General News Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn Speak at the UN

Obviously I do think genuine cyberbullying and threats of violence should be tackled (here serious online trolls can be prosecuted which I think is sensible, free speech should have some limits), but this should not be extended to cover any criticism whatsoever.

And the report on the UNWomen site is clearly poorly researched and questionable. For instance:

Uniquely? So women outside this age range don't receive stalking and sexual harassment online? No men receive stalking and sexual harassment online? Who on earth writes this rubbish?

 

You should look up Thunderf00t on YouTube, he has quite a few videos where he rationally deconstructs what people like this say, showing how it has no truth in reality and how these arguments are constructed just to fit an nonexistent narrative.

 

To be fair, they have both had much, much, much worse things said to them than "you suck" or "you're a liar", including--but not limited to--threats of death, mutilation and rape.

However, these people who threaten are essentially toothless and taking it to the UN is ridiculous. Talk about taking the smallest molehill and turning it into the largest mountain. I wish people would just stop giving Sarkesian attention.

 

Oh agreed, it is definitely a unisex affair and I think anonymity and the nature of the internet is to blame here.

I don't doubt that the "estimated" 60% or whatever of women have received harassment or some form of abuse or name calling online. But hasn't anyone who has ever used social media or message boards?

Now yes I think it would be good to look at that culture, and investigate it, but I don't think putting it to the Women's Council and labelling it a female-only issue helps anyone, particularly not Sarkeesian who is fuelling a reputation as someone who is kind of making mountains out of molehills, dare I say it, a professional victim. She is making a killing and a good career out of this. Press conferences around the world, speaking at the UN - I wouldn't blame anyone for succumbing to that lure of celebrity.

On serious threats (death threats, threats of sexual assault), obviously I think we need to tackle them as criminal issues if possible (which we do), and that sites should be there to clean up and remove them when flagged (which they usually do). In that respect this is kind of already being tackled. I don't doubt these sort of threats have the potential to upset (particularly those who are more sensitive) I think it is probably wise for us all as internet users to bear in mind that these are empty threats from insecure people who probably target everyone and anyone. In that sense I think, whilst disgusting, they are a lot less of a real world problem than school cyberbullying, as here the victim knows the attacker and the threat of real world violence is much realer.

 

Alright, I read the first link because that is the only legitimate link you posted. The other two links go to conservative websites that are widely known to distort the truth. (See the recent Breitbart Settlement over the Shirley Sherrod case.)

I've actually watched all of Anita Sarkeesian's YouTube Videos (at least all those she had posted by roughly this time last year). I failed to see anything over the top, objectionable, or wrong in them. I may have quibbled over a few minor points, but over all, I fail to understand why people even had a problem with anything she posted on that channel.

...and no, I am not interested in watching someone else's YouTube video where they chop up her video and discuss it. I can think for myself, thanks. That is why I took the time to watch the videos myself in the first place. I don't need someone else to interpret things for me, and then tell me what to think about it. I had enough of that growing up and going to Church, and such individuals that I have seen (as an example, the aforementioned Thunderf00t) are equally as unscrupulous.

 

No, the conversation starts off with you posting links to disreputable websites. It's not a matter of disliking them, it's a matter of them having been PROVEN (factually) to deliberately spread misleading information. Thus, nothing there can be trusted. You made statements such as the following:

Which was not quoted anywhere at all in the UN Press Release (the first link you posted). In fact, not a single word uttered by Anita Sarkeesian was mentioned in that press release, and she was only one of many who were invited to speak.

In my recollection she never once said that video games cause violence, and if she did then that would be easy to prove wrong. Study after study has proven that wrong. What she did discuss was how women are viewed and treated culturally are reflected in video games, and how video games perpetuate those cultural views of women.

It was the literal equivalent of, "Hey look this <insert media form here> is portraying gay men as pedophiles! This is perpetuating the stereotype that gay men are pedophiles! This <insert media form here> should stop!"

Most of what I recall her focusing on were very common tropes. For example, how armor on a female warrior avatar is impractical and is designed entirely for its sex appeal to straight males, where as the armor for male warrior avatars are designed to look bad ass (if not also frequently impractical). Thus, making it clear to everyone that the role of the male warrior is to be a bad ass fighter, while the role of the female warrior is to be sexually titillating to straight male gamers. This is not a shocking revelation.

Absolutely nothing Anita Sarkeesian discussed was breaking new ground. It was simply the same criticisms that I had heard made by female gamers for years and years. All she did was organize them, compile them into a video, and post them to the internet. Then said internet for some bizarre reason decided to go bat shit insane.

I did actually watch some of those arguments, because you posted them when Gamergate was going on. That's how I know they are garbage, because I've seen them.

---------- Post added 3rd Oct 2015 at 01:40 AM ----------

For those who are unaware, the following video is a good example of what you'll find on Anita's channel.

