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?
The point of this line was to illustrate the difference in views when applied to the media's reaction of a critique of their own bias--vs the media's reaction when these same standards are used to critique developers using women in video games. Your point here, is a
straw man. (Highlight of the straw man)******
Essentially I made the point that by Anita's own formulation, the media's coverage IS sexism--you then used a counterpoint "What's wrong with the media pointing out sexism".******
Again, the point is, if the media believes Anita is doing good work, then they must ALSO believe they are biased and it's a form of sexism. By her OWN judgement.
Well, that's the idea behind the videos. If you disagree, you are welcome to criticize 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.
But if I criticize the media, using the same methodology Anita used--I am called, or intimated to be a sexist. If people respond to media bias, they are intimated as such. You've done so yourself, multiple times, in this thread. Remember how you asked "why is it such a big deal in to criticize the media over Anita"? Asking me, essentially, why have myself and others picked this battle; and then ostentatiously illustrated that the target of our criticism are females. (Yep, you were pretty subtle intimating that the reason for it was sexism--I'm not going to pull out quotes but if you deny this, I will--please just be honest and admit you did this.)
Also, as said above--this is a straw man. The original question was highlighting how the media applauded Anita's hypothesis that the different portrayal of women in gaming, from men--is sexist. When it's highlighted that the media ALSO portrays a different narrative surrounding women--and evidence is given in that light (Much like Anita picked examples from games)--somehow THAT comparison must stem from sexism.
Or lets break it down further. Anita believes the treatement of women in games is sexist. She finds a bunch of video games and gives examples of how the treatment of women is different--and the media agrees, she is finding sexism. Many Gamergate people believe the treatment if certain agendas/women in the media is ALSO sexist. They find a bunch of articles and give a bunch of examples of how the treatment of women is different--and the media disagrees; and thinks the people supplying the evidence ARE sexist.
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?
Jack Thompson is a point of evidence; so by definition he can't be a goal post in your fallacy (Please use fallacies correctly.) This entire argument he has been used as a point of comparison, not as a requirement to change behavior or as need for Kotaku to change thier behavior. This, in other words, is another straw man. The point was, once more, to illustrate your inability to see bias. Not to chastise Kotaku or shift the goal post of the conversation--this entire time the goal post has been for you to admit this very simple phrase "It's possible gaming media has an agenda that could be affected by gender. I'm not sure, but it's possible."--this point, was within the bounds of that discussion. Just because it was made mocking your clear cognitive dissonance doesn't change that fact. (Also, it would NOT make me happy if Kotoko apologized. I believe Kotoko handled the Thompson situation CORRECTLY. The threats were obvious hyperbole that should simply have been dismissed as such and ignored or moderated out.)
I didn't choose Phish because the articles about him were enjoined with Zoe Quin. In fact, most, if not all articles written about him ALSO blame the attacks on sexism; and say it's over his defense of women in gaming. The bias of gender still remains in the Phil Fish example; because his attacks are blamed on him "standing with women". In fact, you can point to Fish as more evidence of the bias; because he was in the press as being harassed because he was "against" Gamergate. Meanwhile, real life threats, doxxing, hacking and many other forms of harassment have been leveled toward TFYC, The Notyourshield originator, and Brietbart--yet none of these aspects of harassment have been reported on. (Why? What's different? The Notyourshield guy is a game developer, as are TFYC--so why no coverage for them? Could it be because they were criticizing the women in question, while Fish was defending them?)
Anything else? Please, minimize the straw mans. It's very simple. You have evidence the editors make special allowances for harassment. You ALSO have evidence the nature of the coverage changes when the implication of the attack if sexism, or has something to do with gender. If you disregard Thompson, then why haven't the attacks on TFYC, or the Gamergate heads or Brietbart been talked about AT ALL? These people have now recieved real life threats, threats at their job (And were fired), hacking of their accounts, of their companies, Doxxing, DDOS attacks and a host of other nefarious shit. But there is
NO coverage of itEXCEPT in the Escapist thread which the editors of rival news sources have literally said they wanted silenced.
