The Classical Freedom loving Left vs the Regressive Leftists

[Ryika]

That's what you think because you don't actually read anything feminists write at large, you just watch sargon of akkad videos.

I actually read and listen to a lot of what feminists write and say and I agree that people who only listen to sargon of akkad videos would get a rather one-sided view on feminism. But the world is not black and white, you would do good to get out of your echo-chamber and actually listen to what people on neutral ground have to say without just dismissing their point of view by assuming they must be some idiots from the other side.

Feminists at large run shelters and promote gender equality: obsessing over women's rights in far away countries usually doesn't make much sense since there is very little you can actually do about the women's rights situation in Saudi Arabia.

Well, it's interesting that you mention shelters, given that feminsts do indeed run a lot of women's shelters while at the same time arguing against men's shelters, thereby keeping up the stereotype of men as abusers and women as victims. One of the many inconsistencies of modern feminists, gender equality only when it benefits women.

But I agree, feminists can do very little to help women in the middle east, that does not stop them from including these areas in their "I'm a feminist, because..."-videos though, or making arguments that feminism in the west is "still needed because women in the middle east are mistreated!".

That said, there are plenty of feminists who do make it their cause to combat third world misogyny.

Name me 5 with a sizable following comparable to many of the "I complain about irrelevant stuff!"-feminists. And please don't answer with "Educate yourself!", I seriously want to know so I can get to know about their work. (<- Less known individuals are also welcome for educational purpose but won't count towards the "See, that's what feminism is really about!"-argument)

Not redefining: race has always used to refer to ethnic groups with similar customs and language, in addition to the phenotypical category.

See, even if I were to accept that, the fact that I can convert now and become a Muslim, a follower of Islam tomorrow shows the absurdity of what you're trying to do.

In a sense, I'm using terms meaningfully, because Muslims might as well constitute a race in practice. A child born in Iran or Saudi learns to integrate Islam into his fundamental cultural identity starting from his very formative years. None of that really means that he is destined to support any specific political view, and it might as well be racist to imply that he must support a certain political viewpoint in order to be a muslim.

I don't know if you're being dishonest, or if you're being serious, but here's the deal: You are the only one who is using the word "Muslim" to describe everybody in area X. Your argument is still: "Well, if we assume that Muslims are a race, then assuming that all of them think the same is racist." Muslims are not a race, Muslims are people who share a belief-system, that's what makes them Muslims, not that they're from X.

Besides that, I much prefer armchair feminists to armchair critics of feminists, who devote all their intellectual energy to maintain the status quo and convince themselves and others that no change is necessary, least of all for themselves.

How does criticizing feminists who decide to focus on domestic issues help women in even more overtly patriarchal societies again? Such appeals to hypocrisy are inherently hollow and intellectually dishonest.

Women do not need help in western countries, things are just fine. Well, at least as fine as it gets, our society is certainly not perfect. Men suffer, women suffer. A movement that focuses on women as victims and men as evil is only creating more problems. As much as you want to look like the good guys, most people simply disagree, with polls showing that while the wish for equality is pretty much universal in these times more and more people don't want to associate with the label.

Feminism often tries to gain legitimacy by pretending to fight higher goals than they actually fight for, pointing out this fact is a valuable thing to do.

 

[Princeps]

Well, it's interesting that you mention shelters, given that feminsts do indeed run a lot of women's shelters while at the same time arguing against men's shelters, thereby keeping up the stereotype of men as abusers and women as victims. One of the many inconsistencies of modern feminists, gender equality only when it benefits women.

No. Feminists seek to correct shortcomings in women's rights, they do not seek to reduce men's rights.

I have never actually heard or read any feminist oppose men's shelters.

Feminists are not obligated to provide men's shelters. The MRAs can do that, but they of course they won't because their only concern is bashing feminists.

But I agree, feminists can do very little to help women in the middle east, that does not stop them from including these areas in their "I'm a feminist, because..."-videos though, or making arguments that feminism in the west is "still needed because women in the middle east are mistreated!".

No it isn't. Being a feminists means promoting the rights of women as well as guarding them against future attempts to undermine them. Countries like Saudi Arabia are a good reminder that modernity doesn't necessarily guarantee egalitarian rights.

Name me 5 with a sizable following comparable to many of the "I complain about irrelevant stuff!"-feminists. And please don't answer with "Educate yourself!", I seriously want to know so I can get to know about their work. (<- Less known individuals are also welcome for educational purpose but won't count towards the "See, that's what feminism is really about!"-argument)

Of course, the feminists dealing with popular culture will fetch most of the views and the attention because popular culture is more attractive to most audiences. The dry academic feminists, the shelter operators and the lesser known activists aren't as famous, but they have influence. I would argue that most western politicians would identify as feminists at some level, some more than others.

