Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 26 March 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

$400k for Anita! Be proud[edit]

Would it be okay to list things she's gotten wrong?[edit]

Sarkeesian has made quite a few genuine mistakes in her videos, one of the big ones being the whole 'Sabre' thing in Starfox adventures, where she made it seem like Fox had replaced Krystal as a character instead of the male Sabre. There's also a few listed on TV tropes' Cowboy Bebop at his computer' page, for however accurate that is. Of course, none of this mistakes justify dismissing her overall points or harassing her (Horrors! An person on the internet made a mistake! She must be a liar and a con artist and not a real gamer so let's yell at her so we don't have to actually consider what she's saying!) but maybe list a few, just so the article comes across as a little more balanced? — Unsigned, by: / talk

But being factually wrong about random points isn't particularly relevant. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
(EC) What point would such a list make? If it's just a load of pedantic game trivia, it probably doesn't belong here. If it's to prove that Sarkeesian isn't omniscient or infallible, then it's a pointless strawman. If any of these mistakes seriously undermine her core arguments, that could be worth mentioning, but ought to be clearly explained (in a way that people not familiar those particular games can understand) and a list may not be the best way to present that. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Instead of a list of incorrect statements, maybe have a list of statements from one of her video-game-analysis videos with text noting whether she was correct or incorrect? That'd provide context at her overall success/failure and at her overarching points, methinks. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Not really. Listing is a poor alternative to analysis, and why should we care if she's occasionally got a character's name wrong or confused one game with another in the same series etc.? ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Then do the same thing, minus the list. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
This isn't relevant at all. It's just more gator bullshit because if she's not right 110% of the time then she's faulty and a con artist or whatever excuse they're using lately.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Having a list of Ms. Sarkeesian's trivial errors (presented, preferably, in an ironic light) might actually be useful — if an opponent of hers has gone over her videos with a fine-toothed comb and located nothing except errors that are only of relevance to half a dozen troglodytic gamers, it would tend to indicate that she is correct on her main points. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, lets have someone show us them. *Crickets* Zero (talk - contributions) 07:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Maybe just expand the nonsense claims made against her? It's more than just the two.
All of Phil Mason's "criticism" has its own dedicated page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Instead of listing her trivial errors, my preference would be for a (gentle) criticism section arguing that her work is, in fact, just trivial, and barely notable aside from the absurd Sturm und Drang it inspires in certain reactionary circles. If anyone believes that her pop culture commentary might amount to anything more than a footnote in the history of the feminist cause, then please feel free to argue at great length below. Robledo (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue with you a little if you want. While her commentary is indeed fairly trivial, in that it is more or less just standard feminist textual criticism, here directed at video games, the Strum und Drang, as you put it, is undoubtedly notable and works as a synecdoche for the larger issues facing women in the increasingly important tech sector. Not to mention, these reactionary circles while not mainstream are, at least in my opinion, evolving and becoming increasingly relevant as they tap into widespread dissatisfaction with contemporary conditions in the developed world. Marlow (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
And the article currently does a very thorough job of documenting her travails and firmly opposing those responsible. The absurdity of the reactions she provokes would surely be emphasised by pointing out that none of her arguments are particularly ground-breaking, or in the context of the wider feminist cause, particularly influential. Robledo (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, those problems with her material are general problems with feminist eisegesis and reading-into. Yes, her material is cliché'd to people familiar with the shtick. Frankly, I wish we had better coverage of That Sort of Thing somewhere. On the other hand, it seems unfair to add a criticism to her article for problems she shares with a great host of similarly-minded commentators. It's not about her, in other words. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
GamerGate was the best thing, that ever happened to her, it brought her fame and fortune. Is there an greater case of Streisand effect ever?--Arisboch (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Probably not. (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
She got richer and more famous (how many people would've donated to her Kickstarter campaign without it?!) and nobody even harmed a hair on her head.--Arisboch (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, she probably orchestrated the whole thing herself as a publicity stunt. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course not. Where did I ever said or implied that? She is no professional spind octor and even their astroturfing get's busted often, as you can read on this very site. --Arisboch (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
and nobody even harmed a hair on her head - yeah, having to put up with being the most hated person on the internet, with being consistently harassed and abused, with endless threats, a mere bagatelle.
And that is exactly the point of this article and why a 'list of things she got wrong' is irrelevant. What makes Sarkessian notable is not what she said but the extraordinary vile and virulent reaction of certain parts of the gaming community. It's not about what she said, it's about what happened to her for what she said - and for being female while she said it. Trying to trivialise that as 'and nobody harmed a hair on her head' is so missing the point. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Depends on what part of the net you are talking about. E.g. here on similar sites she is rather popular. Of course it is true, she is notable not because of what she said, but of what reaction she got, but the point still stands: GamerGate made her richer and more famous. --Arisboch (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
She's not exactly living the life of Reily, and I very much doubt she would consider death threats and mass shooting threats as an acceptable price to pay for the money she has received. I know I wouldn't. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe that, too. Everyone would want to live, upload videos on YouTube and make money without some dumb moron assholes screaming "I will violate/kill you" on the net.--Arisboch (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
That is completely true. She's not to blame for anything that has happened to her, she's just exhibiting what is known as 'free speech'. (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Feminist or Misandrist?[edit]

Studies behind paywall[edit]

The full texts of the three sciencedirect studies footnoted for the "Objectification spillover effect" are, sadly, behind a paywall. (I can only see the abstracts.) Are there other sources for the full texts of those studies, or for analyses of them? I'd very much like to see the methodology they used for objectifying their targets to their test subjects. They're probably legitimate and straighforward, but without being able to see the methodology there can always the lingering suspicion of experimenter bias. --Tracer (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Send me an e-mail with proper references and I'll see if my university has access and send you the pdfs. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
ResearchGate—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Armed escort?[edit]

She's loaded...--Arisboch (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

How to stage a death threat[edit]

