Anita Sarkeesian/Tropes and Women in Gaming

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I disagree with the notion of "we are not allowed to have opinions" (I almost didn't continue on past his blog post, and I ended up jumping along for the much of the video).  He mentions "But so what?" in response to the fact that most comments would be bad.  He also implies that people do not get their "fair say" in the discourse.  His blog post actually undermines his assertion that dissenting views can't be presented, as he is literally presenting one with the blog post.

How far did you get in to the video? He actually says "Trying to censor the dissenting point of view does not make it go away". He doesn't assert that "dissenting views will not be presented".

 

His point was that by disabling peoples ability to discuss her video at the same place where her video resides, she is giving the impression that her ideas can not hold up to scrutiny. Instead, she has become a Damsel in Distress who needs various white knights to save her from the various hordes of the internet. She exemplifies the stereotype that she spent 24 minutes railing about.

 

Here we are, having opinions and (mostly) interesting enough discussion here.

Yes, we are having the discussion here on the Obsidian Forums. There is no discussion on her youtube channel and she isn't directing people to where they may discuss her video either. The average viewer isn't going to think "I have something to contribute, let me go to [forum where a discussion is occurring] and post my thoughts and see what others think!"

  

I'm sure there will be the standard defenses of "that's just the way the internet is" which I think is a copout.

It is hardly a copout. The internet is an extremely toxic place saturated with trolls who like nothing better than to **** with people, especially those who seem to believe in something. The negative reaction her kickstarter pitch and video received is hardly an uncommon one. She should have known what would happen. Edited March 22, 2013 by KaineParker

[alanschu]

I take it you're talking about the Hepler incident Alanchu? 

 

 

Nope.  Actually I hadn't even thought of that.

[alanschu]

 

How far did you get in to the video? He actually says "Trying to censor the dissenting point of view does not make it go away". He doesn't assert that "dissenting views will not be presented".

 

I actually made it through most of the video.  He does state "We the audience are not allowed to have an opinion, it seems" as the first critique.  Directly from his blog:

 

What are you afraid of Anita?  Why can't people have a discourse about your material?  Why can't people make can't people make their opinions to your content known? 

 

Preventing comments or ratings does none of things he states in this part of his discussion.  He then goes on about how there's a lot of misandrists out there that are also inane and stupid (which, in my opinion, provides an additional argument for why removing comments is a good idea.  Those absurdities would also be present and, as we know from experience, the extremes are over represented and people are going to look at those people and make incorrect assumptions about the types of people that support Anita.  Just as there are people that overstate that those that attacked Anita are representative of the gaming community at large, and more specifically the types of people that are against Anita's perspective.

 

 

 

Yes, we are having the discussion here on the Obsidian Forums. There is no discussion on her youtube channel and she isn't directing people to where they may discuss her video either. The average viewer isn't going to think "I have something to contribute, let me go to [forum where a discussion is occurring] and post my thoughts and see what others
think!"

 

Actually, yes.  It probably happens more than we think.  I have seen a fair bit of discussion about it on places like Facebook as well as Twitter, in addition to many gaming forums.  I think directing people specifically to a place to talk about it does two things:

1. Creates an implication that she's responsible for moderating the discussion
2. Just moves the polarizing and counterproductive conversations somewhere else.  In the end, people still end up being negatively influenced by the hostile comments and perhaps end up taking away less from the video than otherwise.

I emphasize "counter" in counterproductive, based on the idea that those hostile, polarizing discussions may actually compromise a person's ability to behave rationally

 

 

 

It is hardly a copout. The internet is an extremely toxic place saturated with trolls who like nothing better than to **** with people, especially those who seem to believe in something. The negative reaction her kickstarter pitch and video received is hardly an uncommon one. She should have known what would happen.

 

It's a reality for sure, but I still consider it a copout.  It's a huge fault with communicating on the internet, and if it ends up contributing to people incorrectly drawing conclusions from the articles that they read, perhaps comments are not a positive thing to have.  If the internet is an extremely toxic place satured with trolls, in my opinion you have done little to convince me that allowing comments is actually a productive thing.  Especially considering ideas such as the 1/9/90 split where such a small part of the audience (9%) actually is an active participant in things like comments.

 

Perhaps we could apply CliffyB's article to the internet as a whole (the internet should grow up if it wants comment fields?  LOL), though I imagine his article was focused on video games because it's Cliff Bleszinski.

 

There seems to be general push back regarding comments now, and the idea that they aren't really productive (and perhaps counterproductive).  I found it really interesting that the TED talk disabled comments in their own video.

