Why Gamergate is Really About Political Correctness

I don’t think Anita Sarkeesian knew what she was getting into. Sarkeesian is the thirty-two-year-old feminist who has gained notoriety through Feminist Frequency, a website and social movement that criticizes violence and misogyny in video games.

Sarkeesian has become a lightning rod in the gaming community. After raising over $150,000 on Kickstarter in 2012 to launch a video series, Tropes Against Women, which analyzes video games, Sarkeesian experienced online harassment from gamers, including death threats. The attacks on Sarkeesian are disgusting, sad, and intolerable, and media have spent a lot of time covering her experience of harassment.

What the media hasn’t covered in detail is the fact that gamers have absolutely demolished Anita Sarkeesian’s arguments.

Her first argument is also the most general: that video games are violent and misogynistic. Over a year ago I became the video game reviewer for the Catholic News Service, a media organization that, as you might expect, does not approve of violent and sexist video games. Playing games every week and reading the gamer media, I discovered that the gaming industry is as diverse as American culture itself. There are games about war and stealing cars, but also games about puzzle-solving, heroic quests, and making friends. There are games that are anti-war and games that are artistically stunning, and games about just living life. One of my favorites is still the first game I reviewed, OlliOlli, which allows players to do fun skateboard runs.

In short, saying “video games are violent” is about as accurate as saying “books are violent.” There’s just too much diversity in the field to generalize. Almost anyone can find a game tailored to his or her taste, and any trip to the local GameStop store will reveal the cornucopia of options.

Yes, some games are violent. Some are misogynistic. And responsible people can have discussions about the effect that too much gaming has on the human soul and psyche—as well as what good games do. Yet Sarkeesian’s arguments are overly broad, deceptive, and full of specific errors. Gamers have pointed this out in great detail, and are still caricatured in the media as unintelligent, pajama-wearing mouth breathers.

One of the sharpest gamers to respond to Sarkeesian is a kid who calls himself Mr. Repzion. Mr. Repzion in a lifelong gamer, and on his YouTube channel he has posted several responses to Sarkeesian that are detailed and well researched. (They also contain occasional bad language.) Repzion was particularly exasperated at the errors Sarkeesian made when she recently attended E3, the Electronic Entertainment Expo.

Also notable is gamer and YouTuber AlphaOmegaSin. He has posted lengthy and rigorously detailed videos highlighting Sarkeesian’s mistakes. When a self-appointed social justice warrior recently accused Nintendo of being racist because the hand that appears on one of their video games is white, AlphaOmegaSin justifiably went nuts.

Other old-school print and online journalists and critics have also destroyed Sarkeesian’s arguments. When Sarkeesian said that the game Doom 4 shows the brutal sawing in half of a body, journalists responded that the violence was against a fantastical demon, not a person, and only lasted a few seconds. When Feminist Frequency objected that part of the game Fallout Shelter involved impregnating women, people who had played the game pointed out that the sex was consensual and was in fact only a minor part of a game about surviving in a post-apocalyptic world.

Critics have noted that even games that give the option to play as male or female are not enough for feminist Sarkeesian. One journalist got so frustrated with Sarkeesian’s drive-by criticism (she doesn’t allow comments on the videos she posts to her site and she often goes on blocking sprees) that he offered $10,000 to a charity of her choice if she would simply debate him. The offer is still on the table.

Social justice warriors like Sarkeesian usually win by following a pattern: raise an issue, shame critics by appealing to emotion, bully, express a lot of rage and personal hurt, guilt opponents into acquiescence, then move on to the next target. But gamers’ cogent counterarguments have made Anita Sarkeesian and Feminist Frequency irrelevant. Gamers keep gaming, and game makers keep making games. The controversy is ebbing, and soon the name Anita Sarkeesian will be a footnote in pop culture history. As for me, I’m looking forward to playing Dark Souls III.

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

newsletter-signup

141 responses to “Why Gamergate is Really About Political Correctness

  1. Thank you for this article and pointing out the number of ways that the statements Mrs. Sarkeesian has made have now been proven wrong. It is truly sad that some of her biggest supporters have made statements of their own that her work is to “start a discussion”, yet she is so set on not discussing anything. She has even gone so far as to say that her “detractors” are all part of the misogynistic forces that she claims to see creating the games we all play. It is delusional to lump all of any class, race, or gender together in a generalization of any kind, yet she has gone on record with statements using such generalizing phrases as “all gamers” to describe those whom she thinks are irrelevant. It’s good to note that there are still blogs, journalist’s articles, and discussions where everyone is welcome to their own opinion but facts are sourced and vetted rather than believed without evidence. Thanks again.

    1. I’ve seen so many times those people that follow her, and her herself seriously say that disagreement = harassment. How do you even debate someone as stupid as that? Fact is they know their points are garbage, they also know what they say appeals to a bunch of stupid idiots, stupid idiots who will give them money. They don’t want to debate anything because those people giving them money might realise they are full of crap and stop doing it. So they discredit any dissenters as “harassers”, refuse to engage in discussion, block anybody disagreeing and create a hugbox where peoples views, right or wrong, are propped up constantly and never challenged.

      1. “How do you even debate someone as stupid as that?”

        You don’t. If someone claims disagreement = harassment, smile, nod, back away slowly.

        Likely they will find some way to spin what you’re saying into you being sexist, misogynistic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, *-ist, *-ism, *-phobic. Then they’ll parade you around to all the people that also support their skewed world view and encourage people to dox, slander and/or attack you… in some cases physically.

        The only say to have a conversation with that kind of person is through complete anonymity behind a proxy in a country that doesn’t have extradition laws. “These people”, think they’re fighting for Social Justice, something we all likely think is good, but they pervert it and use it as an excuse to attack, bully, smear and defame people into submission rather than actually sticking up for those that are discriminated against.

        *TL;DR* – You can’t have a discussion with them because anything less than 100% compliance is seen as an attack on their ideology. There is no room for debate.

  2. A Dark Souls man, eh? I might move on to that one after Diablo 3. After all, being a conservative in this culture is like playing Dark Souls; you get hit in the face by something you weren’t told was dangerous, take two steps backward, and try again.

  3. Very nice and interesting article and you nailed it pretty well with the conclusion.
    Seems this pattern is very common among social justice activists and such. It is so similar that I am that opinion someone teaches this as a successful business strategy. The more controversial it is, the more people talk about it, the more supporters of the same idea gather to deposit money to their accounts. It does not matter you fight them with facts, only thing that matters is they gather enough “beliebers”.
    Let’s see how long will this last though.

  4. Well, that is one issue many gamers, and yes, some that use #GamerGate tag are interested in exposing, but that is not what #GamerGate was suppose to be. People, including Sarkeesian and #FullMcIntosh, just keep injecting them into #GamerGate.

    The community is sort of split on the issue of stricly ethics, and ideologies creeping into our hobby.

  5. I agree with all of this… except the implication that Anita Sarkeesian is getting any more harassment than any other public figures. Far as I can tell, she’s getting less, particularly for one who doles out the harassment as much as she does.

    1. Yeah, shouting louder about her harassment than anybody else does not equal more of it.

    2. Problem is that if one thing hapens. Alot of the so called….. progressive sites…. that are in fact allied with her and probably even support her. Blow the news out of proportion. She hasnt had anything real hapen to her. She hasnt been assaulted, she hasnt been injured, she hasnt been part of any shooting. She has only goten the kinds of things that anyone can get, even me, or even you. Random threats on the internet. Random threats made by anyone, that could even be by her supporters…just to try and drum up drama and try to make her a damsel in distress… something that she keeps talking about in everything.Seriously, she keeps talking that women are more then just damsels…. but what is she? She seems to be the queen Damsel…. she benefits from it… ALOT. Even looking at her history…. her past is murky and there are proof that some things she was part of in the past have deleted or removed her association with them….. Like this one ….Image of her for some…adventure kind of thing…. her picture isnt there anymore. But what bothers me the most is this ONE thing. IN every speech that she has been doing, she has ALWAYS read of a papper… You would expect that someone that would be doing this for a living, to have learned how to remember things especialy for a speech. It makes you come of as a puppet if you have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously, every speech, she reads of a papper… even when she was in a panel with other feminists… she took out a couple of pages to talk about stuff…. The others didnt have anything, she was the only one with pappers…. that she was reading of…. NOT the usual.. hey… this is just my… cheat sheet…. the kind you are ok to have when your are doing a speech. But that is ment to be a way to remember your points…. not to read of… You would recieve a failed grade if you were doing that during a speech or a presentation. You are ment to just glance at it from time to time… to remember, oh, this is next or oh yeah, i ned to add this. Not stare at it.

  6. I don’t think there have been many, if any genuine threats made against Sarkeesian. Most prominant online personalities can match Sarkeesian threat for threat, without playing the damsel in distress. She appears to me to be a scam artist, and very good one too.

