!!!!!
Who does have that coming?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I am a SJW
- Thread starter Curious George
- Start date
Who does have that coming?
I would have very limited sympathy for someone who had previously serially engaged in harassment with the intent to lead damaged people to suicide, for instance, receiving death threats. Similarly, someone who serially raped receiving rape threats.
Perhaps a few other scenarios, but then I'd have to put more thought into this than I find its worth. Very few people.
OK...that's more understandable.
But I personally wouldn't make such threats.
Last edited:
I find the latter far more important to address. Seems there is a difference in priorities here.
SR and I have gone back and forth on this and it had been brought to my attention that Anita's followers doxx and harass gamers.
You're new to the debate here between us.
No one ever has stated that she has incited violence. I even said that to her credit the worst she does is lie. Some of her supposed followers have (they have now taken down their videos but I can post a couple others have mirrored as proof of you like. Might take some time to find them though.)
Does she deserve death threats or legitimate harassment? No, of course not. Even her most ardent opponents like Thunderf00t, Sargon or the Amazing Athiest have gone on record multiple times to state their disgust of such things levied at her.
Does she deserve to be called a liar, con artist and have criticism against her? Well yes obviously. If she can't handle legitimate criticism of her work when it's riddled with errors, logical fallacies and poorly done research (you know? That stuff which ANYONE would have to deal with if they present such horribly shoddy work?) then perhaps games critic is not a position suited to her. Criticism calling out her very public antics are not harassment, nor are they based on her sex, her style of critique or even her political views. They are based on the merit of her work. She gets flack for poorly researched videos lamenting about all the wrong things. She doesn't address legitimate problems or reasons why gamers in general (much less female gamers) should care about her problems with games. Because they're too inane or outright lies. She then, to the distaste of actual female gamers, pulls a damsel in distress card in order to brush off actual criticism (that again would be the exact same complaints if she were a man or a anti feminist or what have you) and then uses it to bolster her funds. Such actions make her a professional victim. She uses random troll posts in order to avoid doing actual work and even has the audacity to try to speak on behalf of all female gamers. As if we are supposed to just slavishly agree with her. Well as I showed previously she has no real qualm with outright lying as I caught at least 4 in the video I dissected. And that was in the space of under 5 minutes.
She's a disgrace to feminism and makes all female gamers look like whiny spoilt brats who can't hack it in the real world.
And no one, I repeat no one, in the debate among the Gaming Community condone or even like the idiotic trolls who abuse her online. Though she's shunned mainly because she lies and never addresses legit criticism, instead favouring the sexist card in order to sweep aside actual debate. She doesn't really do any good for Video Games. But she has a lot of power within the industry. How does she use it? To silence any and all dissent like some Orwellian control freak and instead seems to prefer to whine about the sexual dysmorphia of our species. She's the loudest female gaming voice and frankly she disgusts actual female gamers who have actually relevant gripes with games. But even they're brushed aside because some ******* out a possible million people told her "you suck" online and the goddamned UN needs to run in to save her. Like some sort of Knight of yore, to save the pretty delicate flower that is a lady. God only knows who will be banned from Twitter now she's in charge of the complaints patrol or whatever.
As for our previous back and forth, I am now more wise to the deflecting side stepping tactics you pulled on me last time. And I was far too fuelled by emotion to properly debate or discuss the issues. This time I am more prepared. So my friend, if you desire let us have a proper debate about Sarkeesian or gaming or sexism within the industry or what have you, let us do so. 2 on 2 as @Mandi suggests. I could help her out with some gaming knowledge of required, she could keep me inline as to the proper etiquette of debates. You can have someone of your own choosing. I'm up for it if you are.
Edit. Sorry for all the edits, my stupid phone keeps saving too soon. Damned sensitive touch screens.
