded again. Apparently he had more to say.
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s125/sh/eb651f10-6cbc-4efe-87a0-aa949774950b/af48f824207c1b19dba8482ec2f724ad

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?

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/357577656444792832#
"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?

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/504088179981316096
"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 Milo Yiannopoulos if you need to see the problems.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/22/They-re-on-to-us-gaming-journalists-respond-to-their-critics-in-series-of-new-GameJournoPros-emails

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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTexbEeG28U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVSzhahqOiw

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.

A response to my previous post

This is in response to this
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s125/sh/2c8b8a53-a314-4858-a61b-ca2d8f683a4c/f1569bdf0daf6d9fcc3f7db2583f7d0d
 ...which is a response to my previous post.

"- disable comments: Really? I mean, can you blame her? This accusation is just silly."

Yes. Yes I can blame her. As a blogger and as a youtuber. Who cares what other people say? It's comments. People obviously disagree with her. Why can't they talk about it? So we have no open forum to express ourselves, or argue with others. Thus, we're forced to go to other places to talk about it, or, the only place we can talk to her and others: twitter.

Does she listen? Does she care? Nope. Great job Anita. A critic who can't even listen to criticism on themselves. Pathetic.

Oh, and she's disabled ratings on the majority of her videos. So we have no idea who has actually watched her stuff and disliked them. Why even disable ratings?

I have some popular, controversial videos and I have rating counts that are nearly 50/50. What's she scared of? (Oh right. Dissent.)

And don't give me the death threat nonsense. She's a pro-victim profiting on being a Damsel. The very same thing she's arguing is bad, because feminism. She is the very thing she denounces.

"- steal footage: This accusation is so representative for the whole conflict; While I agree, that you should credit your sources, technically she did NOT steal. Was it unprofessional to not ask for permission? In my opinion, yes it was. Did she steal? Nope, Fair use."

While I'm the first to uphold anyone's ability to use the Fair Use clause to take copyrighted material for criticism (I am the first youtuber to have sued another for Misrepresentation under 512(f), to my knowledge), it's an issue I've talked to my lawyer extensively about this. The whole thing is a legal quagmire as soon as she started raising hundreds of thousands of dollars.

1. She didn't ask for permission.
2. She didn't credit or cut deals with those people (video and images.)
3. She raised money.
4. She didn't play the games she supposedly said she did.

(I can't back 4 up, but it seems pretty obvious that's what happened when she simply stole so much footage of retro games; additionally, considering her knowledge of games in general. After $150k and 2 years, she's had plenty of time and no excuses to play the retro games she supposedly bought.)

As soon as the money goes passed a huge threshold, like, over $200, a civil case can certainly be called up. I've heard of stories for much, much less than $150k+, for things as simple as selling photographs on t-shirts.

"- not responding to critics may be frustrating for critics. But not responding to critics can also seen as professionalism. Many artists choose not to go down the rabbit hole and adress critics. It's a personal choice, we have to respect."

It's your opinion that it's professional to not respond to criticism? For 2+ years?

It is hypocritical and disingenuous for any artist, or critic, who, when given legitimate criticism, for their continued work, over the years, to not respond to it. You make it sound like she's untouchable, when all she's doing is releasing feminist opinion pieces about a media that people of all ages, creeds and backgrounds love, and insinuating they're sexist, without being a lover or expert in the field.

#GamerGate is largely about the sanctity and professionalism of journalism in the gaming press. I don't know how the hell -- or in what Orwellian city you live in -- it's somehow seen as professional to not respond to criticism. You may as well give up freedom of speech, debate, and property rights while you're at it. Nothing to see here citizen. Everything I said is perfect. I don't need to respond to you. I'm perfect (I'm being sarcastic, in case you don't know.)

She's not the next David Bowie releasing a controversial video enraging religious groups.

She's a biased, lying, opportunist. Ms. "I'm not a fan of video games/they're gross" Sarkeesian produces videos that incense her audience using high school level analysis and cherry picked data, and you're telling me she's professional for being beyond reproach?

