Support NeoGAF

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Severely disapointed that people commit association fallacies in order to not respond to my post.
I said that it is weird that Anita Sarkeesian just wants to open a debate but at the same time declines any and all debates that she can. I have never seen Anita have a dialogue with anyone of an opposing opinion to hers. I think it is curious we are supposed to get educated by Anita but at the same time Anita doesnt want to back up her material so that we can ensure that we get educated.
Why will she not just talk publicly on a livestream or somewhere like that with someone on the opposing "team"? That is the glaring contradiction of Anita Sarkeesians words.

People have responded to you directly and it's obvious from the context of your post that you haven't bother to do much research

later

 

[KeanuReeves]

Firstly, have you ever been educated by YouTube comments responding to a video ever? Secondly, I'll note that we explicitly ban this as a talking point in every single discussion of the Tropes videos we have here. There are numerous places anywhere on the internet (even here!) where you can raise your criticisms of her points. You can post your comments to @femfreq on Twitter. I'm sure there are emails listed to contact her directly.

Well my point is that she wont respond. Regardless you are right about the talking points. This is not GamerGate related either way.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

It worries me a great deal that people really have such a huge issue with her videos. Like Arthur Chu writes about the insane disproportionality of the whole thing:

That article is really great, thanks for sharing it. The conclusion gives a bit of hope in this completely depressing climate.

 

[KeanuReeves]

People have responded to you directly and it's obvious from the context of your post that you haven't bother to do much research

later

People have responded to my post? That is not even close to the point of my post? (what?!)
My point was that Anita doesnt respond to questions that are actually critical to her points. But as i said before this is not GamerGate related at the slightest.
There is literally nothing in GamerGate that has to do with women in gaming or feminism. Only feminist claim that GamerGate is a hate movement vs women. This is an Association Fallacy.

 

[plagiarize]

Well my point is that she wont respond. Regardless you are right about the talking points. This is not GamerGate related either way.

It is my understand that she has covered things in videos based on the feedback she has received, even highlighting good examples at times because people asked her to. Challenging someone to a debate and then claiming some victory when the person doesn't deem you worthy of their time is a very old tactic. Jack Thompson was especially fond of it. Anita lays out her opinions very clearly. She doesn't have to agree to debates to 'back up her material'. Other people make counter videos, and you and I can watch those too.

 

[zeldablue]

I read this a long time ago.

But it seems extremely relevant now.

If I can’t have you, no one can!” Yelled the estranged boyfriend to his ex girlfriend, while she was trapped in a blazing house fire he’d started. As a teenager watching this reported on the regional news, I felt a rush of the expected emotions – anger, sorrow and empathy, but not in the places you might expect. My first emotion wasn’t empathy for the girl who’d burned to death in the fire, but anger at what she must have done to deserve it.

I had a list of examples of how feminism had gone too far... If I’m honest, I only really trotted out the examples above to justify my position; some of them even have some substance, but they didn’t make me angry. What did was, firstly, feminists challenging my point of view and, secondly, the fact that I found it really hard to get a girlfriend and, when I did, it usually ended abruptly with drama.

I’d never tried to rationalise my anger before; I’d just followed where it led. Of course, the problem with irrational anger is that you can’t analyse it while you’re irrationally angry. You need to give it a few days to cool off and then look at it.... I soon realised that my empathy had been severely skewed for years, but I’ve found that this can be unlearned once you’re self-aware enough. I’d only ever considered myself as the subject of empathy, or other men who were in my position, I’d never considered the emotions and feelings of the women I’d been emotionally abusing.

This process took decades with me, though. Debunking a feminist conspiracy in your head is a little bit like deprogramming yourself from a religion. It takes years of self-reflection and asking some really uncomfortable questions about yourself, but you do come out of it a better person.

:\

 

[FF Seraphim]

Faceless007 was on the money:



It worries me a great deal that people really have such a huge issue with her videos. Like Arthur Chu writes about the insane disproportionality of the whole thing:

Dude reading this article is literally taking a leap into a rabbit hole of insanity and by that I mean: "Holy shit, I did not know there were so many freaking crazy people that hate females trying to play DnD".