Also, let's not forget the real reason why Anita Sarkeesian is famous. She dared to criticize vidya gaems and for that, she aroused the most mouth foaming, deranged hate mob to have ever inhabited the internet. This is why feminists stood their ground and got behind her in numbers. This is why she is far more famous than she would have ever become on the merits of her arguments alone.

See, even if I were to accept that, the fact that I can convert now and become a Muslim, a follower of Islam tomorrow shows the absurdity of what you're trying to do.

Sure, and I could get a green card to the US tomorrow and become a citizen in some years. The process is longer, but by no means less arbitrary.

Muslims are not a race, Muslims are people who share a belief-system,

But they don't share a belief system. What they share is a group identity.

You can have the most progressive muslim and the most reactionary muslim; the two will probably feel compelled to identify with one another on an ethnic level, because their brain is telling them "this guy is from your ingroup, feel good for hugging him, feel good for shaking his hand". The two do not necessarily share a belief system, in fact they might even abhor each other's ideology and theology.

You think that the people joining islam are always accepted as part of the "in-group", but the reality is that a lot of western converts feel very disillusioned with the muslim community and the vast majority of converts leave Islam within a year or two, citing social reasons usually.

Tell me how to interpret these liberally?

The Muslims I've talked to generally argue that the verses refer to specific Jews or non-believers who had raised arms against the Prophet, and were in effect combatants/aggressors.

Whether that is an intellectually satisfying explanation to you doesn't matter; all that matters is that it's a spiritually satisfying argument to ordinary Muslims (which it is). Even conservative Muslims generally feel compelled to explain such scriptures using these kinds of arguments. Whether it was the original intent of the author of said scriptures that his work should be interpreted this way doesn't actually matter: all I care is that liberal muslims have an explanation that doesn't involve actually killing non-believers.

The same applies to Christians and the horrendous verses in the bible.

Are you a muslim? Or is this how far the left of today have fallen?

That's rich. You say this when you just cut my quote short in order to misrepresent me (which I knew you would). There is nothing inherently wrong with suicide bombing.

I mean, if some one had suicide bombed Hitler, I would considered it an eminently heroic sacrifice. If the plotters in the 20 July plot had actually been that daring, perhaps they would have succeeded.

 

[Ryika]

No. Feminists seek to correct shortcomings in women's rights, they do not seek to reduce men's rights.

Yes, and Nazis seek world peace.

I have never actually heard or read any feminist oppose men's shelters.

Feminists are not obligated to provide men's shelters. The MRAs can do that, but they of course they won't because their only concern is bashing feminists.

No, the MRM cannot do that, because such projects need funding. Shelters for men don't get government funding and, generally speaking, very low amounts of public funding, because "helping men" is generally not something that people donate money for, that people empathize with. See the whole case surrounding Earl Silverman, who has desperately tried to get funding for his man's shelter for years before committing suicide.

What would need to happen is for feminists - who are the main voice in the debate - to step in and act on the otherwise empty "Yeah yeah, men need shelters too, let's go back to talking about females."

No it isn't. Being a feminists means promoting the rights of women as well as guarding them against future attempts to undermine them.

Then feminism is not a movement for gender equality but rather a movement that advocates for women's rights and presumes that women are and will always be an underprivileged class. Was certainly true in the past, is no longer.

Of course, the feminists dealing with popular culture will fetch most of the views and the attention because popular culture is more attractive to most audiences. The dry academic feminists, the shelter operators and the lesser known activists aren't as famous, but they have influence. I would argue that most western politicians would identify as feminists at some level, some more than others.

So you do not actually have any big feminists who advocate for women in the middle-east, got it.

Also, let's not forget the real reason why Anita Sarkeesian is famous. She dared to criticize vidya gaems and for that, she aroused the most mouth foaming, deranged hate mob to have ever inhabited the internet. This is why feminists stood their ground and got behind her in numbers. This is why she is far more famous than she would have ever become on the merits of her arguments alone.

This is once again dogmatic black-and-white thinking. You're leaving out her publicity stunt of mysteriously leaving open the comments section of her campaign for exactly the period of time she needed to play the victim of online harassment, you're leaving out that feminists websites more than willingly came to her defense the moment she started playing the victim and you're leaving out the fact that members of gamergate also received tons of abuse.

Reality check: This is the internet. There are tons of trolls, people who overreact, people who get outraged and people who abuse outrage to increase their fame on pretty much all sides. The manufacturing of outrage by baiting trolls is just as toxic to a reasonable debate as the trolls themselves are. As long as people like you fall for the manufactured outrage and, instead of seeing through the BS, play into their cards by creating this black and white narrative ("gamergate evil, feminists good!") the system works. You're being played. Gamergate is being played. You're all idiots who prefer being part of a group and pretending to be fighting for a good cause over honest debate.

