I did want to get back to this. The fact that some, or even most "mainstream" journalists will defend the Sarkeesians of the world hardly "squelches debate".
Since the Quin posts in this thread, I've been talking about how debate outside mainstream media, combined with a dissonance of views in the mainstream (IE illustrating some kind of bias), leads to this kind of "mob mentality" (As people with legitimate criticisms or who have even had major issues, like TFYC, are not being heard). You pointing to ample evidence of her videos being heavily criticized; while simultaneously she receives nothing but accolades is only proving this. That is,
literally, the problem personified Tan. Whenever she releases a video, the write up from each gaming site lathers on praise--even if there are some glaring and legitimate criticisms to be made. Debate within the big journalist web sites IS squelched. Just because it can happen by individuals, only leads to that further "friction", as people see ample evidence of criticism but ONLY see a clear agenda in the media.
Then, and I think this is the worst part, her detractors are intimated to be all misogynists or irrational--because the only time any censuring of her videos makes it to the media? It's one of the trolls. And Tan, if you search through the endless videos responding to her inaccuracies; guess what? You'll find the troll/harassment stuff is VERY rare. But despite tons of really good rebuttals, the occasional terrible tweet or idiotic, misspelled post is all that's thrown up--combined with an article praising Sarkesian for how honest and salient she is, while admonishing those rebutting her for just being narcissistic about "their" game culture and "angry" that she is a woman. It's like kicking a hornets nest, it's crazy (Well, not really, it's actually logical. Those hornets click links--and links bring money.)
Can't you see why this is the SAME reason people get pissy over companies like EA receiving GOOD reviews for bad games? You want to see death threats? Head over /v after the latest FPS turd comes out and gets a 9.0 on a bunch of gaming sites. Those guys end up calling for blood. People do not like clear biases; especially when it promotes, what they feel, to be a false message (And I say "false" not because I think Anita is "wrong" but rather just because some of her views have issues). The fact is, her message has problems, and yet the reviews of it, from everything that I have seen (And I've read articles every time she's posted a new video) have always been,
100%filled with praise.
This is
notokay, Tan. It's not okay for media to be so blatantly biased--even just on principle it's not. And this is all connected, going back to Zoe Quinn--is it any wonder that people believed those sites wouldn't actually investigate? There are reasons why "media" has a duty beyond agendas. It was the failure of those duties by broadcast and print media that helped turn people to the internet in the first place--it's amazing how quickly the internet has let the same cancers grow.
The "protection" she gets, she gets because of the trolls who've turned her into a victim. Would she be so defended if she was a man? Maybe not, but why blame her for that? Even if she is knowingly exploiting her gender to garner sympathy, it only works because the trolls did such a fantastic job showing everyone what pieces of shit they are. This is the same reason I think it's stupid to criticize her for making money off her videos.
It's like you don't even read my posts, come on, man.
but I don't even attribute this problem to Anita(She takes advantage, sure, but who wouldn't? If I had some suckers who would game the system for me, fuck yes I would do it).I attribute to the game journalists who are more concerned with agendas than journalism (But hell, it's been that way since EA began dumping money on them, so maybe I'm just tilting at windmills.)
The problem, really, is with the (male) journalists who are using her for click bait; or because they really are slaves to some obtuse chauvinistic ideological position (I can't tell). I only had half my tongue-in-cheek when I said Anita is the personification of her Damsel/Woman-background trope within the media. It's so ironic it'salmosthilarious. .
I've said this multiple times. My main issue is with the game journalists; it has been since the first post. (Though I do take issue with you blaming it on the trolls, NOT because I think the trolls are innocent, mind you, I find them deplorable--I'll explain below).
You want a more level playing field where the views of women can be argued in the same way the views of men can be (ie: In mainstream media)? So do I. The first step to get there is to stop these fucking trolls. In the meantime, we are still able to criticize Sarkeesian just fine without depending on journalists to do it for us.
You're assuming a lot here, though. A lot, especially considering that you can plainly see these trolls have been attacking men since, again, we were on FoH back in 99. Again, Smedley's company has been hacked 3-4 times now, the CC info stolen, I KNOW his personal info has been released multiple times, he has received death threats (Especially after the Star Wars debacles--I remember him and Koster got a series of them...on their official forums even)--and, as shown, his plane has been forced to land due to a terrorist threat (In your words). So we have men who deal with trolls as well; it's a problem we have been combating since the inception of online gaming. You're assuming Anita used the trolls to get popular--but that is something the men have
notbeen able to do, and so, I would conclude you are only seeing
halfthe problem. The other is the
biasthat was present
outsideof the trolls (And the trolls merely provided an avenue to exploit it further). That IS my opinion, but I think the evidence for it is
prettylogical--if trolls were the
definingvariable, then men and women should be in these positions of "using" them--but they aren't.
There is an analog to all this among different sections of (online) journalism. For example, due to the power publishers have over early copies, and advertising and a host of other things--gaming sites who receive these benefits will often pad numbers of larger games. Sometimes it's pretty outrageous; even
clearflaws are overlooked (Essentially the same kind of bias). Now, do we blame these large companies for being bullies? Or do we blame the journalists for not sacking up and having an integrity that goes beyond their next paycheck? I blame the journalists;
if only because they are the ones with an obligation to the truth.If we trusted EA, we wouldn't need them.
It's really the same problem I have with Anita. You can blame the trolls, Tan (And I absolutely agree, they are part of the problem--much like EA's bullying is part of the problem). BUT they are like flies, you'll never swat enough of them and even if you do, two more take their place. It's much easier to
expecta lack of bias from the small group of journalists, people who can be help accountable because they have standards they are obliged to follow. It seems a lot more reasonable to me to focus on them, rather than a group of anonymous trolls, no? (Obtuse metaphor time!) Swatting flies around a dead carcass is just an exercise in futility--it's far more logical to simply destroy the carcass and give the flies less to feed on.
.) But does the nature of the threat being sexual make it worse? Is a bomb threat that forces your plane to land, or people bringing down your servers, better or worse than someone on twitter making sexual threats?