Next I'm going to start hearing "ignorance is strength" as your SJW slogan, and you'd be okay with that.

Just go here and tell me how many you think are critical and how many are trolling.

"-lying: the whole 'I don't like games' – 'I love games' stick again? The footage of her in college is seen as 'proof' of her being deceitful, but actually it is possible to have a love/hate relationship with games. I can certainly relate. I played videogames all my life, but I'm not a gamer. I'm in love with the games I played as a kid, but I'm frustrated with how conservative the industry today is. Sometimes I hate games and then I stumble over an interesting indie title and I'm in love allover again – relationship status: It's complicated. Maybe Sarkeesian lied, I don't know. For me, it's not important. Her points are still valid."

She doesn't have a love/hate relationship with games. She's a straight up liar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-69xXD734

That totally destroyed her credibility, but SJWs apparently have no standards, or reasoning, on what a hypocrite is.

Well guess what, Oceanian? You think that's okay. Why? Because she doesn't respond to that. She's professional.

And to say her points are still valid at the end of your sentence? Prove it. Cause all I heard was a lying, biased opportunist, who said a bunch of bullshit. Who isn't an art or game critic or advocate, and was so overly sensitized to her philosophy, she had to cherry pick responses to make it seem like games are sexist and misogynist.

"biased: I think this is a misunderstanding. She uses feminist theories (obviously) as a basis of her analysis. That is a completley valid approach for critics and scholars alike."

No.

Bias, or revealing a bias, does not make an argument valid. It makes it less valid. The more bias you have, the less truth there is. The more one sided, narrow minded the understanding becomes. We're looking for accurate depictions of sexism in video games, and she screwed that up. Why do I know this? Because she's a sex-negative feminist. She couldn't handle a few comments and down votes to her videos before she went to Kickstarter, and removed such videos. Aww, poor Anita.

There's plenty of feminism out there. I'm sure an actual feminist could give a better account of it in video games. But Anita ain't it.

And, if she's not a video game critic, journalist, art critic (visual, audio, animation, etc.), then she has no business what so ever being an outsider. Being an outsider doesn't make her more objective or clear headed when discussing art. This isn't a legal battle. It makes her less credible. She's giving an opinion on aggregates of video games, that show patterns of whatever, without making sense of it.

She literally just went through a page of tvtropes.org, saw what she thought was relevant to her biased agenda, and started cherry picking. And she still screwed it up.

In her Damsels in Distress part 2, regarding Borderlands 2, she entirely misses the characterization of Angel, and her integrity within the plot, claiming she's a damsel, when she's not.
http://essays.ajs.com/2013/06/borderlands-2-and-damsel-in-distress.html
http://victorsopinion.blogspot.ca/2013/06/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRtoLYKbZ_8
If she played it, she might've known better not to use that as an example...
...or she did play it, and didn't understand a damn thing in that part of the story (media critic?)...
...or she did play it, and realized most of her audience wouldn't have played that game, and ran with it...

But because she took it out of its narrative context, and because it showed the player character shooting her, clearly she was an example of the trope (and the Mercy Kill trope.) As if Angel asking the player character to kill them is some "male fantasy", and not, instead, of the powerful female character, choosing to take control of her life.

That's also observation bias. Everything is misogyny.

In her latest video, she cherry picks more examples, this time of Bioshock, saying that impaled women are somehow sex objects for being dead bodies (even though there are male bodies also dead in the same areas) in Siren Alley. Yet, she completely forgot to mention the entire level of Fort Frolic, where only male bodies were murdered, held in poses, and covered in plaster (a la Sander Cohen, a homosexual), who are literally ornamental parts of the "background decoration."

I'm sure there are more, but I don't care to listen to her nonsense.

In storytelling, context is king. Something Anita has removed from her aggregate of examples. (Or, again: she lied to us about actually either playing the games, not understanding the games, or just being stupid and lazy and not caring what the audience knows is right.)