Sure, and I could get a green card to the US tomorrow and become a citizen in some years. The process is longer, but by no means less arbitrary.

Yes, but you cannot change your race from European to Asian. That's the point. People are not using the word "race" the way you want it to be used, so stop accusing people of being "racist" when they're not talking about a race of people but instead people who share a belief system.

But they don't share a belief system. What they share is a group identity.

Of course they share a belief system, all of them believe in Allah, all of them believe the Koran is the word of Allah or at least inspired by Allah. They interpret their holy scripture differently and come to very different conclusions (often because they seek justification for the goals they have in mind), sure, but that doesn't change that they share the same basic belief system.

You think that the people joining islam are always accepted as part of the "in-group", but the reality is that a lot of western converts feel very disillusioned with the muslim community and the vast majority of converts leave Islam within a year or two, citing social reasons usually.

You're constantly contradicting yourself. This is, literally, proof that Islam is not a "community", that Islam is not a "group identity". Anyone who treats it as such is an idiot, it's no wonder that people leave Islam if they want to become a Muslim not because they agree with the basic tenets of the religion and want to devote their life to serving Allah but because they want to be part of a community.

 

[sophie]

Yes, and Nazis seek world peace.

Classy.

 

[Ryika]

Classy.

It's sort of my social experiment, I think there exists a currently not well recognized extension to Godwin's law.

Something like:
"The amount of comments reacting to only the nazi-comparison in a post with additional substance will be equal to or greater than 1."

This seems to hold true universally, although I can't quite pinpoint why that is. I believe it's because of the enjoyment certain individuals get from the implied "Got ya!"-moment, but so far the study is not conclusive. I will need to trigger more people to find out.

Either way - thank you for taking part in my experiment, very helpful insights.

 

[Princeps]

No, the MRM cannot do that, .... because "helping men" is generally not something that people donate money for, that people empathize with

No. They're not doing it because MRM doesn't actually care about men. They're solely concerned with bashing feminists.

We have a free civil society: people can put their money where their mouth is but MRM doesn't. Men don't do it, probably because they don't see a problem.

Then feminism is not a movement for gender equality but rather a movement that advocates for women's rights and presumes that women are and will always be an underprivileged class. Was certainly true in the past, is no longer. One more reason why feminism is worthless these days.

No. Yes, there have been huge gains and progress made by feminists, and even if perfect parity was reached, it doesn't actually mean that feminism will ever become obsolete. Gains have to be defended in the future. Civil society is an endless and ongoing process.

And also, feminists run things like shelters. The practical things that ensure such gains are maintained. Are you saying they should drop what they're doing and go home?

There are still real problems: things like the significant gender disparity in hiring. If you send two identical applications to a workplace, one with a male candidate and another with a female candidate, it's almost invariable that the female application is more likely to be rejected. Standard econ means that this no doubt contributes to the wage gap; and that the studies that seek to disprove it are probably over-controlling for variables; unless supply and demand models no longer reals.

So you do not actually have any big feminists who advocate for women in the middle-east, got it.

What is a big feminist? There are feminist authorities who do advocate for women in the Middle East. You're not the person to decide who is a significant feminist.

You're leaving out her publicity stunt of mysteriously leaving open the comments section of her campaign for exactly the period of time she needed to play the victim of online harassment,

HAHAHAHAAAA. This is such perfect, beautiful victim blaming gold. "How dare she goad us into mocking her, that insidious jewess! HISSS"

I was there. I read her comment section. I have never before seen such a horrendous litany of vile, obscene garbage on the internet.

you're leaving out that feminists websites more than willingly came to her defense the moment she started playing the victim and you're leaving out the fact that members of gamergate also received tons of abuse.

They certainly haven't received anything even remotely compared to what Anita and the other women GG and their ilk obsess over. Including that god-awful video cited here earlier, the one with the islamist and the feminist. That caricature" is an actual person, an actual woman. Can you image the amount of abuse she has received from the rotten depths of fourchan and youtube?

Reality check: This is the internet. There are tons of trolls, people who overreact

Except, of course, tumblerista feminists, who are the defining authorities of feminism, as we know.

Yes, but you cannot change your race from European to Asian. That's the point. People are not using the word "race" the way you want it to be used, so stop accusing people of being "racist" when they're not talking about a race of people but instead people who share a belief system.

No. I'm going to keep calling it racism until you can find a convincing reason why I shouldn't, other than shallow, semantic cop-outs.

