Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Tanoomba_sl said:

By dismissing the article because of what you perceive to be an unfair generalization, you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of doing: Ignoring the underlying truth because of "how" the message is being communicated

Click to expand...

At no point did I say the dismissal of thetrollscomments was inappropriate. I think it's fine they are ignored. The only reason I even stated they had a "reason" for their attack wasnotto illustrate that their attack was legitimate but to illustrate the CAUSE of said attack was not merely that their victim had a vagina (Lets re-context this. When 9/11 happened, Bill Marr brought up the point that all the hate and ciritcisms of the U.S. were NOT unreasonable--that some of them were valid. He was fired from his job; but he was right. Yes, the terrorists were awful, but no, that doesn't make the U.S. immune from the broader criticisms--THAT is the point being made here). Understand? My point, this whole time, has been that even non-sexist, rational criticism, like you'll see in many blogs and youtube videos (Some you linked) or even written statements like mine, will be considered sexist, merelybecause the existence of the trollsand due to the disgusting nature of their tactics. For your point to be equivalent, I would have had to have said that gaming media can not make a valid argument because of the existence of these articles...

But that's not what I said. I've asked Gaming Media to expand the narrative of it's viewpoint and offer counter-views, because I believe gaming Journalists are decent people, they are just biased. See the difference? If articles clearly said "a small group of trolls is responsible for this deplorable harassment; and that's not right. BUT gamers in general have X, Y, Z, concerns, which they've discussed in a reasonable, civil format?" I would have no problem with them; in fact, I'd cheer on their rightful dismissal of the trolls--because they are treating two obviously distinct groups (Trolls, gamers) as separate. The issues brought up ALSO need to be reported..separately. The gaming media can not write blank checks in the name of "because the attacks are disgusting"--they have a job to be critical.

Anyway, the fact is, Tan. What really boggles my mind is the cognitive dissonance it requires to label gamers as sexist, while simoteneously receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from gamers to expose sexism. It's clear that at least a very large subset of gamers do NOT like this behavior from the trolls. All anyone is asking is that said distinction be made AND that gamer concerns, which are voiced in rational, civil ways--remain valid. And if you say "well gamers haven't voiced concerns in a valid way! Harumfff! (As most of the media has)...I'll point to the actual escapist thread. Which I think illustrates a high level of civil discourse(Especially for the internet). Yet this venue of discussion was trashed by the media as being harassment.

I'm merely holding the specific authors to task for the way they quantify the news in a biased matter, while ignoring various SPJ ethics that require them to expose various viewpoints. At no point have I, or will I, disregard all counter criticism. I want more criticism from the press, I think it's a GOOD thing when any movement is challenged. However, the press is not about creating narratives--it's platform with which to examine controversy. If you see the difference in that, you'll understand my problem.

Tanoomba_sl said:

Not what I'm doing. I'm saying the volume and type of criticism she got and how it was expressed is not indicative of her just making points deserving of criticism; It's because misogynist assholes eagerly seek out opportunities to shit on women and this was gold for them. "Criticize my games? Tell me the industry I love relies on sexist tropes? Cunt! Whore! I hope you get raped!"
Also, I'm curious now: What do you consider to be "valid criticism" of Sarkeesian? The examples I've linked and my own criticism looked at examples of points she'd made in her videos and expressed disagreement with them, usually referencing some context she might have missed or something she may have misinterpreted. Basically, looking critically at what she has to say and analyzing it for flaws and inconsistencies is the best way to criticize her. However, what I often see LCWs trying to do is expose her as a fraud, a cheat, a liar, a scam artist....

Click to expand...

Well reasoned criticisms are valid; arguments with evidence combined with reasoned points more so. Uncivil points, or opinions laced with vulgarities, have a quality that allows for dismissal of THOSE distinct opinions. The problem here is that one small community is making the sexist/vulgar remarks--and then all civil criticisms are placed under that umbrella. Let me ask you this Tan. I can go find at least a dozen endorsements of Anita's work from main stream sites. Can you find even 2-3 mainstream sites who have brought up ANY of the criticisms you just mentioned? If those valid, CIVIL, criticisms exist; why is the media not printing them? If the reason is that Anita is not important, than why does she get so much press for her base work? Do you see how NOT having a critical eye just because of a small community is doing terrible things, is a poor choice? (And if you don't believe the media should do that; see below. Some "Journalists" will say the nature of opinion pieces does not require such analysis; but this has gone well beyond opinion at this point, no?)

