Gender Diversity / Politics in games (was Tropes Vs. Women)

[Rudi von Starnberg]

For what it's worth I don't agree with all that's in Sarkeesian's videos but she's absolutely getting my Critical Support against the dangerous throwback fascists who've set themselves up against her. It's not collegiate disagreement or academic discourse, just a sea of outright reactionary shit.

[ZOK]

Well, it seems odd that there aren't any reasonable, polite, engaging and educated people opposing the tropes videos, they're all MRA's and trolls.

And further, the reason that there are no reasonable, polite, engaging and educated people opposing the tropes videos is that there is nothing to oppose.

The Fem Frequency Tropes videos are analytical videos, looking at examples of a thing, and questioning why such a thing should be so common, and in some cases suggesting how a thing might be done instead.

What is there to oppose in that? The thing exists. To claim otherwise is denying the existence of a thing which exists. Which gives you precisely the reason why the videos that 'oppose' her videos don't come from people who are polite, engaging and educated. They come from people who want to call her a 'sour-faced feminist' for example, instantly invalidating any claim they may seek to have concerning objectivity, and as obviously follows, validity.

[RubberJohnny]

So either there are such voices but they're being discounted or all the intelligent people are joining the side of Anita Sarkeesian, which is very flattering but not all that realistic. Or perhaps such voices don't bother engaging because they see both sides as extremes in an argument and don't wish to engage with them?! Don't ask me why the best GG could find is fucking Milo. I'll see if I can find others.

Maybe it's because the actual literal starting point of GamerGate was a review of Depression Quest by Nathan Grayson that literally doesn't exist - you're only going to get the equivalent of climate deniers or creationists by default for a movement that's based on a lie. People who actually researched the topic and looked at the facts realised it didn't exist and opposed the hate campaign.

I mean you're really trying hard not to acknowledge the whole movement started based on a lie, because it makes it hard to advocate for "both sides are the same" when one side is absolutely counterfactual and the other is in the right.

[Sprite Machine]

There wasn't much discussion being had before me (though as Stu mentioned, it had died down), I'd like to think I brought up more discussion than this thread had in the last six months.

Er, there's been loads of discussion (400+ pages), which you didn't read, about videos that you didn't watch, about an issue that you didn't deem important. You then brought up stuff that had already been covered, explained and discussed both in said videos and in this topic endlessly and people still obligingly (well, reluctantly) went through it all over again... which you then ignored.

Good job, well done.

If you want to actually further the discussion or talk about the issues, go for it. Don't do the "I'll just leave this here, see what you think of it" concern trolling thing. Thanks.

[Uncle Mike]

There are ... intelligent people who are creationists.

No there aren't.

[Alex W.]

Well, it seems odd that there aren't any reasonable, polite, engaging and educated people opposing the tropes videos, they're all MRA's and trolls.

So either there are such voices but they're being discounted or all the intelligent people are joining the side of Anita Sarkeesian, which is very flattering but not all that realistic. Or perhaps such voices don't bother engaging because they see both sides as extremes in an argument and don't wish to engage with them?! Don't ask me why the best GG could find is fucking Milo. I'll see if I can find others.

There are lots of people who don't agree 100% with Anita Sarkeesian, but they're the people appearing on panels beside her and having discussions about feminism and representation with her. They're not on Youtube making "GOTCHA!" videos.

Would it surprise you to learn that the intelligent people who have problems with Lenski's directed evolution experiments are evolutionary biologists? That the intelligent, qualified people who had problems with Michael Mann's climate research were climate scientists like Richard Mueller? That the people who argue about the geopolitical impact of the 9/11 attacks are the kind of people who agree that the attacks were an al Quaeda scheme and not some farcical conspiracy?

To find an intelligent face who disagrees with Sarkeesian, you're going to have to look in a group that at least accepts that feminism is an actual thing. That's a pre-requisite for being actually intellectually engaged in the issues.

[Alex W.]

People don't work like that. There are intelligent people who are atheists and intelligent people who are creationists. Or Labour and Tory. They can debate. The likelihood that all he people capable of civil intellectual discussion are all piling on to one side of an argument is highly improbable.

There are plenty of intelligent people who are creationists, but they're not intelligent about creationism. They're people who are able to be intellectually rigorous about everything but evolution, at which point they start accepting all kinds of nonsense that wouldn't fly in their day job.

That's just how people work.

[ZOK]

ZOK - Because the assertions made in the Trope videos are not beyond debate and disagreement? Like any other opinion? If Sarkeesian had submitted the content of these videos as essays, a professor might critique them and point out flaws in logic, selective quoting (clips) and tenuously linking them to broader points about women. What I am saying is not remotely unreasonable.

Nothing that you've said here counters the point I made. Debating and disagreeing is one thing, 'opposing' is entirely another.

So you have to ask yourself why there are so many videos that are all about opposing, and why so few that are about reasonably debating and disagreeing.

[NEG]

You wouldn't know where to start and it would never end. She makes quarterly (monthly?) blog posts where she summarises a particular kind of abusive Tweet she's receiving and outlines what's wrong with it. Even the edited highlights go on and on and on and on and on.