Of course they share a belief system, all of them believe in Allah, all of them belief the Koran is the word of Allah or at least inspired by Allah. They interpret their holy scripture differently and come to different conclusions, sure, but that doesn't change that they share the same basic belief system.

Allah is not a system. He is just a figure of imagination. All of this is subjective and open to interpretation, which varies from person to person. None of this is necessarily a shared ideology or an objective belief system.

You're constantly contradicting yourself. This is, literally, proof that Islam is not a "community", that Islam is not a "group identity". Anyone who treats it as such is an idiot, it's no wonder that people leave Islam if they want to become a Muslim not because they agree with the basic tenets of the religion and want to devote their life to serving Allah but because they want to be part of a community.

No. They leave Islam because they don't feel as though they're part of the community, not because they have major disagreements with any of its tenets. As I said, they usually cite social reasons: not feeling accepted, embraced, or generally taken into the in-group as an equal member. Many western women complain that they're not respected as much as the native women. Many Western men feel as though they're taken in as tokens to be displayed and respected rather than being accepted as ordinary members. In any case, they leave because they feel like outsiders.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

More links than most of us here post in a week

Do you really think we're going to check all those out?

Sometimes you really don't need a sledgehammer.

 

[Ryika]

No. Yes, there have been huge gains and progress made by feminists, and even if perfect parity was reached, it doesn't actually mean that feminism will ever become obsolete. Gains have to be defended in the future. Civil society is an endless and ongoing process.

And also, feminists run things like shelters. The practical things that ensure such gains are maintained. Are you saying they should drop what they're doing and go home?

There's a stark difference between maintaining a status quo and pushing for ever more ridiculous things.

There are still real problems: things like the significant gender disparity in hiring. If you send two identical applications to a workplace, one with a male candidate and another with a female candidate, it's almost invariable that the female application is more likely to be rejected. Standard econ means that this no doubt contributes to the wage gap; and that the studies that seek to disprove it are probably over-controlling for variables; unless supply and demand models no longer reals.

Seems to be rather obvious to me that if a man and a woman apply for a job with exactly equal credentials the man is being hired. Men don't drop out for pregnancy, why take the risk?

What is a big feminist? There are feminist authorities who do advocate for women in the Middle East. You're not the person to decide who is a significant feminist.

I asked for names, you didn't provide any, so we didn't even get to the point where I could tell you whether I agree that that's a big feminist or not.

HAHAHAHAAAA. This is such perfect, beautiful victim blaming gold. "How dare she goad us into mocking her, that insidious jewess! HISSS"

Who do you mean by "we"? I'm but a silent watcher of the whole nonsense, with a clear tendency to pro-gamergate when it comes to the actual issues (problems that existed with ethics in game journalism), but overall I'm just sitting here and seeing the whole thing for what it is: Fabricated outrage by people who pitted the worst people of the internet against each other for profit.

And no, I'm not victim blaming. Let's make an analogy:

A person gets hit by a car.
Victim blaming: "She should have been more careful."
What I'm saying: "I saw her jump in front of the car."

So yeah, victim blaming is saying that someone unintentionally caused their own demise by their behavior; I'm saying she intentionally caused a controversy to get money.

And that should be pretty obvious to anyone who looks at how stuff went down.

I was there. I read her comment section. I have never before seen such a horrendous litany of vile, obscene garbage on the internet.

Then you haven't been on the dark side of the internet yet. But yeah, like I said. Trolls exist. Bad people exist. She did a great job baiting human scum to say vile things, and you turn a blind eye to that because it doesn't fit the narrative that you want to believe in.

I get that you're angry at people who say vile things, yes, I am too. The difference is: I'm not blending out everything else.

They certainly haven't received anything even remotely compared to what Anita and the other women GG and their ilk obsess over. Including that god-awful video cited here earlier, the one with the islamist and the feminist. That caricature" is an actual person, an actual woman. Can you image the amount of abuse she has received from the rotten depths of fourchan and youtube?

Yes, Big Red is an actual person (as is the "Islamist" btw), and she's a vile piece of garbage. Takes less than 30 seconds to search her name on youtube and see how she behaves, celebrating the interrupting of events via pulling the fire alarm, telling people to "shut the **** up" because they disagree with her, is still standing by her actions to this day, etc.

If you act like human filth then people will treat you like human filth, it's that easy. The caricature is actually painting her in a good light in comparison, so forgive me that I don't have any empathy to waste on her.

Except, of course, tumblerista feminists, who are the defining authorities of feminism, as we know.

No, obviously they are not. I would never take obvious over-the-top tumblr feminists or vile pieces of garbage like big red as examples for feminism, my views about feminism are informed by what I read on popular feminist websites like everydayfeminism or jezebel.