    1. Nope. No convictions so far. It works better that way for her. The bogey man is always out there…..

  7. “I discovered that the gaming industry is as diverse as American culture itself.” So basically the same as erotic entertainment.

  8. Good article. One thing I take great exception to is the following statement:

    “Some games are misogynistic.”

    Using the word “some” is a weasel word that lazy journalists use when they have no actual proof to backup their claims.

    How can we as readers ascertain the validity of this claim without the author providing any evidence? Please name the video games that are misogynistic. If you can’t then the statement should be retracted.

    For arguments sake, let’s say the author can provide some names of actual video games. Then we need to determine how prevalent these games actually are by asking the following:

    How successful were these games? How many copies were sold? What percentage of all video games does the totality of so-called misogynistic video games comprise?

    Next if there is misogyny in videos games we need to analyze if there is any correlation between it and real world misogyny. The cultural context of misogyny needs to be examined as well.

    Another issue is context. For example, a video game company could be created a video game that deals with daily life in Ancient Rome. Women were not allowed to vote in Ancient Rome where there was no such thing as feminism. Feminists could make the point that a video game like this is promoting misogyny because women can’t vote.

    A video game like this is a simulation and the producers have every right to make it for video game players who want to experience what life would be like living in Ancient Rome.

    Finally, we need to ask the question: What gives feminists the right to dictate what should be allowed in video games?

    If I want to make a video game about misogyny then I should be allowed to. If I want to make a video game about misandry then I should be allowed to. It is called freedom of expression.

    If feminists are allowed to dictate what can and can’t be in video games, then what about other groups and ideologies? Should Christians, Jews and Muslims have a veto as well? Where does this end?

    The truth is that cultural Marxists and self-promoters like Sarkeesian and others have attempted to control the video game industry by creating a false narrative that video games are inherently violent and misogynistic. The problem is that this narrative will have the effect of creating a chilling environment where video game developers will engage in self-censorship and feel the need to promote feminist ideology to grease the squeaky wheel of the outrage industry.

    1. The worst thing about peddling the “games are misogynist” shit is that no one ever answer how they are misogynist, Games aren’t humans, it does not have a conciousness to have such a tendency. If they mean “games have misogynist elements” I couldn’t really care, it’s fantasy, it does not exist, and if a game has misogynist elements the creators who made them are just as misogynist monsters as video game creators who make violent games, which is none, and players who play them become just as misogynist as they become violent from playing violent video games, in short, there’s nothing to worry about.

    2. First of all, you have to understand that misogyny means hatred of women. Is it misogyny to kill a woman in a video game? If so, games are MUCH MUCH MUCH more misandric, considering the fact that MEN are the primary cannon fodder in almost all video games. GTFO, feminism. Go guzzle a gallon of your own menstrual blood.

    3. “if there is misogyny in videos games we need to analyze if there is any correlation between it and real world misogyny”

      All you have to do is look at the frantic, abusive, sexist reaction to Sarkeesian’s videos for evidence of that…

      And no one is out to “dictate what can and can’t be in video games…” that’s just stupid.

  9. She’s a fraud like any of the frauds James Randi used to expose. The $10,000 offer is similar to what Randi did (Randi’s offer was later increased to a million dollars). Just like Rosemary Altea rejected Randi’s offer on multiple occasions due to the certainty of being exposed when scrutinized, Anita does the same by avoiding addressing the issue altogether.

    She has no interest in being right or factual. I’m not sure she’s even serious about feminism. Feminism was the hit after some misses because it has a large, dogmatic, and idiotic following and it’s much easier to use it as a weapon and a shield.

    Debunking her arguments hardly matters to her or her lackeys for she was never about presenting constructive and factual arguments, nor was she interested in discussions.

  10. I don’t know if it’s just about political correctness. But that does seem to be one of the main dividing factors. It’s identical to a general division that’s happened to the left-wing in lots of different industries in recent times. The group of people who continually try and demand privileges based on hurt feelings has slowly been growing in the last decade. Now we’re seeing a much needed pushback.

  11. The harrasment of Sarkeesian wasn’t coming from GamerGate. The slanders and libels of GamerGate as a “hate group” that is in any sense “against women” are nothing other than the usual left wing media lies, just like “the Tea Party is racist” and “Todd Akin approves of rape” and all their other lies.

  12. Regardless of if there were death threats or harassment from someone utilizing the tag, they are an extreme minority and I for one feel comfortable saying that it is to be expected that within any particular group there will be a few toxic individuals or trolls in it purely to stir up drama. They should not be used as the common denominator, giving them media focus just encourages more trolls to do the same, trolls love media attention.

    Enjoyed the article

  13. I love the way these criticisms of Sarkeesian all end up doing exactly what they (falsely) accuse her of doing; overgeneralizing and misrepresenting her arguments. As far as I know she never makes the arguemnt you attribute to her; “…that video games are violent and misogynistic.” She does point out the blindingly obvious fact that many games contain elements which are violent and misogynistic. But that’s not the same thing, is it?

    if you’re going to attack someone’s work for being “overly broad, deceptive, and full of specific errors” you might want to avoid resorting to criticisms which are themselves overly broad, deceptive, and full of specific errors…

      1. Thanks for proving my point. She’s commenting there (as always) on a specific instance of violence in a game, not making the kind of generalization about games that her detractors often accuse her of.

        And there’s a big difference between pointing out that violence in media normalizes violence (which is undeniable… http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/124/5/1495.full ) and saying that playing games will make people commit violence. Sarkeesian argues the former, but is often accuse doing the latter.

        That observation about normalizing seems to be confirmed every time some sad little whiner sends her a message with a violent, sexual theme to it by the way…

        1. So any media that demonstrates women committing violence against men “normalizes” this behavior also? Did Kill Bill trigger you? Probably not.

          1. To the extent that any depiction of extreme violence which minimizes the consequences of that violence is normalizing…yes a movie like Kill Bill contributes to that. Which isn’t to say it’s a bad movie or that people shouldn’t watch it or that the people who made it are bad people. That’s just an observation about a cultural reality. I really don’t know why making such observations turns some people into whiny little toddlers crying as if someone’s taking their toys away…

          2. I don’t think Kill Bill minimized any consequence of beheading a person or slicing people up with a sword. Depiction of a type of violence in fictional media does not lessen the consequences of that violence in real life.

            It contributes to lessening sensitivity/shock to it. In order to validate that as a bad thing, you’d have to demonstrate how lack of shock to violent depiction results in the average person tolerating or advocating its occurrence in real life or circumvents their “right from wrong” judgement. Something that actually results in mistreatment of others.

            Same goes for fictional depictions of sexism.

          3. You realize that “lessening sensitivity” is just another way of saying “normalizing….

            So the question is does this kind of normalizing change people’s attitudes to and their acceptance of such violence in real life. And there’s actually pretty good evidence that it does. I suppose you could argue that indifference to violence in the real world isn’t a bad thing, but I would tend to disagree. And of course this is NOT the same as arguing that playing violent games will make someone commit acts of violence, however, which is the argument which is often falsely attributed to Sarkeesian.

            As for the sexism, ask yourself if constant exposure to stereotypical depictions of racial or ethnic minorities might reinforce negative attitudes towards those minorities. Then apply the same test to gender.

            And finally, even if you think, in spite of all the evidence, that these concerns aren’t serious ask yourself if someone expressing those concerns really deserves the kind of frantic, abusive and threatening response that has been directed at Sarkeesian.

            If you want someone to blame for giving gaming a bad image it’s the same clowns who over-react to critics like Sarkeesian, not the critics themselves. Every fouls, sexist violent threat sent her way just tends to confirm her thesis. That’s the kind of behaviour that we might expect from “lessening sensitivity” to violence and sexism.

          4. Non sequitur. I don’t support that petition, I don’t “think like that” and that petition has nothing to do with Sarkeesians work.

            You just keep proving my point for me you little whiner.

          5. If you support sarkeesian, that is exactly the kind of nonsense censorship you are encouraging. Sorry if it makes you mad, bra. But that’s what team you’re on. Too bad so sad.

          6. Where have I or Sarkeeisan actually supported censorship? C’mon you little crybaby; should be easy to show us if it’s really happened. Put up or shut up.

          7. She implies it by assuming she is the moral authority by telling gamers what’s “ok” and not “ok”. Meaning anything that goes against her narrative is “problematic” despite her lack of research. Then R tards like you take her nonsense as gospel. Stop pretending. If you could make developers do what you wanted and could prevent their freedom to create things you think are offensive….you’d do it in a heartbeat. That’s the issue. Lil piss babies like you are attempting to take away peoples freedom of speech/expression. Not everyone wastes thousands of dollars on gender studies to learn how to be a victim. Don’t try to punish everyone for your mistakes : )

            Hope that helps!!

