Women's Issues

"mr-cappadocia"

This guy has proven himself to be an untrustworthy ass quite a bit before. Anything he has to say needs to be taken with more than a few grains of salt.

The argument he uses in this case doesn't really seem that sound either. All it really proves is that Anita took the screencap 12 seconds after the last Tweet, and that she wasn't logged in.

I was thinking the same.

As a general rule for just about all walks of life, always keep in mind that when you start mudslinging at an umbrella, you may hit targets underneath that umbrella that you never intended.

Someone from Gamer Headlines has posted another take on the recent Anita Sarkeesian news. The message is that the mainstream media is at fault for partially planting the seeds of the overly hateful and defensive culture of gamers today, starting perhaps with their coverage of Jack Thompson and similarly overzealous Moral Guardians and getting worse from there.

edited 28th Aug '14 3:55:23 PM by Nettacki

Stop ruining my escapist fantasies, Sarkeesian haters. You're hurting games more than she ever will.

Wait, so some one else has not bought games because "Generic White Male Lead", I was beginning to think I was the only one who has become frustrated with it to the point that it is a major turnoff in the purchase of a game.

My problem with that is the fact that video game reporters did that before doesn't not make this kind of harassment ok. The fact that they stopped and turned the tables around isn't necessarily hypocritical: it might just mean that the industry made a good change.

Also, sounds very much like a misogynistic apologist to me. Yes, Anita Sarkeesian might not be perfect but NO ONE deserves the crap she had to endure.

And finally did Thompson receive insults based on his gender, or for that matter was he making criticisms on the way that video games does things that are against something crucial to his identity like his gender? That's actually a quite a big difference.

Finally, not to mention Thompson actually have the (male) power to shut down the industry because potentially he could be taken seriously. I cannot seriously see that happening with Sarkeesian.

edited 28th Aug '14 4:33:57 PM by IraTheSquire

You're definitely not alone with this. If I wanted the experience of a white heterosexal male I could go outside. Seriously though, it does gate stale and has even begun to break my Willing Suspension of Disbelief.

edited 28th Aug '14 4:30:09 PM by Antiteilchen

Even white men are getting board of it, I vaguely remember Totalbiscuit saying (I think on a stream) that he's tired of playing strait white men, he wants some variety in his games.

How is it apologism when the article expressly says the second half of what I've just quoted you saying?

edited 28th Aug '14 4:32:47 PM by SilasW

"Yes, Anita Sarkeesian might not be perfect but NO ONE deserves the crap she had to endure."

That article I linked agrees with you in that respect. That's why they said "Death threats, threats of rape, and all the other abuse that has forced Anita out of her home is utterly disgusting and the individuals responsible should be punished to the full extent of the law." But just because she didn't deserve that abuse doesn't mean there aren't legitimate reasons to dislike her work.

Well I mean beyond the just annoyance camp to the "Possible reasons I wont buy it" camp, I too often here from my friends or other people "What does it matter? Thats a silly reason to not buy a game" and was beginning to think it was just a me thing. >.<

Side Note : I keep hearing about Totalbiscuit but have never watched him, is he good?

There also seems to be a bit of "why didn't people defend Jack Thompson when he was harassed?" in there, too.

& And yet at the same time he claims that people defending her are the same as people attacking her, when the people defending her are angry because of the vitriol that she received. Is he saying that he's the same as the people attacking her then?

I think I've covered that when I talked about the fact that his word can be taken seriously and have the industry taken down. As far as I can tell Sarkeesian is asking for the industry to change rather than having it destroyed altogether.

edited 28th Aug '14 4:41:53 PM by IraTheSquire

I can't say I've ever deliberately not bought the game just because of the straight white guy symdrome thing but it's getting old and it is a big mark against it.

That doesn't really excuse it, IMO. Nobody should be harassed based on how "good" or "bad" their intentions are. That's exactly the kind of rationalization people use to justify harassment against Anita Sarkeesian.