I mean that's the sad thing, isn't it? You paint your opposition as a uniform hatemob and don't even seem to grasp that maybe there are people who try to get a neutral view on what is actually being said. Do I achieve neutrality? No, probably not. I'm trying at least - that's more than can be said about you.

No. I'm going to keep calling it racism until you can find a convincing reason why I shouldn't, other than shallow, semantic cop-outs.

Well, then you're a racist, too, because you're against gamergate and gamergate is a race.

Why am I even arguing with a racist?

Just to make sure the mods don't misunderstand this and give me an infraction over nothing: I'm not really calling you a racist. I'm just pointing out how stupid your argument is.

Allah is not a system. He is just a figure of imagination. All of this is subjective and open to interpretation, which varies from person to person. None of this is necessarily a shared ideology or an objective belief system.

No. They leave Islam because they don't feel as though they're part of the community, not because they have major disagreements with any of its tenets. As I said, they usually cite social reasons: not feeling accepted, embraced, or generally taken into the in-group as an equal member. Many western women complain that they're not respected as much as the native women. Many Western men feel as though they're taken in as tokens to be displayed and respected rather than being accepted as ordinary members. In any case, they leave because they feel like outsiders.

Yes, and why do they feel like outsiders? Because they were looking for a community, not trying to serve Allah. Of course they cite social reasons, because that's what matters to them. But Islam is not a community, all Islam shares is the basic belief system. You literally disprove your own argument.

 

[Princeps]

There's a stark difference between maintaining a status quo and pushing for ever more ridiculous things.

It's an open society and a democratic state. If feminists wish to promote policies, they can do it. They're part of the civil society.

I'm not even going to ask what you think are ridiculous policies.

Seems to be rather obvious to me that if a man and a woman apply for a job with exactly equal credentials the man is being hired. Men don't drop out for pregnancy, why take the risk?

Men are probably riskier hires, I think. Prisons are chuck-full of them.

I asked for names, you didn't provide any, so we didn't even get to the point where I could tell you whether I agree that that's a big feminist or not.

well, for example:

http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/05/emma-watson-made-me-a-feminist-malala-yousafzai-says-5481423/

An oh-so vacuous western celebrity feminist inspired a heroic Muslim feminist activist.

In general, western feminists have been highly supportive of their peers in the third world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnational_feminism

And no, I'm not victim blaming. Let's make an analogy:

A person gets hit by a car.
Victim blaming: "She should have been more careful."
What I'm saying: "I saw her jump in front of the car."

So yeah, victim blaming is saying that someone unintentionally caused their own demise by their behavior; I'm saying she intentionally caused a controversy to get money.

And that should be pretty obvious to anyone who looks at how stuff went down.

What? Sarkeesian published video game critiques; she didn't jump in front of a car (real or figurative). Your stupid analogies make my head hurt.

Your argument is that she left her comment section open, so she's to blame.

Sarkeesian isn't forcing people to watch her videos and obsess over her (frankly quite blasé and obvious) observations.

"Of course! dat SCCHHEeeeming armenian jewess wants dem moneys HISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss"

Well, then you're a racist, too, because you're against gamergate and gamergate is a race.

Why am I even arguing with a racist?

Well, sillier things have become ethnic identifiers, but I doubt gamergate will ever accumulate such a following.

Yes, and why do they feel like outsiders? Because they were looking for a community, not trying to serve Allah. Of course they cite social reasons, because that's what matters to them. But Islam is not a community, all Islam shares is the basic belief system. You literally disprove your own argument.

No they weren't. Most of the converts come from a prior religious background, seeking both faith and the ceremony and the company that comes with it. They left because the reality of islam is that it's a cultural group and outsiders can't just waltz in an become real members of the community, even if that community likes to think they are so accepting.

 

[Ryika]

It's an open society and a democratic state. If feminists wish to promote policies, they can do it. They're part of the civil society.

I'm not even going to ask what you think are ridiculous policies.

Yes, of course they can. And thankfully they do, showing the world their true face.

Men are probably riskier hires, I think. Prisons are chuck-full of them.

You don't have to pay a guy who's in prison.

well, for example:

http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/05/emma-watson-made-me-a-feminist-malala-yousafzai-says-5481423/

An oh-so vacuous western celebrity feminist inspired a heroic Muslim feminist activist.

In general, western feminists have been highly supportive of their peers in the third world.

Malala Yousafzai is not a western feminist, she's a girl from Pakistan who has risked a lot. She's certainly a brave individual, but she is not a product of advocacy for women in the middle-east, she is a middle-eastern woman who got inspired by western feminism. It is her "legacy" that makes feminists support her, not the work she does, otherwise it would not require a girl like her to actually get the work done.