[YOUTUBE]eYqYLfm1rWA[/YOUTUBE]

I find it difficult to find anything objectionable in that video.

 

...and just for fun, I'm going to throw the video below into the mix as well. The guy in question is straight, but he ended up doing more-or-less the same thing Anita did, except he did it for the LGBT Community. He examined some of the common stereotypes and tropes queer characters are placed into in gaming.

[YOUTUBE]XdmJXHJLZ6M[/YOUTUBE]

 

Ugh. I went back to look for the thread where we discussed Gamergate and Sarkeesian in the past, and the entire thread appears to be gone. Did it get deleted? I know we discussed it in the past, because the first time I heard anything about Gamergate and Sarkeesian was on this forum. I learned about her channel here, which is why I watched her videos, and there were videos to her critics posted. This is how I knew who Thunderf00t was, because I watched some of his videos as well. However, the entire thread appears to be gone.

Um. No. This reason is not only conspiratorial it is also fallacious: 'Some news sites are full of crap, therefore all news sites are full of crap.' That is not a coherent argument. It is the type of fallacious logic used by everyone from Christians to Alien Abduction Theorists in order to justify their nonsense .

It is true that some news sites are full of shit. You linked to some good examples. That does not mean ALL news sites are full of shit, as evidenced by your further argument, which is quoted immediately below.

You started off with them because you knew the UN was a reputable source. Of course, the press release put out by them did not mention anything Anita Sarkeesian said, it only had her picture there--obviously, because she is very well known. However, she was not the only person speaking there. You then linked to misleading sources that give false information.

However, I am glad that we have at least reached an agreement here. The link you provided is full of shit, and you acknowledge that fact. You selected that news source, rather than a more reputable one, because they told the story in a way in which you agree.

If you want to be seen as credible, you actually have to select credible sources for your arguments. If you do not, then it undermines your credibility, and you end up in the position in which you are in right now.

I know nothing about the man who writes her material, nor do I really care. I am not here to defend every word and thought ever uttered by Anita Sarkeesian. My point is not to defend anything she has said, though I find myself agreeing with much if not most of what I've seen her say. The point I am making is that Anita Sarkeesian is not saying anything new or groundbreaking. She is literally going over to Home Page - TV Tropes. She goes over there, finds a trope about women (whether positive or negative), finds examples (often also provided there), and then makes a video about it. That is literally what she is doing. She is not covering any new ground that has not been tread by many who have come before her, and therefore I do not understand why she is receiving an inordinate amount of attention.

If she is saying that video games cause violence, then there have been a lot of peer reviewed studies on video games and violence. Linking any one of those reputable studies disproves her argument, and regardless whether or not she changes her opinion is not relevant, because the facts would not be on her side.

...except every time there is a mass shooter on the news it is a man. Just like video games don't cause violence, it is provable and true that the overwhelming amount of gun violence done in America, and that the overwhelming amount of mass shootings are done by men. Does that mean that all men everywhere are bad people? No. However, it does point to a sociological problem that needs to be studied since there is a clear gender unbalance--men are obviously engaged more often in this behavior for a reason. We would like to know that reason so that we can put an end to it, because people being shot to death is bad.

I've never played Hitman, so I cannot comment on that. However, once again I am not trying to defend everything she has ever uttered out of her mouth.

That is not the argument I have seen in her videos. You have the correlation backward. There is real life misogyny and violence against women, and this culture is then translated into our media--video games being one form of that media. It also appears in books and movies and other forms of entertainment as well. This media then re-enforces those cultural norms, which in turn help perpetuate the problem. That is the argument she has made.

We have made the exact same argument, and it is the entire reason an organization like GLAAD exists. The. Entire. Reason. You change culture by changing the information and media people consume. There is a reason there are a lot more positive portrayal of LGBT characters and people in the media now, and that did not happen by accident. It happened because we fought to make it happen.

You acknowledge that the tropes she comments on are real. You acknowledge that they are bad. You are likely to acknowledge also that there are negative and bad stereotypes of gay people (example: gay people are pedophiles / rapists), as well as negative and bad stereotypes regarding racial minorities (example: black women get the Mammy). These stereotypes become tropes in our media. Because they rely on stereotypes that people have of the particular group of people they are aimed at, it reinforces the negative perceptions people have of that group. The only way to fix that is by discouraging the tropes, which is almost always a result of lazy writing or lack of imagination (see: Ms. Male Characters). They actually make the characters labeled in such a way as LESS complex and LESS interesting, because they are not treated as people, but the embodiment of a trope that is defined by a stereotype.

Yes, it does get tiresome. I am a gamer as well, and I am tired of getting shit on. The difference here is that the overwhelming amount of time we are being shit on by conservatives and the religious right. Arguing, for example, that video games should be censored by the government (for whatever reason) is a CONSERVATIVE position. The liberal position is that censorship of any kind is bad, even if video games do cause you to become a radical Satanist.

