Superheroes & representation (split from questions thread)

[useless]

Again, what "facts" have i ignored?

 

[salty mud]

So where's the evidence that she's a con-artist? Did she mislead her audience? She's making videos like she claimed she would. Was it because she got loads of donations? If so, I've already shown how absurd that claim is with Quackers.

How is she a fraud? Is it because she isn't a "Gamer"? You do realise being a "gamer" is a purely personal description of oneself? That there is a very loose definition of what is and what isn't a gamer?



Did i say she was literally a charity? I merely said that if Charities or Kick starters go over their funding goal, it doesn't make them con-artists.

She is misleading people because her videos are full of crap. She twists facts stretches the truth that her videos border on complete fabrication. The only absurd comment around here came from you, comparing Sarkeesian with a charity.

You should really do your own research instead of waiting to be spoonfed information. Another infuriating trait of the left.


Link to video.

Political ideology has nothing to do with it. It's called confirmation bias, and is pretty common. I think there was a study that found that people were more likely to forget - not overlook or dismiss or cover up, but literally and genuinely forget - facts that refuted previously-held beliefs.

Forget the facts posted in this very thread? The majority of the time I see people conveniently forget hard truths, it's left wing.

 

[EgonSpengler]

You are talking about Comix. Most of them (maybe all, i never really liked Comix) are not really supposed to be high art or to create any serious thinking or self-reflection. You might as well try to examine the 60s tv Batman series as a mirror of culture in the western world. One needs a clean and elegant mirror or lens if he is to examine delicate patterns. Comix are the equivelant of a dirty and cheap piece of thick glass..

(Manga, on the other hand, have a different tradition. While there are inherent issues with the same artist making drawings AND dialogue/text, some Manga artists are -in my view rightfully- seen as high-level artists in contemporary Japan).

Your conception of comics is a little outdated, but not really uncommon among people who don't read them. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "high art" and "serious thinking." As comics are escapist fantasy, they're most often allegorical, such as the mutants in Marvel Comics standing in for persecuted minorities, but not always - Dennis O'Neil's story of Green Arrow's sidekick using drugs was pretty straightforward (shockingly so, for the time; I think it made some mainstream news much as Thor's gender-switch and the new Captain Marvel's religion have recently). That was in 1971.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The majority of the time I see people conveniently forget hard truths, it's left wing.

And I believe that you believe that. (Because you probably have a confirmation bias, like most people do.)

 

[Kyriakos]

Your conception of comics is a little outdated, but not really uncommon among people who don't read them. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "high art" and "serious thinking." As comics are escapist fantasy, they're most often allegorical, such as the mutants in Marvel Comics standing in for persecuted minorities, but not always - Dennis O'Neil's story of Green Arrow's sidekick using drugs was pretty straightforward (shockingly so, for the time; I think it made some mainstream news much as Thor's gender-switch and the new Captain Marvel's religion have recently). That was in 1971.

I never was into Comics (as i noted already ), but in western ones there is also the issue of things looking plastic (to me, i suppose to some others as well), while in Manga there are some more interesting images (might have to do with 19th century Japanese painting, which was considerably closer to drawing than the concurrent Euro art was by then).

Re sexism in computer games... Hm, well in the old days (eg early 90s) games had to be hugely PC. For example an early 1990 game was titled "Crime Does not Pay", and you controlled a mafia family there. They even had to form the title in a way which would protect them from accusations they are promoting crime
But now most action games have serious gore, maiming, random violence, etc, so times have changed. Maybe they can have a bad effect on very young players*, but that is why they have ratings which make it 'illegal' to buy if you are of that age.

*I recall feeling quite sick after playing Castlevania IV for the SNES, when i was 14 years old.

 

[useless]

She is misleading people because her videos are full of crap. She twists facts stretches the truth that her videos border on complete fabrication. The only absurd comment around here came from you, comparing Sarkeesian with a charity.

You should really do your own research instead of waiting to be spoonfed information. Another infuriating trait of the left.


Link to video.



Forget the facts posted in this very thread? The majority of the time I see people conveniently forget hard truths, it's left wing.

So in lieu of posting evidence you link a video from Thunderf00t.

Again, she never conned anyone, she was open about her not being a "gamer" and did you know Salty, she never FORCED anyone to donate, they did it of their own volition.

Accusing her of fraud is actually slander, something that unlike your claims, would be worthy of going to court over.