"- profiting off victim hood: Sorry, but now you're being a dick. She is a victim of harassment. Saying she is profiting off her victim hood is belitteling this very serious fact and sounds a lot like victim blaming."

I'm a victim of harassment, and DMCA. You don't see me contacting the authorities or backing down from said harassment. She is a professional victim. That's how she gets the money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fyF3xWz8vA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSoDEA6yw24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NPQlTqcQJI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2sNUhskwlI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwX8-jfDGpk

I'm sure there are movie and music stars out there who get way more death threats, but you don't see them freaking out or asking for money.

"- obviously art is an important part of culture. Her main focus just happens to be the role of women in popculture, especially video games"

Which is completely nonsensical. The time of "culture critics" is long over, even if they were ever relevant in the past.

"- Another misconception (imo) as she has never said, creators of games are misogynists. She's looking at pieces of art – in this case games - and highlights parts that can be seen as misogynistic, like a film critic criticizes a movie for being misogynistic/homophobic/racist without saying the director is a mysoginist/homophob/racist. Sometimes a piece of art/ certain parts of a piece of art can be problematic (e.g. reenforce stereotypes) and the creator was oblivious to that fact. You don't have to be a self-identified racist/homophobe/misogynist to (accidental) reuse racist/homophobe/ misogynist tropes."

So what?

Why would anyone consider things, when taken out of their various contexts, as misogynistic?

I can take things in their context, of how dreadfully violent, painful, and sickening video games are. Who cares if a bunch of video games have women being victimized? Same with the male game characters (only multiply that violence several times.) Now I don't personally care if all the soldiers I shoot in an FPS are women, but I don't see how that's relevant.

There's nothing problematic with stereotypes. None. Nothing. They're just stereotypes. Patterns that have emerged.

You don't know if the creator was oblivious to that fact, or whether it was intentional. Who are you talking about? Show me examples, because you're making stuff up.

Remember: tropes are neither good, nor bad. Which means, they're neither misogynist or misandrist. Unless you think misogyny is neither good nor bad.

"- The way I understand it, the problem is not the trope in itself. The problem is the constant usage."

When did Anita say this? She wasn't talking about it's frequency. That's a whole other argument than "these tropes are so unoriginal in storytelling!" You see, you're inventing the narrative that Anita is trying to tell you. It's like you're not paying attention. See what happens when she doesn't respond to criticism? You have to "make up" what she's trying to say: probably because she's spouting nonsense.

"Sarkeesian speaks out for more diversification. Nothing wrong with that in my book. I also think that it is highly problematic to tell women/People of Colour/Homosexuals/Transsexuals etc. that it is THEIR problem, that THEY are oversensible when they speak out about the representation of their gender/race/sexuality or whatever."

That's because they don't stop whining about it. Wah! I'm not being represented! I can't identify with this hooker. Why, game, why?

Boo-hoo. Go feel entitled elsewhere. Don't like a game, because it doesn't fit into your world view? Go make your own.

When I criticize a game, I criticize it for what it is, and what it was trying to be. I use critical analysis of storytelling and art, because that's what I was trained in, and that's what games are. (I went to school for video game design and dev, and took various classes in the arts (philosophy, fine arts, digital art, creative writing, etc.)) Remember: context is king. Anita? She throws it away, because she wants to create her own biased narrative.

"We should at least consider the validity of their arguments because more likely than not we don't know what it feels like to be sexually harassed or discriminated against because of gender/skincolour/sexuality etc."

As soon as she makes valid ones. (Not exactly holding on for this one.)

And any writer worth their ink can write about any topic or conflict. If all you're arguing is "stories in games are too X and should be less X, and more Y". Well guess what? That's not what Anita is saying, at all.

"Even if we think we know what it is like to be bullied or discriminated against, chances are, we don't know it the way they do"

Bullshit. Everyone has been bullied or faced social pressure in some manner throughout their life. However, considering Anita's reaction to dissent, maybe she's the one who never had a healthy  childhood.