This guy has links upon links of good articles to read.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

There is literally nothing in GamerGate that has to do with women in gaming or feminism.

I think you'll have a really hard time trying to defend that one.

 

[kurona_bright]

People have responded to my post? That is not even close to the point of my post? (what?!)
My point was that Anita doesnt respond to questions that are actually critical to her points. But as i said before this is not GamerGate related at the slightest.
There is literally nothing in GamerGate that has to do with women in gaming or feminism. Only feminist claim that GamerGate is a hate movement vs women. This is an Association Fallacy.

I'd just type 'lol' but I don't wanna get banned. Keep up making Delusional Statements.

Is this hate mob ever going to disintegrate? I don't think mainstream media covering this seems to have much of a effect. Was it delusional of me to hope that it would disintegrate when brought into the public eye?

 

[plagiarize]

People have responded to my post? That is not even close to the point of my post? (what?!)
My point was that Anita doesnt respond to questions that are actually critical to her points. But as i said before this is not GamerGate related at the slightest.
There is literally nothing in GamerGate that has to do with women in gaming or feminism. Only feminist claim that GamerGate is a hate movement vs women. This is an Association Fallacy.

Wait... am I a feminist?

Does GamerGate not have openly anti feminist figureheads? Did one of the major voices not celebrate the cancellation of Anita's talk on women in gaming as a victory of the GamerGate movement? Was the term not coined by someone openly anti feminism?

 

[chaobreaker]

Severely disapointed that people commit association fallacies in order to not respond to my post.
I said that it is weird that Anita Sarkeesian just wants to open a debate but at the same time declines any and all debates that she can. I have never seen Anita have a dialogue with anyone of an opposing opinion to hers. I think it is curious we are supposed to get educated by Anita but at the same time Anita doesnt want to back up her material so that we can ensure that we get educated.
Why will she not just talk publicly on a livestream or somewhere like that with someone on the opposing "team"? That is the glaring contradiction of Anita Sarkeesians words.

I think you're mistaken. Her videos aren't about opening a direct debate with her. I think the intention of her videos was to create the dialogue of problematic tropes in video games for everyone. It clearly takes a while to produce a single episode of her series so I'm sure she doesn't have the time to produce a episode directly addressing a video or too.

That being said, she does rebut some commonly mentioned rebuttals in some of her videos, like the Double Dragon example I posted above.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

As a huge fan, you're really disappointing me right now KeanuReeves.

 

[JackDT]

Say what you will about him appearing a little smug, but I loved him on Jeopardy and I've loved him even more subsequently. Chu is a fucking legend.

Sometimes I think he's too willing to dive into the insult slinging mud -- he can be incredibly harsh and mean -- I'm sure he puts some people off that might have been willing to listen. But the stuff the mob is sending his way is 100x worse (check his mentions!) so I can't blame him too much.

And he knows his stuff. He's not a random celebrity jumping in to comment on gaming; he dives right into the deepest trenches and minutia like talking about the merits of classifying feminism into waves in the first place, or the specifics faking screenshots showing harassment on wizardchan.

 

[Zeliard]

This isn't the Keanu Reeves I've come to love. What a poor digital representation.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Regarding atheism communities... I used to spend quite a bit of time in the early 2000's in such communities, and they were generally full of awesome and extremely kind people. I moved on to more skeptical-oriented communities eventually, and once again, the majority was nothing like the reddit fedora douches. But even in a community I recently spent time on, I started seeing grouching about so-called SJWs and a generally unwelcoming atmosphere, from smug more skeptic-than-thou using skepticism as an excuse to not believe victims of abuse who come forward and so on, and it really turned me off. I haven't posted on the JREF forum in months because of things like this. It's just too exhausting to try to address so much horseshit.

tl;dr atheists and skeptics communities used to be awesome and inclusive, I dunno WTF happened or why they turned to shit I blame Reddit.

 

[Trame]

Why will she not just talk publicly on a livestream or somewhere like that with someone on the opposing "team"? That is the glaring contradiction of Anita Sarkeesians words.

Okay, I'll answer your question.

Two big reasons.