What? Sarkeesian published video game critiques; she didn't jump in front of a car. Your stupid analogies make my head hurt.

That's a good sign, it may mean that you're actually thinking.

Sarkeesian isn't forcing people to watch her videos and obsess over her views.

No, she isn't, but she's actively causing a reaction. That can't be so hard to understand, can it? If I go into a black, low-income neighborhood, step in front of a group of youngsters and yell "Yo *******, are your mothers busy dealing crack or why are you allowed to hang around here?", then it's pretty clear that I'm probably getting a response, and that response will have a high chance of being led by a fist to my beautiful face. She opened her comments section for exactly the period of time where she needed attention for her project, and as one would assume she did of course get it.

It seems you think I'm somehow saying that it's bad that she's getting people to react to her, but no, I am not. If these people want to react to the bait, well, let them. They're useless people anyway. It's the fact that she gets people like you to react to THEIR reaction exactly how she wants it. People who would have the capacity to do good were they not so busy thinking they're doing good by defending a con-artist instead of ignoring the whole nonsense.

No they weren't. Most of the converts come from a prior religious background, seeking both faith and the ceremony and the company that comes with it. They left because the reality of islam is that it's a cultural group and outsiders can't just waltz in an become real members of the community, even if that community likes to think they are so accepting.

So we're back at the start again? I'm done with this part.

 

[Princeps]

You don't have to pay a guy who's in prison.

Woosh.

Men are far more likely to cause problems.

Malala Yousafzai is not a western feminist, she's a girl from Pakistan who has risked a lot. She's certainly a brave individual, but she is not a product of advocacy for women in the middle-east, she is a middle-eastern woman who got inspired by western feminism. It is her "legacy" that makes feminists support her, not the work she does, otherwise it would not require a girl like her to actually get the work done.

This is getting seriously delusional on your part. She said she was inspired by western feminists. In other words, feminists are not just affecting change in the west, they are actively inspiring change elsewhere.

No, she isn't, but she's actively causing a reaction.

So, you are victim blaming.

That can't be so hard to understand, can it?

Your vapid victim blaming isn't hard to understand.

It seems you think I'm somehow saying that it's bad that she's getting people to react to her, but no, I am not. If these people want to react to the bait, well, let them. They're useless people anyway. It's the fact that she gets people like you to react to THEIR reaction exactly how she wants it. People who would have the capacity to do good were they not so busy thinking they're doing good by defending a con-artist instead of ignoring the whole nonsense.

How is she a con-artist exactly? I keep hearing that slander being thrown at her constantly, never with any proof. She got willing donors behind her, and she provided them with a product. The people who donated to her made a political statement by granting her such generous funds: which is a profound statement alone since it makes her support visible.

So we're back at the start again? I'm done with this part.

Not an argument. We're back here because you are going in circles.

 

[Ryika]

Woosh.

Men are far more likely to cause problems.

Don't "Woosh." me when you're being dumb. The fact that more men end up in prison does not mean they cause more problems at work, what a silly conclusion to draw. Most crimes are committed outside of work, often by people who have no proper work to begin with. Every second woman gets pregnant during her life, so I don't think the two compare at all.

This is getting seriously delusional on your part. She said she was inspired by western feminists. In other words, feminists are not just affecting change in the west, they are actively inspiring change elsewhere.

So if MRAs inspire people in Afghanistan to be more empathetic to other men and thereby cause these men to do less bad things, the MRM is a good thing?

It's just a nonsensical argument. "I had an effect on a person not because I actively did something for the person but because the person actually decided to do something, yet I still deserve credit."

So, you are victim blaming.

No, I'm denying that she's a victim in the first place. Shouldn't that be even worse in your book? I was expecting to get a furious response. I guess you're just very aware that it's true.

How is she a con-artist exactly? I keep hearing that slander being thrown at her constantly, never with any proof. She got willing donors behind her, and she provided them with a product. The people who donated to her made a political statement by granting her such generous funds: which is a profound statement alone since it makes her support visible.

Well, there's the video where she says that she's not a gamer but later down the line she claims that she's been playing video games all her life. There's the fact that she has stolen video footage from other youtubers instead of using her own. There is the fact that her "games collection" that she proudly shows to the world contains many of the games that she criticizes for being horrible, that she never has context (or misrepresents the context) in her videos, the video where McIntosh is making fun about the word Patriarchy (with her laughing in the background), etc. etc.

And yeah, the people willingly donated to her, many of which would probably still defend that decision if tomorrow Anita came out and were like: "I trolled you hard, didn't I? Thanks for your money, idiots." It's their money, they can do whatever they want with it. It's still sad to see people who obviously want to do good being fooled by a liar.