 

I don't think it's good to just let people have free reign (since it drowns out anything productive or interesting that no one will bother), but the moderating time to keep it clean would be insane.  She'd have to set up her email to autodelete the Youtube updates!  Hahaha.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I actually made it through most of the video.  He does state "We the audience are not allowed to have an opinion, it seems" as the first critique.  Directly from his blog:

 

What are you afraid of Anita?  Why can't people have a discourse about your material?  Why can't people make can't people make their opinions to your content known? 

That refers directly to why she is blocking comments on her video, not that the audience is literally being deprived of their ability to have opinions or is incapable at having discussions anywhere else.

 

He isn't claiming that it is impossible to have an opinion about the video, he is stating that it is impossible to post one's opinion of the video where the people who made the video are most likely to see it.

I think directing people specifically to a place to talk about it does two things:

• Creates an implication that she's responsible for moderating the discussion
• Just moves the polarizing and counterproductive conversations somewhere else.  In the end, people still end up being negatively influenced by the hostile comments and perhaps end up taking away less from the video than otherwise.

 

 

1. Maybe she should be. If she wanted to start a conversation about negative tropes for women in video games, why doesn't she start a small forum for people to talk about it? She did over shoot her budget by $144000, so it isn't like she doesn't have the resources.

2. That is a good thing. Someone could see an interesting perspective they had not thought of and come out better for it. There would also be a centralized location for people to talk about it, rather than have to navigate several video game forums in search of an interesting conversation.

 

It's a reality for sure, but I still consider it a copout.  It's a huge fault with communicating on the internet, and if it ends up contributing to people incorrectly drawing conclusions from the articles that they read, perhaps comments are not a positive thing to have.  If the internet is an extremely toxic place satured with trolls, in my opinion you have done little to convince me that allowing comments is actually a productive thing.  Especially considering ideas such as the 1/9/90 split where such a small part of the audience (9%) actually is an active participant in things like comments.

If 9% are active participants, then she is screwing them out of their say by blocking everyone's comments. If her supporters want to congratulate her on a video they think is well done, they cannot do it directly. If a detractor with something more intelligent than "FEMINAZIS SUK BALLZ! LOLOLOLOLOLOL" wants to present a legitimate complaint about the video, they cannot do it directly. By taking a blanket approach to weed out trolls, she is depriving herself of direct exposure to the initial thoughts of others.

 

Nobody gains anything by blocking comments, while some have a chance to gain something by allowing them.

 

EDIT: Frankly I'm a bit tired of arguing about a badly made video that was very superfluous. Last statement from me until she posts another.

 

I dislike how she disabled the comments. Feedback(especially negative) is always something to consider. I think she is depriving herself of feedback that could allow her to make a better video by cutting off a direct link to feedback.

 

I think the video is not well executed. She mainly talks about 4 franchises in about 24 minutes, which she could have done in 10 minutes.

 

I think she assumes too much about DiD plot model. For Star Fox, it was about putting resources behind a more recognizable IP that was fairly popular at the time. For Zelda, the villain is neutralizing a threat, not simply kidnapping a helpless princess. For Mario, Bowzer is a goddamn dragon turtle that breathes fire and commands armies. For Double Dragon, it is a stupid ass 80s game, of course it is regressive crap, it was made a quarter century ago.

Edited March 22, 2013 by KaineParker

[Chaz]

Preventing comments or ratings does none of things he states in this part of his discussion.

 

Because you say so?

 

Those absurdities would also be present and, as we know from experience,

the extremes are over represented and people are going to look at those

people and make incorrect assumptions about the types of people that

support Anita.

 

So it's bad for people to learn and realize that some feminists are female supremacists and misandrists? it's bad to get the full picture? why exactly? people should know that there are extremists on all sides, so far only the gamers have been branded as the new taliban, but nobody is saying that about the feminists which is totally unfair. And the ones who point that out are written off as misogynists.

 

I found it really interesting that the TED talk disabled comments in their own video.

 

My guess would be that anita asked for it. Neither TED or TEDx disable comments and ratings on their videos, either on youtube or their homepage.

 

It's a reality for sure, but I still consider it a copout.  It's a huge

fault with communicating on the internet, and if it ends up contributing

to people incorrectly drawing conclusions from the articles that they read, perhaps comments are not a positive thing to have.

 

Actually what happens in many cases is quite the opposite, There have been articles or videos where something was factually wrong or it didn't show the full picture, and thanks the feedback on the comments the author corrected the articule or took down the video and uploaded a revised version. People are not infallible and I really cant stress enough how important feedback and comments are, specially when you are trying to get a point across, who you really want to hear from are the people who have a different point of view otherwise you're just preaching to the choir.