          8. She’s not implying anything. You’re inferring it because it’s easier to misrepresent her arguments than to deal with them honestly.

            Just like you’re doing when you dishonestly accuse me of favouring censorship. You’re inventing attitudes for me which I do not hold, have not expressed and have in fact expressly disavowed.

            Other people exercising their freedom of speech is not a threat to your freedom of speech. Stop being such a chickenshit sonny. The big bad feminist bogey isn’t going to take away your toys.

          9. Keep telling yourself that. Games have already been censored because of piss baby sjw’s such as yourself. GTA V got taken off of shelves because of misrepresentation by feminists. Pillars of Eternity got a joke taken out. Fable creaters posted a pic of a well endowed female on national cleavage day and were harassed into taking it down. Shall I go on? Or have I started to penetrate that oh so thick skull of yours?

          10. People express their opinions and that sometimes influences other people to make decisions. This is not censorship, it’s free speech.

            You should educate yourself on the meaning of words before tossing them around so carelessly.

          11. You may not agree with that opinion, but so what? That’s not censorship. It’s free speech. No one is forcing Target or anyone else to do anything. Target doesn’t have to do what the people behind that petition are asking them to do, but if they decide they want to that’s their right. They are not obligated to sell a product just because you want them to.

            I’m sorry to be the one to break this to you son, but the rest of the world does not exist to cater to your entertainment needs. The world won’t end if Target Australia decides to stop selling your favourite game. They don’t sell my favourite brand of coffee, or guitar string, or a whole bunch of other stuff I like either, you don’t see me crying like a spoiled toddler about it.

            Whiner.

          12. “I’m sorry to be the one to break this to you son, but the rest of the world does not exist to cater to your entertainment needs.”

            Yet you support the misguided actions that get a game removed from store shelves due to peoples fee fee’s. You are one hypocritical pos. Please don’t have children.

          13. You’ve confused. I told you I didn’t support that petition. I do support the right of individuals to express their opinions through a petition and the right of a privately owned company to decide which products it wants to put on its shelves.

            Target is not obligated to sell your favourite toy.

          14. lmfao! Are you anitas padawan or something? Or more like sith apprentice. “I don’t approve of censorship but these people getting things banned by lying about them is free speech. And companies should bend to the will of mislead morons who are drunk on their own smug version of social justice and entitlement” That’s you in a nutshell. Again….please don’t reproduce.

          15. You’re still confused. I’m in favour of people expressing their opinions and making choices. Do you think stores should be forced to sell products they don’t want to sell? Would you make it illegal for people to start petitions? To express their opinions? There has been no censorship and nothing has been ‘banned’. If a store hears objections from its customers and decides not to carry a particular product that’s their right. They choose not to sell certain magazines in their stores too. Would you force them to sell porn if they don’t feel it’s something their customers want?

            And if you don’t like their decision you can start your own petition instead of whining in some online comment thread.

            By the way, I don’t know how old you are but I’m guessing my children are all older than you are. We all enjoy games and understand the meaning of big words like ‘censorship.’ I raised them to have respect for others, to consider all sides of an issue , to accept that they will not always get their way or agree with the decisions other people make and not to act like spoiled toddlers with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement when that happens.

          16. You’re F’ed in the head. THEY LIED ABOUT THE PRODUCT TO GET IT BANNED. WHAT ABOUT THAT IS FREE SPEECH AND WHY IS THAT OK? If I lie and tell the police that you murdered someone and you get falsely arrested….its ok because I was exercising free speech? Good god, the mental gymnastics you do are truly amazing. They should make it an olympic sport.

          17. 1) An opinion you disagree with is not necessarily a lie.
            2) Nothing was banned, any store that wants to is free to sell the game.

            Now stop whining and go clean your room sonny.

          18. I apologize. I forgot you don’t actually play games. You just like to argue about them I guess. Otherwise, you would understand that YES, this was a lie. But I know you don’t get it. You can’t see past your retarded ideology. Btw, what’s with the “sonny” thing. I’m getting kind of a creepy pedo vibe from you. Maybe chill out before you bust a nut all over your keyboard lol!

        2. Doom is 100% ripping bodies apart, this is not an element or a scene or a part of, this is the game.

          1. Yeah, I know. I still have the original on floppy disks. And you’re still missing the point.

          2. No, not at all, if you were right then I would give you the point but you simply aren’t. She clearly states that Doom normalizes violence, it’s the same argument that Jack Thompson made 10 years ago for GTA (along with other claims).

            Maybe that is your view too and that’s cool but you can’t say that everyone else is getting it wrong, no you’re the one getting it wrong because she is in fact saying that a video game normalizes violence and not just an element.

          3. No it is not the same fucking argument Jack Thompson was making. Thompson was trying to directly link video games to specific acts of violence; he was trying to attach legal liability for school shootings to game designers and actually demanding censorship of games.

            Sarkeesian is not doing anything like that you fucking idiot.

          4. No it is not the same argument Jack Thompson was making.
            Thompson was trying to directly link video games to specific acts of
            violence; he was trying to attach legal liability for school shootings
            to game designers and actually demanding censorship of games.

            Sarkeesian is not doing anything like that.

          5. Right. She’s just hoping that if any lawyer ever shops a judge willing to give his lame-ass case a hearing maybe that lawyer will call Sarkeesian as an expert witness and pay Sarkeesian a nice fat fee for her “expert” testimony. The Radical Lefties have been licking each other’s balls for a long, long time. Cloward & Piven were gaming this judicial system of ours long before computer gaming became as popular as it is today. Judicial gaming is very lucrative for the Radical Left. Greenpeace & the Sierra Club aren’t about conserving natural resources as much as getting big settlements outta suits they bring to court against deep-pocket defendants. Greenpeace & Sierra Club are really specialty law firms fronting as environmental conservationists. Marxist despotism is their goal. The Radical Left wants unlimited government bureaucracy regulating and controlling all human activity on the planet including computer gaming on and offline Sarkeesian is one of many, many such Radical Left termites.

          6. Nice to see you hawkin this thread so closely, Mr. ahermit. You’re a nice faithful lapdog lefty. Good boy!

          7. Happy to give you paranoid conspiracy freaks something to play with…
            Hey, tell me the one about how they faked the moon landings next, I love that one…!

          8. He also made this argument, the one you’re talking about was under “(along with other arguments)”.

    1. I don’t care if there are violent or misogynist content in the games I play, if you don’t like it you don’t have to play it, I have absolutely nothing against it, also you’re doing a tu quouo fallacy in which you accuse the article of asserting things they assert Feminist Frequency and/or anita does. Let’s get back to the fact that Anita and/or femfreq is wrong, don’t know what the fuck they are talking about and are scam artists looking for cash

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7FuEaiC-ms These videos does a great job showing how wrong they are, there are numerous debunking of the shit they peddle, they can’t present any coherent argument backed by facts (Contains spoilers)

      1. Nobody is saying you can’t play those games or enjoy them, so stop whining.

        And the occasional instance of male characters filling the same roles usually filled by female characters doesn’t change the fact that those roles have historically been most often filled by female characters, or that female characters have historically been largely restricted to such roles.

        And now there’s another 12 minutes of my life i won’t get back because I watched another stupid Youtube video by another ignorant blowhard who misunderstands and misrepresents Sarkeesians arguments. Just like I said they do. Thanks for proving my point again.

        1. Ah this is the greatest deflection. When someone presents a critique and says it’s the worst thing ever, they are alluding to it being something that should not be done or exist. In this case her arguments state that games in general contribute to violence against women even though the examples she shows do not match up with her accusations.

          You don’t have to say “ban XXXX”. You only have to say “this contributes or influences an illegal act”. These were the justifications used to legislate the banning of comics across the US on local and State levels.

          When you say that someone misunderstands her arguments, that person would be you.

          1. You’re substituting your preconceptions for her actual arguments. Proving my point again…

          2. Preconceptions? That’s your argument? I’ve pointed out a critique of a critique. You’ve shown nothing but repeat “you’re proving my point” except that we’re still waiting for your point to be relevant. You do understand that you’re using circular logic don’t you? You adding the extra ad hominem is just a bonus.

            Furthermore, you’re asking for parity representation of an art piece and ignoring past representations to push a narrative. Even worse is that you AND her both misrepresent situations to show sexism/misogyny/etc when those titles don’t apply. Instead you state that we are misrepresenting her misrepresentation.

          3. And I demonstrated why your “critique of a critique” completely misses the mark; it doesn’t actually address the argument Sarkeesian is making in the first place.

            You clowns don’t even understand the argument.