She said, she fled her home because of a death threat. Here's your "death threat": Did Anita Sarkeesian Fake Death Threats Against Herself? How do you explain that??-- (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Easy - you provide as a source a fuckwitted abomination of a blog run by a man who wants to legalise rape on private property. There's no case to answer unless you can find a less obviously idiotic source for it Queexchthonic murmurings 15:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
(EC) I'm not fucking clicking a RoK link. If that is your only source about something, you are wrong about that thing. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, the unedited screencap was from Sarkeesian's own twitter and maybe you should not trying to poison the well, but explain, why the screencap was taken 12 seconds after the post was sent from an anonymous twitter session. C'mon, guys, you pride yourself in debunking hoaxes.-- (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not wrong to reject a source as probably wrong if it's been wrong many times before. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Stopped clock, maybe? Again, how do you explain, that the screencap was taken a few seconds after the post was sent? And why from an anonymous session?-- (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You're right to say that a stopped clock is possible; the point is that probably the source is wrong.
On 12s: See my comment at the very bottom of the page for one idea. Alternately, maybe she's used to getting harassment
On anonymous: Is not logging in a crime? It might be mildly strange, but not conspiracy-worthy. (I mean, you didn't log into RationalWiki.) Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Possible, yes. It is possible that there is a flying spaghetti monster in the world but it is highly improbable. -- (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Also worth noting: I tend to use anonymous browsing when looking at mean tweets, so... That's a possibility. (Also, BoN, make sure you read my explanation on the 12s below.) Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 16:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Also worth noting that this is dealt with in the source. Your arguing that Anita spends all day long searching for twitter abuse to promote to garner attention. You do realize that this is no better? Considering her lover and producer is a self-proclaimed professional "pop culture hacker & transformative story teller" producing "subvertisement", that's a fancy way of him saying he's a professional propagandist that produces material in order to subversively manipulate popular media as part of a con-job, it's a pretty sure bet this is a pretty deliberate false flag. -- (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
"[...]was taken 12 seconds after the post was sent[...]"
Problem: There had been a tweet three minutes prior, correct? If someone were to have clicked through to the account from one of those tweets, then that 12s tweet would still be there. In fact, there may have been a tweet posted right after that. Also, time is further meaningless due to the search being live. DIAGNOSIS: Saying "12 seconds" is not just bad reasoning, it's also highly misleading and part of looking for problems. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 16:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I can recreate this if you need an example. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 16:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Most of the people here are big on Poisoning the well, as you can see from the vitrolic ad hominem slinging below, so unless the source is someone they like and generally agree with and they say the right things in the right way it will not matter to them what the evidence says. Here this is basically all you need. Use the imgur from now on. It's pretty clear from the two options presented that the only rational conclusions is she either did a false flag to get attention or she spends countless hours all day long searching for twitter abuse to promote for attention (what she did is the exact opposite of what you are suppose to do with any death threats, real or perceived: NEVER TAKE TO SOCIAL MEDIA). Good luck convincing anyone here of that. -- (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
We're not going to believe MS Paint diagrams either cause of how fucking stupid they are.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
LOL, you do realize that dismissing something due to it's format instead of it's substance is by definition illogical? Of course you do, you're crazy. -- (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure those red lines drawn in MS Paint mean something to you but they don't to me. But go on. Continue ignoring all of the evidence below that blows your shit out of the water.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Everything in this image has already been addressed in the "List of GamerGate Claims" article. In short: it does not even begin to suggest that Anita sent the tweets to herself because there are other explanations that were overlooked. And given the sheer confirmation bias of Anita's detractors, I'm going to guess that whoever made this image had no intention of ever considering the possibility that she didn't send the tweets herself. Zennistrad (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I have seen this stupid thing before[edit]

Open up Twitter in Firefox. Do a search. Middle-mouse click or ctrl+click on a date, as if you were opening several tweets in succession. Look at the search bar.
Apparently, people are incapable of doing a little investigation, and instead just take RoK's word for it. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 15:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I've a question -- does Twitter dynamically update the time since post, or does it do it only once on loading a page? (Like would the 12s turn into 13s, or stay 12s until reload?) Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
It's static. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 16:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, mostly static, that is. It updates every few minutes. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 16:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Recreation of the screenshot, substituting "Anita" with "Reddit"[edit]

I did a search for "reddit." I left the search up for three minutes and then clicked through one of the tweets. I was logged in. All the anomalies are present: The tweet mentioning "reddit" is seconds old, the search bar is empty, and I am not logged in. Here. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 16:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A major difference, though, is that the account seems to be a spam-bot. This means the tweet volume is high. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 16:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

consider updating "nonsense claims"[edit]

"She's claiming that sexist tropes in video games make gamers more sexist, it's just as bullshit as Jack Thompson claiming that violence portrayed in video games makes gamers more violent. No. Jack Thompson claims that violence in video games actually makes gamers more violent, which studies have disproven."

Well now that Sarkeesian/McIntosh have officially jumped aboard the Thompson bandwagon with DOOM and others at E3-2015, you may want to change this.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