 

Perhaps we could apply CliffyB's article to the internet as a whole (the

internet should grow up if it wants comment fields?  LOL)

 

I'm just baffled of how the pro censorship people praise each other and pat each other in the back, for what? silencing people? blocking dissenting opinions? that's what you are so proud of? I was not aware that bigotry suddenly become a positve trait. How about instead of giving props to the most intolerant people on the internet we give praise to those who have grown ticker skin, those who are not afraid of critisism, those who take feedback and most importantly those that can recognize when they are wrong.

 

The people on this side of the argument are not the ones that are blocking people or ignoring them when they don't have the power to block them

Edited March 22, 2013 by Chaz

[alanschu]

That refers directly to why she is blocking comments on her video, not that the audience is literally being deprived of their ability to have opinions or is incapable at having discussions anywhere else.

 

He still states "We the audience are not allowed to have an opinion, it seems."  SO at this point I have to disagree.

 

 

He isn't claiming that it is impossible to have an opinion about the video, he is stating that it is impossible to post one's opinion of the video where the people who made the video are most likely to see it.

 

I feel he is claiming just that.

 

 

 

1. Maybe she should be. If she wanted to start a conversation about negative tropes for women in video games, why doesn't she start a small forum for people to talk about it? She did over shoot her budget by $144000, so it isn't like she doesn't have the resources.

 

It's not without its costs (particularly with time).  Moderation would have to be extreme, and it would just create additional scrutiny.  Furthermore, it's beyond the scope of the project and isn't necessary.  The discussions are already taking place.  They don't need to have Anita present to occur.  Anita's purpose in this is simply presenting her position for information sake.

 

 

2. That is a good thing. Someone could see an interesting perspective they had not thought of and come out better for it. There would also be a centralized location for people to talk about it, rather than have to navigate several video game forums in search of an interesting conversation.

 

I have to ask, were you able to get some time to read the  links that I posted in the much bigger post (I understand it's a wall of text.  It's a genuine question I don't mean to state any sort of "did you even read my post?").  They actually posit that the presence of hostile comments may actually undermine a reader's ability to understand the article itself.  That is, people demonstrated less understanding of the material afterward, while paradoxically rating their own understanding as higher, and taking on stronger, more polarized positions about the information.

 

If this is actually the case, this is NOT a good thing.  It means that hostile comments compromise the ability for people to learn from and understand articles that they read.  Though obviously I'd like to see more research done, but it's certainly one of those interesting cognitive dissonant inducing, logic defying hypotheses.

 

 

 

If 9% are active participants, then she is screwing them out of their say by blocking everyone's comments.

 

The 9% include the trolls (by trolling they are still considered active participants).  By blocking "everyone's comments" she is blocking the 9% of the people that would comment.  The other 90% don't comment so their commenting actions are completely unaffected (though I understand you argue they miss out because they can't read potentially insightful comments).

 

 

 

Nobody gains anything by blocking comments, while some have a chance to gain something by allowing them.

 

This might not be true, though.  The research is starting to show that people gain more from the discussion when comments are not present.  I can understand the logical reasoning behind it (people may see something that is insightful that they otherwise would not have), but the Wisconsin study demonstrated that people demonstrated less understanding of the topic in the blog, despite the comments providing the same information (just written in a different way).

 

Your example, "If a detractor with something more intelligent than "FEMINAZIS SUK BALLZ! LOLOLOLOLOLOL" wants to present a legitimate complaint about the video, they cannot do it directly" does make logical sense, but that something is logical doesn't mean it actually reflects reality.

 

 

Furthermore, there are self-accounts from bloggers and writers that feel that the presence of comments negatively affects how they approach their own work as well.  Many bigger ones have stopped allowing it because they don't feel it's productive, and is significantly more work for rather minimal gain.

Edited March 22, 2013 by alanschu

[Chaz]

Quote

This might not be true, though. The research is starting to show that

people gain more from the discussion when comments are not present. I

can understand the logical reasoning behind it (people may see something

that is insightful that they otherwise would not have), but the

Wisconsin study demonstrated that people demonstrated less understanding of the topic in the blog, despite the comments providing the same information (just written in a different way).

Actually this is great, I took the time to read the article that you posted and the blog posts that talks about. I hope you read this because from what I've read it seems that you are misinterpreting the results of these experiments and spining them to justify censorship maybe? Now what the researcher said is that "In a discussion, when you see people frowning, it influences how you feel about the discussion" this says that comments can affect how you feel about the article and what your opinion on it is, but it doesn't say that they won't understand it or that it will be more difficult to learn. So your take that people "gain" less when there are comments and that these comments "compromise the readers ability to learn" is a complete misinterpretation, it talks about your opinion on the article, not your ability to learn it.