"Let's say – for the sake of the argument- she's not a gamer."

I don't have to. She said it herself.

"Is Hitman the perfect example? Probably not. Does that mean her whole theory is invalid? Hell no. Yes, Hitman discourages you from killing the innocent. Still, her whole point, that the Creatore gives you a world, you can interact with and in way to many of these worlds you can slap around half naked women holds up. In Hitman? The Game may not encourage it, but you CAN do it like the footage shows."

Actually it does disprove her theory.

1. It's a stealth game. You lose points for a) being detected, b) killing things aside from your target.
2. Out of all the play throughs I've seen, no one has slapped around strippers except Anita.
3. Just because you can do X mechanic, doesn't mean it's good, or bad. It's merely a function of the game when removed from it's narrative context.

If her point was to prove a game can have you interact with people by killing them? Congratulations. You now know you can kill humans in a game called Hitman.

But oh no, those "people" are strippers. Misogyny. Sexism. Let me go call the sensitivity police to this entertaining piece of interactive fiction you seem to have a problem with. We should probably blow up Hollywood while we're at it. Oh, and the first amendment.

"But to see the video footage shows, there is something horrible about the way you can treat these half naked women."

No, it literally doesn't. Agent 47 kills that stripper with a takedown move. (Anita then shows off ragdoll physics because she just loves collision detection.) The same way he kills any other person in the game. There is nothing horrible about that. Why? Because this is a Hitman game. If you were so goddamn traumatized by killing anything in this game, well guess what genius? You probably wouldn't be playing.

The only thing horrible is your immature reaction to your target having a vagina and wearing skimpy clothing. (A stripper in a strip club. Wearing skimpy clothing. Oh my. Call a feminist.)

Never mind the fact that one of them was talking about being worried about her friend going missing, and how she thinks her boss caused it, and how she might be next. Never mind that brief moment of humanity -- that turned an anonymous sex worker into a person, concerned about her friends and her own life -- and how, if you cared, how you wish you could help her, just like Victoria. And how much more careful you were with not hitting those panels (that just break away when you touch them) so not to have them catch you so you wouldn't have to silence them. Although that does make you wonder: would putting them out of their misery help them from a life of pain and terror? Agent 47 has internal monologue at times of the things he does, who he kills, and why. Is it just to protect Victoria? This adds to the depth of the character and the world you're in. He isn't just some nameless, mindless killer, even though he's designed to be as such. He's trying to be a person, trying desperately to survive and escape this world, and realizes that this is what he is.

Again, this is a video game about a guy who kills people. Not a documentary on the life of strippers.

You see, you're missing the forest for the trees. Anita pulls off a twig and every non-gamer, or feminist sucker, flips their shit. "This twig means something!" But she never actually tells us what. She just has a collection of twigs from multiple trees and, somehow, that's supposed to construct some other tree -- oh wait she doesn't even do that with the twigs.

"violence against sex worker is a sad fact, these games trivialize and somewhat endulge in. To a point movies have the same problem by the way. The exploitation of women dancing and stripping as visceral pleasure for the viewer or as mere background decoration has a long and sad tradition. It doesn't get criticized enough, but it gets critized and 'the male gaze' is part of film criticism and film theory."

Yeah. So don't hurt the sex workers? Oh right, only Anita did that. Because she's a sexist, I imagine.

See, you can hurt them. Or, you can be a good player, and sneak around them. As you're supposed to. In a goddamned stealth game. If you go and hurt them, doesn't that say something about you, the player? (e.g. a1) are you a misogynist? a2) are you a sexist? a3) are you getting an erection yet? a4) did you check your privilege as a Hitman? b) are you a shitty Hitman player? c) are you perhaps reading way too much into this you over-reactive snowflake?)

