Talk:Thunderf00t/Criticism of Tropes vs. Women

This is an archive page, last updated 18 August 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Feminist Research

Anita has never called gamers as a collective sexist pigs. Or really even anything like that. "Delusional Self-Aggrandising Bitch" Look who's talking Phil. Also, bitch? Sexist much?! This clip from Dalhousie University keeps comming up and it feels like a quote mine. We're halway into the video and he hasn't said a word about "feminist research" but rather laced the entire video with ad hommeniems. He complains about how Anita said she wouldn't use crazy complicated language, and really she hasn't. The video is just junk and once again calls out not being in the patreon feed. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

How Anita Spent A million

Video starts with quote mines at a rate I should just rename him "Thunderminer" for how obvious it is. This video from a seminar she was at ages ago returns with no help. He then brings up that one German study, which doesn't address the spillover effect. He then goes on to prove Anita's point of Lara being in the center of the screen for her, amazingly. Moving on he pulls some lets play footage (including audio) from...who the hell knows! I don't recognize the voice and there's no watermark. Unlikely that he asked to use it either. A male Lara Croft cosplayer is shown, with the copyright of the photo still visible. Odds he got permission? Wait, here's another video, this time it says "WBANGCA", let's look this up...another let's player, he uses audio for this guy again too. Original Video. Still questioning how much permission he got. and its from a completely different game. Anita talks about Batman: Arkham City (the butt episode again), and the character model is Pre-Order DLC for ARKHAM KNIGHT. " But what is super juicy about this? He said "Here's what you would see by actually playing the game." While showing footage OF SOMEBODY ELSE WHO PLAYED A DIFFERENT GAME. Gee. We're only 5 minutes in and he seems to have cobbled together a video not of his own making and its in the Patreon feed. He then pulls more video of another Unlockable/DLC outfit (I don't quite remember the specifics behind this one), but he's going on a tangent of missing the point of using only default costumes/what doesn't need unlocking. He moves onto the Nightwing skins from, again, Arkham Knight. For somebody complaining about how Anita doesn't do her research, the amount of failure on display here is pretty obvious to me who hasn't even played Arkham Origins or Arkham Knight (or that DS game). He tries to juxatopose Lara's presentation to Batman/Nightwing's but he forgets she uses the phrase "Sexualized Clothing". A peice of text saying "Shiny butt" shows up that isn't in his favorite style, so I'm sure it wasn't his footage to begin with, but I can't place who shot it. Footage from the pretty weak Batman Forever makes an appearance, the scene where Dr. Chase Meridian is feeling up Batman. This character is invented by the movie (as in, she's not in the comics) and is a little unfair to compare to since the movie is now twenty years old and I think represents the only time Batman has been sexually objectified apart from the sequel, Batman and Robin.

He then gets into a tired argument of "Not a true gamer" along the lines of how she speaks about games from an academic tone to somebody geeking out over the games. Uh... Next is a retread of the tired Jane argument with pretty much no changes. Diverging for a second, why does he keep bringing up the phrase White Capitalist? Is he blowing a dog whistle here? He then brings up "So what! It's Fantasy!" in a video where he spends 21 minutes railing against her! Who cares more? We get into the tired Sexy=Objectification argument he still doesn't understand. And here comes a comparison to Islam! Its as almost if he got that tired idea from the recent animation! Quote mines of her speeches again. South Park's anti-PC videos are played. This video really feels like no content actually created by him. Moving on he points out that John MacIntosh is not employed by Feminist Frequency. Looking into this he also seems to not have a producer credit anymore in the most recent video, but sits under Special Thanks. To be honest, I have no idea what he's been up to lately as his last entry on his website was November 2015 and while twitter is still a thing, its too much to wade through to find out what's up with him. But of course, as there is no nuance in Phil's world, he plays the game of jump to conclusions.

Still more garbage and its becoming tired. A 21 minute video of a grown man whining that FF got a million without explaining the title of the video, which you can find in the annual report. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 06:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Video Games Are the Source of Sexism?

