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

Sorry, Lith, not buying it. Zero evidence of sexism in all of those screencaps. Zero. However, they all support EXACTLY what I've said multiple times already: That harassment has become the issue (it wasn't in the spotlight six years ago). It could not have been made clearer that what the mainstream sites have chosen to focus on is the terrible behavior of some terrible, terrible people. That was not the case when the Jack Thompson stuff was going down. Feasible explanation. No sexism. I'm pretty sure I've already said this.

Also, thereshouldbe silence on irrelevant subjects. People think Sarkeesian is a liar and a con artist? Who fucking cares what they think? There isn't a shred of evidence of this, so why should the media pay attention to it? If we wanted to we could dig up dirt on virtually any journalist or Youtube poster in order to suggest that their motivation is less than pure. Literally anyone. When you're susceptible to conspiracy-theory shit, it's incredibly easy to find "proof" that supports your hypothesis, even if none of that "proof" would actually count for anything in a court of law. No, I don't think for a second that any mainstream site should give any time or energy to acknowledge the whims of some whiny assholes who are foaming at the mouth for a public trial and execution. Fuck those guys.

She made videos criticising the portrayal of women in video games. That's all she did. Yet she became a huge target... why? It's not because she's a liar or a cheat (she was a target before her first video came out). It's not because she's chosen a shitty topic and made terrible points (by and large, her videos are thought-provoking and worth watching). It's not because she's causing harm to the video game industry (she isn't, she's actually helping). It's not because she ripped people off (she didn't). It sure as fuck is not because some people have legitimate criticism about some of the points she made (there are people with legitimate criticism for every video about video games ever). And it's not because people are appalled that the mainstream media isn't saying anything negative about her (again, she was a target before "gaming journalism" was brought in as a scapegoat for personal attacks). It's not becauseeveryoneis targeted equally (there are plenty of people who make game videos that only have to put up with minor trolls). What's left? Well, if we look at the volume, type and delivery of complaints made against her, there is PLENTY of evidence that suggests a certain motivation for this targeting. If you've been paying attention, you can probably tell what it is.

Lithose_sl said:

Let me remind you again; death threats for Jack Thompson were defended from that publication.

Click to expand...

Addressed.

Lithose_sl said:

In your example, only civil criticism is allowed to get through moderation.

Click to expand...

Shouldn't only civil criticism be allowed? Why would we want uncivil criticism?

Arbitrary_sl said:

Actually, I don't need her to be any of the things you think I need her to be. I didn't really know a single fucking thing about any of this until I watched that particular video. Hey, this chick be lying. I haven't been following her, her bullshit, the responses to her bullshit, or any sites that thought her bullshit was a big deal. I care 100000x more about the implications of the Breibart emails than whatever she's doing.

Click to expand...

So, basically exactly what I said. You saw a point you disagreed with, needed an excuse to dismiss her altogether and slapped her with a label ("liar"). Several others had done the same before you so it was an even easier bandwagon to jump onto. Tell me, was there at least one other point in that video you disagreed with?

Arbitrary_sl said:

Right, my motivations matter (even the bullshit made up ones he's trying to paint on me) but hers don't. Pretty standard tactics.

Click to expand...

Yeah, your motivations as to why you personally attack someone matter. Sarkeesian's motivations as to why she wants to talk about the portrayal of women in video games don't. She's creating a discourse that exists outside of her motivation that can be analysed on its own merits. You're blocking out criticism in favor of demonizing a bogeyman. But by all means, keep pretending I'm using "standard tactics", whatever that means.

Sebudai_sl said:

The videos are indicative of the plague of bad thinking that has recently beset many socially progressive movements. It was one thing when this type of thinking was limited to those on the fringe of liberalism, but it is now seeping into every other area, including and most importantly, academia. This co-opting of academic language to support faulty conclusions is just one step short of the the faux-intellectualism of Deepak Chopra.

Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. Is her video full of nothing but inaccuracies? If it isn't then it's worth listening to (if you have any interest in the subject at all). She is doing no harm, despite what you may think, by choosing to put her time and energy into analyzing the portrayal of women in video games. If you consider it a non-issue, then clearly you don't have an interest in the subject and would be entirely justified in avoiding discussing it altogether. No harm, no foul. But for those of us that like to see the things we love critiqued in order to challenge the industry into being more creative, Sarkeesian's videos do nothing but good, and I say that as someone who's more than willing to criticise flaws in her work.

Lithose_sl said:

So, lets just be clear. Seeing the narrative behind the harassment of women be dramatically different from those of men; with open admittance that said coverage is different due to their claims of abuse=Not sexism.

Click to expand...

Sarkeesian and Quinn get horrifically and publicly harassed, everyone everywhere sees them get lambasted by hateful sexist assholes, the media decides to focus on it. How is that sexist?

Lithose_sl said:

Seeing the narrative of women in video games being dramatically different from those of men=Sexism.

Click to expand...

Well, that's the idea behind the videos. If you disagree, you are welcome to criticise the content of her videos publicly. If what you say has merit and is interesting, people will read it and nobody will call you sexist.

Lithose_sl said:

Yes, only civil criticism should be allowed. Too bad for men, that's not the case. (Because sexism.) I guess Jack Thompson be told people would shit in his mouth and then break all of his teeth against a curb is "civil"--for a man. Nice to know, Tan.

Click to expand...

Wait a second. First it was "Legitimate criticism is being stifled!" Now it's "Legitimate criticism isn't being stifled in all cases, but look at what happened to Jack Thompson six years ago! Why isn't Kotaku taking responsibility for that NOW?" Look at those goalposts fly.
Would it make you happy if Kotaku published an apology for how they handled Thompson's situation six years ago, before online harassment became the story it is now? Heck, if you just needed an example of a male who was targeted with harassment to show this isn't a gender-skewed problem, why not at least choose Phil Fish? He was totally the victim of harassment and doxxing very recently. Why didn't you choose him as an example?

Arbitrary_sl said:

It's not a point to be disagreed with. It's objectively wrong. Intentionally misrepresenting something is not how you create a discourse. It's how you advance an agenda. I am not in the wrong for not wanting to treat an intellectually dishonest piece of claptrap as some great opportunity to debate the issues of the day. The hit job Night Trap suffered wasn't some great chance to debate violence in video games. Boy, I sure can't wait to have a discussion with the people that are maliciously misrepresenting my product!

Click to expand...

Something being wrong doesn't mean it was intentionally misrepresented. You're jumping to conclusions because it's easier than listening to a feminist talk about video games.

khalid_sl said:

Her videos either maliciously orthrough lack of knowledgemisrepresent what she is talking about. I won't use them as a point of discussion on something, even though I actually agree with some of her points. However, her misrepresentation of the data means it is about the last piece of evidence I would want to use.

Click to expand...

So you acknowledge that she isn't necessarily trying to "trick" people or lie to them to prove a point?Andyou can still separate the wrong points she makes with the ones that have merit? Holy shit, it's almost like you're a reasonable person.

khalid_sl said:

Personally, I doubt you live up to this yourself Tanoomba. If you saw a Redpill hitpiece on women and hypergamy, would you say "Yeah, you know, sure the article contains alot of bullshit and sexism, but you know, divorce is a problem in the US so we should use this to talk about it!"? I doubt it.

Click to expand...

You know what my first post in the Redpill thread was? "This might be the first argument I've seen where both sides are right." Don't get me wrong, I can't stand TPR. But reading all that was being said, it seemed like there was good reason to believe that there was at least a kernel of truth in TRP's analysis of human behavior. Apparently, you can predict how people's subconscious will make them more susceptible to certain approaches. That doesn't make it not terrible, but I can't just dismiss it outright as sexist nonsense either. Why couldn't we use some of the theories championed by TRP when discussing gender, sexual and relationship issues? If anything TRP says has merit, it's worth discussing. The parts that don't have merit should be legitimately criticised and dismissed as meritless, when appropriate.

Did I stutter?