 

Also, doesn't it make sense to you that if you read an article about a new technology and all the comments below are going "this is dangerous!" "this is false!" that some people would grow a little suspicious and go "hmmm, maybe this is dangerous"? now at that point is up to the reader to do more reasearch and really find out if it's a dangerous technology, but I think it's in no way shape or form bad to be a skeptic.

 

Also keep in mind that just like this can undermine a factual report, it can also undermine a non-factual report, I pulled up a Homeopathy video on youtube on the fly, you know what the first comment was? "Plaaaaaaacceeeeeeebooooooooooo", first it was hilarious, second, while it didn't hold much of an explanatory power, that comment is actually doing a public service. Without those comments there, some poeple might think that homeopathy actually works and start buying pills. Keep in mind that for some people is not easy to differentiate science from pseudo science, and while I'm a big advocate of science I personally think it's good that people don't bow down to anyone that wears a lab coat. And on a personal level, I remember that my mom used to belive all kinds of stupid **** because she saw it on the News, stuff like role-playing games to be satanic, video games causing gun violence and stuff, and part of this is because the TV shows can get their point across uncontested, there are no comments, obviously, because fo the way TV works, and the only opinion that matters is the one that the TV show is putting forth.

 

What? you don't like what the News said? nobody is supressing your opinions, you can create your own TV network (and while it's true that they have no legal obligation of having you on their show, that doesn't mean that it's ok for them to be terribly one sided) by the way when the TV allows for some interaction we witnessed some of the most hilarious moments in the history of mankind.

 

As for the blog, it seemed to be doing a case for moderation in comments than a case for censorship, it stated that comments are so nasty because they are not moderated AT ALL. This is a reason I critized Anita, she just disabled comments outright, which is certainly nothing to be praised for. Not the mention that the 1-9-90 rule is a good rule of thumb but it doesnt apply to every website. In Youtube the Silent Majority not only watches, but they can rate, favorite, subscribe, they can upvote, downvote and even flag comments that they think are nasty or simply bollox. Some of the blogs that disabled comments did so because they thought that the trolls among the 9% are representative of the whole community, big mistake. There are videos where the comments are a cesspool, completely against the video while the approval rating is above 95%, Silent Majority wins, and thinking that the vocal minorty represents them is a big mistake.

 

 

 

 

 

So, I took the time to read all these researchs you brought up, I hope you extend me the same courtesy and at least take the time to read my response.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Chaz

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Quote

This might not be true, though. The research is starting to show that

people gain more from the discussion when comments are not present. I

can understand the logical reasoning behind it (people may see something

that is insightful that they otherwise would not have), but the

Wisconsin study demonstrated that people demonstrated less understanding of the topic in the blog, despite the comments providing the same information (just written in a different way).

Actually this is great, I took the time to read the article that you posted and the blog posts that talks about. I hope you read this because from what I've read it seems that you are misinterpreting the results of these experiments and spining them to justify censorship maybe? Now what the researcher said is that "In a discussion, when you see people frowning, it influences how you feel about the discussion" this says that comments can affect how you feel about the article and what your opinion on it is, but it doesn't say that they won't understand it or that it will be more difficult to learn. So your take that people "gain" less when there are comments and that these comments "compromise the readers ability to learn" is a complete misinterpretation, it talks about your opinion on the article, not your ability to learn it.

 

 

"I have contacted the authors and have received and read a draft of that paper. Since it is not published yet, I will not break all sorts of embargoes by going into details, but can re-state what is already out there. An article about nanotechnology, a topic most people know very little about and usually have no a priori biases for or against, was presented to the test subjects. Half the people saw the article with (invented) polite, civil and constructive comments. The other half was given the same article but with uncivil comments – essentially a flame-war in the fake commenting thread. The result is that readers of the second version quickly developed affinity for one side of the argument and strongly took that side, which affected the way they understood and trusted the original article (text of which was unaltered). The nasty comment thread polarized the opinion of readers, leading them to misunderstand the original article."

 

Good-natured as I am, I will conclude that you've only skimmed through the article instead of an in-depth reading. Others may develop different explanations, most likely involving the rather unpleasant term of "bold-faced lying".