These games don't trivialize death. You're literally killing people in the game world. Strippers, waiters, caddys, guards, etc. The kills are conducted in a variety of methods, tools and details. You're a killing machine. A Hitman. Hence, the title. You're supposed to kill only your targets, with stealth and silence. Women are not being exploited. They are not "just background decoration." They are people, or at least, trying to be, in the brief moment we get to see and hear them, living out their lives. Just like the men are, and boy, if you think those strippers are exploited, for the grand total of 20 seconds you see and hear them? Wait till you see the men being exploited and killed in that game. By you. The player.

I imagine if Anita talked about male exploitation, she could devote hours and hours on Hitman alone. But oh no. Vaginas.

But let ask you a serious question: how do you know they're being exploited? Tell me that. No, seriously. Show me where in the game you know, in their 20 second brief life as a stripper, they're being exploited. How do you know they don't want to be there? How do you know they don't enjoy it? You see, there's not much depth to them, nor, should there be. Because this is a game. About a Hitman. The player character.

Never mind the fact that Anita takes this stuff out of context.

Never mind that this isn't "Hit-Tell me a story about the Strippers in a Stripclub-man."

You're Agent 47. You have one job. And it certainly isn't therapy for random NPCs who just happen to have vaginas. There's no real reason for the game designer, writer, developer, etc., to cater to your every ridiculous need just because vaginas make you cry.

"- I would call the use of sexual imagery as lazy if it's used to ponder to a certain crowd (e.g. Megan Fox in the Transformer Movies) or if used as a shortcut to establish the fictional (e.g. dark & gritty) world."

How the flying hell is that lazy? That's called knowing your goddamned audience. And delivering.

It's also called taste. And guess what? All the bitching you're saying or how virtual women are being victimized, isn't ever -- and I mean this, ever -- going to change people liking attractive things, men or women. Until gamers, for some reason, stop liking attractive things in their games (women, men, shiny objects, whatever), game developers, movie directors, comic book artists, etc., are going to keep doing it.

And they have been. And all your whining isn't going to change anything.

But hey, maybe, maybe you'll get ambitious and make your own game, with no tits and killing, and whatever. Get all your other SJW fascists and put in all the politically correct bullshit you want. Let's see it sell. I actually would like to see it do well, and you and your SJWs do well, if you succeed. Corner that market. If anything, maybe you can start producing and stop whining, cause you are writing so much crap that I have to respond to.

"I would also argue that tropes are wildly accepted as lazy in writing circles."

In the circles I know, I've never heard anyone sigh and go "oh, sexy people. So 1984." Case you hadn't noticed, all the actors in Game of Thrones, who are oh-so-exploited for taking their clothes off and having sex scenes, are drop dead gorgeous. But apparently the story is very good, so I guess they're not being exploited, right? I mean, castration doesn't bother you, cause that's one step closer to a vagina, right?

As for writers, they avoid clichés like the plague. On http://www.tvtropes.org, the homepage states:"On the whole, tropes are not clichés."

"But again, it's not about the tropes, it's about the heavy reliance on these tropes."

Again, how do you know this? Did Anita say this? Cause much like Anita, I think you're just projecting her nonsense with your own. Cause I've written and edited stories. Took courses on it, argued, edited in roundtable discussions, etc. All stories have already been told. When writers and editors make suggestions, I bet half of them are tropes: but we don't care. Aside from a handful of obvious ones, we don't ever say "oh that's so cliche." We go "how can we make this feel X?"

Anyone writing a story with sex workers and murder? That's interesting.

There is nothing wrong with using tropes, stereotypes, themes, sex, death, etc. It's how you do it that counts. And to say it's wrong just means that's your taste. And that's fine, but you don't get to tell others what to like just because you can't handle it. And don't bother telling that to artists.

"And while original stories may be rare, it should always be about what you do with the 'stock material'. As a writer, you can give it a creative twist or be lazy. The Problem wit the adverts is not only that it - as Sarkeesian points out - recreates another trope of the 'beautiful, but dead' trope, it also hints at the bigger problem of objectifcation of women in advertising."

Nowhere was Anita saying what you just stated. A poor writer can be lazy; but it's about how they write, not what they write about.