So your claims about her being a fraud? Destroyed. She made it clear from the outset, and even if she hadn't, the onus was and is on the donators to do their research, it's called Due Diligence. Fraud has a specific legal definition and your claims of her being not a gamer don't fit said definition.

Claims about her being a Con-artist? Destroyed, people donated more money to her than she anticipated, probably because of the hate she got. She extended her deadline, etc. Kick-starter's do this all the time, that isn't being a "Con-artist" and if that truly is the definition of being a con-artist, then that would apply to a myriad of things beyond Kick-Starter and games itself.

 

[Quackers]

Not sure how using LPs (If she did) is a copyright issue, infact i am pretty sure that LPS in the first place are on shaky ground so...

She stole somebody elses artwork bro for her own use. You are condoning that?

So what? What's your goddamn point? OH NO SHE'S NOT A PROGAMER MLG LIKE ME HOW DARE SHE CRITIQUE GAMES

This is the major problam with Anita. She isn't coming from a place of good faith, if she said "i adore games and i have played them regularly but.."; that would be a good place to start. Yet, she doesn't like videogames she is not a "fan" - her intentions are contentious. I think she is more interested in promoting Brand Anita then anything noble.

So what again? Are you seriously blaming her for getting more donations than she originally anticipated? Are you aware that there are Kickstarter campaigns that get vastly more money than they anticipate? Are they all con artists?

Absolutely. First of all $6k to make a few youtube videos is daylight robbery in itself. When she got donations in excess of this she should have phoned up the Kickstarter people and ask them to put a stop to it. She has profited from this.

So what if she hasn't finished it? Do you even know how long the series might last? Are you seriously blaming her for not having finished?

Part of the KS ethos is that you actually complete what you promised to do. Mindboggling concept.

Also lol at "betas", how dare men be receptive to the idea that women, who make up an increasing size of gamers, as well as the total population, have any sort of input or say in gaming. The temerity these women have, maybe they should go back to where ever they came from Quackers, eh?

Wrong again. Geeky socially awkward men are easy targets for an aggressive entrepreneurial woman like Anita. The only reason she gets any spotlight is because these men are so bound up in political correct spidewebs they just cannot say no.
Anybody with an ounce of self respect will tell her to piss-off

 

[warpus]

Your conception of comics is a little outdated, but not really uncommon among people who don't read them. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "high art" and "serious thinking." As comics are escapist fantasy, they're most often allegorical, such as the mutants in Marvel Comics standing in for persecuted minorities, but not always - Dennis O'Neil's story of Green Arrow's sidekick using drugs was pretty straightforward (shockingly so, for the time; I think it made some mainstream news much as Thor's gender-switch and the new Captain Marvel's religion have recently). That was in 1971.

I don't know about the comics themselves, but none of the superhero movies that have been released in the last 20 years, except for Unbreakable, have offered any sort of deliberate interesting content that might spark intellectual type thinking into the movie going public's discourse.

There have been hints of it in movies like The Dark Knight, but it's for the most part an action film about a hero struggling through conflicts, while beating up bad guys. That's the main focus. All the other superhero movies I've watched or seen previews for focus on low-attention-span action, explosions, the female body, and so on.

These movies are made for the lowest common denominator, not for academics to sit down and discuss philosophy or morality over. I'm not sure if that's what Kyriakos was referring to, but let's not fool ourselves about why superhero movies are made and what the target audience is. (Hint: $$$)

 

[EgonSpengler]

I never was into Comics (as i noted already ), but in western ones there is also the issue of things looking plastic (to me, i suppose to some others as well), while in Manga there are some more interesting images (might have to do with 19th century Japanese painting, which was considerably closer to drawing than the concurrent Euro art was by then).

Interesting. There's definitely some cultural differences at work there. Back when I read comics, I disliked manga in large part because the artwork seemed either more impressionistic (e.g. 'Lone Wolf & Cub') or more "cartoony" (e.g. 'Macross') to me, compared to the Western - mainly American, really - comics that I read. That was back in the '80s, I'm not sure what the state of things is today.

 

[useless]

She stole somebody elses artwork bro for her own use. You are condoning that?

I'm sure the companies who own the intellectual property of which the games are based upon feel the same way about LPers. I'm actually pretty sure Youtube was at some point, and may still be, taking down let's plays.

