It would not be possible for her to be more right!

Earlier today I was cut off in traffic and not a single porn actor or actress came to my help! Seriously, how can you have a valid cause if you aren't able to help out every single victim of every random crime in every location in the world?! If Anita Sarkeesian can't single-handedly replace the police and the justice system and the support systems in society for victims of crime, she is just a total hypocrite.

I'm confused. Does Anita Sarkeesian have to publically announce her disapproval of every rape now in order to validate her position as a feminist? Is the expectation that she, and others, shut up about the constant harassment they receive until they actually get assaulted and raped?

Honestly, I'd save my anger for the men (or boys?) that committed this act and if I really wanted to help "Women" I'd give some thought as to what might be done to make such terrible occurrences less frequent.

What an unbelievably narrow-minded conclusion. Honestly if this is "It would not be possible for her to be more right", then your approaching this with ZERO subjectivity.

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by ant.

She's an idiot.

(Did Babymech just say that getting brutally gang raped in front of one's children by intruders in one's home is somehow comparable or "on par" with getting cut off in traffic? What the fuck is wrong with you?)

What Ms. Carrera doesn't appreciate here is that the assault of Cytheria undermines the narrative put forward by the Social Justice Warriors (i.e., modern feminists) that gives attention to the Duke lacrosse hoax, the Treyvon Martin case, and the Ferguson debacle, but completely ignores Cytheria's rape. Why? Because it negates the notion that rape is always a function of class and privilege (i.e., white affluent men raping poor minority females) and never not. If Emma Sulkowicz or Jackie Coakley lie about being assaulted, the SJWs are all over it, but if Cytheria reports being assaulted by underprivileged African American men, the SJWs simply ignore it.

Modern feminists don't care about rape victims. They never have. They aren't trying to protect women. They are trying to punish masculinity by displacing their own inabilities to cope with anything outside of their wealthy, upper-middle class bubbles...

It's funny because I've often felt that the attitude I get from Sarkeesian and SJW's is that I'm a misogynist if I'm not publicly voicing my outrage every time someone posts something abusive or threatening to them on the internet.
But, if an educated upper middle class white woman gets threatened over the internet then everyone looses their minds, but some pornstar slut gets raped for real and in the backs of many people's minds you know they're thinking that she obviously had it coming. So yeah, I can see where Mercedes is coming from on this one.

The only thing wrong with me is that I can read and parse a sentence, which inevitably puts me at odds with people like you. The comparison that is drawn is not between the severity of the crimes, but the insanity of putting expectations on an entirely inappropriate party to take responsibility. Anita Sarkeesian is a feminist critic and speaker, not a women's shelter. Just because she tries to speak out against the treatment of women in games and gaming media doesn't somehow put her on call to try to help every rape victim.

This woman's rape (while undoubtedly horrific) does not in anyway trivialise someone else's bad experience. Just because you were stabbed doesn't make the time I was beaten up any better.

Besides, you could argue the other direction too and be just as wrong. Why raise money for this one woman. There are probably millions of women worldwide who have suffered much worse.

It's a stupid, stupid argument.

And just in case the hard of thinking brigade show up, the victims choice of career has absolutely no bearing on the trauma she's suffered.

Gamergate astroturfing? Don't think I've seen any Pro-GG people so highly upvoted with the comments full of railing against "SJWs" on the sift before. Weird.

Everybody loses their shit over Sarkeesian et al because they are contentious. I think there is this perception that the attention that is generated as a result of all the frothing was somehow a cynical ploy to acquire fame, not for a cause, but for oneself. It's easy to feel how "SJWs" stole the limelight, that attention was diverted from rape to petty (in comparison at least) squabbles. I think it's a mistake to lay the blame on the originators of an opinion for the fact that it went viral. Fame is all our creation, not theirs.

Ugh, everyone in this thread is acting like an asshat.
I'll start with you tho.

Carrera is upset because:

Sar-sleaz-ian is an new-age-feminist hack who finds porn disgusting, and feels pity for any women who performs sex acts for money.

She belittles porn actresses like Mercedes & Cytherea as lowly abused victims.

Then, at Mercedes' request, refuses to support Cytherea when she ACTUALLY becomes a victim.