BoN, there's a difference between wanting to censor video games through litigation and expressing a distaste for violence in a medium.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Identical reasoning over identical issues: X causes Y, Y is bad so we need to get rid of X. You are hairsplitting over the fact that Thomson seeks to remove the perceived negative influence by enacting legislation to remove games from consumption via public bureaucratic means whereas Anita seeks to remove them from consumption by private bureaucratic means. Both Jack and Anita are trying to influence the industry based off of pseudoscientific nonsense. The real reason you are claiming Anita isn't Jack, which she is, is because she's a woman and you are sexist. -- (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Anita Sarkeesian is a film critic. Criticism is not a science and therefore not a pseudoscience either. Also, at no point does she ever say or imply that she wants to ban video games of any type. She's criticizing their content just like Siskel and Ebert did to movies 30 years ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
You're latching onto the pseudoscience, which I showed exhaustively how she is guilty of exactly that, in order to avoid the fact that Anita and Thomson hold practically identical forms of stupidity. Anita, like Thompson, is passing a negative moral judgement on those that both produce and play violent video games. You are splitting hairs in trying to defend Anita from the charge that she, like Thompson, is actively trying to decrease consumption of media deemed "problematic" by trying to focus on the means by which that is to be achieved. Anita is, for all practical purposes, no different than that bald faced loony Thompson. --Tallyrand (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Anita Sarkeesian is expressing a personal opinion. Jack Thompson was trying to legislate government-level censorship. Anita Sarkeesian wants more diverse media. Jack Thompson wants less media overall. How are you all this fucking dense?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Anita is not expressing a personal opinion she is making an objective statement about a perceived cultural problem: violence in popular media is causing and reinforcing aggressive behaviors. The reasoning behind Thompson's actions is identical to that of Anita, the only difference between the two is that Thompson took to legislative means of censorship while Anita took to direct public shaming of those who create and play such games. Once more you keep bringing up the different means utilized as if that has any real bearing on why people are, accurately, drawing parallels between Anita and Thompson. How are you so fucking dense Ryu? --Tallyrand (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Thompson believed GTA and Doom led people to murder. There have been scientific studies that say violent media increases aggression. Thompson used emotion. Sarkeesian and McIntosh use science. But they're also not trying to outlaw it entirely.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Only implicitly in the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" kind of way, but the similarities are there.--Arisboch (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Would you stop it with these fucking idiotic posts where you falsely justify these idiots' persecution complex already?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Given Arisboch's touchiness about his "truth's in the middle" sentiment, I wouldn't count on it. (sorry Arisboch, but you do have something sorta weird going on there) ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Look at my user page, I'm neither on the anti-GG, nor on the pro-GG side. I just know about censorship of games first-hand (I'm living in Germany).--Arisboch (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
This would be both the touchiness and the "truth is in the middle" sentiment I was referencing, yes. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
And while I'm at it, there's also a difference between literally wanting to censor video games and criticizing aspects of video games. Besides, isn't Jack Thompson Gamergate's newest best friend?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
"No one wants to ban DOOM." Like how stupid can you Gamergaters get?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The reason why Thomson was criticized was because he was full of shit and attacking media people love based off said shit. The same can be said of Anita and her nonsense. You are trying to make a false dichotomy about the means by which they seek to remove said media from consumption. She's not "critiquing" DOOM she is actively trying to censor it, she is making the rather explicit claim that it is shameful to enjoy that game because it contains violence, that the creators who made it should be ashamed of themselves, and that anyone who enjoys it should be ashamed. Do you understand that such a stupid and insane statement without any basis in fact or reality would cause people to react negatively considering that she went out of her way to harass and insult a community by hurling bigoted, irrational, pseudoscientific nonsense at them? Oh, and: -- (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
She doesn't like DOOM. She's allowed to share that opinion with the world. At no point does she or Jonathan McIntosh ever advocate banning or censoring games. That's why McIntosh literally says "No one wants to ban DOOM". I don't know how the fuck you and every Gamergater that came to this page to cry about twists it around to say "We really want to ban DOOM". Also, Australia has strict controls on media. That's not a surprise. What does it have to do with Anita Sarkeesian? Not to mention those 220 games seem to be minor things sold through Steam. So boo hoo "HoboSimulator" and "Drunk Driver" can't be played in Australia and those games account for barely 0.01% of the market.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Rubbish Ryu.
Anita is not espousing an opinion, such as "violence is icky", but diagnosing a societal problem which is why she specifically says: "This level of extreme violence shouldn’t be considered normal. It's not an excuse to say it’s expected because DOOM. That’s the problem." This is not the statement of a personal opinion but a sociological diagnosis of an objective cultural problem in the form of public commentary from a "social scientist".--Tallyrand (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
These are going "we could do better than this". Stop crying wolf over the mean "SJWs" trying to take away your vidya.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a subtle difference in their idelogies in that Thompson engages in litigation to attempt to implement his agenda, but that doesn't change the fact that their ideologies are congruent. They both believe violence in fantasy media has a concrete effect on those consuming that media (ie: makes them more violent), and we should take steps to change the media to fit this belief. Who cares what Thompson thinks about GamerGate. They are both moralistic crusaders who can or will not recognize that fantasy violence is just that: fantasy violence. I don't understand why no one buys it from Thompson, but when it comes from Sarkeesian, we're supposed to lap it up because she's a victim. That's bullshit, and you know it. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
"No one wants to ban DOOM" is a red herring. The argument isn't about whether or not McIntosh/Sarkeesian want to implement censorship, the argument is about whether or not violent videogames have a negative effect on those playing them.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
It's not a fucking red herring. He's literally saying "No one wants to ban DOOM". Take it at face value and stop spinning it into some stupid fucking gamer persecution complex. I can't find anything by Sarkeesian or McIntosh about "violent video games make people violent". And sign your fucking posts with 4 tildes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
He's dodging the argument. It's granted that no one wants to ban DOOM, how would you even do that? Games are protected speech in the US. No persecution complex, no gamergate garbage, just pointing out the idiosyncrasies of the argument "(social issue) in fantasy media causes (social issue) in real life". This argument has been around since the first printing press in one form or another, and has reappeared as new forms of media appear. Why are McIntosh/Sarkeesian off limits for criticism? Thanks for the 4 tilde thing, I'm new to editing talk pages. (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
How the fuck is "No one wants to ban DOOM" dodging the argument that people are accusing him and Anita of wanting to ban DOOM? Neither of them have expressed a desire to ban or censor anything. They're just (best word to say here really) lobbying for more choices in video games from the big studios. Neither of them have said anything of the sort that "violent video games make people violent". Unless you can procure a quote from one of them that explicitly expresses either a desire to censor or the opinion that video games make people violent, you have nothing to stand on and you should shut up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Again with the red herring. The argument categorically is not about whether or not sarkessian/mcintosh want to ban video games. They couldn't even if they wanted to. The argument is about their beliefs, their ideology. As for "Neither of them have said anything of the sort that "violent video games make people violent"", I'm afraid you're just categorically "wrong." The assertion that media effects behavior negatively is unarguably at the core of their ideology. It's about time RW recognizes the duo for what they are: moral crusaders no different from those against comic books or movies, with the twist being that they use the criticism against them as "evidence" that they're right, because people are mean to them on the internet. It's not rational. I'm done here, because clearly, neither are you. (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, no. It's the opposite. They don't say that media affects behavior negatively; they say the media is a result of our behavior. This does not negate the effects of a feedback loop, but the cause is not the media. The cause is us.
Frankly, I think most Gamergaters don't understand, don't want to hear, and can't internalize this. Gamergaters seem, to me, to above all believe in the fallacies of the "just world" and the "nice guy".
I have no such illusions about myself. The world is not fair. There is no justice. I am not a nice person. --Castaigne (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not a fucking red herring. He is literally saying "No one wants to ban DOOM". What the fuck is your damage? Also, McIntosh was not even mentioned on this page until you brought him up and we had to cite him to point out how wrong this argument is. And you fuckwits have poisoned the well to create any actual criticism of her opinions anyway. It's all steeped in the fucked up persecution garbage that she's out to destroy video games. The only reason this page exists on RationalWiki is because of all of the irrational garbage that gets thrown at them to justify people's hatred towards her, mostly from self-proclaimed atheists and libertarians who think they're the logical and rational bee's knees. RationalWiki isn't defending her stance as much as it is calling out the idiots who criticize her with ad hominem garbage that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It IS a red herring. They want to remove any media they see as problematic from circulation as much as possible and the arguments they present are intellectually dishonest and are flat out stupid. You may not have a problem with that but a lot of people do and sweeping everyone's issues with Anita's pseudoscientific bullshit under the MUHSOGGYKNEES rug is remarkably intellectually dishonest yourself. Having Anita in the classroom is the social science equivalent of creationism. Neither have a place in respectable scientific discourse. -- (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
[citation needed] Vulpius (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
How the fuck does someone take "No one wants to ban DOOM" as anything but face value? And Anita's done nothing fucking pseudoscientific with regards to these videos. Stop equating whatever her old boss did with what she does now. She's not making up shit about being able to tell someone's personality from their handwriting. She's saying that being able to beat up prostitutes in GTA is emblematic of sexism in society as a whole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Which is a remarkably insipid argument, an argument that could only come from someone who either has not played GTA or is willing to misrepresent it to push their agenda. You can beat up anyone in GTA. Prostitutes, pilots, police officers, any NPC. Is the ability to beat up cops a reflection of society's cop hatred culture? Is the ability to beat up pilots emblematic of the rampant pilot-hating culture? Of course not. The game is GRAND THEFT AUTO. You can fly airplanes into buildings. You can hitch the family car driving down route 66 to a helicopter and drop it off of the highest mountain. It is absolutely, unbelievably, incredibly, intellectually dishonest and vapid to suggest the prostitutes in Grand Theft Auto are proof of "hatred against women". That said, I reject the very ground that these moral crusaders stand on, as should any rational thinker. Fantasy media should be judged by its merits as fantasy media, rather than judged by how 'moral' it is in the eyes of whichever 'media critic' is viewing it. The only things noteworthy about Anita are her poorly constructed, often dishonest 'criticisms' of gaming and the predictable backlash against them. It's interesting to see the schism this has created in the SJW/aSJW/GG/aGG movement. Both sides focus solely on one of those two aspects, where aGG/SJWs focus only on the 'misogynist harrasment' and GG/aSJWs focus only on her bullshit criticism. Both must be upheld in equal standing for this truly to be "RationalWiki". Edit: McIntosh's comment "No one wants to ban DOOM" is a red herring. I explained it to you before, Ryulong, but I'll do it again for shits and giggles. His tweet was in response to criticism he recieved over calling DOOM too violent. The argument is not over whether or not he wants to ban DOOM. The argument is about the validity of his "criticism" of DOOM. Pointing out that he doesn't want to ban it is irrelevant. Misdirecting an argument by bringing up an irrelevant point.... hmm.. what's that called again, Ryulong? (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I picked a shitty example. That's my mistake here. The point is thusly. Her opinions on DOOM aren't important. Her videos aren't meant to be an end-all discussion on the problematic content in video games. They're supposed to be a jumping off point where other people can discuss them. No one has to agree with her. But the line is drawn when criticism of her critiques blurs with personal attacks on her, as you've done by categorizing them as "dishonest". There shouldn't be a schism. There doesn't need to be two sides to this. It's not a fucking debate. She has an opinion. She's free to express it. You have an opinion. You're free to express it. The situation doesn't make it so one person is right and the other is wrong.
But here's the thing about your argument. When Sarkeesian and McIntosh were criticizing the violent content in DOOM, as is their wont, every single fucking Gamergater and anti-SJW decided that their criticism meant they wanted to censor it. That's what has happened with everything they have said about every god damn video game. "I think killing prostitutes in GTA is a shit story telling device". "ANITA WANTS TO BAN GTA LOOK WHAT HAPPENED IN AUSTRALIA."
And again, this page is not a discussion of her stance, it's a discussion of the completely fucked up way people responded to her. I've not seen any legitimate criticism of anything Sarkeesian or McIntosh has said in the videos or on Twitter. It's just childish and underhanded ad hominem attacks that barely address what they said. Plenty of people Gamergate and anti-SJWs would consider "anti-Gamergate" or "SJW" have expressed opinions contra to Sarkeesian's in a completely civil way. But then Gamergaters and anti-SJWs take that, raise it on a pedestal, and use it as a weapon against Sarkeesian for no fucking reason whatsoever. It shouldn't be a weapon. It should just be someone else's opinion on the same subject. But because Gamergate and anti-SJWs come from 4chan, they assume that any opinion is ripe for a debate to prove or disprove it rather than just letting it be and going "I don't agree with it but okay." And that's fine because it's just fucking video games. It's not the end of the world if someone thinks a video game's story is shit when it comes to the portrayal of its women characters. Or if fantasy violence is a hackneyed aspect to fall back on when designing a video game.
There are of course, shit opinions that should be shut down and called out, but those usually edge towards the discriminatory (ex. [insert race] is lazy, LGBT is wrong) and anti-science (ex. vaccines are harmful, global warming isn't real) side of things.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The criticism of McIntosh/Sarkeesian is not off-limits, but is IS plain standard middle-of-the-road cultural criticism. It's nowhere near Thompson's crusade. And they're not saying, like Thompson did, that games are creating the culture. They're saying the exact opposite, that the games are a reflection of culture.
And frankly, I'd say they're right. Our video games do reflect the majority of American gaming culture. We cheer at the chainsawing in Doom just as much as we cheer when blood bounces on the ice in hockey (the only fun part of the sport) or cheer as a missile takes out some terror ragheads (and some collateral damage with 25-30 unrelated civilians, but hey, MOAR GIBS) or cheer as War Machine wacks the hell out of Christy Mack (porn bitches have it cumming, amirite) on, so forth.
And oh, a lot of people will talk about how they aren't like that or are against that or it's immoral or whatever, but let's be honest. People WANT to play games where they're asshole fuckwads - and I say this as an asshole myself. Games full of violence and assholery wouldn't sell if that's not what people were and wanted to do. So really, all Sarkeesian/McIntosh are doing is criticizing the reflection of our inner murderhobos.
And doesn't the Catholic Church make the same criticism of society?
I just don't see the problem. Or the reason for the outrage. --Castaigne (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It's the same kind of moral panic just choosing softer words to prevent backlash, but it's going all horseshoe again (just like some feminists going in bed with Christian fundamentalists about the crusade against teh eevel pr0n).--Arisboch (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
What the fuck are you on about? They're just expressing distaste for violent video games.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
On the basis, that it somehow causes violence, misogyny or whatever in RL, which is more or less the same as Thompson said, just without expressing the desire for censorship explicitly.--Arisboch (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Sarkeesian has never said anything of the sort like the BoN is alleging, though. As far as I can tell, she just doesn't like violent media. She said the same thing about Mad Max (or at least that the violence wasn't exactly feminist). Meanwhile, you have her supposed puppetmaster (if Gamergate is to be believed) saying he can't wait to play one of the games she panned for the violent content.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
No, Arisboch. Sarkeesian says the opposite - that the violence and misogyny in games is our culture causing it in games, rather than Thompson saying that games are corrupting culture. --Castaigne (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
They want to remove games like Doom from popular circulation as much as possible because they believe it has an extremely harmful effect on culture, despite presenting no evidence aside from debunked and unfalsifiable postmodern/poststructuralist feminist theories. Rational Wiki is SUPPOSE to be debunking psuedoscience which Anita most certainly is. But hey, I get it. I understand she gets a free pass from you guys on her false statistics and fraudulent research because of "MUHSOGGYKNEES!" Though that's sexist on RW's part... -- (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Stop posting in the middle of threads for fucks sake. McIntosh has fucking explicitly said he doesn't want to ban DOOM. And neither has Sarkeesian. People can fucking criticize something and not want to ban it. Feminism isn't a fucking pseudoscience. Not to mention they've said nothing about DOOM being misogynistic. If anything, it just expresses their personal distaste in violent video games. Jesus, BoN, do you read what you've written here or are you just vomiting MRA garbage on your keyboard? Also, once you use "MUHSOGGYKNEES" sincerely, you've kinda lost the argument.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Joke's on you, criticism isn't even science. --Kitsunelaine (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
*Sigh* Feminist Social Epistemology, Feminist Method, Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, Feminist Epistemology and on and on and on. The researcher or scholar applies these various feminist methodologies and theoretical lenses in what would be called a critique. Anita claims to apply feminist theory to examine the sociological and cultural impact of various forms of media in her series of educational academic videos. This is why her work is categorically incomparable to a NYT book review or a film analysis by Rodger Egbert. --Tallyrand (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
She's critiquing video games' stories through a feminist lens. There's no science in that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Subsection to alleviate threading nightmare[edit]