This is the major problam with Anita. She isn't coming from a place of good faith, if she said "i adore games and i have played them regularly but.."; that would be a good place to start. Yet, she doesn't like videogames she is not a "fan" - her intentions are contentious. I think she is more interested in promoting Brand Anita then anything noble.

Her being a gamer or not actually doesn't matter, no matter how much you claim it is. Deal with it.

Absolutely. First of all $6k to make a few youtube videos is daylight robbery in itself. When she got donations in excess of this she should have phoned up the Kickstarter people and ask them to put a stop to it. She has profited from this.

Profiting isn't robbery nor is it fraud. Like i said, Kick-Starter projects routinely extend their goals, that isn't illegal, nor is it fraud or robbery. She didn't steal anything, the money was given voluntarily. Deal with it.

Part of the KS ethos is that you actually complete what you promised to do. Mindboggling concept.

How do you know she isn't taking a break? Is supposed to be at your beck and call?

Wrong again. Geeky socially awkward men are easy targets for an aggressive entrepreneurial woman like Anita. The only reason she gets any spotlight is because these men are so bound up in political correct spidewebs they just cannot say no.
Anybody with an ounce of self respect will tell her to piss-off

Oh no those poor gamers! I'm actually pretty glad she brought up the whole issue, because she's proven that there is misogyny in the community at least.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I don't know about the comics themselves, but none of the superhero movies that have been released in the last 20 years, except for Unbreakable, have offered any sort of deliberate interesting content that might spark intellectual type thinking into the movie going public's discourse.

There have been hints of it in movies like The Dark Knight, but it's for the most part an action film about a hero struggling through conflicts, while beating up bad guys. That's the main focus. All the other superhero movies I've watched or seen previews for focus on low-attention-span action, explosions, the female body, and so on.

These movies are made for the lowest common denominator, not for academics to sit down and discuss philosophy or morality over. I'm not sure if that's what Kyriakos was referring to, but let's not fool ourselves about why superhero movies are made and what the target audience is. (Hint: $$$)

Well yes, of course superhero movies are mainly aimed at $$$, but I thought the social and political subtext of movies like X-Men and Iron Man was pretty heavy-handed. Nolan's Dark Knight movies - the two sequels anyway - were about as subtle as dynamite. The Winter Soldier is the last superhero movie I saw, and it was pretty blunt too. The fact that the movie-going public may or may not have had any interesting conversations afterwards doesn't reflect on the movies, I don't think. I certainly had interesting conversations after seeing them.

p.s. I guess I'm assuming the political subtexts of those movies were deliberate. I'm okay with making that leap, though, until I hear otherwise. Even if I'm wrong, reading something into art that the artist didn't intend is perfectly valid, in my book.

 

[salty mud]

So in lieu of posting evidence you link a video from Thunderf00t.

Again, she never conned anyone, she was open about her not being a "gamer" and did you know Salty, she never FORCED anyone to donate, they did it of their own volition.

Accusing her of fraud is actually slander, something that unlike your claims, would be worthy of going to court over.

So your claims about her being a fraud? Destroyed. She made it clear from the outset, and even if she hadn't, the onus was and is on the donators to do their research, it's called Due Diligence. Fraud has a specific legal definition and your claims of her being not a gamer don't fit said definition.

Claims about her being a Con-artist? Destroyed, people donated more money to her than she anticipated, probably because of the hate she got. She extended her deadline, etc. Kick-starter's do this all the time, that isn't being a "Con-artist" and if that truly is the definition of being a con-artist, then that would apply to a myriad of things beyond Kick-Starter and games itself.

Wow, the evidence of her lying about the game and its content is put right in front of you and you still have the guts to deny it. Now that's first class denial.

How can you not see she is lying about games and their content, making money off it by fooling gullible people like you and then repeating the cycle?

 

[Traitorfish]

I'll repeat myself, because none of this seems to take what I said into account:

"White, male writers and artists created white, male heroes because they were white and male. Some white, female characters became popular because, hey, guys do on occasion like girls - even the geekiest of us.

The largest demographic group inevitably gets disproportionate representation because there is no mechanism in a market for counteracting the tyranny of the majority."

The people who wrote the things knew who they were and knew who they wanted to write about and they did so. You may not like the result, but that doesn't mean that there is any obligation upon Marvel or DC or whoever to suddenly turn half their stable into ethnic minorities or introduce a new, Jewish version of the Avengers.

There's three problems, here.