Last edited:
I've read most of this topic and searched for the specific claim about her inciting violence. If there was something I said because I didn't read a few posts entirely, then I apologize. Some of my responses were geared towards your earlier dismissal of criticism against her by comparing her to older feminist figures. I've seen little evidence that she seems to really care about feminism in a meaningful way, only in a superficial way as to how it affects her. Maybe I'm a weird feminist, but I would say that feminists should be concerned with facts and real oppression. Look at Saudi Arabia for example, or underage girls being forced into arranged marriages here in the U.S. (this is mostly in isolated Midwest communities) if you want to come closer to home.
If you want to actually refute my conclusion that Anita is either a con artist or a blinded zealot you are free to do so, but it would require refuting the supporting reasons individually. Also note that I would be using @SomeRandom 's post of the minute by minute breakdown refutation since he's played more of the games that she critiqued in that video than I have and so would know more than me on that one.
Actually, if you want, we could make a debate topic that is 2 vs 2 and we could do it fairly formally and lay out our arguments. This would be done in such a way as to promote intellectual honesty, as opposed to the traditional debate format which encourages logical fallacies in it's design.
Also I'll just leave this here... *cough* the time from 4:20 to 5 minutes is the most salient and I would encourage everyone to at least watch that portion as it pertains very strongly towards the subject at hand. The entire video does, but that part really gets to the heart of the issue with "feminist" "SJW" and all these other labels.
You know, for someone who suggests that somebody likes me rants about a lot of useless stuff, there's a lot of ranting about useless stuff here toward me.
If you base an entire movement on one person whose worst crime is being wrong about video games? And you take bandwidth here about how horrible she is here? I'd say you harbor hostility that is pointless and seriously detracts from the kind of **** that people like me fight against in my activism.
I dismiss it and find it pathetic. I'm not being drawn into a p***ing contest over meaningless tripe. I'm actually doing work on issues of sexism in our area.
But again, whatever makes you sleep better at night. Better to be loud and win than actually talk with a feminist like me who has helped stuff envelopes for the ERA back in the '70s and written legislators and volunteered at rape crisis centers and collaborated with attorneys on trafficking in marginalized neighborhoods and mobilized fundraising for fences around abortion clinics.
Have a good day.
If you base an entire movement on one person whose worst crime is being wrong about video games? And you take bandwidth here about how horrible she is here? I'd say you harbor hostility that is pointless and seriously detracts from the kind of **** that people like me fight against in my activism.
I dismiss it and find it pathetic. I'm not being drawn into a p***ing contest over meaningless tripe. I'm actually doing work on issues of sexism in our area.
But again, whatever makes you sleep better at night. Better to be loud and win than actually talk with a feminist like me who has helped stuff envelopes for the ERA back in the '70s and written legislators and volunteered at rape crisis centers and collaborated with attorneys on trafficking in marginalized neighborhoods and mobilized fundraising for fences around abortion clinics.
Have a good day.
Who has suggested that you rant about useless stuff, @MysticSang'ha?
And Anita's worst crime is not, as you claim "being wrong about video games," her worst crime is outright fraud with monetary gain no less. Something that the Governments take seriously enough to impose honest to god Prison sentences for. Just FYI. But since she's a snake oil salesman selling ideas rather than something tangible, she gets to elude those pesky laws governing advertising and consumer relations.
She's basically the video game equivalent of those "Faith Healer" types. You know? The ones who dupe desperate people into shelling out their hard earned money in order for said healer to say some gobbedlygook over them in the hopes that the Placebo Effect will hold long enough for the sick person to be convinced that they are cured?
The cure she offers is just as fraudulent as the Faith Healers.
Now given that her primary targets for money are not sick, her actions are not nearly as despicable. But they're unethical at the very least.
And please, Anita is hardly the only person people base their "hatred" for feminism on. She's just the one with the most name recognition. There are Brianna Wu, Zoe Quinn, Laci Green, Baha Mustafa, Steve Shives, article writers who write petty inane bull**** like how the word "too" is evil and sexist among others. Now granted there are many others, but those are the ones that I know of, mainly through YouTube. Anita's not even the only punching bag, so to speak, in the gaming community. She doesn't do enough work to be considered that important. Though her influence is still felt nonetheless.