I have played video games all my life and neither did it influence me, nor do I know anyone who thinks women should be like that in real life. Although the internet is 30% porn, only 5% of users actually look up porn, or at least only porn. So my argument is are violent perverts reality the majority of male gamers? Because, most would know that women aren't really like that in real life anymore then all women believe all men support violence against them.--110.142.60.110 (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course they are, just ask Annie or Jackie.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 07:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 07:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This is why I can't always take feminism seriously, because they paint all men with the same brush. While the threats Anita received were atrocious and harmfull, her generalization of men is no better to how the trolls view women as sextual objects and it is clear that neither all games, gamers, game developers nor men as a whole support violence against women, despite what the coddling gender studies have taught you.--180.216.110.171 (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Who are "they". Marasmusine (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Feminist, including Geek Feminist like Anita.--180.216.110.171 (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

What generalization did she make and how is it "no better" than trolls viewing women as sexual objects? It seems you've yet to examine your inherent biases, but I would think viewing a human as a mere object to be used is much worse than making pseudoscientific generalizations of a certain population. Withoutaname (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

In her comments of twitter, she says that masculinity is toxic and all mass shooters are male. When I said that generalisation is the same as objectification, I mean seeing someone in a sextual light is a generalization of a collective on how they should be.--180.216.110.171 (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

"masculinity is toxic" It is. I don't see why anyone has to prove their masculinity to others.
"all mass shooters are male" The majority of them are. Count the number of mass shooters in the past half-century and compare the proportion of male and female shooters.
"seeing someone in a sextual light is a generalization of a collective" It isn't. You're pretty dumb if you think seeing an individual in a sexual manner is the same as a generalization that all similar people should be seen in a sexual manner. Withoutaname (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You are only proving my point that feminist believe all men are inherently evil, that all men are masculint and therefore they are all sextual preditors, majority of mass shootings are from men and therefore all men are mass shooters.--180.216.110.171 (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

"all men are inherently evil" I've not said any such thing.
"all men are masculint" I've not said any such thing.
"therefore they are all sextual preditors" I've not said any such thing.
"majority of mass shootings are from men" This is true, but
"therefore all men are mass shooters" this is logically incoherent and a plain application of affirming the consequent fallacy. "All mass shooters are men" does not mean "all men are mass shooters".
So far, you've displayed both terrible reading comprehension and an amazing lack of rational thinking here. Withoutaname (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

But I'm a gamer and therefore you believe that I support violence against women.--180.216.110.171 (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Straw Man? Red Herring? Where are you getting these ideas from? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

From feminist boycotting an entire medium.--180.216.117.155 (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

So straw man. Got it. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 09:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The BoN is twisting everything to fit his belief that the evil feminists are out to generalize and vilify gamers. Even things that don't logically make sense. Maybe it's best to disengage from what looks to be persistent trolling. Withoutaname (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic or do you believe that gamers are always chaotic evil?--180.216.117.155 (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to make you feel bad, I'm only disagreeing with you.--180.216.117.155 (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It's probably too late, but isn't Anita's whole schtick that video games are an evidence of casualised sexism already in society, rather than the cause (the latter being Jack Thompson's)? If true (I don't watch her videos) then people seem to forget that fact a lot, evident by the title of this very section.-- 194.81.33.29 (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, according to her sources posted on the Anita Sakeersian talk page, she think they're making it worse, so she's like Jackie.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC) 13:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

194.81.33.29 is correct. Video games propagate sexist memes, but they are not the sole cause of them. They take influence from sexist ideas and echo them forward, as most media do. Withoutaname (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The title was a question, not a statement, whether video games or other medium, it is clear that feminist can't enjoy anything they find sexist, which is practically everything, regardless if others agree with them or not.--180.216.121.40 (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

No feminist academic that I have heard of have seriously proclaimed video games were the ultimate source of sexism, or that gamers are always chaotic evil, or that they can't always enjoy anything they find sexist. You're deliberately putting words into the mouths of others when they've never claimed such things, and generalizing feminist viewpoints, and building whole castles of straw based on your idealized stereotype of what you believe feminists are like, which is intellectually dishonest. You need to completely empty yourself of what you imagined feminists have said and your inherent biases against them before we can have a proper debate. Withoutaname (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no way that all her video viewers, regardless on how much they agree or disagree have threatened her with violence, as I said before they are a very small minority and don't represent all gamers. But does that mean we should boycott an entire medium or all male writers?--180.216.110.59 (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer it if I get a comment.--180.216.108.175 (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Why aren't feminist acknowledging the silent majority of gamers, I think it's because they think we're monolithic.--180.216.96.172 (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ban Sexy Notes

Hoo boy. I'm expecting a good show of not getting it here. Here goes.