1) Anyone who the opposing "team" (in this case, you presumably mean the #gamergate crowd) would actually accept as their speaker would be toxic as all hell and throw out more random accusations than are possible for her to refute. It would be more of an ambush than a debate. It's the same reason evolution vs. creationism debates are a bad idea (reference for that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDE0Hb3QeAY ).

2) Anyone who disagrees with her, is prominent enough, knowledgeable enough, and most importantly reasonable enough to have serious debate with her, is likely not going to demand to do so, given that reasonable people are currently showing a united front against insanity. In a world where Anita was not getting tons of vitriolic abuse and harassment, maybe it would happen. As it stands, if the person she was debating wasn't completely nuts, and Anita not completely destroyed in the debate, the GG crowd would just call the other person a "SJW" and demand a "real debate" (see point 1). There's nothing to gain from it for Anita or any reasonable person who would debate her.

 

[LaserBuddha]

People have responded to my post? That is not even close to the point of my post? (what?!)
My point was that Anita doesnt respond to questions that are actually critical to her points. But as i said before this is not GamerGate related at the slightest.
There is literally nothing in GamerGate that has to do with women in gaming or feminism. Only feminist claim that GamerGate is a hate movement vs women. This is an Association Fallacy.

I dare you to find me an online discussion by the main Gamergate group that isnt mostly about feminism or "SJWs". I double dog dare you.

I'll save you some time and tell you not to look for it at their home base of 8chan.

On top of that, Name one figurehead of gamergate that is not a misogynist and hostile toward feminism itself.

Also, literally everything gamergate has "exposed" in terms of ethical problems, have been bogus. And they were only actually "investigating" corruption at the beginning of all this.

 

[KeanuReeves]

It is my understand that she has covered things in videos based on the feedback she has received, even highlighting good examples at times because people asked her to. Challenging someone to a debate and then claiming some victory when the person doesn't deem you worthy of their time is a very old tactic. Jack Thompson was especially fond of it. Anita lays out her opinions very clearly. She doesn't have to agree to debates to 'back up her material'. Other people make counter videos, and you and I can watch those too.

You are right we can watch those. But thats not the point. Anita wants her material to be taught in schools. Shouldnt we all then strive to have her material be the most accurate and best it can be? Because she doesnt seem to respond to any critique or correct any factual mistakes she makes.

 

[FF Seraphim]

tl;dr atheists and skeptics communities used to be awesome and inclusive, I dunno WTF happened or why they turned to shit I blame Reddit.

I think the issue with internet communities such as r/Atheism, stems from the fact these are people who are unable to find other people like them to communicate with in RL and now have a group of people who may or may not think like they do. So to feel accepted the whole thing becomes a crazy circle jerk, and in doing so went to the extreme.

 

[zeldablue]

I know that was a rant of sorts, but my point is not to be wary of someone who identifies as an atheist. But if you see someone saying some awful shit and using 'logic' as a shield, run. And unfortunately, these people do tend to gravitate toward atheism.

The age old "Civilized Man Vs. Savage Other."

"Other" being foreigners and women. :\

I've decided to be Omnist. I believe in everything along with whatever else people believe. Err, it's basically the belief that whatever any person believes is valid and true in some form. I think that level of openness allows for better perspective, understanding and acceptance. I think most conflicts are related to people's intolerance to other people's valid perspectives and life experiences.

 

[JC Sera]

As for the atheist/gamergate comparisons, I really don't see atheists shouting down people because of how atheist they are. Rather, I think what you have to watch out for are atheists who consistently bang on about how logical they are. Those are the people (mostly men, admittedly) that you need to watch out for. I profess to not being that familiar with atheist youtubers, but guys like thunderfoot will pummel you with illogical nonsense while insisting the opposite. A very common example of this idiocy would be an atheist saying that feminism is illogical because it rests on a double standard in how we approach women and men. If your response to this is "but that's illogical bullshit," then give me an internet high five. Anyway, these people are monsters, and most importantly, ignorant monsters. Another good example of this approach was evident in that pixijenni (sorry if the name is wrong, I haven't been following that closely) youtube video where she talked with a couple of dudes about feminism in gaming. I don't know if those guys were atheists, but they sure held themselves up as the ultimate logical and reasonable beings. Which was funny because they had no idea how to respond to most of what was said.