Anyway. I know we could now go back and forward for probably 20 pages and would still not get anywhere, you're obviously willing to turn a blind eye to all the evidence against her, I have nothing to gain from talking to a wall and the conversation isn't much better either, so I'm done for now.

 

[useless]

You can play games and not call yourself a "gamer", i know many people who have played games ardently since childhood but don't self-identify as such.

Also about the play footage; you can't really claim she stole it when it never actually belonged to the person at all, given the legally grey area LPs are currently in. Never mind the whole issue of practicality and logistics involved around recording said footage at all.

You can enjoy and still play/watch/read games/movies/books that you understand to be flawed and have problems with. My favourite game is FF7, but i acknowledge the way it treated people of colour and LGBT people as being problematic, whilst still enjoying it. I can enjoy Pulp fiction but acknowledge the way it treats certain groups as being problematic but still enjoy it. I can read Manga and recognise the way it treats women as being problematic, but still enjoy it.

Given she's talking about overall themes, often reinforced by the mechanics of the game, what context is needed? It doesn't matter if the character's goal was to free prostitutes or strippers, the fact they were and are still treated like property is problematic, freeing them doesn't absolve the game of that.

Literally, your evidence is mere speculation and assertion, whilst conveniantly ignoring any sort of explanation that might show she's not some sort of arch-demoness.

 

[Ryika]

You can play games and not call yourself a "gamer", i know many people who have played games ardently since childhood but don't self-identify as such.

There is literally this video:

Link to video.

"except I'm doing video games. So it's(?) not exactly a fandom, I'm not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot about video games in the process of making it. [...] And also, video games, like, I would love to play video games, but I don't want to go around shooting people and ripping of their heads, it's just gross."

"would love to play"
"would love to play"
"would love to play"
"would love to play"
"would love to play"

Also about the play footage; you can't really claim she stole it when it never actually belonged to the person at all, given the legally grey area LPs are currently in. Never mind the whole issue of practicality and logistics involved around recording said footage at all.

Semantics. Fact is she used footage from other YouTube channels instead of creating her own.

You can enjoy and still play/watch/read games/movies/books that you understand to be flawed and have problems with. My favourite game is FF7, but i acknowledge the way it treated people of colour and LGBT people as being problematic, whilst still enjoying it. I can enjoy Pulp fiction but acknowledge the way it treats certain groups as being problematic but still enjoy it. I can read Manga and recognise the way it treats women as being problematic, but still enjoy it.

Not sure what this is responding to, I don't think I said otherwise.

Given she's talking about overall themes, often reinforced by the mechanics of the game, what context is needed? It doesn't matter if the character's goal was to free prostitutes or strippers, the fact they were and are still treated like property is problematic, freeing them doesn't absolve the game of that.

Then you're saying the very fact that a game has NPCs who are portrayed as less privileged as the player is problematic and that games cannot tackle difficult topics, unless games stop being games and become visual novels instead to make sure that the player cannot "mistreat" NPCs. Which is in direct conflict to allowing games to "grow up".

Literally, your evidence is mere speculation and assertion, whilst conveniantly ignoring any sort of explanation that might show she's not some sort of arch-demoness.

Sure, the only evidence I have is a video of her saying that she's not a gamer and that she would love to play video games, but instead finds them gross. That's of course not enough evidence to convince somebody who wants to believe. Like I said, even if she openly admitted that she's scammed everybody people would still defend her just to keep their beliefs intact.

 

[Princeps]

Don't "Woosh." me when you're being dumb. The fact that more men end up in prison does not mean they cause more problems at work,

Sure it does. Without a shadow of doubt men cause more criminal problems at work then women do.

No, I'm denying that she's a victim in the first place. Shouldn't that be even worse in your book? I was expecting to get a furious response. I guess you're just very aware that it's true.

She is a victim of harassment and trolling so serious even the FBI took interest. To deny this is just absurd.

Well, there's the video where she says that she's not a gamer

Who cares. I don't consider myself a gamer and I play video games.

but later down the line she claims that she's been playing video games all her life.

Not a contradiction. If you watch television, does that make you a television-viewer as part of your self-definition?

Whatever. Who cares whether she's played games. Even if she lied, it's an absolutely trivial personal foible and not some scandal.

There's the fact that she has stolen video footage from other youtubers instead of using her own.

Who cares. The people making these accusations wouldn't hesitate to use others material in their videos.

There is the fact that her "games collection" that she proudly shows to the world contains many of the games that she criticizes for being horrible,

And?