But you're the one who brought her up, implying she was some sort of prime example of feminists getting flack for no reason. So people responded with their arguments about why she gets flack.
Now you want to focus on someone else, rather than address the arguments made? Granted as you say, there are more important things to discuss. But, if you'll forgive me, isn't this tactic one of deflection, nonetheless?
And Anita's worst crime is not, as you claim "being wrong about video games," her worst crime is outright fraud with monetary gain no less. Something that the Governments take seriously enough to impose honest to god Prison sentences for. Just FYI. But since she's a snake oil salesman selling ideas rather than something tangible, she gets to elude those pesky laws governing advertising and consumer relations.
She's basically the video game equivalent of those "Faith Healer" types. You know? The ones who dupe desperate people into shelling out their hard earned money in order for said healer to say some gobbedlygook over them in the hopes that the Placebo Effect will hold long enough for the sick person to be convinced that they are cured?
The cure she offers is just as fraudulent as the Faith Healers.
Now given that her primary targets for money are not sick, her actions are not nearly as despicable. But they're unethical at the very least.
And please, Anita is hardly the only person people base their "hatred" for feminism on. She's just the one with the most name recognition. There are Brianna Wu, Zoe Quinn, Laci Green, Baha Mustafa, Steve Shives, article writers who write petty inane bull**** like how the word "too" is evil and sexist among others. Now granted there are many others, but those are the ones that I know of, mainly through YouTube. Anita's not even the only punching bag, so to speak, in the gaming community. She doesn't do enough work to be considered that important. Though her influence is still felt nonetheless.
But you're the one who brought her up, implying she was some sort of prime example of feminists getting flack for no reason. So people responded with their arguments about why she gets flack.
Now you want to focus on someone else, rather than address the arguments made? Granted as you say, there are more important things to discuss. But, if you'll forgive me, isn't this tactic one of deflection, nonetheless?
Last edited:
I find both important to address. We don't need to dismiss one concern or vilify anyone who discusses one concern because of the other.
One is also mostly a community matter and the other is mostly a criminal matter, and I'm not sure how, other than banning threatening trolls, we are supposed to even be capable of addressing the latter. There isn't much you can do in an open communications format about internet randos with nearly unlimited proxy options.
I know nothing of this "gamer culture".
What constitutes a death threat?
Is there a range, eg, from "I wish you'd die." to "I'm going to kill you"?
What is the frequency?
Examples seen?
What constitutes a death threat?
Is there a range, eg, from "I wish you'd die." to "I'm going to kill you"?
What is the frequency?
Examples seen?
On online games (either through computers or console systems) you usually have an influx of very young gamers on games not really suited to their age. Around 12 to 14 on games like COD or GTA. Now with youth comes hormones and shall we say perhaps a lower skill level due to inexperience. So you get angry young kids who have grown up in this animosity that is the Internet, emboldened by the anonominity. And well then you end up with inappropriate behaviour.
People like to point to women receiving these threats but statistically speaking men are more likely to receive such threats.
Now most of the time gamers are likely to ignore such things as just part of the environment. Just some young punks letting off steam. No need to involve the cops (or the UN. Ahem.)
This of course varies game to game. In MMOs you are less likely to see such behaviour because of the type of audience drawn to it. That is "hardcore strategy gamers." These types of gamers are more likely to focus on skill and improving it than schoolyard shennenagans. So you will probably find less tolerance for "online harassment."
On what they call AAA games (that is to say very popular mainstream games) you find the vulgar audience.
More prone to youngsters venting their frustration or cruel pranks. The vast majority of which aren't being serious about the things they say. They're just "raging." So many females usually just hit back with insults of their own and move on. Because in all honesty, these little trolls can't do anything other than yell at their screen. So why fear them?
This itself is rather a big generalisation admittedly. But that's the basic crux of it at least.