          4. Seriously in the first episode of their tropes vs women in video games they can’t even form a coherent argument, they mentioned a game, misrepresented it and made it look like a joke became reality without stating why they(nintendo) made the move they(nintendo) did (talking about starfox from nintendo) then used this false anecdote to say that this is how it often is.

            and since you made a claim that males aren’t often put in these positions as females are I guess you have wandered all over the gaming industry spectrum completely or scoped it to a genre/publishing year or can point to somebody who did, and then analyzed the data to come to such a conclusion? Please point me there.

            I know you can’t, and I know you haven’t, I also know you can’t point to somebody who did because No one made such a data-set, and don’t even bother saying Anita sarkeesian, feminist frequency or any other dumbass culprit who repeats these talking points, so the thing is, why would you make such a claim if you can’t back it up?

            However the idea that Feminist Frequency had with providing resources for developers who wanted to create great women for their games in order to avoid cliché’s, blank slates, defaults etc. Is a good one but that’s not what was executed, Money was given to scam artists who still isn’t done with a ridiculously overfunded project and the shit that has been done has been so bad it’s a waste of time watching the rest, it has been GamerGate who stepped up to this task, and they did it for free, fighting for artistic freedom and promoting the galbrush principle they have shown that putting in a woman in your video game may be considered a minefield, because you might get attacked if you don’t do it “right” because outrage/callout culture might institute witch hunts towards you if you don’t and that’s the problem, if the artist loses their freedom, you stifle creativity and lose progress, because people don’t want to get attacked because they had a vision for their female protagonist that didn’t align with SJW beliefs.

            And don’t say I misrepresent Feminist Frequency’s argument, they literally stated in the hitman part (and this is a part highlighted because it’s the worst and most noticeable of them, not the only one) that players derived a perverse pleasure from killing strippers and dragging their lifeless corpse around, and that they couldn’t help but do it. Last time I played hitman (long time ago) she was partly right though, I couldn’t help kill people in that game though and dragging their body around because it was boring as fuck to sneak around for me, so I just went gta nuts on that bad boy.

          5. My god you’re a whiny little shit aren’t you? Don’t cry little boy. The big bad feminist bogey isn’t going to take your precious toys away.

          6. HAHA oh god out of arguments so now we resort to name callings? (also known as ad hominem) are you mad because GamerGate is gaining more traction and people are tired of political correctness along and SJW’s :D? You’re just as hilarious as the people who cried in MW2 when I killed them XD.

          7. I’m not the one who’s mad. I’m just having a good laugh at all you obsessive gamergate morons running around like frightened little boys because someone made some rather obvious observations about the lazy storytelling devices that keep cropping up in games. You’re reactionary dinosaurs, not the brave rebels you imagine yourselves to be.

          8. Really? Because you just made two replies to the same post, one serious and one trying to discredit and attack me and other gamergate supporters once again, however this one was first so you probably realized how stupid it was which is good on you, it means you might be more self-aware than others who attack me and other gamergate supporters because we see things differently

          9. I “attack” gamergaters because you’re mostly a pack of whiny little children who aren’t half as smart as you want to believe you are and I find it amusing to yank your chains and watch you dance, like you just did with your misguided little fallacy hunt.

            I like to do the same thing with holocaust deniers and creationists. I find it amusing.

          10. Look up projection, the only one even close to being a “whiny little child” is you, so you try to project this property onto me in order to cope with yourself, I take it as a compliment <3

          11. You might have figured out by now that unlike you I’ve actually studied this stuff rather than looking it up on google. All you’re doing is giving me more to laugh at…

          12. By the way, If I were a birdwatcher and in forty years most of the swans I observed were white it would be perfectly reasonable for me to conclude that most swans are white, even without doing a formal statistical analysis of all swans that have ever existed. Since I’ve been playing computer games, hundreds of them, for almost forty
            years and reading reviews and synopses of hundreds of others I don’t need a statistical analysis to come to some reasonable
            conclusions about the kind of content that is prevalent in games.

          13. two fallacies
            1: False equivalence, the comparison makes no sense, and the burden of proof is still on you.
            2. Texas sharpshooter and cherry picker fallacy, you speak of only what you have seen and use your preconcieved notion to reinforce your opinion

            none of which proves anything you have said

          14. Oh goody, another pseudo-intellectual poser who thinks that looking up a list of fallacy definitions makes him an expert on logic, regardless of whether he actually understands how to apply those definitions…

            False equivalence would be giving equal weight to positions which are not both well supported by evidence which is not what I’m doing here. What I’m doing is called “making an analogy” which is a common literary device. Look it up. You could accuse me of a false or misleading analogy but you would have to show that the analogy doesn’t apply or is composed of elements which differ in kind or degree. In my analogy the comparison is between similar numbers of observations over a similar period of time leading to a reasonable conclusion about the thing being observed, so you’re not going to succeed there.

            The Texas Sharpshooter applies to someone selecting only the observations which support a pre-existing belief, whereas I’m giving you an example of coming to a reasonable belief based on observations one has made. Not the same thing at all.

            I’ll be generous and give you a 2/5 here.You get a point for knowing what a fallacy is, another for knowing how to look them up and none for understanding how they work or applying them correctly.

          15. I know what an analogy is, and thanks for reminding me that your analogy is bad too, yet instead of trying to prove your argument correctly you tried giving me a lecture on fallacies because you can’t actually argue your point, even you yourself stated what you just said was bullshit. Which is at least a start.

          16. Actually if you read it again you might notice that I just did argue my point. Get back to me if you ever decide to stop whining.

          17. I think we should go even further back, about the analysis I mentioned, when you did that or have someone who did please point me there, and don’t say Feminist Frequency did one and point me there

          18. You’re ‘analysis’ is just the same tired old bullshit whining about Sarkeesian supposedly being a scam artist because er work has been popular.

            You want scam artists look to your own camp.

          19. I actually never talked about The feminist frequency duo being scam artists, I talked about their arguments, and then you made a claim and I told you to back it up, you’re just deflecting now by pointing to a couple of retards who spill their spaghetti and cause massive e-drama, how about you admit that you claim has no basis in reality and that you can’t back it up?

            However let us get some facts straight, they actually created the sarkeesian effect, it had a premiere at the GGinAtlanta meetup, I haven’t seen it, but i doubt it’ll be good considering their massive repeated fuckups which is pretty fucking ironic considering the fuckup they were trying to make a documentary about. I could try to get all the criticism of FF that are out there, but it’d take me years, yes there’s really that much criticism https://medium.com/@adrianchm/top-ten-critiques-of-feminist-frequency-726979b690f1

            Are they scam artists? Probably, I don’t know, but I’m not going to attempt dissecting their dumbass e-drama to find out, it’s not worth it, but considering how they went on with their stupid drama I wouldn’t even consider giving them money, neither did I give them any money for this documentary. Fun fact, Thunderf00t who has done an extensive amount of FF critique has blasted these two fuckups as well.

            Bonus points for your association fallacy though even after your big lecture on what they were and how I didn’t know shit about them.

          20. The first use of the term ‘scam artist’ in this conversation is in your first comment and you use it in reference to femfreq’s fundraising. How do you expect to deal with anyone else’s arguments when you can’t even keep track of your own?

            Thunderf3d0ra isn’t any better than the SE clowns by the way. A whiny ignorant dishonest blowhard who makes money from his youtube fanboys by hypocritically accusing Sarkeesian of doing something dishonest by raising money on Kickstarter. The guy’s a fucking joke.

            http://boingboing.net/2015/01/14/how-crowdfunding-helps-haters.html

          21. In the context of the analysis, No I did not, and you have still failed to respond to that point, stop using red herrings to deflect, change the subject and answer the point.

            Not trusting shit from boing boing thank you very much, archived the article and read, and of course it fails to provide evidence. Nor does it matter what these people do, Sarkeesian and mcintosh are still scam artists and no matter the amount of finger pointing away from them will change that fact.

          22. I know what it is, you’re just comparing apples to oranges. a swan being born is not the same process as when you’re creating a game, in other words it’s a bad fucking analogy and a deflection of my request with a strawman.

          23. I already addressed that objection in my earlier comment and showed you why it’s wrong. Try to keep up….

          24. So you made an analogy that you now admit is wrong? Why don’t you doublecheck your things before you post them?

          25. Do you not understand English? I said I showed you that your objection was wrong, not that the analogy was wrong…

            This is like arguing with a two year old…why don’t you take a remedial reading comprehension class and then get back to me?

          26. It’s funny that I’m the stupid one, you equate the color of swans to “trends” you see in games, swans are created by predictable things such as genetics and biology while games is created by several complex and unpredictable things such as minds, it’s like saying all farms has cows because you’ve always seen cows at the farms you’ve been at and take it as a fact. In other words it’s an anecdotal fallacy where you draw personal experience and state it’s a fact. Now still waiting for that analysis if you want to be taken serious by anyone with an iq higher than the size of their shoes.