I know that was a rant of sorts, but my point is not to be wary of someone who identifies as an atheist. But if you see someone saying some awful shit and using 'logic' as a shield, run. And unfortunately, these people do tend to gravitate toward atheism.

Sorry if I was coming off as anti-atheist overall. I'm mainly against militant atheism which demonizes religions. Same with people who are militantly religious who demonize both atheism and other religions.

Also your comment on "Logic" users is pretty spot on and relevant for both "Atheists" and GG defenders of "Ethics".

Speaking of "Logic" users

People have responded to my post? That is not even close to the point of my post? (what?!)
My point was that Anita doesnt respond to questions that are actually critical to her points. But as i said before this is not GamerGate related at the slightest.
There is literally nothing in GamerGate that has to do with women in gaming or feminism. Only feminist claim that GamerGate is a hate movement vs women. This is an Association Fallacy.

Dude it takes you two seconds to type in "anita sarkeesian youtube comments" into google and get this
http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/
and if you looked back a couple of pages in this thread the evidence for GG literally being a hate movement was linked multiple times
https://storify.com/EffNOVideoGames/stopgamergate-it-has-always-been-a-spin
stop b4 you get banned edit: too late

 

[kcp12304]

It would be difficult to find people who would debate Anita in good faith. Many of the people doing GG stream aren't the nicest people. Pixiejennie (a woman academic from Oxford) went onto a GG stream to debate and the hosts got super emotional and lost their cool. She was harassed for it afterwords for making them look bad. The "SJW" turned out to be nothing like the feminist stereotype people thought she would be.

The feminist actually tried to change the tropic from feminism a couple times but the GG host keep harping on about a feminist/academic conspiracy to infiltrate and cause corrupting within the gaming press.

So it's a total lie to say GG isn't about feminism when it's prominent lieutenants are constantly making it about feminism and "SJW"s. I've listen to them bitch on and on about Anita even though she's not part of the press.

So what I'm trying to say is that Antia's critics don't want an honest debate, they want to shut her up. There are guys on Youtube who focus so much on her that it has hit stalker levels of obsession. It's hours and hours of "debunking" videos. If she went on a stream, it would just cause her more harassment and there is strong evidence to suggest that. Not a great environment for dialogue.

 

[Foffy]

People have responded to my post? That is not even close to the point of my post? (what?!)
My point was that Anita doesnt respond to questions that are actually critical to her points. But as i said before this is not GamerGate related at the slightest.
There is literally nothing in GamerGate that has to do with women in gaming or feminism. Only feminist claim that GamerGate is a hate movement vs women. This is an Association Fallacy.

Some in the movement may be about ethics and bringing out that jazz, yes.

But those people are of a significant minority. It's why such arguments can be made outside of GamerGate, and it is presently better to do so.

Regarding atheism communities... I used to spend quite a bit of time in the early 2000's in such communities, and they were generally full of awesome and extremely kind people. I moved on to more skeptical-oriented communities eventually, and once again, the majority was nothing like the reddit fedora douches. But even in a community I recently spent time on, I started seeing grouching about so-called SJWs and a generally unwelcoming atmosphere, from smug more skeptic-than-thou using skepticism as an excuse to not believe victims of abuse who come forward and so on, and it really turned me off. I haven't posted on the JREF forum in months because of things like this. It's just too exhausting to try to address so much horseshit.

tl;dr atheists and skeptics communities used to be awesome and inclusive, I dunno WTF happened or why they turned to shit I blame Reddit.

That forum has been a shit pit for years. I can't even imagine people going there today.

 

[chaobreaker]

The age old "Civilized Man Vs. Savage Other."

"Other" being foreigners and women. :

I've decided to be Omnist. I believe in everything along with whatever else people believe. Err, it's basically the belief that whatever any person believes is valid and true in some form. I think that level of openness allows for better perspective, understanding and acceptance. I think most conflicts are related to people's intolerance to other people's valid perspectives and life experiences.

Interesting belief system. Never heard if it before.

 

[Quote]

People have responded to my post? That is not even close to the point of my post? (what?!)
My point was that Anita doesnt respond to questions that are actually critical to her points. But as i said before this is not GamerGate related at the slightest.
There is literally nothing in GamerGate that has to do with women in gaming or feminism. Only feminist claim that GamerGate is a hate movement vs women. This is an Association Fallacy.