Stop responding to halfwits. Hipocrite (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That's apparently what's done here instead of just banning the concern trolls.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
False dichotomy. Hipocrite (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Then explain why people yell at me when I act.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
You can see the false dichotomy though, right? Respond and ban are not the only two options. There are loads of ways you could respond to a troll, or just don't, but the worst thing you can do is be all Ryulongy about it. Just calm down a bit, you're making me a bit Ryulongy myself here.Fonzie (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Plenty of people have accused McIntosh of "censorship". He's saying he doesn't want to ban Doom in response to that. Nowhere, however, has McIntosh has argued that games cause violence. At worst he's said that there is a link between games and aggression, and aggression is not synonymous with violence. He's pointed this out multiple times before. Zennistrad (talk) 08:16 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a dumb question...[edit]

Does posting your opinion on something, correct or otherwise, qualify as 'attention whoring?'— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

What are you getting at? Zero (talk - contributions) 18:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
If you have to ask a loaded question, you probably already know the answer, BoN.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should add some sort of rebuttal to the 'Anita is an attention whore' thing. It seems to crop up whenever Anita makes a tweet, posts a video, goes to an interview she was invited to, etc.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

It's 4chan shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

'Rise of the webcam critic'[edit]

Hey there! Somebody on Youtube commented on the recent 'Why are you so Angry' playlist regarding Anita Sarkeesian's critics.