What's the point in responding to each individual bit of bullshit out there when it's just the same things over and over and over again? And it was all baseless to begin with?

Twitter was just the first thing that popped into my head. What would you suggest in somehow including herself into the discussion with the other side?

So what you're saying is, he's making shit up out of whole cloth based on some presupposed notion he has of how Sarkeesian thinks, to back up an idea of what feminism is that fits his narrative.

What I'm saying is I haven't read Hooks books myself and have not much reason to believe Sargon would be deliberately misleading about the lines quoted from those books of which Anita used as sources. We all use context to our own narrative/understanding, he's hardly unique in that.

If you want to actually further the discussion or talk about the issues, go for it. Don't do the "I'll just leave this here, see what you think of it" concern trolling thing. Thanks.

What's wrong with getting thoughts on a video? Is it any different if I linked ranty blog posts? It's a discussion starter.

[Sprite Machine]

What's wrong with getting thoughts on a video? Is it any different if I linked ranty blog posts? It's a discussion starter.

What discussion are you hoping to start?

[ZOK]

Twitter was just the first thing that popped into my head. What would you suggest in somehow including herself into the discussion with the other side?

There is no other side. You've been told this a thousand times.

[ZOK]

What I'm saying is I haven't read Hooks books myself and have not much reason to believe Sargon would be deliberately misleading about the lines quoted from those books of which Anita used as sources. We all use context to our own narrative/understanding, he's hardly unique in that.

Just as an aside, did you notice how many of Sarkeesian's sources he avoided talking about, in order to talk about hooks being the 'key' source? Did that register with you at all?

[deerokus]

bell hooks is awesome.

I have noticed that Sargon cunt popping up in comments sections on youtube a lot, followed by his acolytes. Like I'm watching a video about photography or wallet cases for a phone or some nice footage of wild animals and there's Sargon and a bunch of hangers-on doing stupid shit in the comments. Weird guy.

[Alex W.]

Twitter was just the first thing that popped into my head. What would you suggest in somehow including herself into the discussion with the other side?

She's already putting out Youtube videos which they are watching avidly, and turning around and misrepresenting. I'm not sure that there's any more she could be doing to communicate to the "other side".

What do you do with that? This is your idea, what do you think would help?

What I'm saying is I haven't read Hooks books myself and have not much reason to believe Sargon would be deliberately misleading

Then you need to be more careful about just accepting things you read on Youtube videos, because sometimes they're by people who are infamous for being full of crap.

[ZOK]

I think one thing that NEG is demonstrating perfectly here is why this 'movement' is stuffed to the gills with people who can't debate the issue themselves.

The vast majority seem to be people who have no actual knowledge of what the issues are, and are going off what someone else has told them, based on a highly selective interpretation. They then sally forth to defend this 'position'.

[Alex W.]

Yes but in their tv debate the Arch Bishop of Canterbury (was it he?) didn't start calling Richard Dawkins a slut or threaten to cut his knob off. They engaged intelligently, even if for you, one of them lacks intelligence about the core topic.

You mean civility. You're not asking whether there are some people in the anti-Sarkeesian clan who are smart on the issues, you are asking whether there are some people in that group who are able to talk civilly about her.

In that case I think the issue is essentially what kind of movement we're talking about. Creationism vs Evolution is an issue of worldviews. The two sides in that issue are coming from two separate but clearly scholarly backgrounds who have drawn conclusions about the world by two very different means, but ultimately it's an essentially intellectual issue.

The anti-Sarkeesian movement is quintessentially personal and emotional. It started out as a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of a feminist series about videogames, before any material actually existed, and it was rationalised into a conviction that she must be a Bad Person. When one side of the argument boils down to "such-and-such is a bad person", you're not going to find an intellectually rigorous and emotionally neutral person operating in that space.

Bell Hooks is some sort of spiritualist though, and after reading a dozen paragraphs by her on her own brand of spiritualism I was none the wise as to what that spiritualism really was. But it did involve love, the soul, heart and interconnectedness with each other and the natural world, a bit like the end FFVII.

She's a Christian Buddhist according to a recent interview.

[NEG]

What discussion are you hoping to start?

"Hm, I wonder if there is any truth to that. Let's look into this Bell Hooks person. Also, NEG, you are wrong, here's why:"

There is no other side. You've been told this a thousand times.

If you really don't see a concern doesn't mean you can make everyone as unconcerned (to debate) as yourself.

Just as an aside, did you notice how many of Sarkeesian's sources he avoided talking about, in order to talk about hooks being the 'key' source? Did that register with you at all?

This did pop into my head, yes. I did wonder if she cited more writers in general in these meet-o-thons. It did seem odd that she was the only one with a pre-written script in this one example Sargon pointed out, though. Again, a speaker not a discussion, you could say.

She's already putting out Youtube videos which they are watching avidly, and turning around and misrepresenting. I'm not sure that there's any more she could be doing to communicate to the "other side".

What do you do with that? This is your idea, what do you think would help?

Blog and twitter responding to valid looking responses/arguments.

Edit: This includes to fellow feminists that might disagree on some things, which is one of the other things Sargon tried to imply.