Edited March 22, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Chaz]

Good-natured as I am, I will conclude that you've only skimmed through

the article instead of an in-depth reading. Others may develop different

explanations, most likely involving the rather unpleasant term of

"bold-faced lying"

 

I'm sorry but what you are quoting is the blog by Bora Zivkovic, and his take on the research. I tried to quote one of the resarchers themselves, Dominique Brossard said “In a discussion, when you see people frowning, it influences how you feel about the discussion,” (see I can do that too) So after reading what Dominique said it was my understanding that people would be more distrustful of an article (or video) where there were negative comments. Let's assume that I was mistaken and negative comments actually have the power to become the reader more stupid and affect his ability to Learn the article, so even if I was wrong about that I made several other points that you didn't even address:

 

1 - It's ok to be a skeptic, even when you're a reading a document about nanotech or the dangers of video games.

2 - Brossard said that potent online comments can undermine a factual report, I pose to you that they can do the same for non-factual reports

3 - I gave the example of pseudo science, and how reading people's opinion can give you insight on what's trash and what's not.

4 - I gave the example of how TV can paddle bs and since there is nobody to challenge their opinions, viewers just eat it up

5 - You failed to aknowledge how funny the O'Reiley video was

6 - I pointed out that the blog made a good case for moderation (not outright disabling comments) and said that the nastiest comments were because there was no moderation at all

7 - I also said that the 1-9-90 is a good rule of thumb but in no way applies to every online community and that even youtube viewers can engage in moderation

8 - I gave my opinion on the blogs that disabled comments saying that it was a mistake to think that the trolls that don't even constitute the whole of the 9% are representative of the whole community, there are times when the vocal minority and the silent majority completely disagree with each other and to think that the first represents the latter is a mistake

9 - I appreciate your veiled attempt to call me a liar but I would appreciate even more if you respond to all of my points, thanks.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Chaz

[Amentep]

 

I actually made it through most of the video.  He does state "We the audience are not allowed to have an opinion, it seems" as the first critique.  Directly from his blog:

 

What are you afraid of Anita?  Why can't people have a discourse about your material?  Why can't people make can't people make their opinions to your content known? 

That refers directly to why she is blocking comments on her video, not that the audience is literally being deprived of their ability to have opinions or is incapable at having discussions anywhere else.

 

He isn't claiming that it is impossible to have an opinion about the video, he is stating that it is impossible to post one's opinion of the video where the people who made the video are most likely to see it.

 

But this implies that being able to post opinions of the video are going to be viewed by the people who made the video - which doesn't logically follow.

 

Frankly, if you're going to rebut the research or point out flaws in the conclusions I'd think the poster would want to take ownership of that and make a video, blog post, etc of their own rather than try to fight it out in the comments section.  That would be a bit like trying to counter a research paper published in a journal by writing a stern letter to the editor - the format isn't (at least IMO) conducive to the kind of discourse you'd be trying to achieve.

[Chaz]

(I wanted to add this to my previous post but I can't seem to edit it)

 

Now, it is my understanding that this research has not been published yet? so we only have bits and pieces of it, and based on what I read that was actually what I understood, I recognize that I might be wrong about the research but I point out that I raised several other points, nine to be precise, that are not contingent upon me beign right about this particular study which we only have a few quotes about and it has not even been even publshed, so trying hang your hat on that and use as a case for internet censorship, is just silly.

Not to mention that the real research that you guys should be looking for is one that supports Anita's claims, I mean let's get back on topic here. I'd like to see some serious peer reviewed research that makes a case that Mario Bros, Double Dragon and Legend of Zelda cause misogyny in real life. I mean Anita spent like 20 minutes talking about these franchises and people just ate it up, so I assume those perticular games make a significant impact on the life of women. Cliffy B said that the people who disagreed were immature and needed to grow up, I asked for evidence that supports Anita in almost every page and I was accused of hating her and hating feminists, I tried to present reasoned arguments and I was simply written off because of "cognitive disonance", so far it has been excuse after excuse to avoid engaging me and my arguments. The worst part is that some of you guys seem proud of this position of blocking or ignoring people who disagree and seem to be proud of this pro-censorship stance "go anita! you showed those trolls!"  Wait a minute what about all those women on youtube, gamers or not that do allow comments and do interact with the community? shouldn't we be praising them? Actually I already asked this question and of course it was ignored.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Chaz

[Amentep]

(I wanted to add this to my previous post but I can't seem to edit it)

 

Now, it is my understanding that this research has not been published yet? so we only have bits and pieces of it, and based on what I read that was actually what I understood, I recognize that I might be wrong about the research but I point out that I raised several other points, nine to be precise, that are not contingent upon me beign right about this particular study which we only have a few quotes about and it has not even been even publshed, so trying hang your hat on that and use as a case for internet censorship, is just silly.