A lot of people ask for 'moderate' criticisms of Anita, or that her 'critics' not be lumped with her harassers. The problem is, the critics they're referring to (Sargon, Aurini, Thunderf00t, etc) don't seem interested in actually criticising her. They're fixated on 'destroying, exposing, busting' her. Just look at Thunderf00t's videos, hell, just look a their titles.

Seems like every single compiled criticism MUST destroy her completely. She must be discredited, defeated, humiliated or broken, or it isn't really 'criticism'. So her errors get magnified to proof of ill intent, no matter how minor. Her interpretations are taken to the most horrific extremes, incidents in her past taken to be representative of her present. From this, we get Thunderf00t's assurance that the fact her theoretical idea for a story concept fails a flawed and simplistic movie test is a sign of her failure as a critic. From point A to point SJW, in a single leap of logic.

I think the rise of the webcam critic is a part of this. The success of folks like Ben Croshaw and Doug Walker has changed the idea of online criticism. It's given rise to the idea that with a nice big dramatic speech, anyone with a webcam can triumph against a policy, a movie trend, an ideology, or anything that ticks them off. The power of the critic.

It'd certainly explain why criticism of Anita MUST destroy her completely. And it'd explain why her opponents give her such power...'Her criticisizing videos are truly a threat to the multimillion dollar video game industry! She must be stopped, at any cost!' Discussion?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Of course. GG made Anita famous and rich(er). Streisand effect in action.--Arisboch (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The issue is described here, and by Jim Fucking Sterling, Son! in that there was perhaps a period of time where her points could have been criticized, but the moment that 4chan unlaid their wrath upon her, the well became poisoned for the next century.
Also, Arisboch, her Kickstarter was already funded 8x over by the time 4chan discovered her, but their hate wave did push her into 6 figures.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
That's what I'm talking 'bout (the 6 figures). She did not cause the shitstorm, but she got richer and more famous because of it (Streisand effect), just the opposite of what these GG clowns intended.--Arisboch (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought Streisand effect was when someone wants to try to hide something about themselves but it's ironically broadcast to the world in their attempts to hide it. As in the ur example when Babs tried to prevent photos of her house from showing up in some directory.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
GG tried to silence her, but made her more famous and wealthy instead.--Arisboch (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
You're really exagerating her personal wealth tbh—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, six figures is a great annual salary for any sort of artist(except maybe an architect), but it's not wealth as a one time thing. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

All well and good, but I was kinda hoping their would be more discussion on the trend of go-to Youtube 'criticisms' of her to be hitpieces first and criticisms second. The need to 'bust' her in order to criticize, either by inflating one mistake to absurd degrees or twisting logic like a pretzel to make every sentence 'wrong'.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I think at least part of the problem is that they're coming from a sceptical milieu - they're used to responding to creationists and homeopaths who use objectively false statements. That toolkit simply doesn't work when applied to artistic criticism. There's no court of final judgement for artistic criticism that they can appeal to, like they can with the scientific method, and finding a small flaw or mis-cite early on does not bring an entire argument down like they believe it will. It would probably blow their minds if they ever learned how many mutually exclusive readings there are of, say, The Merchant of Venice. Maybe that simplistic attitude is reinforced by the linear and/or trivial plot-lines they're used to seeing in games, if they are gamers. There's some evidence that games with complex readings don't perform as well in the market as simpler fare. STEM is, basically, critical analysis on easy mode, but they don't seem to realise that. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there an internet law for this? "A video with 'busted' or 'exposed' in the title is less likely to be an honest analysis, and more likely to be pointless political pandering." Also, "The more someone complains about 'yellow journalism' and 'clickbait,' the more likely they are to engage in clickbait tactics (eg, 'exposed' or 'busted' in the title)" Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 21:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Bias at this website.[edit]

Okay, so I go to Thunderf00t's page okay... BLAH BLAH HE DOESNT UNDERSTAND FEMINISM BLAH BLAH BLAH (to sum it up). I go here to Anita's fan pag-...I meant "rational" wiki page, and instead of adding some of the valid arguments against her as well (not just kissing her ass) to balance it out and keep the page at least a little bit unbiased and fair, all it does is stroke her ego, it even has a section defending some arguments made against her like this is some kind of Anita Sarkeesian apologist website. Where is that for other peoples pages on here? Where is the section pointing out valid things said from the likes of Thunderf00t or The Amazing Atheist or good points made by Men's Right's Activist? I go to that page as well, and i see there this quote: "While "men's rights" is often used as a cover for sexism"... what? You could say the same fucking thing about feminists! They are both radical beliefs that both claim to be for equal rights yet both focus on one side more then the other. This page has some large bias issues, rational wiki doesnt live up to its name. It has no interest in being rational, I get more reliable information and less bias from fucking Encyclopedia Dramatica! — Unsigned, by: Jamesisweary / talk / contribs