          27. The analogy has to do with the rationality of coming to a conclusion about something based on long observation of many examples of that thing. So yes. The fact that you think its about equating the color of swans to games does make you the stupid one

          28. I don’t think that 😉 I’m saying you made an anecdotal fallacy, and unless you actually make that study you got nothing

          29. So you never make a decision about anything without first doing a peer reviewed statistical analysis first? really?

            Who ties your shoes for you?

            Oh and I explained why your attempt to discredit the analogy was wrong before you even did it. Try to keep up.

          30. Quit whining. You’ve already demonstrated that you don’t recognize a valid argument when you see one.

          31. I see how some people actually believe Feminist Frequency’s drivel now

            have a good day 🙂

          32. If I can’t then I’m either extremly lucky at guessing or I have psychic powers, either scenario suits me 😀

    2. LOL. You must not follow her “work”. She most certainly DOES say that video games perpetuate real world sexism and violence. No points for you. Thanks for playing!

    3. Seriously? But the whole point of Sarkeesian is that “games are violent and “misogynistic.” Are you telling me that this is not the wrong she set out to right in the first place? Could have fooled me…

      “One of the reasons I decided to dedicate a series exclusively to video games is because the way women are represented in the medium is consistently abysmal.”

      Not “occasionally,” not “some video games,” but consistently, and games in general. This is from her IGN interview on June 2013:
      http://feministfrequency.com/2013/06/06/full-ign-interview-with-anita-sarkeesian/

      The same one where where she regales us with this this colourful imagery:

      “Think of it this way, if gaming is the air we all breathe, right now the air quality is currently extremely polluted with thick clouds of toxic sexism with radioactive particles of misogyny floating around everywhere.”

      Radioactive misogyny, heh, that’s just wonderful.

      To be fair to you, I can see how you may have had some difficulty finding specific instances of Ms. Sarkeesian stating this thesis outright. She doesn’t really talk that much about this stuff anymore, it’s all about “harassment” now. And even when she does, she tends to address issues in an oblique way, as is common with Social Justice advocates: “calling out” and “shaming” (in her case, specific games, which is to say specific developers and players), and then generalising from that so that we all are guilty and ought to be ashamed anyway, and reflect upon our sins. This is a pattern in her work (and many others’).

      Here, let’s watch Women as Background Decoration, Part 1, paying attention to this modus operandi.

      1:10 – An ad for Pong. Very 70s. Soon after: “This advertising strategy of using women and representations of women as decorative elements to try and sell games to boys and men soon became the norm for the burgeoning industry.” Now it’s general, “the norm.”

      … and it *is* sort of a norm, really, games are no different than any other product, and attractive women have always been a favourite theme for advertisers, for good reason. But that’s not the point I’m trying to highlight. Watch instead the way she generalises from one specific example to a blanket statement on games. This is what we’re watching for.

      2:56: Clips from Mortal Kombat and God of War, specifically. But immediately we’re talking of the very general notion of NPCs, and soon enough we have the blanket statement: “non-Playable Sex Objects can usually be found on the sidelines of role playing or open world style games,populating the many virtual strip clubs.” Note “open world style games,” in general. Usually.

      Have a more elaborate one. At 5:20, she starts talking about “exotification of impoverished women of color” while showing clips from, what, 4 games, I think? Yet “scenarios like these are part of a long racist tradition of representing women of color as mysterious and hypersexual creatures who exist as an exotic spice to be consumed by the white or western man.” Now it’s a long tradition. And “games set in the United States are not exempt,” and in fact “this trope also exists in games that may allow players to pick a female avatar.” So we’re talking now about some unnamed games, ostensibly many as those set in the USA or featuring female protagonists are not off the hook. And then we escalate, to discuss games in general as interactive media, rising to the point of “because of its essential interactive nature, gaming occupies a unique and potentially more detrimental position vis-a-vis the portrayal and treatment of female characters.” See, it’s “gaming” in general. And “we need to consider the fact that players are encouraged to participate directly in the objectification of women through control of the player character, and by extension control of the game camera. In other words, games move the viewer from the position of spectator to that of participant in the media experience.” Players. Games. Do you see how this works?

      Seriously, she does this over and over. Want another? Let’s skip to 17:50, for the sake of brevity. We’re watching clips from a game called “Sleeping Dogs,” but the narration is “in many open world or sandbox style games, developers construct their virtual worlds in such a way as to enable players to directly abuse non-playable sex objects.” Not that specific game, but “many.” And “players are often permitted to knock out, pick up, carry and throw around inert female bodies.” The return of the abstract players. This progresses up to 26:00, where its “typically all the non-essential characters in sandbox style games are killable, but it’s the sexualized women whose instrumentality and brutalization is gendered and eroticized in ways that men never are.”

      All of them. But never men. Of course.

      And by 28:00 we start getting to the crux of the argument:

      “So whereas in traditional media, viewers might see representations of women being used or exploited, gaming offers players the unique opportunity to use or exploit female bodies themselves. This forces gamers to become complicit with developers in making sexual objectification a participatory activity.”

      You see? It’s gaming that’s evil. It’s worse than traditional media. And gamers and developers are accomplices. And we’re not stopping yet. After she’s established (in her discourse) the shared guilt of games and gamers and developers, here comes the clinch:

      “Studies have found, for example, that after having viewed sexually objectified female bodies, men in particular tend to view women as less intelligent, less competent and disturbingly express less concern for their physical well being or safety.”

      And:

      “Researchers have also found that after long-term exposure to hyper-sexualized images, people of all genders tend to be more tolerant of the sexual harassment of women and more readily accept rape myths”

      The ultimate generalisation. Now it’s not even about games. It’s real life. Games cause male gamers to become unconcerned by women’s well-being and safety. Games cause gamers of all genders to normalise, to be OK, with harassment and, by that implication there, rape.

      Note again, it’s not whether any of these notions are true or false. Personally, I think most are complete and utter bollocks, but that’s beside the point. You brought up specifically that many people conclude Sarkeesian says games are violent and misogynist. I’m at a loss here as to how could one *possibly* watch this video, and not take away that conclusion from it? I think it is unreasonable to NOT conclude that from this lecture.

      If you are a Social Justice type, which is what I assume, not just by your arguments but your tendency to dismiss people as “whiners” and “ignorant blowhards” and whatever, then you may be acclimated to just accept your share of guilt from people dispensing it like Sarkessian does. I can picture you wondering, “seriously, people, what’s the big deal?” I think you, like me, have never been sexist or racist, but I do picture you happy to bow down to people calling you one anyway for the invisible reasons of Social Justice.

      (And by the way, I know full well it’s now me who’s throwing generalisations and assumptions, but I haste to add, these are just my personal impressions, my perception. I don’t claim to know what’s in your head, or in SJWs’ in general).

      And the thing is: I, and many others, from what I’ve seen in my (sadly limited for lack of time) involvement with GamerGate, definitely don’t think like that. If I feel guilty of something, I act on it, I make it right. I can’t sweep it under the rug and carry on with my life, as you people seem to deal with your little shares of guilt. And conversely, if I’ve done nothing wrong, and someone shows up and tries to guilt-trip me, I very much take it personally, and not kindly at all. You may have little sense of self-respect, but I care about this shit. A lot.

      I love my wife. I have a daughter who is my entire world, there’s nothing I wouldn’t do for her. If you come accuse me of sexism, even if by association as Sarkeesian does, because I llke to play and write games, then we have a problem. And that’s not even what she does most of the time. Much more often she’s accusing me of “harassing” women, of actually ATTACKING them on account of their gender. Me. In front of my wife and daughter. Jesus Christ… you know, I may even have agreed with her on some points, it’s not like there are no real issues that we could discuss and try to fix… but, no. Sarkeesian can fuck right off. I’ll be paying attention to Christina Sommers, Cathy Young, and even more carefully to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, about real issues affecting women of the world, and how I can help.

      1. You’re doing exactly what i described though aren’t you? You’re cherry-picking quotes and pretending that when Sarkeesian says something about “games” she is always implying ALL games. But this completely ignores the context of the work, the fact that Sarkeesian always makes it clear which kinds of games she is talking about (as she does at the 4:00 mark of the video you linked in your comment) and the disclaimer she always included that “critical analysis of many beloved games and characters, but remember that it is both possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of it’s more problematic or pernicious aspects.”

        And then you take those cherry picked quotes and extrapolate them to invent arguments that Sarkeesian isn’t making. She’s pointing out some very real aspects of a large and dominant portion of the game industry, and when she does talk about the real world world effects of those stereotypes she actually links you to the research which backs up what she is saying. If you take the time to look at it you’ll find that she isn’t accusing you personally of anything; she isn’t saying that playing games will turn you into a rapist, she’s describing a well documented psychological phenomenon. exposure to such stereotypes can act as a kind of indoctrination, reinforcing already existing attitudes to sexism, racism and violence.

