I get what you are trying to say but you are wrong because you aren't understanding cause and effect.
On the contrary, I understand the cause and effect here very well.
Cause: Formerly unremarkable feminist claims she will take a critical look at the portrayal of women in video games.
Effect: Video Game Gatekeepers decide (incorrectly) that their hobby is at risk and that they must stop said feminist.
Cause: Harassment campaigns, personal attacks and dishonest analyses of every detail of her life attempt to discredit her.
Effect: The public who otherwise would never have heard of Sark are shocked at how low her detractors are stooping and decide to support her.
So you have Anita who is chugging along and making up her bullshit, hey she believes it and that is her prerogative. She is making videos and blogs and talking stuff. At this point she hasn't been "wronged" in any way. We can probably argue that she has not been wronged even to this day. She started out with "wronging" people from the jump. Her discussions were not based on her being wronged her discussions were wronging other people from the start.
- "Making up bullshit", according to YOU. That is not an objective fact, and it certainly doesn't justify her being targeted.
- She didn't "wrong" anybody. I'm not sure where you're even getting this from,
especially if we're going by your "needs a tangible effect" definition.
Then you have people like Petersen or really anyone else in this discussion. They have lives and realities based on reality. They say whatever they say and they get shit on for it. That doesn't mean they are innocent or victims just that there is a huge difference between living a life based on creating drama and drama shitting on you.
Yeah, that "huge difference" is feels. Do you feel Sark was asking for her harassment? Then she was creating drama and is not a victim. So say the feels.
So have they both had harassment slung their way? Yes. Does that mean that both "turned being wronged into a lucrative career"? No. In this one for one comparison only one side was wronged and it was not Anita.
Bullshit. Instead of entering a pointless semantics argument, I'm going to quote Anne Rice: "internet campaigns to destroy authors accused of inappropriate subject matter or attitudes are dangerous to us all."
Disagreeing with is not being wronged. Saying mean things is not being wronged. Stalking and harassment isn't even really being wronged. I am sure you are going to go grab some definition that you like to disagree with me though. Being wronged needs a tangible effect. Being fired, ostracized, jailed, put on trial, etc etc are examples of being wronged. Having people not like your videos and engaging you in harassment commensurate with the level of harassment that you have been involved with in the past is not.
Being targeted by a witch hunt is being wronged. Your feels tell you she was asking for it and therefore it wasn't a witch hunt. Anne Rice and I disagree. Also, I'd like to know what you mean by "harassment commensurate with the level of harassment that you have been involved with in the past"... It reads very much like shallow attempts to justify someone being unfairly and dishonestly targeted.
More and more I see just how desperate you are to hold on to this narrative that you are on the side of a downtrodden woman who needs our respect and protection. You don't even realize that you contradict yourself in your very defense.
Desparation has nothing to do with it, a_skeleton_03, and I'm not sure why you choose to emphasize "more and more" when I've been nothing but consistent since the topic first came up years ago. Also, please watch your straw men again. I never said Sarkeesian needs our respect nor our protection. And I didn't contradict myself either, unless you'd like to show otherwise.
Let's now explore your assertion. Anita has been wronged. She has taken that and molded it into a springboard for a lucrative career. Okay I will pander to you and say she has been wronged. How though has she been wronged and at what point in her timeline?
Again, the turning point was the "Women vs Tropes in Video Games" Kickstarter. That was when the witch hunt went full steam and it has continued since, albeit with less steam now.
You are stating she has spun it into a financial win. At what point is that despicable behavior?
At no point. Why is it despicable to find a way to benefit from the actions of those using dishonest means to attempt to ruin you? It's poetic justice in action and is more deserving of the "admirable" label than the "despicable" one.
At what point are you going to take that as proof that she is disingenuous?
At no point. There's nothing disingenuous about it. She wanted to criticize video games, she was targeted by a witch hunt, she used that attention to put those attacking her under the spotlight. What's the problem?
You would not trust a person in politics that is paid to shill for a pharma company that they would make the right decision when it comes to a vote against that pharma company would you? We have a person that at one point may have been "wronged" by some mean words but has had no tangible harm done to her.
Ugh. This is an impossible point to argue. Your feels tell you being the target of a witch hunt (which you conveniently call "some mean words") is simply no big deal and doesn't merit the support Sark amassed. I and many others disagree.
She has spun that into drumming up an army of sympathizers to pay her.
You're mischaracterizing what happened here. According to you, Sark was the victim of mean words which led to her seeing dollar signs and realizing she could exploit naive SJWs for their money. What's closer to the truth is that, after being subject to an obscene amount of harassment, Sark decided that the way she and others were being targeted was a problem worthy of drawing attention to. The public agreed and appreciated her exposing some of the shittier behavior that's still considered "normal" on the internet. They fought back against this element by supporting the victim, essentially more than undoing the harm the anti-Sarkies had been trying to cause.
When would you shut off that spigot of money and say that you were never actually wronged to begin with? When would you stop beating the drums of war to get the people behind you and funneling more money into your pockets? The very basics of human nature would say that just would not happen.
Why is it against human nature to attempt to turn a negative into a positive? Why is it against human nature to fight back against people trying to destroy you? Why is it against human nature to use the words of your detractors against them in order to expose their dishonesty?
Okay now what is the difference between him and Anita? The stuff he is talking about are universal and have very little to do with how he was attacked. He is helping people directly with books and talks that are about taking your life and your environment and making something of yourself within that framework. Anita is just whining about the problems with no solutions given and no facts behind them. They are what ifs essentially that have very little backing. They are trope bogeymen that she has trotted out to stir up her base. Is she all that different from a religious leader or a shock jock radio host or one of those game devs that do anti SJW bullshit? Nope.
Welcome to the conversation, Thought Police. Thank goodness you're here to tell us what topics we are allowed to discuss and which ones merit a witch hunt. Also, you got several things wrong there:
- Sarkeesian isn't whining about problems with no solutions. The solution is literally "be creative", and that's something we've actually seen more of in the game industry. It could even be argued that Sark helped the game industry mature and become more creatively flexible.
- There are absolutely facts behind much of what Sark says. She has made many objectively true statements and has referenced scientific studies to support her points. You might know this if you weren't only familiar with out-of-context quotes used in conjuction with hyperbole and straw men to discredit her.
- "To stir up her base" is a feels-based assumption of her motives. Again, it's not a given that she intentionally tried to rile anyone up at all.
- Yes, she is different from each of those people you listed. All she wanted was to draw attention to and generate discussion about an issue she considered worthy of attention. She made her points civilly and in good faith, in exactly the way Anne Rice (herself a target of campaigns designed to hurt her professionally) explicitly approves of.
You are crossing a line when you try to pretend that she was wronged in a comparable way to a person like Jordan Peterson though. You are showing off your bias and your close mindedness.
There's no pretending, it's entirely comparable. Both spoke civilly about topics in a way that certain snowflakes considered dangerous. Both were unfairly targeted by dishonest campaigns designed to discredit them. Both took advantage of their status as the target of a witch hunt to expose their detractors as the ones who were actually in the wrong. Both received tremendous support from those who were disgusted at how they were treated.
You are showing off your bias and your close-mindedness by trying to justify the campaigns against Sarkeesian and by trying to put her in a different category than Peterson. You're making assumptions (about her motivation, among other things) and using feels-based conclusions to support your argument. And you know what? Those who believe Peterson is dangerous would attempt to do the same thing.