Actually, can you provide some good points made by Thunderf00t? There's a whole page of refutations. Stop with the appeal to bias as well. Any proof for your numerous statements? "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! TheAtheistComrade (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Neither Phil Mason nor Thomas Kirk have ever actually provided any valid critique of Anita Sarkeesian's videos; they've only made baseless attacks against feminism. "Men's rights activist" more or less means "anti-feminist" nowadays because most men's rights activism seems to take the form of yelling at feminsits on the Internet. And finally feminism is not anti-male sexism and don't bring up Valerie Solanas's SCUM Manifesto or some one-off Tumblr blogger as a counterpoint to this sentence.
The only somewhat valid critique of Sarkeesian's series out there is this ancient blog post mentioning that issues of sexism in particularly older video games is likely derived from the not as progressive culture within Japan where they were made, and various Americanized versions of the same characters (namely Peach and Zelda) were not representative of the sexist tropes in question. Not to mention these are critiques and an introductory lesson into feminist film theory and not something to be debated.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not YOU personally believe any of their criticisms against her are valid, they're worth being brought up, without the feminist leaning bullshit. When a page makes a whole section dedicated to defending things against someone, and only shows this special treatment to her page, its pretty fucking silly. They have provided plenty of valid critique. Its noteworthy to point out when she played the Hitman game (that or stole footage from someone else, dont know dont care) she killed some of the female dancers there yet that wasnt what you were suppose to do, infact you get penalized for doing that, it punishes you, but she still put it in there to further her agenda that video games are sexist. Also, the page goes out of its way to point out how much hate she gets and how she got harassed and all of this shit, well you know what? Thats being a celebrity, internet celebrity, big celebrity or otherwise. Thomas Kirk has had insults thrown at him all the time, hes received death threats, hell ED once posted his address on their page. Im not saying its okay for people to do that (to Anita or anyone), but this page is kissing her ass very blatantly while going out of its way to insult Thomas's page and Phil's. Phil is a real scientist yet one of the users above has the nerve to call this woman a "social scientist". The bias of hating one person, but favoring another is very obvious here, and very detrimental to this websites claim of bringing some kind of "rationale" to the internet. Even though i disagree with just about everything Anita says, i still wouldnt feel the need to edit her page and add a whole section with nothing but adding all the "valid" arguments against her, they should be brought up just like whatever valid claims she has said are. But they need to be backed up with evidence, and for a wiki of this nature, it needs to have limited visible bias. All this page does is apparently disprove "common" arguments against her, make her look like a victim, and also doesnt mention some of the various money scams shes been involved with (check out her ED page)....I cant believe i have to tell someone at a "Rationalwiki" to look at an ED page for facts.... If i have to i will link them, but im giving you enough credit to say youre not completely an idiot where you cant go and google something.

Jamesisweary (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  • "Whether or not YOU personally believe any of their criticisms against her are valid, they're worth being brought up, without the feminist leaning bullshit. a page makes a whole section dedicated to defending things against someone, and only shows this special treatment to her page, its pretty fucking silly. "

Any reasons, or just usual?

  • "They have provided plenty of valid critique."

Lets see the examples he provides.

  • "Its noteworthy to point out when she played the Hitman game (that or stole footage from someone else, dont know dont care) she killed some of the female dancers there yet that wasnt what you were suppose to do, infact you get penalized for doing that, it punishes you, but she still put it in there to further her agenda that video games are sexist."

I need to see such video, so I can understand the context further because it sounds like killing them may not be her point. Reference this statement (it may even be a lie).

  • But She's a celebrity and shit.

She doesn't receive usual "celebrity" criticism.

  • Tj has had insults thrown at him all the time, he's received death threats, ED posted his address, etc.

Where they valid insults? ED is a massive troll site.

  • Ad hominem, ass kissing, ad hominem, whole page defending them, ad hominem


  • The bias of hating one person, but favoring another is very obvious here, and very detrimental to this websites claim of bringing some kind of "rationale" to the internet.

Appeal to bias fallacy. I don't hate him btw.

  • "Even though i disagree with just about everything Anita says, i still wouldnt feel the need to edit her page and add a whole section with nothing but adding all the "valid" arguments against her, they should be brought up just like whatever valid claims she has said are."

You have provided no examples of valid arguments against her (please do, it would be useful) feminist positions, and I have not been able to find any.

  • "But they need to be backed up with evidence"

And you don't, obviously,

  • This wiki should have limited visible bias.

Why? Stop saying things without explanations or anything to back it up, you dumbshit.

  • All this page does is apparently disprove arguments against her and make her look like the victim

I mean...wouldn't it be a good idea to refute the nonsense arguments? If they're not accurate refutations, are you going to explain or continue to vent and rant?

and also doesnt mention some of the various money scams shes been involved with (here you recommend to see a troll site for examples) "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!

Um, if they are represented in accurate sources..why don't you edit it, as an editor?

TheAtheistComrade (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no interest in attempting to edit at this site, as the trolls and feminists will simply put it back to how it was. Also, everytime someone points out bias and irrational thinking on this page and you drink to it, it kind of just makes you look stupid, as youre getting that told to you alot, it might be a sign your wiki sucks, you would probably have alcohol poisoning as well, unless your drinking cum or something ;). ED is a troll site for sure, but it does back up what it has to say with evidence (except the various insults and obvious trolling paragraphs) but when the page wants to bring down the facts it does. There is the link for the Hitman Absolution footage she used in her video and where she claims "the game is attempting to control and punish female sexuality", yet ive beaten the game many times and not once felt the need to kill the dancers, nor do i get any arousal from it, nor are you suppose to even kill them in the first place. I would put the timestamp where its used but since this page kisses her ass blindly I dont see any reason why you wont (re) watch the whole video and reassure yourself of her great intellect (making empty claims that have no basis in reality half of the time, such as female oppression in video games, when a female is over sexualized she complains, when the female character looks to masculine she complains.) Men are put through the same treatment as woman in video games. Plenty of male characters are sexualized, just like woman are. You want to know why they are sexualized? Its called human sexuality. Men and woman both have it, woman like sexy game characters and vice versa. The fact that you havent found any valid criticisms just shows its not worth my time to argue with you or this page, as your just going to deny and deny any arguments thrown against her. Ive found valid criticisms of the amazing atheist, i like the guys content, but even he isnt perfect, he has shown himself to be a greedy bastard at points (E begging), just like Anita has opened up a kickstarter to raise 160k to film a series that she takes abnormally long to complete, while at the same time continuing other series's, when she should be...i dont know, WORKING ON THE ONE PEOPLE GAVE HER MONEY FOR, ALOT OF MONEY FOR. Heres something to check out, its more in detail about my claim of her being a scam artist. I know it likely wont change your opinion about her, as you will kiss her ass until her last breath, but *shrugs*. It took me years to accept there is no god, so..?

Jamesisweary (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"Let me quibble about minor technical inaccuracies in a video by this person, as if it related to why there's an article in the first place." Yeah, great. Good job. Inaccuracies in youtube videos happen all the time, and is essentially irrelevant. But people like you fixating on things like that, and creating a campaign to destroy her? Yeah, that's kinda a real problem. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between "minor technical inaccuracies", like getting the platform or release date of a game wrong, and flat out blatant intellectual dishonesty. She's claiming the game is rewarding players for engaging in violent acts against female NPCs, when in all actuality the game is punishing the player for acting in that way. That's not a "minor technical inaccuracy" which happens "by accident", that kind of contradiction either happens when the person doesn't know what she's talking about (the game) or simply does not mind lying to get "her point" across. The game is doing one thing, the video even clearly shows it, while Anita is claiming it's doing the complete opposite of that thing. There's nothing "minor" about that, she's either lazy with her work (didn't notice the contradiction) or flat out dishonest and accepts lying and misrepresentation as "valid means" to get her message across. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 16:13, 3 October 2015