 

I'm not really sure what case for "internet censorship" has been made; you can still comment on anything Sarkeesian posts. Not being able to post in the talkback on her videos is irrelevant; you still have outlets for your voice on messageboards, or your own personal/social sites (blog, twitter, facebook) Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

Not to mention that the real research that you guys should be looking for is one that supports Anita's claims, I mean let's get back on topic here. I'd like to see some serious peer reviewed research that makes a case that Mario Bros, Double Dragon and Legend of Zelda cause misogyny in real life. I mean Anita spent like 20 minutes talking about these franchises and people just ate it up, so I assume those perticular games make a significant impact on the life of women. Cliffy B said that the people who disagreed were immature and needed to grow up, I asked for evidence that supports Anita in almost every page and I accused of hating her and hating feminists, I tried to present reasoned arguments and I was simply written off because of "cognitive disonance", so far it has been excuse after excuse to avoid engaging me and my arguments. The worst part is that some of you guys seem proud of this position of blocking or ignoring people who disagree and seem to be proud of this pro-censorship stance "go anita! you showed those trolls!"  Wait a minute what about all those women on youtube, gamers or not that do allow comments and do interact with the community? shouldn't we be praising them? Actually I already asked this question and of course it was ignored.

 

I've not watched Sarkeesian's videos in total; what I have seen seems to be a lot of opinion and little research. I also - personally - feel that her arguments will remain unchanged even if you removed the focal point of her ire. The Bayonnetta ad commentary video that was linked early, for example, has her throwing around a lot of buzzwords but in the end had Bayonnetta been in a bikini (still revealing), skin tight outfit (might as well be nude), formless loose flowing clothing (women should be ashamed of their bodies) I think she'd find ground to complain.

 

But - to be fair to her - I've seen probably less than 1% of her output so I readily admit I'm not at this time really feel qualified to comment about the validity of what she's doing (particularly without being able to read about her methodology in data collection and interpretation). And to tell the truth I find her work largely irrelevant to my interests in gaming, so should those things be published I'm not sure I'd bother to check it out anyhow.

[Chaz]

I'm not really sure what case for "internet censorship" has been made;

you can still comment on anything Sarkeesian posts. Not being able to

post in the talkback on her videos is irrelevant; you still have outlets

for your voice on messageboards, or your own personal/social sites

(blog, twitter, facebook) Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

Some guys were making the case that it's much better and more productive if comments were disabled outright in pretty much every article/video that's published, or at least it seemed that their propostion was universal. That opinion was based on a research that first, I think it's a misinterpretation, second, the research was not even published yet, as far as I know.

 

 

I've not watched Sarkeesian's videos in total; what I have seen seems to

be a lot of opinion and little research. I also - personally - feel

that her arguments will remain unchanged even if you removed the focal

point of her ire. The Bayonnetta ad commentary video that was linked

early, for example, has her throwing around a lot of buzzwords but in

the end had Bayonnetta been in a bikini (still revealing), skin tight

outfit (might as well be nude), formless loose flowing clothing (women

should be ashamed of their bodies) I think she'd find ground to

complain.

 

 

But - to be fair to her - I've seen probably less than 1% of her output

so I readily admit I'm not at this time really feel qualified to comment

about the validity of what she's doing (particularly without being able

to read about her methodology in data collection and interpretation).

And to tell the truth I find her work largely irrelevant to my interests

in gaming, so should those things be published I'm not sure I'd bother

to check it out anyhow.

 

That's a fair opinion, however I don't quite see how it addresses the points I made, maybe it's not supposed to, maybe you just wanted to give your 2 cents, that's fine, I'm just not sure why you quoted me.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Chaz

[Amentep]

That's a fair opinion, however I don't quite see how it addresses the points I made, maybe it's not supposed to, maybe you just wanted to give your 2 cents, that's fine, I'm just not sure why you quoted me.

 

Yeah, I was mostly spring boarding some thoughts I had based on what you wrote; I tend to give context to my thought so it wasn't really meant to be addressing your stuff directly.  Consider me a tangent.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Good-natured as I am, I will conclude that you've only skimmed through

the article instead of an in-depth reading. Others may develop different

explanations, most likely involving the rather unpleasant term of

"bold-faced lying"

 

I made several other points that you didn't even address:

 

Nor did I intend to (you were, after all, arguing with alanschu; and I'm not made out of time). But, unlike me, you did not merely imply your opponent has lied about the article, you actually accused him of doing that (" from what I've read it seems that you are misinterpreting the results of these experiments and spining them to justify censorship maybe"). It kind of rubbed me in the wrong way - with the whole thing being totally untrue and stuff -, so I've corrected you.