It's simple, because she doesn't have to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDE0Hb3QeAY

Rebecca Watson is awesome, and If you like her in this video you should check her out as one of the hosts on Skeptics Guide the Universe. She gets a lot sexist hate and threats just like the popular women in the gaming industry.

 

[Tetsuo9]

Rebecca Watson is awesome, and If you like her in this video you should check her out as one of the hosts on Skeptics Guide the Universe. She gets a lot sexist hate and threats just like the popular women in the gaming industry.

She's also a gamer and saw what gamergate was truly about a long time ago. Has a couple videos about it as well.

 

[Quote]

She's also a gamer and saw what gamergate was truly about a long time ago. Has a couple videos about it as well.

Hm, I thought she didn't use Twitter anymore but it turned out I don't follower her anymore for some reason. Fixing that right now. Thanks.

 

[BlastProcessing]

What kind of a debate can you have in the YouTube comments section?

Now I am imagining the Lincoln Douglas debates reenacted as youtube comments...

I had a whole thing typed out for Keanu but I see that he has already been banned.

Whoa

 

[danm999]

Dude it takes you two seconds to type in "anita sarkeesian youtube comments" into google and get this
http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/

It's a no win scenario.

The comments her videos received were pure, unfiltered garbage.

So she disabled comments. Which is a sign she's trying to stifle debate.

So then she re enables comments to show why she disabled them, for which she's accused of having only disable them to get a rise out of people.

Every single action she takes, either passive or active, is part of a manipulation to increase her infamy and profile.

If she goes through with a talk; she's spreading her anti-gamer dogma. If she doesn't go through with a talk; she's done it for attention and this is exactly what she wanted all along.

You. Can't. Win.

 

[BlastProcessing]

People have responded to my post? That is not even close to the point of my post? (what?!)
My point was that Anita doesnt respond to questions that are actually critical to her points. But as i said before this is not GamerGate related at the slightest.
There is literally nothing in GamerGate that has to do with women in gaming or feminism. Only feminist claim that GamerGate is a hate movement vs women. This is an Association Fallacy.

I didn't even see this one. Wow. Sometimes it breaks my brain how differently people can see the world. I just keep rereading it and I can't find a foothold to figure it out.

 

[Hatchtag]

While I have not been following this thread that much, I do believe that there is a legitimate amount of people that are in #GamerGate for the anti-corruption in journalism message and not for the sexism. I don't dispute that it is rooted in sexism-hell, I'm positive that it started with some people just trying to get some laughs out of some e-drama. But I think claiming everyone who associates or associated with GamerGate as sexist is a bit wrong (I'm not accusing anyone here of doing that, but I've seen some people do it). There's definitely enough people involved in the anti-corruption message that a person could only see that part of things and not know of a lot of the sexism it involved or only see the sexism as a minority.

In addition, although I haven't watched all of his content (he's done at least 12 hours of streams over the past months and has tweeted a shit ton), I wouldn't really say InternetAristocrat is necessarily sexist. He started as a guy who covers and makes fun of e-drama, happened across a case that exploded in popularity (and, in turn, resulted in him gaining more popularity), and then hopped upon the anti-corruption message, without necessarily finding out (or properly addressing if he did find out) that the event that started the whole movement was completely false.

 

[Corpekata]

We're not against feminism! It's purely a coincidence that nearly every prominent voice in the movement seems to have crippling issues with the subject! Honest!

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Before this, InternetAristocrat accused Patrick Klepek of cheating on his wife with Zoe Quinn, because she was on Patrick's morning show once or twice. When asked what evidence he had, he parried that there was no evidence against it.

I'm pretty sure he is a sexist, but if not a sexist, at least a terrible asshole that should be shunned all the same.

 

[zeldablue]

I missed what happened. Why are we talking about atheists?

Interesting belief system. Never heard if it before.