Anita is literally profiting off the fuax-oppression of women in gaming media & culture. [Cherry picking instead of highlighting the actual corruption in the culture]

Yet, she denies the agency of sex-workers to choose their profession, referring to them as "prostituted women".

This is why Sar-shittyhumanbeing-ian is a hypocrite, a fuax-intellectual, and [as Mercedes succinctly puts it] damaging gender relations.

Anita Sarkeesian is a troll and a puppet.
She's only stirring up shit to further her career.
It's more vile & disgusting than any of the stuff she's railing against.

Shit, this whole thing is some stupid first-world problem bullshit.

While its true i don't think anyone has taken the high minded approach of altering someones name to include an insult fitting their preferred narrative, I'm not certain not sharing your opinion qualifies as being an asshat.

I'm curious, you spoke at length about Sarkeesian's motives and her opinions. I believe i'd heard of her before today, but know very little about her politics or organization.

I find it very strange that someone who, apparently, has such well known view points would be who this woman reached out to for help. And then having not received satisfaction from this complete stranger, who according to you holds her and her profession in very low regard, is completely outraged. I find that very strange.

Personally, i think whats being missed in this is how the media handles it. This apparently happened a few months past, arrests have been made and the prosecution seems to be going forward. I'm somewhat shocked that this incident seems to completely be ignored by the media.

A nun was brutally rapped in India recently and its literally on the front page of ever major news organization in the world. Its a horrifying crime, beyond me to describe.

Another woman, an adult film actress is raped repeatedly in front of her terrorized family and there wasn't even a blip...

Exactly.

This is Mercedes Carrera's point.

She is outraged because Sarkeesian - the new face of female empowerment in the gaming world - was completely non-responsive when Carrera reached out to her.

Full Stop.

@Babymech completely missed this point.

Then went on a red-herring tangent, dragging the thread down with him.

As for my jabs at Anita..

The reason you've barely heard about Sarkeesian is because - until recently - she was just another starving artist youtube personality.

When I first stumbled across her Feminist Frequency videos, I too was duped by her ostensibly critical analysis of female tropes in pop culture media.

So for the uninitiated - Stephen Colbert, Mercedes Carrera, yourself - Sarkeesian seems like:

"Wow, the next generation of Women's Rights Advocates is fierce."

But just like any other ego-tripping prestige hound, the flaws in her arguments began to bubble up.

Other youtubers - commenters & personalities alike - started calling her on her bullshit.

In response, she disabled the comments on all of her videos.

That was just the start of a series of shitbag tactics to cover up her bullshit.

So yeah, unless you're familiar with Sarkeesian's brand of - lalala, I can't hear you cause I'm too busy empowering my wallet with bullshit lectures about first world problems - kabuki theatre..

You could be forgiven for thinking that she's actually promoting a level-headed positive message.

When in reality..

She generates stylized drama for the purpose of furthering her own narrative & career.

Can't let all those Women's Studies courses go to waste, can she.

Anywho..

The point is.
Cytherea deserves the support of anyone that truly cares about the empowerment of women & equality of genders.

I think the lady makes a very good point about damage being done to sex relations, and often times it seems the internet-generation feminist is actually not interested whatsoever in equality and is more accurately described a misandrist.

Very recently in my own country we had a number of famous feminists fighting to get rid of "page 3 girls" - semi nude models in tabloid newspapers. It never happened, but even as it was happening there were page 3 models complaining because it meant they'd be out of a job they enjoyed and got paid well for. No woman OR man should feel forced to take their clothes off in public for any reason, and in fact that is the case as these people are not slaves but career models by choice. What was actually happening was a prudish approach to human sexuality had been disguised as an equality thing; and the language was always of course referring to the little girls - because if you disagree with little girls having to grow up to go topless you're a certified monster and pervert.

That kind of shit really detracts from the things that are seriously unfair such as, most obviously, the pay gap. No woman should get paid less for the same job. There's no "rape culture" that i've ever heard of if your sample size includes greater than 1000 people in the west, and terms like that detract from the argument again - if you want to talk rape culture then look to India, where there is (and needs to be more) attention on changing the attitudes of the male community towards females because of horrific acts taking place.. almost commonplace. And to India's credit there was a big campaign tied into their favourite sport, with social media involvement and obviously most men proudly wearing symbols and stuff. There are parts of that society that has issues that could do with feminism.