Look around. I could name names, but the usual suspects of the anti-feminists tend to see me as the RF mouthpiece of "bull****" "modern feminism." I was told my tone and my talking points are the reasons why nobody likes feminists. Pay closer attention.
I happen to agree with some of her points. Care to direct some of your hatred toward me now?
"Punching bag"...hmmmm...
You obviously have not watched Laci Greens videos, otherwise you would see she advocates for sex positive feminism. I think the list just goes up of who are getting the most views on YouTube who doesn't blame women for getting targeted for violence or harassment.
I said death threats. Pay attention. She does not deserve it and I find the insistence on focusing on criticism to be disingenuous at best and pathetic at worst. Nobody deserves it and those who troll her with these threats need to be called out more than the critics want to see her hanging on a noose.
No. I've brought it up as the current theme of harassment women receive and why that should be the most important issue. I've never done the bait and switch tactic. This has been my argument from day one and I stand by it. Don't like it? Cope. Because violent threats will need to be addressed before anything else if I think "ethics in journalism" will have any merit whatsoever.
I wonder, because on occasion I've seen remarks taken as threats, but they clearly weren't.
Along the lines of: "I hope you die of crotch rot."
This differs from statements of intent to do something.
My only gaming experience is playing go against real people.
It is invariably about not just winning, but also helping each other improve.
I've never heard any trash talk. So this rude gamer stuff seems really odd.
I did say that there are many "collateral damaged" people in this stupid war. It's dumb, really.
As do I. Should I hate myself now, too?
This is not as black and white as you imply. There's this thing. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's called nuance.
Yes, punching bag. As in a person who receives a lot of flack. Like that Jack Thompson MAN a few years back. Something wrong with my word choice?
Actually I have. When she speaks about sexuality, she's fine. When she goes into politics, she goes into an "everything is sexist/racist" rant. Especially in her series on MTV YouTube.
No one has ever insisted that Anita deserves death threats, sexist jokes targeted towards her or any legitimate harassment. NO ONE.
And I find this insistence that we focus solely on her harassment to the exclusion of legitimate criticism nothing more than a deflection tactic. You want to avoid the criticism she gets because it's proof that she is not, as you say, attacked merely due to her being a feminist. She is held to the same standards as ALL games critics are held to. But apparently you want to give her special treatment because........ why exactly? Cause she's a woman? Cause people are ******** to her?
Ignoring the fact that EVERY public figure, male female or even hermaphrodite gets all sorts of hate mail online. It's even a segment on some of their platforms so they can laugh at the creatures. What makes Anita so damned special that we have to get the goddamned UN to drop their issues like Child Soldiers or Child Sex Slavery to come to her rescue? Tell me. Is she some sort of Messiah I am not aware of? I mean if the poor lady is really at a point where this is literally making her feel like ****, then I would recommend she seek professional help. For her own sake.
You know who receives death threats and violence instigated towards them? And I mean physical not this E ****. The ****ing KKK and the WBC. Should we focus on the hate and death threats they receive to the point where we do not even attempt to criticize their arguments? If so, why? If not, why not?
As much as I hate them and find their actions absolutely deplorable (really, picketing funerals? Disgusting,) I do not condone physical threats against their safety.
As for Neets, no critic of hers, I repeat no critic of hers has ever condoned or brushed aside legitimate harassment towards Anita. But what the **** do you want them to do? They are not the Police of the internet. They are not special forces. They cannot seek out every lowly troll and tell them to stop. They are her intellectual opponents and must focus on the dialogue that SHE started. But is apparently too cowardly to finish. What a bastion strong women can look to.
And please, none of them want to see her hang from the noose. They want her to take some accountability for what she says and act like a damned critic. Respond to their arguments so we can fix some problems she brought up in the first place. If that is indeed what she wants to happen. Because I have not seen proof she wants improvement of any kind in the industry.
Hello snake oil.