You can be an atheist and an omnist. And you can also be a Christian and omnist. It's not really a religion, it's just the belief that there's a good reason people believe in stuff, even if you don't agree with some of it. If you're religious then you believe "in a single transcendent purpose or cause uniting all things or people" If you're non religious you believe "There may be an influence more akin to existentialism in which consciousness is a power or force that helps determine the reality, yet is not a divine influence."

It's just a good way to destroy any feelings of intolerance and hatred for me, personally. Trapping yourself into something and becoming more narrow-minded and stubborn as you grow, just doesn't feel right. Realizing that most people, down to their core are essentially one in the same, is a good feeling to have. Our worldviews, values, uncertainties, fears and dreams make up so much of our reality, to deny any one person's views would be...ehhh, troublesome.

 

[plagiarize]

I'm so riled up I can't sleep. It's frustrating. I'm immensely sadden by what happened with Boogie2998 in all this and very angry at the people who pushed him until he broke.

I really hope that he can come out the other side of this, just as Jim did.

I just wish he'd see that taking a hard line stance of 'defending gamers' is the wrong thing to do. You have to look at the specific accusations... and you have to separate the people who take up the hashtag from gamers in general.

GamerGate people are angry that we called them out for what they were doing to Zoe Quinn. The whole thing hasn't been about gamer's image, but *their* image. Be it them donating a bunch of money to charity to make themselves look better, or be it them trying to track down the people make threats against Anita *so she can't criticize them anymore*.

They don't want their goals of keeping gaming from including feminist messages (you know, messages like women shouldn't just be eye candy) to be something they get criticized for expressing. They think the criticism they get for harboring those opinions *justifies hiding them behind other things*. They outright told me this.

 

[More_Badass]

Before this, InternetAristocrat accused Patrick Klepek of cheating on his wife with Zoe Quinn, because she was on Patrick's morning show once or twice. When asked what evidence he had, he parried that there was no evidence against it.

It doesn't work like that. Is the Aristocrat guy really that dense?

 

[Hatchtag]

We're not against feminism! It's purely a coincidence that nearly every prominent voice in the movement seems to have crippling issues with the subject! Honest!

Enlightening responses like this are incredibly helpful. I can't see why anyone would absolutely despise the anti-gamergate people when they make such great contributions.

Before this, InternetAristocrat accused Patrick Klepek of cheating on his wife with Zoe Quinn, because she was on Patrick's morning show once or twice. When asked what evidence he had, he parried that there was no evidence against it.

I'm pretty sure he is a sexist, but if not a sexist, at least a terrible asshole that should be shunned all the same.

I don't feel he is sexist from what I've seen, as I've watched a lot of his videos and never quiet got that impression. I will concede that I was unaware of the roots of the Five Guys thing, though (it's been a while since I watched the video where he claimed to have gotten his proof from), and that that is a bit of an asshole move on his part if true. But I don't really think that's sexist, I think that's just trying to push a narrative. Which is kind of his thing, pushing a narrative about e-drama for entertainment value. It's definitely an asshole thing to do, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't find some entertainment in it.

 

[FF Seraphim]

Before this, InternetAristocrat accused Patrick Klepek of cheating on his wife with Zoe Quinn, because she was on Patrick's morning show once or twice. When asked what evidence he had, he parried that there was no evidence against it.

I'm pretty sure he is a sexist, but if not a sexist, at least a terrible asshole that should be shunned all the same.

So you are saying he pulled a Glenn Beck? Was he just asking questions?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Enlightening responses like this are incredibly helpful. I can't see why anyone would absolutely despise the anti-gamergate people when they make such great contributions.



I don't feel he is sexist from what I've seen, as I've watched a lot of his videos and never quiet got that impression. I will concede that I was unaware of the roots of the Five Guys thing, though (it's been a while since I watched the video where he claimed to have gotten his proof from), and that that is a bit of an asshole move on his part if true. But I don't really think that's sexist, I think that's just trying to push a narrative. Which is kind of his thing, pushing a narrative about e-drama for entertainment value. It's definitely an asshole thing to do, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't find some entertainment in it.

And yes, I know that's not a riveting contribution but I feel that's about all this merits.

If someone finds something like that entertaining...