        And yes, I care about this shit a lot too; I was playing board games before I went to kindergarten, RPG’s when they were a brand new thing, the first computer game I ever played was a submarine simulation on a mainframe computer in a university lab in 1976 using a dot-matrix printer as the interface and I’ve been playing at home since I could afford my first desktop computer (with a massive 40mb hard drive to supplement the cassette tape player.)

        And like Sarkeesian I’m concerned about the over-use of dehumanizing stereotypes and the frankly lazy, sloppy writing that relies on those stereotypes (not least becasue it tends to make for boring games.) Don’t try and tell me that this problem doesn’t exist, I’ve been watching it happen since before most of the little whiners (and yes, they’re whiners, sorry if you don’t like the term but that’s how they sound to me) moaning about mean old Anita were born. I want to see games and game culture continue to grow as a legitimate art form, and that means subjecting it to serious criticism like Sarkeesian’s.

        As for lack of self respect you might want to look in a mirror.Having self respect means not being so thin-skinned that you take a
        cultural critique of some aspect of a game you enjoy as an attack on you
        personally. It means being willing to consider that criticism honestly and to re-evaluate your own attitudes; something I’ve done a lot of over the years. Part of that is being big enough and having enough self respect to recognize my own biases and try to control for them. Frankly I think it’s dishonest to claim you have never been racist or sexist. we all carry biases and prejudices and stereotypes around with us. That’s just human nature.

        1. Right then. Good evening. So you have accused me (and others) of “cherry-picking quotes” and “inventing arguments Sarkeesian isn’t making.”

          I assure you that I am not. I did find you a quote, since I saw you asking someone for one, but mostly I tried to show you that Sarkeesian’s pieces, when you take them as a whole, not quote by quote, appear to follow a pattern of building up discrete examples into a general denunciation of how video games are inordinately sexist and violent. “Extremely polluted,” to use her own words. And she blames gamers and developers for this.

          However, there is not much point, is it, in me assuring you that honestly this is my take on her work. You’ll just question my honesty, or my intelligence, likely both. I can see this is a dead end, it’ll get us nowhere. So I’m going to try a different avenue.

          Can we agree at least that this is subjective? That intelligent, rational, and *honest* people can get different reads of a body of work — especially in humanities? Consider Innuendo Studios bloke talking of Jason Rohrer’s game: it really doesn’t matter what his intentions were. “Did he mean it, did he not mean it? It’s still the same game,” and reasonable people are reading sexism into it. Likewise, did Anita mean to paint the gaming community as women-hating monsters? I say she did, you say she didn’t, but in the end what matters is that people are getting this reading. It’s a thing that is happening.

          Here, I spent a few minutes earlier today getting you a bunch of articles. These are not by Sarkeesian, but about her instead, and I mean to show what people are taking from her body of work:

          http://www.businessinsider.sg/game-industry-critic-faces-rape-threats-2014-8/#.VcJ395NViko
          “[Anita has] been digging into the appallingly sexist world of video games…”

          http://www.salon.com/2014/08/26/tackling_the_terrible_sexism_in_video_games_women_are_portrayed_as_sexual_playthings_or_victims_of_violence/
          “Tackling the terrible sexism in video games: Women are portrayed as sexual playthings or victims of violence.” Read how “Anita Sarkeesian […] points out the disgusting way that women are treated in video games.” We’re disgusting, i tell you.

          http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27824701
          “Why does sexism persist in the video games industry?”

          http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/07/10/513912/anita-sarkeesian-stephanie-guthrie-and-the-strategic-failures-of-trolls/
          “Screaming violent, sexist trash at women doesn’t dispel the idea that gamers are sexist, or insensitive to women’s concerns, or afraid of people who challenge their ideas.”

          https://www.the-newshub.com/gaming/the-vicious-cycle-of-video-games-and-sexism
          “The vicious cycle of video games and sexism,” “why is it that video games, gamers and game culture dismiss and deride women, female gamers and the characters time and time again, even when women are actively being harmed?”

          http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/05/pop-culture-anita-sarkeesian-video-games-sexism-tropes-online-harassement-feminist
          “Feminist Frequency, a video blog that deconstructs how girls and women are shortchanged and generally dissed by the makers of video games and other pop-culture offerings.”

          http://honisoit.com/2014/09/on-neckbeards-and-arseholes/
          “On neckbeards and arseholes.” “After her latest YouTube video showed how video games use sexual violence against women for advertising…”

          And so on and so forth. Please note that these are not gamer-friendly people AT ALL. These are not gamers misrepresenting Sarkeesian. I deliberately didn’t list here the odd piece speaking for the gamers.

          I cannot fathom how anyone could deny that this is a common interpretation of Sarkeesian’s work, if not *the* common reading. Do you think fucking Law & Order SVU “Intimidation Game” was a thoughtful and considered cultural critique of ‘some games over-using dehumanizing stereotypes’? It’s scaremongering bollocks, I hope you’ll agree, yet THIS IS what people are getting from Sarkeesian.

          So. Can we agree that common people, in good faith, can, and often do read Sarkeesian’s work and take away from it that “gamers are violent misogynists”?

          We can argue ‘til the cows come home about *why* this happens, and how your reading is the right one and everybody else is wrong, and, you know what? I hope we will. Talking things is how shit gets fixed. But for the time being, the one point I want to settle is this. You don’t have to assume bad faith or stupidity because people read Sarkeesian this way. It is unreasonable to do so.

          I wanted to address your accusing me of being thin-skinned, and especially discuss Anita’s references, but alas, once again, I’m afraid my time is nearly up for the day. I’m sorry, i just can’t afford to waste much time prattling on the interwebs.

          However, I do want to comment on your very last point, namely, your accusing me of dishonesty because I claim I’ve never been racist or sexist (and I don’t believe you have, either).

          I think this is a perfect example of a cultural clash we may be having here. You see, I think you Social Justice types really do believe that, because we all have some biases and prejudices indeed, imperfect humans as we are, that makes us all guilty of bigotry. It’s like your original sin, this. Everybody is fair game to be called out and shamed, because we’re all guilty. We all need to repent at the altar of Social Justice.

          I don’t think like that. In fact I think it’d be nightmarish to go through life like that. No, I have never harmed, maltreated, or in any way interfered with the pursuit of happiness of anyone on account of their gender or race. That is all I expect from decent people. So no, I am not racist, I am not sexist, and I’m perfectly willing to assume you aren’t either, because I believe in people.

          Now have I ever checked out a girl with a nice bum walking on the street? Of course I have, i’m a healthy male. I’ve also caught girls checking me out. I’m a married man now, but before that, that sort of thing usually ended up in some cheeky banter, sometimes more if I got lucky. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It’s what sane, well-adjusted human beings do. There is nothing wrong with “sexualised women” in games obviously targeted to young males, like there’s nothing wrong with those shirtless buff dudes in women’s magazines, and on the very Facebook feeds of my middle-aged, still smoking hot friends (if you ever read me here: yes, I’m calling you out, Z. haha). Hell, my own kid, who’s going through an otaku phase right now, she and I usually sit down to watch some anime and we just have a laugh at the inevitable fan service, how silly it all is. This is healthy. This is sane.

          Of course, if you are going to include as “sexism” every little complaint from Jessica Valenti’s insane columns, or Anita Sarkeesian’s “critique” for that matter… then yeah, of course, you’re a sexist, misogynist pig, and so I am, no matter what we do or refrain from doing. But that is mental. I’m sorry, I’m not going to follow you there.

          Right, so that’s me done for the day. I’ll catch up tomorrow. Have a good one.

          1. All that pretentious verbiage can’t hide what your doing. You leap from ” there is sexism in many video games” to “video games are sexist” without acknowledging that there is a difference between those two statements.

            As for “paint(ing) the gaming community as women-hating monsters” Sarkeesian didn’t do that. The morons who harass her daily with sexist and violent abuse did that. It’s really dishonest to blame her for the behaviour of her haters. The whole Sarkeesian phenomenon is a direct result of the insane over-reaction to her frankly innocuous videos by a small subset of the gaming community. You want to blame someone for the bad rap gamers get blame the asses who make anti-semitic images of her or rant online about how she deserves to be raped for expressing an opinion. She didn’t invent those people.

            Finally, I didn’t call you a sexist or a racist; I said that we all sometimes have to acknowledge that we all have these cultural biases within us and if we are honest we have to recognize them when they crop up. I know you want to believe you’re perfect, but I don;t have faith in gods or saints so you’re not going to convince me you’re one.

            That’s not to say we are all bigots or bad people, that’s just your insecurity taking a cultural observation as a personal attack again. You need to stop doing that.

            A personal attack would be calling you a pompous ass and pointing out that you’re as big a clown as the rest of your Gamergate friends, even if slightly more articulate.