Let me put it this way. You know of a Scientist called Paul Cameron? Is a sort of a go to for the anti gay side. His "research" involving sexuality is riddled with lies, misrepresentations and shoddy methodology. Whenever the anti gay side bring him up, the pro equality side criticize his merit. When they do so this is often met with accusations of being biased. Anita Sarkeesian is basically exactly the same but for the Feminists. They bring her up, focus on something totally unrelated to her positions and then accuse the other side of being "against her" because she's a female or a feminist or critiquing games. They, like Cameron's supporters, seem quite willing to overlook their intellectual dishonesty and (technically speaking) criminal activity in order to paint their opponents as evil "haters."
Rather telling, I think.
Online harassment or really any type of harassment is not a gender issue. That's like saying bullying is a gender issue. She's a public figure. Everyone from politicians (both sexes) to Radio Personalities (both sexes) to celebrities (both sexes) to freaking TV/Movie doctors (both sexes) are harassed online. From comments about their looks to comments on what they say to SNL skits lampooning their personas to those stupid little flash online games beating their image to a pulp. That's just how the internet has always been like. That's how society has been like. What do you want? For every Sarkeesian hate mail, there is one aimed at her opponents. The males don't fly under the radar when it comes to that. You think they don't get harassed? Really? Total Biscuit was receiving messages like "I hope the cancer kills you" whilst receiving god damned chemotherapy. That doesn't qualify as harassment to you? Oh I know, he's a male therefore who the **** cares, amirite? It's Anita we need to protect, she's the one we need to focus on. Because how dare a woman get hated on in the sphere of public opinion for espousing things? It's not like Sargon, Thunderf00t, Undoomed, Mundane Matt et all, receive hate filled messages all the time or anything. Oh wait a minute, yes they do. Though really the only time I have seen it brought up by them is when their family was involved or to lament over what they saw as hypocrisy.
I mean good god, you seriously think that she's special just because she's a woman who is harassed? Why? Everyone who does this "debate" on a large enough scale or to an audience who is reasonably large gets harassed.
Christ, Celebrities both male and female get that **** on the daily just from tabloid rags, never mind online jerks harassing them over every little thing they do in life away from the set. And that's just for existing as a celebrity.
Just because she cops flack like every single other public figure in existence (again both male and female) doesn't mean she's suddenly above reproach. She's the one who wants to make an argument about video games. So if she wants to do so, she needs to fulfill the standards of the role. Just like every other critic in existence. She doesn't get absolved from doing so just because she gets online hate. She still has to answer to rebuttals just like everyone else in this world. Either that or back down from the debate that she started. Or at the very least uphold her end of the bargain from her kickstarters. Like again, fraud with monetary gain is at worst criminal, at best it's unethical.
Trump is continuously mocked. Should I ignore his arguments in favor of pointing to this harassment and saying "look his critics are all ******** so let's ignore their arguments because they said mean things to him." No. I rebuke things that take it too far or are unrelated to his talking points (whatever they are, not very versed in American Politics to tell the truth) and focus on rebutting or adding to the criticism against him. But apparently because Miss Sarkeesian is a feminist, she doesn't get to have the same standard. Why? I thought the movement was for equal treatment?
Such harassment against Anita is unwarranted. And everyone on this thread agrees. At least I hope so. But we are not the Police. We are not Big Brother. We cannot do anything except maybe some inane online campaign. We're not important enough for the UN to take notice of us. So what exactly do you want us to address?
That the people who do harass her deserve punishment of some kind? I agree. That we should perhaps look into ways the law can be written in order to minimize this? Again, I absolutely agree.
That we should rebuke any and all messages we see that can be easily construed as harassment or taking things too far? Absolutely agree.
That we should look into ways to show the younger generation that this behavior is unacceptable both IRL and online? Agree. Well we already do that anyway.
So what then? I have already stated that her most vocal opponents have called out such appalling behavior and deride such antics as unwarranted. Numerous times and very publicly. What else can they do? What exactly do you want anyway?
Oh and what, you think that Journalists should not be held to the same ethical standards that they purport to uphold?