 

Maybe I will return to the other points you've made when I won't have mid-term (or whatever it's called in english) anatomy and biochemistry exams looming over my head. Maybe I won't, since I don't like arguing with people who make baseless accusations when they don't like what the other person is talking about. Time will tell.

[Chaz]

Nor did I intend to (you were, after all, arguing with alanschu; and I'm not made out of time). But, unlike me, you did not merely imply your opponent has lied about the article, you actually accused him of doing that (" from what I've read it seems that you are misinterpreting the results of these experiments and spining them to justify censorship maybe"). It kind of rubbed me in the wrong way - with the whole thing being totally untrue and stuff -, so I've corrected you.

 

 

 

Maybe I will return to the other points you've made when I won't have mid-term (or whatever it's called in english) anatomy and biochemistry exams looming over my head. Maybe I won't, since I don't like arguing with people who make baseless accusations when they don't like what the other person is talking about. Time will tell.

 

Ok, sure, I'll quickly reiterate what I said because you don't even aknoledged that I responded to your veiled accusations, I mean corrections. I was quoting a researcher directly, the study has not even been published as far as I know, and more importantly this research does nothing to support anita's claims, which is the main topic of this thread, I wasn't really interested in going on this huge tangent about how "all internet comments are bad and they shouldn't be allowed" to begin with, much like the whole "you can be pro sex and be anti porn" tangent was a waste of time, but I addressed it because alan just kept saying that science supported his pro censorship position and after a closer inspection, not quite the case, and it's also funny because he latched onto science when he thought it supported him but when it comes to the claim that video games can cause misogyny "Pffff, who needs scientific evidence? we just take what anita said on faith" I'm parodying by the way. Good luck with your exams.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Chaz

[alanschu]

I was talking some more with a friend of mine about the Wisconsin article, and due to some strange happenstance (which actually spawned from a Cracked article lol) I stumbled upon this article.  It was both cognitive dissonance inducing, while also a perspective that wasn't entirely surprising when I think back to how I can be (let alone others), since I know I've certainly done it.  I'm curious if ideas like this are what helps feed into the hypothesis behind Wisconsin's findings.

 

 

It actually spawned from this article.  It's written from a Cracked perspective (where humor is a bit more focus, and I think the situation is presented as a bit too absolute).

 

I bring this up because in following this thread I have seen Chaz mention a few times that it's like I'm not even reading his posts.  To be clear, I haven't been, and the first point in the Cracked article helped me illustrate why (rambly part of post):

 

Further discussion was aggravating me, and I was more inclined on arguing just to win rather than any other more noble goal like attempting to educate and promote discussion.  It'd only serve to polarize the discussion and make it even more hostile, so I changed my mind.  In the past I've even continued to argue even when I actually had a realization that I was probably wrong (thankfully, despite my stupid antics on the internet, I was later able to admit to myself that I was wrong, even though publicly acknowledging it probably wasn't going to happen), similar to how that Boston Globe article describes (I think this is a potential issue with that study, although they weren't discussing arguments and it was more self-assessment - the possibility of experiment error is still present).  Those who have known me on this forum have known that I was often not the type of person to back down (probability thread or the biological determinism of women liking pink, anyone?).  Fortunately I feel like I'm a bit less of a curmudgeon in this regard (no more Tireless Rebutter!!).  Probably just in large part because I can't be arsed to do it, since I typically try to support my position with links.

 

 

#3 can hit me too.  I'm not a fan of The Amazing Atheist, so it put him on a challenging perspective for me to agree with his perspective (I still don't think that the points he had - Anita shelters herself from criticism and that the comments would also show that there are crazy misandrists out there - are actually relevant, but at least I went back to watch the whole video).

 

#1 has even burned me (though I am not sure about recently.  Note that #1 is about facts, not perspectives.  Stating a contrary perspective to mine isn't typically stating facts).

 

At any point, however, I try to not get too emotional since my ability to try to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen goes down dramatically once I get hostile, and if hostility helps polarize things then maybe I should put in an effort not to?  I'm curious how the peer reviews of gone for that Wisconsin article.  If I feel myself starting to get angry or hostile, I have a preclusion to disengage now.

 

 

So yes, Chaz, I have not been reading your posts lately (haven't been for a few days).  I actually stated a disinclination to continue discussing this with you in Post 92 of this thread.  I elaborated a bit more on it in Post 123 so I'm a bit surprised that you seem surprised.

 

I could go into the whole host of reasons as to why I put you on ignore, but I don't think it'll be productive.  The synopsis is I found our interactions unproductive and as a result, not interesting.  Feel free to use the Cracked article to break down this post about how I am shielding myself from criticism, and closing myself down to other view points to reaffirm my own confirmation biases to prevent cognitive dissonance.