TB is good, but like any other guy who goes on the tubes and plays video games, he's someone with his own biases and viewpoints that not everyone will agree with. He never really hides that everything he says is an opinion that is provided as a means to inform others about their purchasing decisions alongside multiple other sources, not meant as the one true source for every game ever. For example, he's not a very big fan of certain kinds of platformers, modern military shooters, and games in general that focus more on story part of the Story to Gameplay Ratio than the gameplay.

edited 28th Aug '14 4:40:59 PM by Nettacki

X6 Well I tend to only play games were I'm an entity like a country or a hospital/city/whatever administration, so I can't not buy such games myself. And TB is pretty good, he can be a bit grumpy, mechanics focused and nitpicky, but he's a good gaming critic, but he tends to try and stay away from social issues due to how he gets a lot of abuse if he weighs in on them and such abuse is very bad for his health.

X5 Was he harassed though? Or just made to face legitimate criticism and appropriately punished for unethical practices?

X4 Does it expressly call them the same? And to be honest if they're lashing out at people who are making legitimate criticism they are the same, being angry over someone being harassed doesn't allow you to harass people yourself, which is what a lot of social justice warriors do (see the harassment TB suffered when he told everyone to calm down during the stuff with the creator of Depression Quest).

edited 28th Aug '14 4:44:59 PM by SilasW

& : I'd agree, except I'd make an exception when it is harassing people because the said people are harassing others, because the said people might only understand the language of "harassment" and will only stop when they get harassed.

Also, he's defending the people attacking Sarkeesian by saying that "not all of them are vitriol" and yet painted all defending her as harassers. Hypocrisy much?

edited 28th Aug '14 4:53:47 PM by IraTheSquire

I'm not a fan of Pay Evil unto Evil unless there is HARD evidence that it works better than any other option.

I'm of the opinion that without any hard evidence that any one option or options work(s) better than others EVERY option should be chosen.

Ugh. No offense, but I absolutely and utterly despise this view. Pay Evil unto Evil as a means of social activism is supremely harmful and damaging because it has a tendency to seriously hurt people who are otherwise apathetic that are only tangentially involved to the issue. And once you start training yourself to react this way to potential threats, then you start to treat almost everyone who doesn't see eye-to-eye with you the same way. As they say, when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

Or, when all you have is a hammer, you'd notice that not everything is a nail and avoid those that are not nails.

x5 He's not painting anyone defending her as harassers. He's painting many of the game journalists defending her as being guilty of similar behavior towards Jack Thompson in the past, which in turn led a whole generation of gamers to believe that anyone that says anything they perceived as "wrong" about their beloved industry as "worthy" of abuse.

edited 28th Aug '14 5:19:05 PM by Nettacki

That's actually why I say he sounds like an apologist because that's an excuse for the behaviour of those attacking Sarkeesian. "Look, it isn't their fault because that's what the reporters taught them to do. And now they are trying to fix it! How dare they."

Also, another thing is, Jack Thompson did way more than just speaking out his opinion. He was also working to dismantle the whole industry through lobbying politicians in support of anti-video game legislations and actually drafting bills for said legislations.

Comparing him with Sarkeesian is apples and oranges in terms of what kind of damage the two are attempting or able to do.

And also, as I mentioned, the fact that the reporters changed tables doesn't necessarily mean hypocrisy: maybe they realised what they did to Thompson was not on and they are trying to stop the monster that they've created?

Edit: from The Other Wiki:

I somehow doubt that Sarkeesian is attempting or even able to pull of this kind of crap. The kind of power between the two simply are not comparable. The campaign against Thompson was definitely not a case of Disproportionate Retribution while the one against Sarkessian certainly is.

edited 28th Aug '14 5:38:23 PM by IraTheSquire

There's a panel from Freefall that is pretty fitting for this:

edited 28th Aug '14 5:51:41 PM by Sixthhokage1