Last edited:
Yeah. Most comments you see that are taken for "death threats" are really just idiotic nonsense that you'd have to be a noob (naive or newbie gamer) to take seriously. Stuff like "die in a fire, ******" or "I banged your mother/sister the other night" or "your girlfriend gave me AIDS" or whatever the hell. It's usually just little kids yelling obscenities that they heard/learnt on the playground the day before. They're usually given a pass due to their immaturity and lack of actual threat.
Swatting however is seen as cowardly and not acceptable by even gamers who give these kids a pass.
Lol then I take it you do not watch sports? We even have our own vernacular word for trash talking in sport. We call it "sledging." Most prominent in Cricket, Tennis and most codes of Football.
You're correct about my not watching sports....except for the World's Strongest Man.
And those guys are all quite civil to each other.
Well to tell the truth I only watch two codes of Football. NRL and AFL. And they're often a little...........er homoerotic.
This will be my last post on this topic (I've already unfollowed the thread).
If anyone wants to discuss this with me any further you will have to PM me but I probably won't want to respond unless it is an actual refutation.
Please do not create strawmen or project onto me.
This isn't about how we feel, or about our emotions, or who we are as people.
I simply have a position which I have put forth with evidence.
That position is that Anita Sarkeesian has no real conviction as a feminist and has used the movement for her own ends, to the detriment of feminism.
So let me be clear, the reason I have focused on these points is because it consists wholly of what she is known for and what she does as a feminist blogger. It is what she is *known* for within Feminism. If you have an issue with this being 'trivial' then you only have the figures of modern feminism to blame, not me. These types of issues are by far and large the most discussed within modern feminism in America. I can't critique her for something more meaningful if she does little else other than talk about video games.
It isn't that Anita is "wrong", it's that she's horribly, horribly wrong on virtually everything she says on the subject and yet is considered an authority on said subject by the media and pretty much everyone who identifies as feminist but has no familiarity with the subject. Also in digging around it's come to light that a lot of the footage she used of the games was taken from lets plays without any credit given.
The only two gamers I've seen posting here, me and @SomeRandom are both female (sorry if I'm wrong SomeRandom lol). I think we are in a unique position that no one else here has in discussing this subject.
If you are truly interested in having a conversation as you say, you wouldn't be freaking out at us. Nothing we have said is false, or at the very least (you could argue) nothing we have said is not without what we believe to be evidence and reason. That stuff that substantive "debates" are made out of. I've yet to see any refutation.
You said that you think this video game stuff is stupid to argue over. Ya, it is, but we are talking about it because that is most of what Anita is known for and stuff like this is considered a "huge" issue for modern day feminism. If you think this stuff about games is stupid I'd agree, particularly when the "authorities" of it within modern feminism focus on it to the exclusion of real issues. Even if what Anita said was true (which it demonstrably isn't) it would be inconsequential in the face of real issues which are still prevalent in less developed countries.
For Example: There has recently been a video going around where a bunch of teenage girls talk about how women are not properly represented with emoticons. In the video, a girl in a pink shirt says that all the girls are in pink on the emoticons. The girls complain that there isn't enough diversity in the emoticons and one says there is a girl surfer but another girl says that it's just a boy with long hair. A lot of critics of the video have pointed out that emoticons are pretty sexless and you can't really make details on something that small to distinguish gender..
... that is the kind of thing that modern day feminism is concerned about...
Also as a note for everyone else, I was doing some research into Anita and she was working for a pyramid scheme and working for some sketchy company before getting into Feminism, and traveled a lot before that. There were some pages on the wayback machine that I found where a couple of other people did some research into her. There is at least a few videos on youtube of her promoting the pyramid scheme product still floating around.
Funny that no one ever mentions/knows about this. I guess her history as a con artist extends back further than I thought.
One of those pages.
I'm not sure if you are pulling a No True Scotsman or are just simply trying to say that you think you are somehow better than me.