 

[Tapejara]

I don't feel he is sexist from what I've seen, as I've watched a lot of his videos and never quiet got that impression. I will concede that I was unaware of the roots of the Five Guys thing, though (it's been a while since I watched the video where he claimed to have gotten his proof from), and that that is a bit of an asshole move on his part if true. But I don't really think that's sexist, I think that's just trying to push a narrative. Which is kind of his thing, pushing a narrative about e-drama for entertainment value. It's definitely an asshole thing to do, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't find some entertainment in it.

I think comparing a woman's sex life to a fast food restaurant is pretty sexist.

 

[danm999]

But I don't really think that's sexist, I think that's just trying to push a narrative.

It's a sexist narrative though. It doesn't matter whether he's doing it for the 'lulz' or not.

Claiming a woman's accomplishments/profile as being a result of her sleeping around is textbook sexism.

 

[buy teh haloz]

Before this, InternetAristocrat accused Patrick Klepek of cheating on his wife with Zoe Quinn, because she was on Patrick's morning show once or twice. When asked what evidence he had, he parried that there was no evidence against it.

I'm pretty sure he is a sexist, but if not a sexist, at least a terrible asshole that should be shunned all the same.

When did this happen?

 

[Corpekata]

Enlightening responses like this are incredibly helpful. I can't see why anyone would absolutely despise the anti-gamergate people when they make such great contributions.



I don't feel he is sexist from what I've seen, as I've watched a lot of his videos and never quiet got that impression. I will concede that I was unaware of the roots of the Five Guys thing, though (it's been a while since I watched the video where he claimed to have gotten his proof from), and that that is a bit of an asshole move on his part if true. But I don't really think that's sexist, I think that's just trying to push a narrative. Which is kind of his thing, pushing a narrative about e-drama for entertainment value. It's definitely an asshole thing to do, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't find some entertainment in it.

I wasn't responding to you, but to the recently banned guy that said the movement had no issues with it. Just poor timing (we posted at pretty much the exact same time).

 

[zeldablue]

I think comparing a woman's sex life to a fast food restaurant is pretty sexist.

Justin Timberlake tho.





I'll see myself out.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Enlightening responses like this are incredibly helpful. I can't see why anyone would absolutely despise the anti-gamergate people when they make such great contributions.



I don't feel he is sexist from what I've seen, as I've watched a lot of his videos and never quiet got that impression. I will concede that I was unaware of the roots of the Five Guys thing, though (it's been a while since I watched the video where he claimed to have gotten his proof from), and that that is a bit of an asshole move on his part if true. But I don't really think that's sexist, I think that's just trying to push a narrative. Which is kind of his thing, pushing a narrative about e-drama for entertainment value. It's definitely an asshole thing to do, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't find some entertainment in it.

Honestly that's even worse in my eyes. Intentionally attacking someone for entertainment. That's not just sexist, it's a complete disregard for humanity. For Youtube hits...

He might not be a sexist, but he has decided to be a pied piper for misogynists in exchange for clicks.

 

[Corpekata]

When did this happen?

https://twitter.com/Int_Aristocrat/status/500776119621001216

 

[plagiarize]

We're not against feminism! It's purely a coincidence that nearly every prominent voice in the movement seems to have crippling issues with the subject! Honest!

And it's merely a coincidence that we only go after women and the people who openly call for better representations of them in games. Some of those people used to hate women too you know, so it's hard to know that they aren't just pretending to like them now. Which naturally means that we don't have to respond to anything you actually said. I mean, we know you've accused us of having a false agenda and of welcoming anti feminists into the group, but hey, we gave money to help female game developers and we tracked down Anita Sarkesian's stalker! So that totally means we can cheer when she cancels a talk because of death threats. Because you know, we helped find the guy who made that awesome thing happen. I mean, sure, before we found him, we were openly saying 'hey, lets find this guy so Anita can't criticize us any more!' but that doesn't matter.

Oh, we still haven't denied any of your accusations about our agenda or warmly welcoming anti feminists? Well what do you say now that you find out that an actual woman supports us! I mean sure she's a self identifying dissenting feminist who sees no problem with people who want to be anti feminist, but she does totally have two X chromosomes. So... yeah? That changed your mind right?

We *still* haven't denied any of your accusations you say? Read this article about the history of GamerGate. Oh you already read it? Huh. Look doesn't it say in it that you're blaming the entire grass roots movement for the actions of a few. Oh you didn't see that bit?