• Four minutes in and we've only talked about Jade from Beyond Good & Evil. Once again bringing up the rendering fault as fact.
• And HERE'S JOHNNY! We're off topic again. Talking about the funding for some reason.
• "It's amazing why you don't find many feminists in the gaming industry." OH REALLY?! You know, the someodd 99% of developers that reject Gamergate?
• At one point he has a collage of Bayonetta cosplay. What is the first picture he zooms in on? Yaya Han as a Cobra operative. Who doesn't know video games now Phil?
• Ad hominems ahoy where he decides to slutshame Anita for her outfit choice. Hey Phil: AGENCY! Look it up.
• We've just passed the ten minute mark and haven't talked about the content of the video...at all.
• Now we're dismissing her arguments based on a lot of the games being rated M? That's...not an argument. Oh wait, here it is: "Feminists are not grown up enough to play games for adults." Cripes.
• Fifteen minutes in and we're still not talking about the video.
• Hi Laci! Didn't realize you had anything to do with video games!
• He tries to push this notion of sexuality being engrained at a genetic level instead of a cultural one. How can I debunk this in one word? Burka. That is all.
• Using the game concept from a few years ago, he complains about how the armor magically shrinks to show a perfect hip to waist ratio. Uh...it's not perfect and in another single word debunk: Belt.
• [Maybe when you get a positive female character that isn't sexy, people will take you seriously.] Well, if you watched the video you would know that she mentioned Kreia.

And cherry picked, quotemined, ad hominem, and probably many more logical fallacies I can't think of. Good job being rational. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Knowing ahead of time I probably won't click the link because I need my precious filter bubble, what video is this in response to? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

For sure. Here you go. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh. So you're responding here to the response to that? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I read that wrong. The video in question I'm responding/noting to is by thunderf00t but the video he's "responding to" is the one linked above. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Source used for reference note 6

"This is a rather narrow-minded understanding of the video gaming market, which by the way counts a healthy number of women (48% of the most frequent game purchasers)." That statistic is potentially misleading - the report says that 47% of gamers are women and 53% are men - but it also says that 42% of games are of the "puzzle, board game, game show, trivia, card games category". Given the subject matter of this rationalwiki article, I think it matters to point that out - ie to mention that the words "game" and "gamers" include a not insignificant number of (for example) crossword puzzle(r)s. I (for one) assumed you were talking ONLY about the adventure style games (which is why I checked the statistic - it didn't sound right to me). Of course, it may still be true that 47% of "adventure" gamers are women - but that isn't verified in this particular report. I would like to add that I'm merely drawing attention to a poor sourcing reference - and the case for or against any party would not (in my opinion) be altered whether the percentage was 1% or 99%. ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.134.24.231 / contribs}

You do have a point, and even newer data doesn't exactly dispel the doubt if you really really really want to go at it (you can always imagine that despite qualifying as gamers in a given month, and even having the same means~platforms, genders don't have the same amount of "commitment" or genre/game "variability"). Still, nonetheless.. even if you wanted to accept the original premise (i.e. stop to care for goods or bads in society, and somehow just focus on what's best for the ROI of shareholders!) what's the deal with not trying to tap an underserved market? Surely if kids aren't playing puzzle bobble anymore, so might housewives? (and no, the problem cannot just be the phones because for as much as I loathe them as a gaming system.. from supercell to mihoyo games they are breaking every record under the sun AFAICT)
But then of course the thing is that the argument was always BS to begin with, regardless of even any feminist issue. In fact, especially today in the year of the lord 2023, I think capital-G gamers would be the first that are going to punch your face in light of the countless of rushed unfinished cashgrabs that have been released (may god praise BG3).
The only gatekeeping that I could remotely imagine (if still clearly 200% edgelording) is one across some kind of "pedagogic" line, or in other words "whatever games leave you with, once you stop playing".. but putting aside this is completely counter to the "mindlessness makes for success" point, just like puzzle games are cancer in this sense so would be FIFA or most hyper-competitive deathmatching (and why yes those happen to be the kind of places with the most unwelcome toxicity? go figure). --Mirh (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

"This is an archive page. Please do not make edits to this page." Carthage (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

No, that's just a quirk of {{talkpage}} that makes it consider any talkpage of a subpage to be an archive. Plutocow (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)