Let's take it to a broader and more important scale, Tan. And I'll talk about something I work with regularly (And write about). When the Housing Bubble collapsed; one of the PR narratives these companies decided to spin in the media was how a small group of homeowners were purchasing homes well beyond their price range, in a hope to exploit the market. This behavior was bad, and it exploited the temerity of the banks issuance of loans because they were backed by various sources. So you could definitely say that this small group was nefarious in it's purpose of exploiting the banks. In the banks narrative,ANY criticismof the banks was painted as theunjust whalingof these "thieves" who tried to "get rich quick" by "exploiting" the poor banks. However this was agrosslyunfair assessment, considering that theVAST majorityof the people who purchased these homes were good, honest, hard working people who believed the banks had their own best interest at heart. Was it fair that the constant narrative in the media was painting these homeowners as parasites and incompetent people who were being greedy? Of course not, but it was a tactic that ACTUALLY afforded them some level of protection (I was writing extensively on it convincing some people here even how absurd it was--THAT was how effective it was in the general media.)

You can extent this tactic to just about any level you want. It's a bad behavior. And when I see it in my hobby, I speak out against it. Why? Because I want my hobby to grow. At the core of all this, I think "Social Justice" (More specifically, people like Anita and some opinion bloggers/Youtubers like her) is agoodthing for gaming. I maydisagreewith them, but they force people to at least consider another perspective; they create a discourse which does that. But in order for that growth to be healthy, the people forcing that new view must ALSO have their perspectives challenged (And the synthesis of these two views, I usually find, is superior.)--The problem is, the "antithesis" to these views is being silenced by the gaming media.

Tanoomba_sl said:

Also, I like how you keep cracking out the old "men can get targeted too" as if that means everything's nice and balanced and sexist assholes are just a subset of regular assholes who spray their vitriol across all genders equally. Do you really believe this to be the case? Do you really believe a woman is not more likely to be targeted for harassment after taking a controversial stance?

Click to expand...

I honestly don't know. I'm willing to consider the latter, sure. I might indeed have a bias; because I have plenty of anecdotal information (Which is subject to various biases) that men have been egregiously attacked by these same people. So when I see "new" critics and producers--I don't immediately assume it's their vagina altering what was before a status quo. Now, again, like I said, could I be wrong? Of course. But the difference is Tan, I'm willing to admit that might not be the case and I'd embrace a gaming media that explored many opinions (This being one of them). However, the people writing these articles are largely completely opposed to even entertaining the view that this small sub-troll community is really just a virulent cult of anonymity; that happens to descend upon anyone that challenges them (Male or female); and that the nature of their attacks (Int his case sexism) does not indicate the reason for the attack (In this case, they are idiots who can't form cogent responses and so they produce vulgarities to express distaste). So again, the problem is the fact that objectivity in this case, seems to be a slave to the whims of the subjective views of the few.

Tanoomba_sl said:

So, you're arguing because you see what you perceive to be an underlying truth that your opposition is ignoring or not acknowledging. You're arguing for argument's sake because it's fun, and you'll take an unpopular position (what you may even see as an "underdog" position) because arguing online is a hobby so it might as well be interesting. Congratulations, you're pulling a Tanoomba. Why would my mind be blown by your ability to chastise assholes? I don't make assumptions about you or try to categorize you, and I've said many times that I consider you to (generally) be an exceptionally reasonable person. Heck, you even defended me when I was told to sit in the back of the bus on the other thread, which I appreciated (also: Thanks, Khalid). But I can acknowledge your ability to be rational and still find issue with certain stances you choose to take. Yes, I've seen you chastise the trolls. But I've also seen you accuse the media of using these trolls as a shield, and I think that's bullshit. As the Cracked article points out, these trolls have become a bigger problem than ethical breaches in gaming journalism. It seems like a lot of LCWs are choosing to believe that's not the case ("Just ignore them! Come on, it's so easy!"), but this is due to:
a) A severe lack of empathy (which is easy to have when you believe the victims are the villains)
b) A powerful, powerful desire to frame the argument in terms of what LCWs want to talk about (which, coincidentally, usually involves exposing women as liars and cheats and whores)
Again, you probably believe sexism is not playing a role here, but all the evidence I've seen (the volume, type, and delivery method of supposed "valid" criticism) strongly shows otherwise. You think the media is protecting women from valid criticism, I believe sexist assholes have prevented any valid criticism from being able to take place. Well, in the mainstream, at least. It's still ridiculously easy to find plenty of valid criticism by making the bare minimum of effort. Do you believe we shouldn't expect people to make the bare minimum of effort to learn about a topic they are interested in and want to discuss publicly?

Click to expand...

I believe Sexismmightbe playing a role here Tan, that's what you don't get. I'm not disregarding the counterpoint, I'm illustrating that it'sONEpossibility. I wantALLreasonablepossibilities to be entertained, understand? (And if you ask, what's reasonable--refer to above, evidence based, civil arguments) When the media creates a single narrative and does NOT subject their view to the opposition, it creates a severe problem. Half of the ethics in Journalism were made specifically to combat this. Let me list a few.

- Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
- Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
- Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
- Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
- Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
- Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.
- Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.

Now, go and read the mass media. I feel like all the above precepts were applied well TOWARDS SJW (And Zoe/Anita specifically)--and that's aGOODthing. But were they applied well to the other side of the story? I think even based on your responses, you'll agree the narrative here HAS been oversimplified in order to promote a section of a story. We KNOW sources of certain work were not identified properly. Has the media talked toanyof the (Non-troll)critics on the other side of the debate? Reached out to any of the myriad number of blogs or youtube personalities that are taking a civil counter point? No, they haven't. And so, how are they allowing the opponents to respond? They aren't, Tan. (And if those opponents are "too small potatoes" to be interviews--then the whole subject should not be covered.) How many of these things are allows to be disregarded in the name of a narrative? THAT, is what I have a problem with. I'm fine with sexism being reported, I'm fine with Anita and Zoe getting coverage--I'm just not fine with the lack of diligence in seeking out the "whole" story (All in the name of the "poisoned" well--fuck, one of the editors even admitted that directly in the emails--that even IF there was legitimacy in the allegations, he was not going to research it "because sexism". I linked it earlier...That's a problem, Tan.).

As for "I argue because it's fun"--well, not really. I wrote about MY HOBBY and my writing specifically together. While I do find an argument fun, I often don't take a counter point just to be contrary--if I did that, I'd post a lot more in the political thread. I usually contain my writings to subjects I work with, or engage in in RL. Which means video games, social activism, economics---and good TV. I write here, because I can be challenged here and the only cost for being wrong is I get more knowledge of the subject I was arguing about. In RL, when I write, if I'm proven wrong; there could more repercussions than me simply learning something.

Now this board is full of very smart people. I think this community is pretty freaking amazing compared to the internet as a whole. Plenty of people here can teach me through arguments; which is why I do it. I'm arguing with you, right now, because I'm hoping to learn something about the other angle of these things. Understand? It's not JUST to convince you, it's to see how the other "side" thinks, to understand their motivations, and why they feel the way they do. It's through civil discourse that we come to those understandings, Tan.But, I don't just do that "to do it"--it has to be a subject that in wider theaters I can't engage in because of various reasons. Anyway, the difference is; I'm not making the point just because I like "underdogs". I'm making it because I feel strongly about it and, after doing some pretty extensive reading, I've come to a conclusion that I feel is pretty strong. And these debates are meant to find weaknesses in that view. (But thus far, feels pretty strong)

IS IT RACISM OR PATRIARCHY???

Cross linking from General. Palum posted it in the sport athletes thread and seems kinda relevant on the media topic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/sp...ther.html?_r=1

Seriously Tanoomba? Get fucking real.

Tanoomba_sl said:

I acknowledged mass media was ignoring legitimate criticism about Sarkeesian's work. I believe Lithose and I have conflicting views as to why that is. I also said that anybody willing to make the bare minimum of effort would be able to find legitimate criticism of Sarkeesian's work. I demonstrated by putting in the minimum of effort and finding legitimate criticism of Sarkeesian's work. I followed up with my own valid criticism of Sarkeesian's work. Just because it's not in the mainstream doesn't mean it isn't there.

Click to expand...

This is really disingenuous. Just because you can find some criticism somewhere, doesn't mean it isn't a problem that the mainstream media has self-proclaimed Anita as a hero and refuses to show any other viewpoint. You wouldn't say that in any other case, for example if all the news organizations suddenly turned completely republican and never said anything negative about them. You certainly wouldn't accept me saying "well Tanoomba, I looked online and found Slate, so shut up, it's not a problem".

Also, you keep trying to link Lithose and those that dislike Anita to the extremists, with your absolutely shitty last paragraph in your linking to that petition. So stop acting like you are the voice of reason here. I mean, is it some sort of weird meta trolling where you say the media coverage isn't a problem, while trying to do the same thing as the media is doing (linking anyone criticizing Anita to sexists)? I dunno, but its crap.

Whether that is fake or not, it is one of the many reasons I don't use Facebook. Way too easy for someone to judge you based on some political view or even tv show that you watch.

Tanoomba_sl said:

"Keep trying"? I literallyjustlearned these guys existed, and I'mbeggingLithose to confirm he's not one of them. I'm most certainly NOT trying to link him with them.

Click to expand...

Fuck off, you disingenuous piece of shit. "Begging Lithose to confirm he isn't one of them?" Just fuck off, we aren't stupid. At least have the decency to admit that is what you were doing, instead of trying to treat me like I'm an idiot.