          2. Hahaha but I *am* a pompous ass! By all means, feel free to call me that 😀

            I mean, I did warn you, your insulting others in a public forum has exactly one consequence, and not exactly a good one for you… but if you just can’t help it, as it’s evident you can’t, then seriously, be my guest mate, rage away. Let it all out. It’s not my side you’re working against.

            Verbiage, yeah. This is not my native language, see. I think I’m overly careful with my vocabulary and sentence structure when I’m writing in English because I’m never sure if I’m conveying the exact meaning I have I my head. I am sorry, hey. I mean, because I’m just not willing to stop doing it. And I don’t think you can just block me here as you would on Twitter, so you will have to put up with it. Tough luck. I feel for you, if it makes any difference.

            So we’re back to arguing semantics, huh. Crikey, this is like debating Moon landing conspiracists: you put effort in constructing a cogent argument, so the other guy can see your rationale, or at least tell you where you went wrong, and… “nah you’re just one of those intelecshuls, your big words can’t hide your trickery.” Fml.

            I bring it on myself, I suppose, trying to debate an SJW, heh. But eh, let’s hear it for masochism and keep it up for a month, see where this goes 😀

            My rudimentary English is actually enough to tell the difference between both statements, thank you very much. The point you are ignoring, apparently without any reasoning, just ignoring it like that, because it’s inconvenient to you, is that: it makes sod all difference in practical use. Whereas a lawyer, especially a sleazy one, may try to weasel out of responsibility with word games like yours (‘I didn’t say “he’s a thief,” your honour, I said “he belongs to a group full of thieves,” it’s not the same thing so it’s not defamation’), in day to day use, that difference is meaningless.

            If you pass yourself as a serious commentator on Mexican culture, and you say, “there are many rapey Mexicans,” instead of “Mexicans are rapists,” the practical outcome is about the same: you’re going to piss me off a tad. In fact if you say either to my face, chances are it’s going to end in a brawl. Those always start with shit like that.

            And, cheers for your concern but no, I don’t have to “stop doing that,” I’m quite content knowing I’m never going to react any differently. Never. If you want to call this my “insecurity taking a cultural observation as a personal attack,” go right ahead, see if I care. You are still stuck with a revolt pushing against every effort you make in disseminating your ideology.

            And that’s the thing. GamerGate isn’t going anywhere. It’s going the distance. I’m not sure if you’ve spent any time among gators, but I have — not much into social media, me, but I use my Twitter account to follow it. So I can give you this scout report from the GG camp, Sir: they’re having fun, the swines. They’re chilling right now, shooting the shit for giggles, and they seem awful ready to rain the mother of all shitstorms upon the next of you twits who feels like taking cheap shots at gamers to push your agenda, or for financial gain, or for whatever it is that you do it.

            So if you are fine with this, by all means, carry on. We can drag this as long as you want. If you ever want to defuse the situation, achieve something constructive, it’s actually very simple: show some respect, and if you want to criticise then pick specific people and specific games, address those by name, being extra careful not to say stupid confrontational shit that could remotely be construed as an attack on innocent folks. And for fuck’s sake put some of that effort and resources into making good games that you like, promote them and win on the market, instead of smearing the work of others and using sleazy journos to astroturf for you. Do this and GamerGate is disarmed, it’d be over in a week. All that would remain would be that fringe of idiots who can be easily ignored, like the Internet always has.

            Speaking of: I fully agree with you, people who send threats to Sarkeesian are fucking imbeciles. It is frustrating. Anita Sarkeesian, if one is charitable to her, is a shoddy critic who writes pedestrian analyses based on misrepresentations and faulty logic; if one isn’t, then she’s a con artist who gives no shits about feminism or women, but just learned to play Internet trolls to her financial advantage. In either case, she does not deserve, and would not have, anything close to the attention she’s got were not for the knobheads who obligingly give her everything she needs to make headlines.

            Haters are, of course, harmless idiots; nobody who’s had any experience with Internet trolls will ever take them seriously, and this certainly includes Sarkeesian and those others who must not be named. We all know they’re powerless prats venting their own frustrations. Much like you, ahermit, come to think of it.

            Of course I can’t do much to stop /b/tards from milking their lolcows, no more than I can keep the likes of you from spewing bile over others on the Internet. What I can do is make an effort to be polite while countering bullshit, think critically, and act rationally. So that’s what I’ll be doing. Have a great weekend, you, I’m off, see you Monday. No doubt to try and dispel your next spurt of venom, heh.

          3. If you pass yourself as a serious commentator on Mexican culture, and you
            say, “there are many rapey Mexicans,” instead of “Mexicans are
            rapists,” the practical outcome is about the same

            The two are not really analogous though are they? For one thing, games are not a nationality or ethnic group and for another when Sarkeesian is making her criticisms she is very clear about what she is critiquing (a fact evidenced by your need to rely on other people’s interpretations of her work or your own dishonest paraphrases to make your case.) Imagine instead if one was to say that Mexican drug cartels are prone to violence. Would you take that as an attack on all Mexicans? I would hope not. These distinctions do matter, even if you try to pretend otherwise.

            And its no use lecturing me about politeness and with your next breath defending a movement like Gamergate, which is notorious for its use of personal attacks and when you yourself are slyly slipping references to ‘moon landing conspiracists’ and insisting that I’m just an angry SJW with low self esteem (you’re mistaking amusement for anger by the way.) Remember what I sad about hypocrisy…

        1. Why, that is a very interesting video, cheers for sharing.

          For me specifically, it is fascinating how this bloke makes observations that seem very insightful, resonate strongly with my own worldview — yet immediately follows with stuff that sounds utterly alien to me. For instance, I wholly agree “it is imperative to maintain your moral integrity.” If that is a defining trait of this ‘Jack’ stereotype, then yes, guilty as charged, je suis Jack. Yet I categorically disagree with the notion that wilful ignorance would be an excuse for immoral behaviour, that it would give me even some sort of comfort. Jesus Christ, if I felt guilty of something, that’d only make me feel worse about myself.

          Or, I concur that “making the world better” is an excellent reason for “doing the right thing” (just not if it would compromise your moral integrity; that’s how people end up doing ghastly things ‘for the greater good’). Yet when, a bit earlier in the video, he portrays ‘Jack’ as “entirely obsessed with the quality of a person’s character,” and having “an intense fear of being judged,” and I can’t but scratch my head and wonder, seriously, who the hell thinks like that?

          Not me for sure. And not GamerGate at large, to the extent one can generalise over such a disparate crowd. If I’ve learned something about this lot it is that, for better or for worse, if you poke them they will react with utter disregard for anything that anyone may think or say about them. Quite blatantly, GamerGate does not give a shit. Not if the world thinks they’re monsters, not if judgement is rained upon them with bile, contempt, mockery and dismay — they’ll have a laugh and shamelessly fill a hashtag with hentai all the same.

          So if this series of videos is going to become a sort of guide for the Social Justice advocate to deal with unruly dissenters (and I hope it does, because it really is quite sensible, for the most part — you could do a lot worse than this), then I would only caution that it may be a bit wrong in this regard, that it doesn’t give you an entirely accurate portrait of your opposition’s psyche. And so, if you base your strategies on this, you may see unexpected results. E.g. this ‘Jack’ sounds susceptible to being perceived and exposed as a “bad person.” This may encourage you to start, dunno, #gamersagainstgamergate and try and shame them into feminism there. I think we all know by now how that’s going to play out.

          That said, overall it is a very decent video, cheers again. I’m actually going to use it now, to make two points. Well, not this video in particular, but the next in the series, Part 6, which I also watched now — in fact I’ve watched them all, I’m kind of surprised you didn’t use Part 1 instead…

          So. First, you see, in Part 6, around the 7 minutes mark, the bloke goes on a bit about how you should stay calm, how pointless and counter-productive it is to “get shitty” and self-righteous in these arguments. This is truth. This is wisdom, I heartily advise you to heed him.

          When you address the person that goes by “GamerGate Developer” below, as “an ignorant blowhard” who misunderstands (implying stupidity) and misrepresents (implying dishonesty) Sarkeesian, just like you knew he would (in your righteous, morally superior intellect), you are accomplishing NOTHING. When you address brainy37 (and all of us, I think) as “clowns,” when you call John Cobalt a “sad little whiner,” and roastytoasty a “conspiracy freak,” and Chief Makaho a “crybaby” and a “chickenshit,” and so on and so forth, the only thing you are accomplishing is to paint yourself as a thoroughly unpleasant individual who random people who may be reading should do their best to avoid.

          If you won’t listen to me, then listen to “Innuendo Studios,” who you probably respect: you’re supposed to be persuading people into not siding with us. You’re supposed to show the peanut gallery which side here is making the most sense. And mate, you’re not doing that. At all.