Sarkeesian, to my knowledge, has not called for censorship. She has simply pointed out what everyone who was paying attention already knew to be true (namely that there are negative stereotypes about women in the media and therefore video games), and in raising awareness has encouraged game developers to stop being lazy and relying on negative tropes regarding females in video games. This is good for gaming, this is good for women, and it is good for our culture. It's good for gaming because relying on negative tropes involving women is lazy and results in less complex and interesting characters and stories. It is good for women, because it invites them to play games that they can actually relate too. It is good for our culture, because it ceases reinforcing negative stereotypes and beliefs about women.

Once again. We did (and are doing) the same shit with GLAAD for the exact same reason. This is nothing new.

Then I encourage you to do so. Then we could have an actual discussion over what she said in that video rather than what you think she said, or what other people told you that she said. Go ahead. Tear it apart. That would at least allow us to have an honest discussion.

I'm giving you the platform right here right now. Go ahead. Watch the video that I linked too. Rip it apart. You have the floor.

 

It might not have been you then. It might have been someone else. However, I remember Thunderf00t specifically, but he wasn't the only one I viewed. Someone posted a link to refutation videos, I watched some of them, then I went surfing around YouTube to look for others. I watched Anita's video's first so I would understand the context of the conversation. All I really saw were the following:

1. The individuals in question did not understand Anita's arguments OR was purposefully distorting them.

2. The individuals in question was actively and intentionally taking things that she said out of context to make their point.

Unfortunately, the way she structured those videos it is very easy to take a snippet of them and make it look like she said something entirely different than she was saying. It is very easy to take something she said out of context, which is why you have to watch the entire video unedited and understand the larger point that she is making.

Sadly, this assumes that the majority of people that are listening are reasonable people who are able to think for themselves, examine facts, weigh the evidence, consider the argument, and make up their own minds. This is factually false. This is the problem with trying to reason with people--you can't do it. It assumes that the more information someone has that they'll actually be persuaded by your arguments. This only works in situations where people don't have an emotional stake related to their identity. This is known as identity protection, and it overrides the more information theory. (See an article discussing that here.)

I never said that there were not left wing websites that also give bad information. However, just because there are some left leaning sites that do the same thing as some right wing sites does not therefore mean that "EVERY" news site is untrustworthy.

You could reasonably argue that it is impossible to completely eliminate bias. However, that is not what you are saying. You are saying that EVERY news site EVERYWHERE is inherently distorting information to suit "whatever they are peddling."

That belief is just false. There are reputable news sites out there that strive to report as accurately as possible. The standard isn't "perfect" the standard is "reputable" and to be reputable you are simply reporting on the news, you are not inserting a political agenda into the mix.

The sites you linked to, aside from the UN Press Release, have a conservative agenda. They are not reputable news sites. You've admitted this already. This undermines your credibility. If you want to be seen as credible, then you have to provide better sources.

Exactly. And if I posted something from Jezebel or some other feminist slanted news site, and asked you to take it as fact you would know it was slanted in a feminist direction. You would not see my source as credible, and therefore the discussion ends before it even begins.

...as for not saying it's not a crazy conspiracy, well... you did just say this in literally the next paragraph.

That sounds fairly conspiratorial to me. I guess it's good to know that Reuters, the AP, the New York Times, the BBC, the Guardian, the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, and so many others are news sources that can never be trusted due to their insidious agenda.

There was no "pro-side" of the argument in the UN Press Release. They simply mentioned what took place at the UN. Unless you think simply holding a hearing about cyber violence and how it impacts women is somehow "pro"...whatever. Though, I guess more accurately it should be, "anti-cyber violence" whereas that makes you "pro-cyber violence"? I don't know. It is just a weird position to take. It was simply a statement of what happened, and it did not mention Anita by name. It only had a picture of her off to the side because she was one of the people invited to speak, which makes since because she's a woman who has endured threats against her life that originated from people over the internet. After all, it's not as if she's making those death threats against her up. People really, really, REALLY hate her guts. ...which I find laughable. Why isn't all that hateful energy being spent on someone like Jack Chick? Why Anita instead of Jack? Answer that.

You were not expecting to be challenged. You were expecting people to read the article, accept it as factual truth, and have a discussion based on lies and distortions. This is literally no different than them passing the doctored Planned Parenthood videos off as not being edited, and asking us to debate the doctored Planned Parenthood videos in a topic about abortion. This is what you are asking. You are putting something forward as if it were somehow a piece of evidence. I am telling you that it is not evidence, go out and find a legitimate news source.

As far as I can tell it's only that ONE news site that is reporting things in that fashion. Virtually no other news site that I have did a quick search for on Google even really mentioned Anita.