Well it's right underneath this bit:

"Simply put, gamers do not like the hyper-politicization of their pastime, regardless of it's source. And gamers will reject anyone who tries to come into our medium so they can pedal an agenda. People from all walks of life have come together to speak out against journalistic corruption and have been served up as the target of countless hit pieces as a result."

Wait, you think that sounds like we're saying gamers will reject people who come into gaming with a feminist agenda? Like what we're upset about is the notion that games need to change?

Wait, does it actually say that on the thing I just linked you?

Hmmn. Well to address your question that we have a hidden agenda OF COURSE WE DO BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE MEAN TO US WHEN WE PUBLICALLY STATED IT AND CALLED US BIGOTS. So don't blame us for it.

 

[Hatchtag]

And yes, I know that's not a riveting contribution but I feel that's about all this merits.

If someone finds something like that entertaining...

Oh, I know it's completely trashy to find something like that entertaining, but it can be. Why do you think so many people read the Enquirer?

As for the contribution, I just find it a bit irritating to dismiss anyone associating with GamerGate as being anti-feminist just because they might not be fully aware that a lot of the major voices leading gamergate are sexist.

It's a sexist narrative though. It doesn't matter whether he's doing it for the 'lulz' or not.

Claiming a woman's accomplishments/profile as being a result of her sleeping around is textbook sexism.

From what I gather, there was evidence at the time that she was sleeping around. It's wrong to not verify such evidence first, which he clearly didn't, but is it sexist just because of the subject matter? I don't necessarily think so. If he honestly believed that the evidence was there that her accomplishments came largely from her sleeping around, I don't necessarily think that was sexist. I haven't listened to him recently, but if the evidence is there that those accomplishments did not come from her sleeping around and he's still saying that that is how she did it, then it is sexist. Again, I am unaware as to if he's said much about it since the video.

Honestly that's even worse in my eyes. Intentionally attacking someone for entertainment. That's not just sexist, it's a complete disregard for humanity. For Youtube hits...

He might not be a sexist, but he has decided to be a pied piper for misogynists in exchange for clicks.

While I can't disagree that he is attacking someone for entertainment (although I will mention that I think he genuinely believes the people he attacks have done something stupid that deserves to be made fun of, and that he isn't attacking people for purely misogynistic reasons or just to be an asshole), it's worth mentioning he doesn't make a dime from his youtube and that he refuses getting gifts or anything from his newfound audience.

 

[LiegeWaffle]

Actually got around watching some of Anita's videos. Given the reaction to her and my previous experience with people I saw labelled as "SJW", I expected to see an hour long incoherent rant about oppression by the patriarchy with gratuitous use of terms like "mansplaining", "microaggressions" and "male privelege" in every single statement.

What I got instead was "look at this stupid, obviously sexist crap" with very simple and accessible explanations. At some point I was even able to guess which examples she would bring up. I can see how one can disagree with some of the statements she makes, but it's not like she is even actually attacking anything. If people think this is radical, I am scared to think what they would say about some actual feminist bloggers I have come across.

Spoiler

Probably "wait, which language is this written in?"

 

[danm999]

From what I gather, there was evidence at the time that she was sleeping around. It's wrong to not verify such evidence first, which he clearly didn't, but is it sexist just because of the subject matter?

Yes. Because the "subject matter" was journalistic ethics and disclosure.

But instead of focusing on the journalist (Nathan Grayson), you know, the one who actually had a code of ethics he was bound to, and the one with the actual status and power, the movement focused on Quinn.

It'd be as misguided as someone harassing Monica Lewinsky under the guise of restoring decency to politics and holding politicians accountable.

I don't necessarily think so. If he honestly believed that the evidence was there that her accomplishments came largely from her sleeping around, I don't necessarily think that was sexist.

Sincerity of belief in a bigoted cause doesn't make something not bigoted.

Many racists sincerely believe that black people are lazy criminals who are destroying America.

Many homophobes sincerely believe that gay people are abominations who are causing hurricanes and floods.

That doesn't make them not racists and homophobes because they sincerely hold those beliefs.