          The second thing is about something he says in that very same bit of video, about arguing with people who change the subject rather a lot, trying by all means to avoid being dragged back into debate (and it really made me chuckle, hearing *this* said about us legendary sea lions, heh). The thing here is, if you forgive me for putting you in Jack’s shoes for a bit (I’m sure you won’t like that, but it’s just a minute): I thought your original point was that people who criticise Sarkeesian overgeneralise and misrepresent her by summarising her argument as “games are sexist and violent.” I replied to this, and was going to address your own response to mine… but now we’re discussing Innuendo Studios’ video. And it’s not that I don’t appreciate being shown interesting media, but, dude, do you think we could stay on topic? At least until we reach agreement on a point — or at least identify why we won’t ever agree on it — before moving to the next. I’d appreciate that. Cheers.

          I will definitely address your points on your earlier reply to me, but I’ll do that tomorrow if it’s okay. I already granted you too much of my time for a single day, writing this.

          1. I’m so sorry my honest responses to your gamergate friends’ dishonesty hurt your feelings, but if you want to lecture anyone about tone you should start with your own camp. I’m a paragon of civility compared to your allies.

          2. Haha no mate, you misunderstand, these fellows are not my friends. Sure they seem quite alright, but I don’t know them, they don’t know me. And I’m not concerned about you offending them! I really don’t think they’d be the type to be offended by childish insults, I’ve told you already: you’re dealing with folks who don’t care what names you call them. We’ve heard them all. Gamers are probably just rolling their eyes, maybe chuckling, “get a load of this wally, yet another, can you believe.” I know I am.

            I advise you to manage your anger, to mind the lecture you linked yourself, for the sake of your own cause, not for me or these folks. You sound unpleasant, repellent to neutral people who may be watching, and who may just start to question if perchance they got sold a funny version of this cockup by the media. Because I’m supposed to be the angry dude, remember? Not you.

            Oh and about lecturing my own camp? Certainly, I have, and I will again, whenever I’m in a position to do so. However, even though I *am* the Leader of GamerGate, I’m afraid those cheeky fuckers may not listen to me anyway. Haha.

            Now seriously, jokes aside, let’s get to business, see if we don’t get sidetracked again. I’ll be replying to your other message to me.

          3. Spare me the self righteous tone trolling then. Especially when you’re not above throwing in little passive-aggressive comments about my supposed lack of self esteem and anger issues. Hypocrisy doesn’t help your case.

          4. Oh, I’m terribly sorry, ahermit, I never meant to sound passive-aggressive. See, it’s what I tell you about the language: it is my constant worry that I’m going to miss some subtleties and be misinterpreted.

            Please allow me to clarify: I am polite to you because that’s just me, it’s the way I was educated, and, even if that weren’t the case, because it’s a much better strategy for achieving goals anyway. It’s most certainly not to try and hide my contempt for you, or my perception of your qualities as a person! I do think you have anger problems, and that you probably lack pride in yourself, which is indeed a form of poor self esteem.

            Of course, the former, the anger thing? That’s most likely only on the Internet — I’m quite willing to believe you are a decent fellow in real life. See John Gabriel’s Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, etc. I wish I could believe the same about the latter.

          5. You’ve done your homework man, but I’m the better debater, it didn’t take me as long to piss him off 😀 and you’re right, we’re not friends, but I don’t get offended either by him, entertained though 😀

    4. The only people who can be accused of misrepresenting Anita Sarkeesian’s arguments are Anita Sarkeesian and Joshua ‘The Puppetmaster’ McIntosh.

  14. I don’t ascribe too much credit to gamers for her decline. Like video game enthusiasts, when it’s been ‘played’ out Socially Jealous Weasels move on the the next ‘game’.

      1. For instance, the new attention paid to a poached lion and damage control for the PP scandal. She isn’t the SJW ‘it girl’ anymore. Gamers have endurance, but I attribute her decline to a loss of interest. The SJWs simply aren’t listening and believing anymore. They got bored with her. Ironic that a person obsessed with tropes couldn’t foresee her audience getting tired of one.

    1. “Socially Jealous Weasels” Oh, I like it, I really like it. So much so that I’m stealing it! With your permission, of course!!!

  15. All of the article is wrong from the beginning.
    1. Sarkeesian is an ex-PUA teleseminarist, read: snake oil peddler. She was never really into feminism or anything.
    2. “gamers are violent and misogynist” is Mcintosh, her producer’s, line. He’s been saying this since 2010. Anita didn’t even know videogames in 2010.
    3. Anita & Mcintosh moved from selling anti-gaming propaganda to selling harassment claims because it was more profitable and her video were a huge flop. Checking their yearly income, nearly 95% of it comes from harassment claiming.

    The more you keep talking about her as a legit feminist advocate the more power she gets, regardless if it’s positive or negative commentary. Con-artists can profit from both negativity and positivity as long as they have a podium to sell their snake oil.
    You give validity to what’s essentially an online scammer – and not even a good one at it.

      1. I just can’t stand how someone who worked to make teleseminars on how to circumvent consent and rape girls is suddenly the face of feminism.

    1. 1) While she wasn’t into feminism early on, she became one during her college years and has said as much. Regardless of that, she has become a feminist icon since then. You don’t have to have years of doing something to be something.
      2) Like all sentiments or opinions, they are taken or influenced by other people. McIntosh may have said it long before here but that is her current line of criticism.
      3) She still does regular anti-game propaganda even if much of her notoriety is from “harassment” or whatever it is that they claim today.

      You can’t really say that she isn’t a legit feminist advocate when she is given speaking roles at feminist conventions and held up as a standard by some of the largest feminists writers, speakers, and professors of this decade. They crave her notoriety and media stardom.

          1. Radical? Since when does an output consisting of poorly-researched, demontrably incorrect assertions constitute radicalism?

            In 2015 I guess, where ‘radical’ no longer means “a person who advocates thorough or complete political or social
            reform; a member of a political party or part of a party pursuing such
            aims.” and instead means “An individual with a Tumblr account.”

            You’re hilarious.

          2. Mate, are you fucking stupid? You’re posting what YOU think about her. What THEY, the big named feminists, think about her is why she’s a feminist icon to THEM. When THEY make her a speaker at a feminist convention or rally then it’s THEY who hold her up on the feminist pedestal. The big name feminists don’t care what YOU think.

            CHS is definitely a prominent second wave feminist but don’t try and pretend that 1st, 2nd, or 3rd/radical wavers can keep that title all to themselves.

          3. Name one. I name CH Sommers and she doesn’t rate Sarkeesian at all. Who are these ‘big name’ feminists you speak of? Arthur Chu doesn’t count btw.

          4. Germaine Greer, Celeste Liddle, Tara Moss so on. These are all major names in 3rd wave feminism, have written books on it, teach gender studies, blah blah, blah. More importantly, when you get invited to speak at conventions with names like these it generally puts you above the average twitter feminist.

            I don’t get where you’re trying to go with this. Are saying that 2nd wavers like CHS are the only ones that can call themselves feminists? You’re nitpicking over a point and you’re not helping the argument. Are you saying that “true feminists” don’t support politically correct stuff? Can you clarify why you have a problem calling Sarkeesian a feminist or that other feminists look at her in a positive way (their opinions and icons don’t have to coincide with yours).

          5. I’m not going anywhere with it in particular, I just find it absolutely hilarious that people take Sarkeesian seriously.

  16. Sarkeesian is a hack who is spewing arguments that are full of logical holes that the SJW crowd eats up because they are so obsessed with appearing “progressive” they don’t bother with critical thinking.

    For instance, the crux of her argument against the damsel in distress trope is that it’s a bad trope, but the transcript contains a clear line says it’s not bad all the time, but she never cites examples of its use that don’t suck.

    Another logic hole is how making a woman a seductress character is bad writing, but she doesn’t bother to mention it’s only bad if that’s all you give her character. Instead, she just writes it off as bad characterization for a female character, not even bothering to cite examples of how you can use that trope competently.

    As someone who runs a troping site, I find her bastardized critique of tropes to be an insult to actual critical analysis, and I’m utterly disgusted with her shallow trope criticism.

  17. I am not a gamer. A few months ago I read a long article and its even longer thread of comments about this controversy. I was glad to see Sarkeesian’s cheap hustle deconstructed then and now. Devotees of political correctness like Sarkeesian and the death-dealing radicals of ISIS & Islam have more than a little in common with one-another

  18. Her Kickstarter campaign was actually called “Tropes vs. Women.”

    Now by your own logic, this factual error means everything else you wrote is also false, and the entire article should be dismissed.

    Thank you.

    1. There’s a huge difference between releasing extremely badly-researched
      videos based on a demonstrably false premise and getting one word wrong
      (even though the word that was susbstituted means the same thing in context)

      Context. Look it up, and then email Anita and tell her too please.

Comments are closed.