I think one thing that NEG is demonstrating perfectly here is why this 'movement' is stuffed to the gills with people who can't debate the issue themselves.

The vast majority seem to be people who have no actual knowledge of what the issues are, and are going off what someone else has told them, based on a highly selective interpretation. They then sally forth to defend this 'position'.

The difference seems to be 1 interpretation versus the freedom of looking at as many interpretations as one chooses and you having a problem with that. I've been debating the gaming issues as they arise, myself, as they come, thanks.

[matt0]

Yes but in their tv debate the Arch Bishop of Canterbury (was it he?) didn't start calling Richard Dawkins a slut or threaten to cut his knob off.

Are you worried feminists will cut your nob off?

[Alex W.]

Blog and twitter responding to valid looking responses/arguments.

Please go and find a valid-looking response or argument that you feel she could cover, but hasn't been covered in the videos.

Emphasis on that last part. Most of what passes for a valid-looking question on the subject is the sort of nuance she starts going into at the half-way mark of each video.

[ZOK]

This did pop into my head, yes.

And what was your conclusion? As it popped in to your head.

[NEG]

And what was your conclusion? As it popped in to your head.

That there's probably more videos out there, in the vast great sea of videos, telling me about these other writers.

This really is the most wonderful time of year.

[Alex W.]

It did seem odd that she was the only one with a pre-written script in this one example Sargon pointed out, though.

To have notes with you at a public speaking event is not odd.

[NEG]

Was there truth to Hooks wanting to sex-change Jesus? (the way I understood it)

[Sprite Machine]

The difference seems to be 1 interpretation versus the freedom of looking at as many interpretations as one chooses and you having a problem with that. I've been debating the gaming issues as they arise, myself, as they come, thanks.

Misrepresentation isn't a matter of interpretation. Saying "Anita says [such and such] and wants to do [such and such]", when she objectively hasn't, isn't furthering any sort of discussion, it's just spreading lies.

Again, if YOU have a problem with the arguments she makes or the examples she cites, then DISCUSS them. Here. Now. Make a video. Do whatever you want. No-one is stopping you.

Blog and twitter responding to valid looking responses/arguments.

I've told her to contact you personally as soon as she finds one.

[ZOK]

That there's probably more videos out there, in the vast great sea of videos, telling me about these other writers.

This really is the most wonderful time of year.

You saw him, in that video, pick bell hooks out of a list of sources used by Sarkeesian, on the screen, in order to claim that she was Sarkeesian's main source.

That's not even one of the many main reasons why the whole thing should be screaming bullshit at you. But it's another that seems to have sailed clean over your head.

[Nobuo's Organ]

The Greasemonkey script which lets you ignore people per-topic and hide posts which quote them just started working again by magic, weird: https://github.com/insin/greasemonkey/raw/master/rllmukuserignorelist.user.js

[ZOK]

That's a broad stroke and though you may be correct about a large portion of the anti-Sarkeesian movment, there is also room for the existence of a scholarly anti-Sarkeesian movement. For some reason, these voices appear to be hard to find. And by anti-Sarkeesian, I mean in terms of disagreeing with her position, not wishing to silence or remove her from the debate.

The article I read seemed critical of organised religion so perhaps she has changed her mind recently.

Stu, if you can, please elucidate on what Sarkeesian's 'position' is.

[Alex W.]

That's a broad stroke and though you may be correct about a large portion of the anti-Sarkeesian movment, there is also room for the existence of a scholarly anti-Sarkeesian movement. For some reason, these voices appear to be hard to find. And by anti-Sarkeesian, I mean in terms of disagreeing with her position, not wishing to silence or remove her from the debate.

Respectfully, they're hard to find because they don't exist. There are people who hold different opinions than Sarkeesian on the issues. However the anti-Sarkeesian movement isn't about holding different views about those issues: it's about disagreeing with her views on those issues.

It's a subtle distinction, but it bears pointing out.

The article I read seemed critical of organised religion so perhaps she has changed her mind recently.

"Christian Buddhist" is a broad spectrum as far as organisation vs individualism goes, I'd imagine.

[Alex W.]

I'll have a go at her position as outlined in some of her trope videos. So for example one could say her position is that the use of certain tropes as storytelling mechanisms within videogames throughout the 80's, 90's to present day, are part of an oppressive patriarchal agenda a tendency in the media that subtlely reinforces limiting outcomes for women in our society. Would you be happy with that?

Fixed

She's pretty emphatic that there's nothing nefarious about any of the things she's pointing out, and that there's no value judgement that should be made on the creators behind the games or the consumers enjoying them.

[ZOK]

I'll have a go at her position as outlined in some of her trope videos. So for example one could say her position is that the use of certain tropes as storytelling mechanisms within videogames throughout the 80's, 90's to present day, are part of an oppressive patriarchal agenda that subtlely reinforces limited outcomes for women in our society. Would you be happy with that?

Everything with the exception of the words 'oppressive patriarchal agenda', which is not part of her position at all, and you could broaden 'storytelling mechanisms' into simply 'design choices'.

When you've made those changes, tell me how you 'oppose' that position.

EDIT: Alex knows what's up.