The first is that while this may explain why superhero comics are just a whitehetdude-fest, it's not actually a defence. It doesn't insulate the genre from criticism. It only tells us that the demographic distortions weren't concious, and nobody is actually arguing that they are, or at least not that they haven't been recently. (I agree with Warpus that, in the early period, they were probably quite concious indeed. America c.1940-70 was a very deliberately racist and sexist place, and it's difficult to believe that writers were entirely unaware of their implications of their work, even if they would have written all the characters as white dudes anyway.)

Second, there's the problem of the self-fulfilling prophecy. You can say that the writers cater to their audience, but writers also create their audience, and a failure to expand that audience beyond 15-40 white males is a failure both artistically and commercially, thus another valid point for criticism. Even in the postwar period, superhero comics weren't rigidly and without exception for boys- that was the original intention behind Wonderwoman, after all, to offer a superhero which 1940s America could tolerate girls reading- while series like X-Men have always made a point of including female characters with the concious intention of inviting female readers. If girls and women aren't reading Big Two titles, it's not at all self-evident that this is simply because "girls don't like comics"

Thirdly, however much water these arguments hold c.1964, we're living a whole and complete half-century later, and they no longer stand. There's no reason why superheroes can't be more representative than there are, and there's no reason why their audience can't be more diverse. The only thing holding the genre back, ultimately, is its creators, and at least some of them are well-enough aware of this that they are plainly willing to give it a shot.

Ultimately, all you're doing here is telling us why comics are so unrepresentative, not insulating that unrepresentativeness from criticism. So why present it as such?

...and who has disagreed? Nobody i've seen is automatically opposed to change, only the sort of in-your face change that is blatantly ideologically motivated and ruins the continuity and verisimilitude for fans.

Of course nobody is "automatically" opposed to change. It would be rhetorical suicide to say "everything must stay the same forever and ever". It's enough to demand that change occurs at a level where it doesn't matter. "Change a D-list hero", they can say, "or invent a new D-list hero. After all, they might become an A-lister." They won't, the Big Two A-lists and for that matter B-list hasn't changed in thirty years, we both know that, but they might. This is these changes are so offensive, not because they interrupt continuity- Have you ever tried to figure out Marvel continuity? It is a mess- but because these are changes which actually change anything.

As pointed out above, that's an obvious strawman, people are not on the whole objecting to change, only to the manner of it. Your willingness to ascribe racism to your interlocutors and others who share their opinion is a particularly ugly habit people have.

Unfair. I'm not saying that Quackers is a racist because he disagrees with me on this issue. I'm saying it because he's a massive, unapologetic racist. Difference, see?

"Check your privilege"? Seriously? I haven't come across a debate tactic in recent years I find more contemptible than saying 'your opinion doesn't count because you're a white man'.

That's really not what I said. What I'm saying is that Salty Mud appears to regard the existence of one out of fifty protagonists who isn't a straight white male as equivalent to the the other forty-nine who are. That the fact straight white men occasionally encounters stories which ask him to identify with somebody who is not straight, white and male with the fact that people who are not S/W/M are occasionally given the opportunity to identify with somebody who is not a S/W/M. That the fact he plays a game in which he's a woman makes up for the fact that there are another dozen games in which the players takes the role of a burly white dude. Maybe it's privilege, maybe it's just crippling lack of imagination, my point is only that it's a ridiculously biased viewpoint to the point where it borders on self-parody.

 

[salty mud]

Official request for this to be renamed to snip The Thread"

Moderator Action: Inappropriate language removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[useless]

Wow, the evidence of her lying about the game and its content is put right in front of you and you still have the guts to deny it. Now that's first class denial.

How can you not see she is lying about games and their content, making money off it by fooling gullible people like you and then repeating the cycle?

You've put forward no facts, merely a video from Thunderf00t. I've deconstructed your claims.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'd make a show of being surprised by how quickly this thread has turned into "1001 Reasons Why Anita Sarkeesian Is The Devil", but I've been on CFC too long for anyone to take it seriously.

 

[useless]

I'd make a show of being surprised by how quickly this thread has turned into "1001 Reasons Why Anita Sarkeesian Is The Devil", but I've been on CFC too long for anyone to take it seriously.

Reasons she is the devil:

She's not a "Gamer"
She's a female
She's criticising games and their culture.

Also because she's an easy figurehead for certain groups to rally against.

 

[salty mud]

You've put forward no facts, merely a video from Thunderf00t. I've deconstructed your claims.

Look man, you asked for a video about her Hitman comments. I gave you that video since you were incapable of taking 10 seconds of your time to look for it yourself, presumably because you knew it would prove you wrong.

The footage of the game is shown and Anita's comments are heard. She clearly says the game encourages you violate and belittle the women on screen when you are clearly punished for doing anything to the women on screen. You then proceeded to rant about her donations and how much money she gets for some reason. I never mentioned her money. She is a con-artist and a fraud because she lies and manipulates games and people's opinions just to express her own, false view.

A confidence trick (synonyms include confidence scheme, scam and stratagem) is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence, in the classical sense of trust. A confidence artist (or con artist) is an individual, operating alone or in concert with others, who exploits characteristics of the human psyche such as dishonesty, honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naïveté, or greed.

Sarkeesian has gained idiots' respect with these videos and played off them by being repeatedly and deliberately dishonest. She is a confidence trickster.

Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain

Sarkeesian is using false information to spread her false messages around and using it as leverage to get more money through funding websites. She is a fraudster.

Please stop stroking one out over this. You've deconstructed nothing, save your own argument by blatently ignoring the evidence placed in front of you.

 

[Quackers]

Her being a gamer or not actually doesn't matter, no matter how much you claim it is. Deal with it.

I think if she was a genuine gamer I and many others would have far more time for her criticisms. I think she has her own idealogy (radical feminism) and instead of examining the video game industry rationally; she has already decided what the problem is and has gone out of her way to cherrypick the evidence to prove that. As others have stated in the thread, this is confirmation bias.

Profiting isn't robbery nor is it fraud. Like i said, Kick-Starter projects routinely extend their goals, that isn't illegal, nor is it fraud or robbery. She didn't steal anything, the money was given voluntarily. Deal with it.

You're using many legal terms. I've not once accused her of commiting a crime. Her only offense is douschbaggery and that is exploiting the good will of donators to massively overfund a project which she already admits only required $6k. She has earned $152k in an immoral fashion.

How do you know she isn't taking a break? Is supposed to be at your beck and call?

She has released 5 episodes, with a duration between 20-30 minutes a piece. She has taken two years to do this.
If I had donated I would be furious. That is insulting.

Oh no those poor gamers! I'm actually pretty glad she brought up the whole issue, because she's proven that there is misogyny in the community at least.

I cannot condone the violent threats she recieved but I think that is part of being a public presence.

So lets review.

She has taken far more money than she needed to make some videos.
In the two years since she has returned five episodes lasting 30 minutes max/episode (and stretching out "damsels in distress" over three freaking episodes).
She doesn't even have the interests of games at heart. She doesn't even like them. She is a threat.

She is only out to promote herself. She has no genuine interests in video games, she just wants to get onto the after dinner talks circuit (or video game equalivent and make big $$$$

 

[warpus]

Well yes, of course superhero movies are mainly aimed at $$$, but I thought the social and political subtext of movies like X-Men and Iron Man was pretty heavy-handed. Nolan's Dark Knight movies - the two sequels anyway - were about as subtle as dynamite. The Winter Soldier is the last superhero movie I saw, and it was pretty blunt too. The fact that the movie-going public may or may not have had any interesting conversations afterwards doesn't reflect on the movies, I don't think. I certainly had interesting conversations after seeing them.

p.s. I guess I'm assuming the political subtexts of those movies were deliberate. I'm okay with making that leap, though, until I hear otherwise. Even if I'm wrong, reading something into art that the artist didn't intend is perfectly valid, in my book.

I agree that these deliberate aspects of the movies exist, but in my opinion they are nothing more than finishing touches, painted on the near-finished product as an afterthought, rather than being an attempt to attempt to revolve the movie around them.

They're all a bit hollow when compared to movies that pull off these things in style, such as say.. oh I don't know. Citizen Kane? Or whatever.

The focus is fights, action, explosions, sex appeal, and other such things that will attract the desired demographic (males, 18-30?) to the theatre. The things you mention are inserted overtop, in an attempt to make the movie a bit less cartoony and a bit more "realistic", perhaps gritty, perhaps relatable to some sort of political controversy or point of interest.

It adds a bit more depth to the movie, but not really that much. It's for the most part, with a couple exceptions, seriously lacking. I mean, it's perfectly appropriate for the sort of movies that they are (action movies), but I don't think we should be trying to convince ourselves that they're anything but.