I will never trust a right wing news source. Why the hell would I? If something they are reporting is legitimate, it will be picked up by more creditable news organizations.

I am not saying that you have to go to a left wing news site. I am saying that you need a creditable news source, which is basically me telling you that you need a mainstream news source.

Hmm. Let me try that.

"Heterosexual white men make up the majority of mass shooters in the United States."
"Women make up the majority of mass shooters in the United States."
"Gay people make up the majority of mass shooters in the United States."
"People of color make up the majority of mass shooters in the United States."

Hmm... I don't feel any discomfort about saying any of those statements, though only one of them is true.

It's not a matter of "men" being a "problem" it's a matter of acknowledging what is factually true. Heterosexual white men do make up the majority of mass shooters in the United States. That is a factual truth. Why aren't black men engaging in the same type of mass violence proportional to their numbers? Why aren't women engaged in the same type of mass violence? Why aren't queer people engaged in the same type of mass violence?

My hypothesis is that it has less to do with the fact that they are heterosexual, white, or men and it has to do with the fact that heterosexual white males, thanks to patriarchal culture, causes more individuals in that group to become alienated from the rest of society. It's likely for the same reason we see white males engaging in suicide more often than black males. Part of it is likely mental illness, certainly, but it is more likely a mental illness caused by social alienation.

You can disagree all you like, because it's okay to be wrong. Although it is rather odd that you would say that 'she would be trying to change public opinion in order to change games' when she has a damn YouTube channel dedicated toward trying to educate the public in order to change games. Unless you just think that is a secret plot for her TRUE nefarious agenda! I'm sure you'll find a conspiracy theory in there somewhere.

...and by the way, she absolutely believes that changing games will change public opinion. That's the entire point of trying to educate people and encourage public pressure to mount to change games (and media as a whole). Why do you think public opinion of gay people tracks almost 1:1 with the amount of positive portrayals of gay people in the media?

It is because the media reflects the public perception, and the public perception is shaped by the media. It's like a cycle that feeds on itself. In order to change things you either have to change the public perception or change the media. The difficulty in changing the public perception is that if the media does not change first, then the public is constantly being fed a destructive message. Thus, you change the media first, which helps initiate the change in public perception, and then you focus more closely on individual sectors of the public.

Why do you think the religious right has fought us tooth and nail on how we're portrayed in the media? Why do you think they spent years saying that portraying us in the media would be dangerous and destructive to children? Why do you think they don't want their children to know about gay people, unless it is from a hostile and critical source? They want those things because it reinforces what they believe, and it ensures that their children grow up to be bigots just like them. That's why we fight so hard for positive portrayals of gay people, especially for children and young adults. Why? Because it sends a positive message that gay people aren't threatening. The more they hear and receive positive messages about us, the less likely they are to grow up and be bigoted toward us.

This is the only reason that you have even half the rights you have right now.

Exactly. It is an old trope, in which women were helpless and needed a man to rescue them. They lacked agency and the ability to do anything but wait until the man came to save them. You are correct that it is lazy (and boring) writing. That alone is enough of a reason to stop. However, it is also misogynistic because:

A) The woman only exists in the story in relation to the male hero. She becomes the goal for the male protagonist to achieve.

B) By definition this trope requires a woman to be powerless to escape her situation, because if she had any independent agency and managed to escape on her own the male protagonist would not be necessary.

C) It requires women to be seen as victims. Something bad has happened to the woman. Now you must become the hero to go save her.

Understand, that this is the very stereotype and trope that cuts against men. By giving women automatic victim status, requiring men to save them, you are reinforcing the notion that men cannot also be victims and do not also need saving. As a result, you end up in a culture and society in which we have instances of men getting raped and abused, but no one really takes that as seriously as when it happens to women. Why? Because we are conditioned to see women as helpless victims in need of saving, and men are supposed to be the ones who are the free agents capable of saving them. Thus, if you are a man in a situation in which you are a victim, your manhood gets questioned, because that is not the role you are supposed to be in--men are not supposed to be victims. That's the role for women.

The problem with the trope isn't simply that the woman is a victim, that she is powerless to do anything about her situation, or that she lacks agency independent of the male protagonist. It's the fact that this is how we are taught to see women in real life, and this trope exists because it reflects that view of women. Thus, every time this trope is invoked it reinforces that view of women, and consequently that view of men. ...and like giving kids positive portrayals of gay people, the more and more you reinforce it the more and more it becomes how they see gay people, women, or some other minority group. It will even influence how they see themselves if they are part of the minority group in question.

Then don't bother responding until you've done that, as there is nothing further to discuss. Unless you are prepared to actually debate what she says, in the context in which she puts it forward, there is no point in continuing this conversation further.

Start with the one I linked too.

[YOUTUBE]eYqYLfm1rWA[/YOUTUBE]