Advertising is about making things sell. One big billboard with a chick on it with skimpy clothing. Wow. Where have I seen that before. Yup. How dare advertisers use sex because it makes them money. How unoriginal. How dare they make money on a historically proven method of selling things. If only they were more original, they could make more money. Who would ever want to look at tits. Not me. So unoriginal.

Please keep your sex-negative feminist bullshit to a minimum. I'm hopefully past the halfway mark here.

"- Objectification is used in the way social philosophy defines it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification"

Thank you for pointing out your ideological nonsense so I don't have to research it to point out it has no place in an analysis of game content. Games have their own philosophies (ludology) coupled with literary theory, for games with narrative. You don't ask a baker to make you a pair of boots.

" But that in itself caters to a (male) savior/revenge fantasy."

So what if it caters to things, in your opinion? Stopping the bad guy is the point. There's a boss. A bad guy. Stop him. Saving the girl may just be part of it, or she maybe intrinsic to stopping the bad guy, or the plot, or nothing at all. And there's nothing wrong with any of that. Again, it's how it's done that matters.

Of course, you, and Anita, would've known this, if you knew anything about games or storytelling. But because vaginas are involved, you lose all sense of what a game is trying to do; if you even knew in the first place.

"Gender theory would argue that is rooted in the male gender role."

That's because these people don't understand science, economics, physiology, the endocrine system, etc. Gender roles are just that, roles. And while individuals commit criminal acts, it's largely based on biology and economic forces, than whether one wears pants or pumps.

"In a male dominated society, men are supposed to be the strong one, not only physically, but men are also supposed to suffer silently, to be the emotional detached, rational one, the breadwinner etc."

Luckily, we don't live in a male dominated society. And even if we did, that would have nothing to do with gender roles, and more to do with biology, social and developmental psychology.

"Patriarchy hurts men as well as women."

Not a fan of the ladies, are you Trebek.

"Most critics of feminism (e.g. on youtube) ignore this fact completly."

Probably because they're busy wondering where all the women are being oppressed by not getting into all those male dominated industries of oil drilling, coal mining or porn theatre janitors. Damn you, patriarchy.

"I agree. It IS a whole other topic because political convictions do not necessarily render ones arguments invalid."

Oh right. Marx. A fellow who helped come up with creating dialectical materialism, which is the exact opposite of the dialectic process of Hegel. The very one thing you don't want to use in having a serious discussion on the validity of your ideology to make any damn sense together (synthesis.)

Welcome to Oceania, citizen. Ignorance is strength.

"Feminism strives for equality of the sexes (and not female chauvinism, like some critics claim)."

Feminism wants to create a uni-sex? Good luck with that. And all the examples of feminists I've talked to were calling me sexist and misogynists just for disagreeing with them. Sometimes, just saying hello. I'm telling you: you're making me think there's something wrong with me.

"- I don't think that's true. It's a common misconception that criticism has no merits in itself. Xou don't have to be a game developer/writer/director or artist of any kind for that matter to be a critic. In fact, more often than not, critique can be seen as its own artform. And I do think critics can make a difference. And I hope we will see a wider range of female characters in game. We already do. And that's a good thing. Just my 2 cents."

If you don't know anything about the thing you're critiquing, you're a bad critic.
If you don't know the context of the thing you're critiquing, your criticism is flawed.
If you take things out of context, you're lying to your audience.

Criticism is not an art form. Who told you this? It is analytical, empirical, and structured. It requires an experienced, critical eye. And lots of evidence within its context.

Gamers don't care if we get more or less females in games. We want fun games. And we want all ideologies or other nonsense. Game designers and developers are free to make any kind of games with any content they wish. So long as such games are fun, we care. If they're not, they're not worth playing, and the medium and reason for listening to storytelling is nearly gone.

If you want to argue stories and their composition, learn about it. Don't just say "we need females doing x in games". Until someone shows us why, then no, we don't, and never did. Anita certainly isn't the right person for the job.