That video alone references 52 video games, and her channel uses footage and images from hundreds of other games, movies etc. It's not a big deal that she got an anecdote wrong, even if it was something she was using to make an argument. Just because one specific game does not reward violence does not negate her point that the industry as a whole contains a lot of violence against women. Maybe she did make a boo boo. So fucking what? —Bilorv (needs a slap) 17:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
What would be more than a "boo boo"? And on most cases, there's no diff, if you ventilate female or male NPCs (if there is even such a diff). But since she is a valiant crusader against teh evel misogyny-inducing vidya games, she gets a free pass. Or two. Or three. Or ∞.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The whole situation with the fucking hit man game is blown so incredibly out of proportion by these chuckle fucks. She played the game. She found this level where you're encouraged to neutralize the female NPCs because it is set in a strip club and the point of the game is to go unnoticed. The more important fact about the level is that it was a strip club and it did feature characters that were strippers that were made to interact with or observe so teenagers can get their rocks off at low poly titties.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Nice red herring (there's more juicy pr0n to jack off to on the net).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
If part of a video game is set up to look at polygonal boobies then its valid criticism on her part to say that's not good. Also you can still shoot the strippers (or rather knock them out) and god it's so fucking tiring talking to you Arisboch don't you have something better to do than harp on this woman given the chance?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You know this Russian saying about the three things, that are easy to do and fun (1. Is giving people "useful" advice (the Russian term is "ЦУ" and a common term for the unsolicited and patronizing kinda advice), 2. is counting money in other people's wallets and 3. is pissing in the shower)? Well, having cheap shots at some two-bit YouTuber is even more fun and even more easy.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Given that you seem to think that getting constantly bombarded with threats of assault, rape and murder is a "free pass", what would not constitute one? My idea of more than a "boo boo" is a serious problem with the underlying argument being made, such as a logical fallacy or factual error with the argument itself, rather than the example or analogy used. Her argument here is that in the video game industry, women are sexualized far more than men (even when injured or dead), that they are treated as insignificant objects which can be tossed around and disposed of, that they are abused in games as cheap mechanisms to create dark atmospheres or minor plot devices in ways men aren't etc. You've not disputed that here; the discussion in this section has just been over one of several examples she used and whether players are encouraged or merely allowed to kill a stripper and throw the body around as a distraction. I'm not saying Sarkeesian is perfect, but if I were to seriously critique her, I'd go beyond 'well actually this one sentence you said here was arguably wrong'. That's just petty and pathetic.
I don't get your Russian saying thing but it reads to me like you're outwardly admitting you're just here to troll and stir shit. —Bilorv (needs a slap) 22:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You'd be right about that bit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Not only, but Dragondragon a.k.a. Ryulong is really teh bestest lolcow of the whole RW!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Silver Brain[edit]

Nominating for a silver brain. Objections/favors/comments? Zero (talk - contributions) 16:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

"she is most noted for the hatred she has received"[edit]

I think this quote from the article's introduction is very accurate. The phenomenon represented by her activities can hardly be separated into the personal and the professional. I have watched some of Thunderf00t's video invectives on Sarkeesian's work and they seem to amount to the claim that she is a con artist, that she doesn't do the work she claims she will do, or does it badly. It does seem to be the case that she has been engaging in a commercial, semi-intellectual form of feminist activity, which is not a bad thing. Everyone's got to eat. She is ostensibly a media critic, not unlike Gene Siskel or Roger Ebert, who once peddled their opinions on the latest movies (in this case, video games). This is a respectable activity. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hitman game mechanics[edit]

"To put in other terms, if the developers didn't want the players to interact with/sightsee the strippers, why does the level take place in a strip club?".

That's a non sequitur fallacy right there. That's like saying "if that girl didn't want to be molested/gawked at/raped by greasy creep bags, why did she dress up skimply?" — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

You do realize that these aren't humans, right? Zero (talk - contributions) 18:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Does that make her argument any less fallacious? Also if none of these video game characters matter, than why the fuck should Anita or any "gamer activist" care? It seems almost nonsensical, as you point out, to complain about sexism in video games as it is all artificial. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
You seem to care and therefor disprove your own statement. Zero (talk - contributions) 16:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I care about how the argument is performed, not the content itself. Now address the argument and stop derailing it. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
No that's not a non sequitur fallacy. The author asked a question, that didn't even detail a conclusion, much less fallaciously attribute a deductive conclusion. God damn people are an amazing combination of arrogant and ignorant here, wow. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

"In-game consequences for these violations are trivial at best. There is no real penalty for having knocked out the characters, despite a loss in statistical points".
--If the major goal of the game is to complete the mission with the highest score possible, then this penalty is about as real as it gets. Other "realer" (I'm not sure what metric is used here) penalties, such as being detected instantly, will break immersion, while making the player loses outright completely removes the civilian neutralization approach not just for the level, but for the entire game. For a stealth game, that's a loss in depth that's a little too much in my opinion.

"She also points out how the game only gives the player the option of either knocking out or killing civilian characters."
--Hitman does not really have civilian NPC interaction as its selling point. And yes, the civilian stripper in the club does fall into one of the two categories. I don't see how this piece of information contributes to the argument.

"...such as in another level where the player knocks out a stripper character and hides her body in order to set up a situation to beat the level"
--Reiterating the points from earlier: 1) the game actively discourages this with whatever "real penalty" it has, and 2) the common approach in this level is to leave them there and not do anything, instead of deliberately going out of way to knock them out. This sentence, in conjunction with the previous sentence, still doesn't form an actual argument. I will return to this later though.

"She makes the comparison to the Grand Theft Auto series where the player is penalized for stealing cars, despite that being the core mechanic of that game."
--Yes, but to be clear, the target audience is already interested in the idea of carjacking. The in game penalty is primarily increase in wanted level, which unlike the score system, is not a primary objective that the player min/maxes. In fact, players may deliberately choose to gain wanted levels to enjoy the police chase. Hitman does not invite the player to commit the acts that are described as "a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters", nor does players who chose to play this game have that in their mind when they pick it up. I do not find the equivalence drawn here to be representative of these two games.

"It was to say that the developers of Hitman intentionally included partially or fully naked women characters whose sole purpose is to be eye candy or be attacked by the player in some fashion. "
--Civilian characters are included in pretty much all stealth games. They act as a different class of "enemies" that serves to force the player to think through their approaches while also providing them with the option of non-violent neutralization. A civilian character in a strip club serves the exact same purpose. Adding to the earlier part about lack of interaction options, to say that a civilian character's sole purpose is to be attacked by the player is dishonest to not just Hitman, but the stealth genre as a whole.

"To put in other terms, if the developers didn't want the players to interact with/sightsee the strippers, why does the level take place in a strip club?"
--So, I interpret this as, all games should not have strip club in its settings, because if it does, and the developers added strippers for realism (not for eye candies, an assumption on intention), then the developers automatically want the players to interact/sightsee the strippers, and the players "are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters". I definitely don't like this approach to sexuality, as if strip clubs are now the bane that should not be mentioned in video games. But I digress. I'm just saying, this is the most illogical argument in the section by far, where the addition of an entire environment is attributed to the sole intention of making the players aroused, and not possibly for any other reason.