In either case, I earlier in this topic stated I identified with the goals of feminism (I think I might of called myself a feminist, actually).
And no, it doesn't help me sleep at night. It rather bothers me that Anita Sarkeesian is so revered and that serious critique of her work is often received with extreme hostility.
Also about:
That isn't me. That's people like Anita Sarkeesian who do that.
See, that's what the Cracked video was talking about. It's easier for people to talk about how stuff like how a show or video game is "problematic" (even if it isn't) than actually go out and do the kind of activism you did.
If anyone wants to discuss this with me any further you will have to PM me but I probably won't want to respond unless it is an actual refutation.
Please do not create strawmen or project onto me.
This isn't about how we feel, or about our emotions, or who we are as people.
I simply have a position which I have put forth with evidence.
That position is that Anita Sarkeesian has no real conviction as a feminist and has used the movement for her own ends, to the detriment of feminism.
So let me be clear, the reason I have focused on these points is because it consists wholly of what she is known for and what she does as a feminist blogger. It is what she is *known* for within Feminism. If you have an issue with this being 'trivial' then you only have the figures of modern feminism to blame, not me. These types of issues are by far and large the most discussed within modern feminism in America. I can't critique her for something more meaningful if she does little else other than talk about video games.
It isn't that Anita is "wrong", it's that she's horribly, horribly wrong on virtually everything she says on the subject and yet is considered an authority on said subject by the media and pretty much everyone who identifies as feminist but has no familiarity with the subject. Also in digging around it's come to light that a lot of the footage she used of the games was taken from lets plays without any credit given.
The only two gamers I've seen posting here, me and @SomeRandom are both female (sorry if I'm wrong SomeRandom lol). I think we are in a unique position that no one else here has in discussing this subject.
If you are truly interested in having a conversation as you say, you wouldn't be freaking out at us. Nothing we have said is false, or at the very least (you could argue) nothing we have said is not without what we believe to be evidence and reason. That stuff that substantive "debates" are made out of. I've yet to see any refutation.
You said that you think this video game stuff is stupid to argue over. Ya, it is, but we are talking about it because that is most of what Anita is known for and stuff like this is considered a "huge" issue for modern day feminism. If you think this stuff about games is stupid I'd agree, particularly when the "authorities" of it within modern feminism focus on it to the exclusion of real issues. Even if what Anita said was true (which it demonstrably isn't) it would be inconsequential in the face of real issues which are still prevalent in less developed countries.
For Example: There has recently been a video going around where a bunch of teenage girls talk about how women are not properly represented with emoticons. In the video, a girl in a pink shirt says that all the girls are in pink on the emoticons. The girls complain that there isn't enough diversity in the emoticons and one says there is a girl surfer but another girl says that it's just a boy with long hair. A lot of critics of the video have pointed out that emoticons are pretty sexless and you can't really make details on something that small to distinguish gender..
... that is the kind of thing that modern day feminism is concerned about...
Also as a note for everyone else, I was doing some research into Anita and she was working for a pyramid scheme and working for some sketchy company before getting into Feminism, and traveled a lot before that. There were some pages on the wayback machine that I found where a couple of other people did some research into her. There is at least a few videos on youtube of her promoting the pyramid scheme product still floating around.
Funny that no one ever mentions/knows about this. I guess her history as a con artist extends back further than I thought.
One of those pages.
I'm not sure if you are pulling a No True Scotsman or are just simply trying to say that you think you are somehow better than me.
In either case, I earlier in this topic stated I identified with the goals of feminism (I think I might of called myself a feminist, actually).
And no, it doesn't help me sleep at night. It rather bothers me that Anita Sarkeesian is so revered and that serious critique of her work is often received with extreme hostility.
Also about:
That isn't me. That's people like Anita Sarkeesian who do that.
See, that's what the Cracked video was talking about. It's easier for people to talk about how stuff like how a show or video game is "problematic" (even if it isn't) than actually go out and do the kind of activism you did.
Last edited: