Can I start a thread about a male video game reviewer series where we criticize his choice of clothing and delivery?
Yahtzee. He talks too fast and I don't like his hat.
Why is it that males can get away with wearing and saying what they want, but when a female does the same, it's open season on their looks and fashion sense?
It amazes me that so many in this thread think their opinion on Sarkeesian is worth sharing, or that sharing their opinion forms any kind of meaningful discourse. Scott mentioning a factual mistake about a mentioned game release in the original video is the only thing with any bearing on Sarkeesian.
The issue of not allowing or approving comments? That is a general and known issue on the Internet. Many blogs do and many don't allow comment, and there has been a lot of debate on either side. Allowing ratings and video responses is the same. Scott started a blog to collect his otherwise disappearing blog comments into one place, which is one approach. I turned off blog comments on all my blogs due to not wanting to deal with spam, and people email me comments all the time, which is great.
You think that if someone doesn't allow comments then they can't defend their position? Great.
In this thread I see loads if discussion about ancillary issues because nobody can find anything worth attacking in the original video. And because the topic, as presented, is non-controversial, everyone is looking for controversy and grabbing at straws.
I dislike Jim Sterling videos mainly because he's fat. I can't pay attention to what he says, because all I know about life says he shouldn't be possible. But yet he lives. It's like something out of Eternal Darkness. I think if you saw a man wear similar ear rings, you wouldn't object to someone's mention of it.
It amazes me that so many in this thread think their opinion on Sarkeesian is worth sharing, or that sharing their opinion forms any kind of meaningful discourse. Scott mentioning a factual mistake about a mentioned game release in the original video is the only thing with any bearing on Sarkeesian.
This is a discussion forum. What do you expect? To people not share their opinion when they are asked for their opinion?
In this thread I see loads if discussion about ancillary issues because nobody can find anything worth attacking in the original video. And because the topic, as presented, is non-controversial, everyone is looking for controversy and grabbing at straws.
Her video is also really bland and while not wrong, does not further the discussion or provides in any way possibilities to remedy the situation or examples of games that do things right. And this is a point that has been expressed both in this forum and elsewhere repeatedly. Now maybe there is something forthcoming in Part 2, but as it stands now the discussions focus on ancillary issues because here video contains almost nothing worth discussing, and that is a problem if the goal of the video, as stated, is to spark discussion.
P.S.: The entire thing about plaid shirts is a joke.
It amazes me that so many in this thread think their opinion on Sarkeesian is worth sharing, or that sharing their opinion forms any kind of meaningful discourse. Scott mentioning a factual mistake about a mentioned game release in the original video is the only thing with any bearing on Sarkeesian.
This is a discussion forum. What do you expect? To people not share their opinion when they are asked for their opinion?
I don't know what to expect. I guess I find it amusing that people are trying really, really, really hard to have some kind of "debate" or "discussion" about something or someone who is not worth discussing, except for the fact that so many other people think it is worth discussing.
For example, in the top post there are three response videos or reviews of the 23 minute Damsels in Distress video, one 9 minutes and the other two over 12 minutes. I've not watched them, but how does anyone have 10 minutes of anything to say about the original video? And how does anyone have spare time to watch the original video and then all these response videos?
We are not the people for whom these videos are meant to spark discussion. We know the history of the games and the basics of the issues involved.
However, I watched the video with my girlfriend, and she learned loads from it. She also said she really enjoyed Sarkeesian's no-nonsense presentation and, as a non-native-English person, she specifically said the measured pace made it very clear and easy to understand and keep up with everything. We then discussed the issues in the video, and my girlfriend's mother joined in too. If, in the future, my girlfriend watches more in the series, it's probably a good thing that she started with the introductory video, as the later videos will probably assume that kind of level of knowledge or understanding of the history of the trope.
Can I start a thread about a male video game reviewer series where we criticize his choice of clothing and delivery?
Yahtzee. He talks too fast and I don't like his hat.
Why is it that males can get away with wearing and saying what they want, but when a female does the same, it's open season on their looks and fashion sense.
but nothing of particular substance.
I specifically separated my opinions about her content from my opinions on plaid shirts. When I wrote OP, I hadn't even seen Tropes v. Women Vol 1. My opinions about what she had to say were in my second post, responding to Creamsteak. Everyone else was just following my lead, so I think we can assume that they too knew that it had no particular substance.
I think the video did have particular substance, just not any that brings about discussion on this forum. Hence the defaulting to plaid shirts and comment moderation.
Personally I see YouTube as a publishing platform with many tools attached. Others see YouTube as a community. Others see it as a forum for debate. I'm sure there are other ways YouTube could be used and viewed which I didn't even know exists. I use the commenting system for viewer feedback and interaction for my own video feed, but I get a few thousand views per video, not a few hundred thousand views. If I had more, I'd probably turn off commenting.
Ha. I just watched the first minute or two of the first response video posted above. The guy says (paraphrasing):
"I have no criticisms of the video in question. What I'm going to complain about is how I can't criticize her!"
Or, the way I hear it: "I have no problems with what she's saying, but I want to use her popularity to publicize my own videos in which I criticize her for not allowing me to use her popularity to publicize my videos and she's not allowing me to!"
She did not just disable comments, she also disabled ratings and blocked anybody from replying to her videos. Comments are ancillary at best, but video responses are how a real discussion and debate gets going, and ratings are the metric for determining which argument has greater popular support.
Disabling comments is merely symbolic, but it is a real shame that she also refuses to allow responses and ratings.
Have you ever managed a popular Youtube account?
It's a flood of spam video responses and garbage. By default video responses are disabled unless you manually approve each one. It's also almost always garbage videos that are literally just trying to piggyback on more popular ones to get views. Disabling or otherwise not responding to video replies is common sense, especially if the Fedora crowd is involved.
As for ups/downs, any video that falls under the baleful gaze of the Internet Hate Machine will get tens of thousands of dislikes in a span of hours. It's pretty common for controversial videos to disable that as well.
The very real reality is that the Fedora crowd on the Internet goes out of its way to be outraged about very mild, common-sense, basic human dignity the second a "girl" is involved. The shitstream that they bring to any high profile conversation on the topic is amazing to behold.
If I were here, I would have disabled all of these things just the same.
The very real reality is that the Fedora crowd on the Internet goes out of its way to be outraged about very mild, common-sense, basic human dignity the second a "girl" is involved. The shitstream that they bring to any high profile conversation on the topic is amazing to behold.
Heh. I didn't know that was a thing or a group of people known to be such assholes. Not to say that the people I know on this forum, whom I've met, that wear Fedoras are those assholes because they aren't. (I'm referring to Adam, Nelson, and Victor.)
My opinion on the lack of Female role models in games, can be summed up as thus.
"Well go make some then."
Is that not how you win the internet?
PS: It's always great when one is accused of misogyny for having the TEMERITY to find fault with the great and infallible Sarkeesian, or any feminist for that matter.
In this thread I see loads if discussion about ancillary issues because nobody can find anything worth attacking in the original video. And because the topic, as presented, is non-controversial, everyone is looking for controversy and grabbing at straws.
The very real reality is that the Fedora crowd on the Internet goes out of its way to be outraged about very mild, common-sense, basic human dignity the second a "girl" is involved. The shitstream that they bring to any high profile conversation on the topic is amazing to behold.
If I were here, I would have disabled all of these things just the same.
Manufactured injustice! First amendment rights to my privilege! OPPRESSION!
Making a game is not the same as running for fucking congress! I'm doing it for christ's sake! It has never been easier to make a game on a shoestring budget and still get it out to a mass audience. Sarkeesian could have done better to use her kickstarter money to make the game that she wants to exist.
OK so I watched Anita's video, so now I DO have an opinion worth sharing. I thought it was very well researched, well made, and was both educational and interesting.
I don't spend a lot of time getting into debates about sexism, racism, white male privilege, etc. because I don't have crazy out-of-whack views on these topics, nor do I allow myself to be surrounded by people who do.
I do understand that Anita has become the victim of systematic harassment because of her shining light on the tropes, and arguing that they are having ill effects on our society. What I don't understand is the defense. and this goes for just about any time there is controversy on the internet about some societal injustice or inequality.
Why not ignore the harassers? Anita is making awesome videos now and those will speak for themselves. I groan when I see the tropes she points out, but I also groan when I see the army of white knights rise up every time the internet decided to unreasonably hate on something. I see engaging in her defense as feeding the trolls, by people who are looking at her as a damsel in distress herself. If I was her, I would be saying "back the fuck off, people. I can defend myself." (For all I know she could be saying that, I have no clue).
The whole white-knighting thing SHOULDN'T bother me like it does, but since as far as I've seen, those white knights have been right about every cause they've taken up so far, it's become a cardinal sin to disagree with them. I worry that one day it'll get taken too far (mob mentality), or they'll pick up on the wrong cause. Just my 2 cents.
Making a game is not the same as running for fucking congress! I'm doing it for christ's sake! It has never been easier to make a game on a shoestring budget and still get it out to a mass audience. Sarkeesian could have done better to use her kickstarter money to make the game that she wants to exist.
She doesn't seem to want to solve the problem, but explain it to people who might not understand it exists. I don't think gamers are really the audience for that video despite them being the people who funded it. People who are the audience for that video are people who have a cursory understanding of video games but do not have the best grasp on the details. People like my wife, who understands video games and enjoys thoughtful discussion but really don't know enough to form a thoughtful opinion on the matter. With Sarkeesian's video, she can start to form that opinion.
Similarly, it's a Good Thing that people are out there who can explain the racial undertones in literature and can write about it. They aren't actively solving the problem, but they're able to bring attention to it and explain it.
Thus, the video was A Good Thing. It's bringing attention to it, which is a Good Thing. I know plenty of dev studios with female developers out there who are using the mighty power of their ovaries to develop games. Such things are happening anyway. As gaming attracts more of the fairer sex to its ranks I think we'll start seeing better written female protagonists.
I think the only serious(as in, not joking, since it's quite small) problem is that she tends to treat tropes as an inherently bad thing, when they're not. A trope - in this context - is just a common device, or motif. Tropes can be used well, or used poorly, depending on what you do with them.
Those comparisons are very unfair. With $160k you could actually make a video game, book, or short film without much trouble.
Did she actually want to do any of those things? If not, I have no problem with her taking the excess money and buying herself a solid gold jet ski and riding it around blasting Limp Bizkit from the jewel-encrusted stereo. She asked for a modest sum (comparatively) to make the video. She added some stretch goals that would require a bit more money. The funding went way beyond her wildest expectations. So long as she's delivering what the people who pledged thought they were getting (the series, whatever extras were promised explicitly), whatever.
Of course, if she did start off saying she wanted to change the world but OH GOD I DON'T HAVE THE MEANS TO DO SUCH A THING and is now completely shirking that and just making some web series, that's a completely different story.
Comments
Yahtzee. He talks too fast and I don't like his hat.
Why is it that males can get away with wearing and saying what they want, but when a female does the same, it's open season on their looks and fashion sense?
It amazes me that so many in this thread think their opinion on Sarkeesian is worth sharing, or that sharing their opinion forms any kind of meaningful discourse. Scott mentioning a factual mistake about a mentioned game release in the original video is the only thing with any bearing on Sarkeesian.
The issue of not allowing or approving comments? That is a general and known issue on the Internet. Many blogs do and many don't allow comment, and there has been a lot of debate on either side. Allowing ratings and video responses is the same. Scott started a blog to collect his otherwise disappearing blog comments into one place, which is one approach. I turned off blog comments on all my blogs due to not wanting to deal with spam, and people email me comments all the time, which is great.
You think that if someone doesn't allow comments then they can't defend their position? Great.
In this thread I see loads if discussion about ancillary issues because nobody can find anything worth attacking in the original video. And because the topic, as presented, is non-controversial, everyone is looking for controversy and grabbing at straws.
Her video is also really bland and while not wrong, does not further the discussion or provides in any way possibilities to remedy the situation or examples of games that do things right. And this is a point that has been expressed both in this forum and elsewhere repeatedly. Now maybe there is something forthcoming in Part 2, but as it stands now the discussions focus on ancillary issues because here video contains almost nothing worth discussing, and that is a problem if the goal of the video, as stated, is to spark discussion.
P.S.: The entire thing about plaid shirts is a joke.
For example, in the top post there are three response videos or reviews of the 23 minute Damsels in Distress video, one 9 minutes and the other two over 12 minutes. I've not watched them, but how does anyone have 10 minutes of anything to say about the original video? And how does anyone have spare time to watch the original video and then all these response videos?
We are not the people for whom these videos are meant to spark discussion. We know the history of the games and the basics of the issues involved.
However, I watched the video with my girlfriend, and she learned loads from it. She also said she really enjoyed Sarkeesian's no-nonsense presentation and, as a non-native-English person, she specifically said the measured pace made it very clear and easy to understand and keep up with everything. We then discussed the issues in the video, and my girlfriend's mother joined in too. If, in the future, my girlfriend watches more in the series, it's probably a good thing that she started with the introductory video, as the later videos will probably assume that kind of level of knowledge or understanding of the history of the trope.
The professional presentation and production of Sarkeesian's video (despite the earrings and plaid shirt) will appeal to many people who wouldn't even get past the opening credits of a Jim Sterling video, and if they did, would switch off as soon as they saw a fat man in a mask with a statue of a... thing... standing at a lecture in front of some kind of Nationalist-Socialist flag of an indeterminate country. And, of course, my girlfriend likes the look of Yatzee's videos but can't keep up with the sped of delivery.
Personally I see YouTube as a publishing platform with many tools attached. Others see YouTube as a community. Others see it as a forum for debate. I'm sure there are other ways YouTube could be used and viewed which I didn't even know exists. I use the commenting system for viewer feedback and interaction for my own video feed, but I get a few thousand views per video, not a few hundred thousand views. If I had more, I'd probably turn off commenting.
"I have no criticisms of the video in question. What I'm going to complain about is how I can't criticize her!"
Or, the way I hear it: "I have no problems with what she's saying, but I want to use her popularity to publicize my own videos in which I criticize her for not allowing me to use her popularity to publicize my videos and she's not allowing me to!"
It's a flood of spam video responses and garbage. By default video responses are disabled unless you manually approve each one. It's also almost always garbage videos that are literally just trying to piggyback on more popular ones to get views. Disabling or otherwise not responding to video replies is common sense, especially if the Fedora crowd is involved.
As for ups/downs, any video that falls under the baleful gaze of the Internet Hate Machine will get tens of thousands of dislikes in a span of hours. It's pretty common for controversial videos to disable that as well.
The very real reality is that the Fedora crowd on the Internet goes out of its way to be outraged about very mild, common-sense, basic human dignity the second a "girl" is involved. The shitstream that they bring to any high profile conversation on the topic is amazing to behold.
If I were here, I would have disabled all of these things just the same.
Furries are "people who express unjustified butthurt on the Internet"
Fedoras are "people who express unjustified butthurt on the Internet due to their latent nice-guy misogyny."
Thus, Fedoras are a subset of Furries.
"Well go make some then."
Is that not how you win the internet?
PS: It's always great when one is accused of misogyny for having the TEMERITY to find fault with the great and infallible Sarkeesian, or any feminist for that matter.
Invent a hydrogen car, already!
Don't appreciate the shitty job the legislature is doing?
Why aren't you running for senate, then!
Don't like how bankers completely fucked our economy and ruined everything?
Just make your OWN bank that does GOOD stuff and stop complaining about it!
ITT: discussing a problem is not an integral part of fixing that problem.
I don't spend a lot of time getting into debates about sexism, racism, white male privilege, etc. because I don't have crazy out-of-whack views on these topics, nor do I allow myself to be surrounded by people who do.
I do understand that Anita has become the victim of systematic harassment because of her shining light on the tropes, and arguing that they are having ill effects on our society. What I don't understand is the defense. and this goes for just about any time there is controversy on the internet about some societal injustice or inequality.
Why not ignore the harassers? Anita is making awesome videos now and those will speak for themselves. I groan when I see the tropes she points out, but I also groan when I see the army of white knights rise up every time the internet decided to unreasonably hate on something. I see engaging in her defense as feeding the trolls, by people who are looking at her as a damsel in distress herself. If I was her, I would be saying "back the fuck off, people. I can defend myself." (For all I know she could be saying that, I have no clue).
The whole white-knighting thing SHOULDN'T bother me like it does, but since as far as I've seen, those white knights have been right about every cause they've taken up so far, it's become a cardinal sin to disagree with them. I worry that one day it'll get taken too far (mob mentality), or they'll pick up on the wrong cause. Just my 2 cents.
Similarly, it's a Good Thing that people are out there who can explain the racial undertones in literature and can write about it. They aren't actively solving the problem, but they're able to bring attention to it and explain it.
Thus, the video was A Good Thing. It's bringing attention to it, which is a Good Thing. I know plenty of dev studios with female developers out there who are using the mighty power of their ovaries to develop games. Such things are happening anyway. As gaming attracts more of the fairer sex to its ranks I think we'll start seeing better written female protagonists.
Of course, if she did start off saying she wanted to change the world but OH GOD I DON'T HAVE THE MEANS TO DO SUCH A THING and is now completely shirking that and just making some web series, that's a completely different story.