The point I'm trying to make is that this section is rather weak in my opinion, both her responses to the critics, and the arguments presented to defend the original claim. And I decided to pretty much comment on all the points in the section not because I want to repeat my arguments, but because not doing so would leave the impression that "I'm deliberately choose a single line to nitpick". So, here I leave my thoughts. (talk) I've gone in and edited this section adding this to the top

Here we go again...[edit]

In fact, the strippers describe the miserable life they have under the owner (the guy you are to kill)8 Anita Sarkeesian FAILS 2:53 There are strong indications that the 'Trip to Hawaii' really bad in rape levels of bad and this is something they fear every freaking day. And to anyone who claimed this is "dumb" EXPLAIN how it is dumb. Just don't claim it is.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Two points Bruce. Yes, a narrative encouraging you to kill someone in a work of fiction is going to justify it. This isn't the 80s, players expect more than "point gun at generic baddie and pull trigger until baddie dies". Two, Could you get better sources than a fucking CRINGE COMPILATION!?!? And for a bonus, three, this is an artificial narrative. It's manufactured. Appraoching it the way you would a real situation is um... Dumb. It's like fundies trying to apply Science to the Bible. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
1: " players expect more than "point gun at generic baddie and pull trigger until baddie dies"?" Not if the criticism of the modern FPS game has any merit...or it is a zombie game....or a Battle Royal game. :-). As far artificial narratives go what game doesn't have those? Even the once supposedly realistic game Call of Duty games have gone of into total gonzo land with story lines that make the ramblings of some right wing nut waiting for the black helicopters look sane by comparison (if you can put up with the insanely, and IMHO way too long sidestory, moviebob's Gameover thinker 89 makes fun of the whole convoluted mess that COD has become). As yahzee puts is regarding another game "Okay, they're not what you'd call realistic, but I kind of thought we'd abandoned realism around the time space marines were stabbing dinosaurs on the planet Zog."
2: As for the Cringe Compilation dismissal--is anything in the video factually wrong? If not who cares who its put together (as long as it makes more sense then Jacob's Ladder or Eraserhead)
3: While we are at it where are Criticisms like
A - 'She misrepresents aspects of games' (effectively the guts of nearly every reasonable counter video out there)
B - She makes many demonstrable untrue statements about a game and/or gaming genres (likely due to boarderline non existent research on the matter if we are being generous
C - She cherry picks game play options and presents that as something the player is required to do.
These are the Criticisms we should have in the article. Not that pathetic stawmen we have.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Now you're being disingenuous. You're comparing a single player game, which is driven by narrative these days and is expected to justify the shooting and killing, hell, the fucking arcade games did that, motherfucking Mortal Kombat does that, to multiplayer games where the focus is on competition between players. Now, again, of course in the narrative the killing is justified, but as asked below, what changes other than the ability to ogle boobs and maybe kill some strippers if your in the mood to do so (after all, you can always restart the level) if the setting changes? Do the motivations change? What if we have the exact same characters, the exact same motives, but the setting is a Pizza shop because, I dunno, the target is supposed to be less secure there? What changes thematically? Also, engage with art, as art, not as "events that I am being told are happening and are devoid of any themes because I don't want to engage with art as art". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
See the little ":-)" as end of the sentence? That generally indicates a little thing called sarcasm. But lets us be serious the single player COD storylines are totally off the wall gonzo bonkers and most zombie games are single player things. So they count as far as "point gun at generic baddie and pull trigger until baddie dies" games go.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
My question is, does the strip club add anything to the plot? Would the script be radically rewritten if, say, the setting was some trafficking ring in a pizza parlor? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
What does the off the wall gonzo trailer add?--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
So your response to a question about setting in a audio-visual work of fiction is a non sequitur. What exactly is the difference between you and a fundy christian again? That you're "right"? I'm sure they think they're "right" too. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm looking at the cringe compilation through a private window and I saw this person's channel history. Let's just say I'm reminded of clickbait and clownish sensationalism on top of the anti-feminist/anti-SJW content including dramatic readings of anti-gamergate comments. I'm not going to give it views. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
And yeah, what does that trailer add? You tell me. It looks like it's just more of the same alienating shit in media. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
He was the first I was able to find that had a general overview (most are one episodes rebuttals). There is The Response to Anita Sarkeesian Playlist and even women have issues with her claims and examples. As for the Hitman Absolution's from E3. And that nonsense is designed to attract customers. But then again sex sales so what are going to do? Heck, remember that time when Playboy stopped doing nudes...didn't last long did it? It's not a cause it is a symptom.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Sigh... Ok. We're not doing split thread. You're reaction to all points is deflection. Problematic themes? The story justifies it (of course it would, the audience is also the protaganist and needs to be soothed into engaging with the medium, else they'll want refunds) Sexualized trailer? Marketing, unrelated to the product (except it is. themes in the trailer are in the game, false advertising after all, lawsuits, yada yada.) But you refuse to engage with the product as art, as a story, and instead treat it like something you heard on the news. So, here's what's going to happen. I'm not convinced you're right, LGM here doesn't appear to be convinced of your cases either. So, you need to start explaining why a level set in a strip club, one that explicitly sexualizes the characters and doesn't let you talk to them or engage in any way other than violence or as backdrop, one with a kick the dog moment where you discover a stripper's body, is not saying in subtext that women are disposable sex objects. Agent 47 never rebukes these themes, they don't really add anything to the story and could have been cut entirely and take place off set, but they are included, the promo material includes them, and the themes are never rebuked. Why? How is Sarkeessian wrong? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Good post! --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's not deflects but good honest anthropological analyst. You know part of the triad field I have a Masters in. Its a matter of context. I am reminded of an old black and white comic where at the end some cops lead off an escapee from the local mental ward (drooling if you already didn't get the point) who has just' just killed "two good kids" in the guise of a highway patrolman (who he also killed). But that comment is a Twilight Zone twist as the "two good kids" are in reality a pair of sadistic cop killing thieves (surprising and killing two cops at their last gas station theft). Its been decades so I an fuzzy on the details on how they encounter the faux highway patrolman but the one scene I do remember is when they open up the trunk and find a body, in its underwear, in it. 'Wha?' "I hadn't gotten around to getting rid of the body." And things quickly go south for the pair of cop killing thieves. The stripper's body is like the end of the story. Going past the strippers is the context. The real message is not 'women are disposable sex objects' but ' certain men treat women as disposable sex objects' and you are making sure, via your job, there is one less of these creeps with power is on the planet. Does it do it in a awkward and blundering manner? Sure. Are there problems with the way women are portrayed in the majority of video game? Sure, a lot. The Agent 47 against scantly clad 'nuns' trailer case in point. But producing easily disprovable one-sided nonsense doesn't push the point to others - it at best shows you are a modern Know Nothing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

horseshoe theory?[edit]

sometimes I have to wonder what's the difference between what she's doing vs comics code authority of old (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sir, you are a dumb ass. Sincerely, €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

VidCon 2017?[edit]

Where is the part of harassment Sarkeesian got when she was a paid speaker at VidCon 2017 in a panel? There was hundreds if not thousands Sarkeesian critics silently in the audience showing that dissenters can be silent. Showed in an unedited video here: She was so relentlessly attacked only because she had to face the silently errmmm... aggressively silently sitting audience. ~~ have a nice day — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

What exactly is your point? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
She acted like a petulant child giving a bad impression of "feminism"TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)