 

I will conclude by stating I do realize that some of the studies I have cited may not actually be relevant just like I am open to the idea that my conclusions on this entire discussion and the various tangents may be wrong.  I have acknowledged I'm not able to comment on comic books and deferred to someone more familiar about their representation of women and conceded the point.  I've also pointed out that social sciences have challenges that the physical sciences do not have, and to be clear those potential shortcomings apply to studies such as the Wisconsin one and the ones referenced in that Boston Globe article at the start of this point.  Prior to being made aware of the Wisconsin study, I would have argued in KaineParker's camp as to the usefulness of comments.  That examination Wisconsin did made me realize "maybe my assumptions of the world are wrong."  Frankly, I find the idea being put forth that comments could be bad just interesting, simply because it may be providing some insight into how human beings work.

Edited March 23, 2013 by alanschu

[Malcador]

The ignore feature is for the weak!

[alanschu]

I'm 32 (as of yesterday!).  Weakness takes me with every passing moment.  It is inevitable!

[Oner]

Oooh, happy birthsday!

[Azure79]

Happy Belated Birthday Alan. 

[LadyCrimson]

@alanschu - heh, that Cracked article is kinda funny. Most of its reasons are probably why I rarely debate on the 'net anymore, at least past a few posts. Not that I really think of it in those specific terms most of the time, and not that I don't understand why debating/long discussion is interesting to many people. I did a lot at one point...just don't feel like using my energy for it these days - not on the 'net anyway.
 
There's also a quote from Hugh Laurie that I like a lot, applies to me as well, that goes:
"My memory of how I was at the age of eighteen was that I knew absolutely everything there was to know. There were no subjects on which I didn't have a coherent and forceful opinion. And as the years go by, that has just fallen away. I feel like a baby now. I feel as if I have less and less technical expertise. I feel like I know nothing about anything. I suppose what's actually happening is that the arrogance of one's youth is just sort of disintegrating. And the truth is, I never knew anything."
 

Whenever I feel my feelings during a discussion going too high/becoming unproductive, I think of that quote and step back.

[babaganoosh13]

^^^^

 

When I was a teenager, I knew everything about baseball. I knew what to do in every situation before it happened.

 

Now, I don't remember half that stuff.

 

I don't think it's youthful arrogance. I think it's booze.

[Chaz]

Well, it's certainly sad that we couldn't get to argue maybe in a more "mature" manner, Alan. I did my best to present my arguments, but when I say something perfectly legitimate like "Hey, men are objectified in the media as much as women" and you immediately dismiss it saying "That argument has been put forth and then slapped out of the way by so many people" I already knew this was not going to be a reasonable discussion. Someone more moderate could have said "Yeah, maybe, but women get it worse" that would have been a fine counter point and we could have gone from there, but not you, you just completely rejected the idea that men are objectified at all, and why? because a Webcomic and a feminist article said so. (and in response to the webcomic, if puppy eyes and kissable lips are what turns her on, characters are already beign drawn like that, and no man ever complained)

 

So yeah, with those kind of double standards we weren't going to agree in even the most trivial of matters. And I recognize that there is a lot of injustice against women, specially in underdeveloped countries with low education or countries where religion has a big influence, but when we hear a women will be slashed, then stone to death because she broke some religious law, we know exactly what the reason is. I am yet to see an injustice against women where we can point at Mario, Double Dragon or any video game as the cause. Maybe peach beign kidnapped is a tired cliche but it's harmless, and to think that Peach is a representative of women is like thinking that mario is a representative of men around the world, which is asenine. They are caricatures, people, time to give up the double standards and start looking at things evenly.

 

I hope it has been perfectly clear that in the same way that Anita blocked all comments, Alan blocked me, not because I insulted him, not because I threatened to rape or kill him, or because I was disrespectful (snarky maybe) but because I presented legitimate critisism and reasoned arguments. If at any moment I would have stepped out of line, the fine gentlemen in charge of moderation would have slapped me down immediately, it hasn't happened yet so I assume that I have been civil about this. I don't know if I'll be coming back to the thread since Alan won't respond to me and Heisenberg said he has exams, I guess I'll come back later to see if anyone else has contributed something to the discussion, later everyone.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Chaz

[alanschu]

^^^^

 

When I was a teenager, I knew everything about baseball. I knew what to do in every situation before it happened.

 

Now, I don't remember half that stuff.

 

I don't think it's youthful arrogance. I think it's booze.

 

HAHA I don't think it's an alcohol thing (I'm not really a big drinker), but I have noticed age affecting me