I have games in my personal collection which I find absolutely awful. That's how I usually know they're terrible.

that she never has context (or misrepresents the context) in her videos,

There is no context in art similar to reality. Everything exists in a fictional world as a deliberate choice by the author. So if there is a half-naked woman being brutally murdered: that character and everything that happens to her happens only because the author decided to write it that way. Sarkeesian's subtextual criticism analyses and comments on the author's intentions in telling the story.

The Hitman series developers, of all the possible settings for an assassination, chose to include the strip club setting in order to have half-naked women. The developers chose to place several scantily clad prostitutes in the reach of the player, enabling him to murder them and play with their bodies. It served no purpose nor posed any challenge, but the devs nonetheless just decided to add them. Anita is just pointing out the obvious; and we know why the devs did this (if it had been a male game review pointing this out, I doubt any one would be outraged).

It doesn't matter that she doesn't play video games, because video games are not incomprehensible as art forms to people who don't play. She doesn't usually comment on gameplay, because that's not where she comes from.

 

[Ryika]

There is no context in art similar to reality. Everything exists in a fictional world as a deliberate choice by the author. o if there is a half-naked woman being brutally murdered: that character and everything that happens to her happens only because the author decided to write it that way. Sarkeesian's subtextual criticism analyses and comments on the author's intentions in telling the story.

Yes, there is context, there always is. The woman being brutally murdered can be framed as an act of joy and celebration of gore, or it could be framed in a way that makes the player aware of the violence that women have to face in similar situations in real life. (Both being perfectly valid on their own merit, female npcs have the same right of being brutally gorified as male npcs have - the beauty of equality.)

In the case of hitman the overall atmosphere is clearly one of empathy for the strippers. The dialog is actually written quite well and made me feel rather uncomfortable the first time I went through that stage (and that's only partly because of the bad voice acting). The fact that the player can "play around with them" is just the effect of an interactive medium, there is no story-benefit to toying around with them, there is no bonus-points for killing them (the opposite is true) and as far as you have to interact with them (which, for the most part is sneaking part them) you don't do anything to harm them. It would be stupid if the player could NOT play around with them because the game enforces some special rules (like when you attack a city in Skyrim and the fact that children are just immortal little gods that can't be harmed completely breaks your immersion).

Again: You're basically saying that games are not allowed to tackle mature themes because people aren't "forced" to be mature but can instead choose to have fun with the sandbox aspects of the game. While at the same time you guys are asking for games to grow up. How stupid is that?

 

[Flying Pig]

As a simple halfway house, you could simply not have any children running around in the cities under attack. They're only there because someone positively decided to put them in. If we're going to talk about realism, then we also need to confront the fact that you can presumably walk through the streets in these cities without stepping in human waste, have no risk of dying from the plague, and are usually given the constitution of a bull elephant.

 

[Ryika]

As a simple halfway house, you could simply not have any children running around in the cities under attack. They're only there because someone positively decided to put them in.

No, this would not be possible. You can be perfectly peaceful in a city and then start murdering everybody in the next moment, how are the children supposed to be removed from that situation? By vanishing into thin air? Or should the game just not have children? What a waste that would be, the children of skyrim are part of some beautiful questlines.

Overall, not being able to kill them is already the "middle of the road"-solution. It's a compromise I can live with, but I don't see why being able to kill children is a problem in a game where you can literally kill every grown up around (well, with the exception of important quest givers, but that's another problem the game has).

But thankfully we have mods, giving us beautiful videos like... well, the ones I'll not link because of the blood and stuff. But know that there are music videos where people kill child-npcs in skyrim. That spoiled brat Braith just won't stay dead.

If we're going to talk about realism, then we also need to confront the fact that you can presumably walk through the streets in these cities without stepping in human waste, have no risk of dying from the plague, and are usually given the constitution of a bull elephant.

The absence of things does not necessarily break immersion, it is when things that are present and seem out of place when immersion is at risk the most. Similarly, some amount of immersion-breaking is generally acceptable and absolutely required because it's a video game that is supposed to be fun, not a simulator. The fact that I can carry 20 swords in my inventory and still run clearly has a positive gameplay effect. Not being able to kill certain persons has not.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think there's certainly a negative effect - a message being sent out that is best not sent - of having people, even by proxy, take part in violence, particularly sexual violence and that against children, and have the positive reward of entertainment for doing so. It's the same on screen; I think we should be very suspicious of film-makers who depict things like that and invite us to enjoy the spectacle, though I echo Useless' point that this doesn't necessarily mean we can't watch them or should feel guilty for enjoying them. If it's fair enough to ignore biology in order to give the game a bit more fun, I think it's fair to ignore sociology in order to give it a bit more decency.

 

[Hygro]

Sarkeesian's main work is the least controsversial thing I've ever seen that got folks worked up.