But this is the profession of being offended. You have to drum up publicity, it has to be viral, or you don't get paid. You don't get a column in the newspaper or the mag, you don't get enough hits on your youtube to make enough money. Not if you talk about the pay gap or the gender inequality in less "civilised?" societies.. no, you do that by talking about the tits on page 3. Or espousing something unfair and incendiary; something someone will want to argue with. Nothing that fits with common sense. These people are self publicists - they will make a spelling error on a tweet to encourage others to call them stupid, correct them, essentially RETWEET AND REPLY AND FOLLOW AND LIKE!

Whether or not Sarkeesian(?) should have commented, there is a point well made in this video. I've been on the receiving end of something disguised as feminism in the past, and all it did was make me wary of anyone under 30 that calls themselves a feminist. Before i can establish whether that means misandrist, i have to establish common ground, because i'm a feminist too. What we need is more decorum and less extremism. You can't change the world without the help of both sexes, why alienate each other?

One: Faux. For the love of god, faux. FAUX. Please. I'm begging you. Please. If nothing else, this.

Secondly: Why are you pretending that Sarkeesian is the 'face of female empowerment' in anything, and why does that put special demands on her and, I guess, on her twitter account? To some, Sarkeesian is the face of feminism in gaming, to others it would be, I dunno, Leigh Alexander, or Zoe Quinn, or [fill in feminist gamer names here because I don't care about feminist gamers or gaming in general]. I am entirely convinced that Sarkeesian deplores the fact that Cytherea - that anyone - was raped, regardless of profession. There is absolutely no reason for you, or anyone else, to demand that she respond in any way, in this specific case. I would guess that there are plenty of other people who are equally opposed to rape - you, for example - who still haven't done shit to support this specific victim, or the one before her or the one after her. That fact doesn't undermine your general anti-rape stance.

Your ridiculous outrage doesn't answer the question: Anita Sarkeesian is, and is known for being, a feminist critic of video games, gaming culture, and the depiction of women in games. Since when is it part of her job description to respond to every call for support she gets over twitter? She can choose to do so, as a human being, but neither you nor I have any reason to demand that she does so. Last I checked, this horrendous crime was an actual rape and not a 'trope' in gaming media. It's kind of outside of her area of professional expertise.

Also: Faux.

@Babymech

You're doing it again. Stop it. Your point is off topic.

Asserting that "no one, you nor I, is Sarkeesian's keeper." is a pointless tangent.

You're completely distracted by it. Stop it.

Pho-victimhood getting more press & media coverage than actual victims is the topic.

Start discussing that. Then we'll talk.

I'm sorry, I was talking about the actual video, the actual people involved, and the actual things being said. My bad for going off topic.

If you want me to discuss the imaginary people in your head, with hilarious names like Anita Sar-IMSODUMBHOHOHO-neesia-STUPIDPOOP-n, you will have to give me a cast list and some background. I mean, if it's not about Sarkeesian and what you and I can demand that she does on twitter, what is it about? Could it be about... ethics in games journalism?

This is where you and she missed the point...as you said, some people have labeled Sarkeesian -"The new face of female empowerment IN THE GAMING WORLD" (I don't think she calls herself that)....This complaint was not in the gaming world, but in real life. If Sarkeesian was a public anti-rape advocate and ignored this case, there might be reason to be upset about it, but she is not, so there's no reason whatsoever to get outraged that she didn't drop her life and the (somewhat related) issues she cares about to take up your cause, no matter how righteous your cause/issue may be.

For the "uninitiated" (those not in the know) like yourself, the reason she ended up disabling the comments on her videos is she was getting serious violent rape and death threats multiple times daily, not just because "she was called out on her bullshit". Claiming she did it to stick her fingers in her ears and scream "lalalalala" is clearly just a shitbag red herring tactic to cover up a bullshit premise.

So, I must assume you have given Cytherea moral and financial support then, or do you not care about the empowerment of women and equality of genders? How much of your time and money have you donated to her cause? None?!? Why, then you must be a self centered, uncaring, misogynistic, pro-rape, victim blamer who's work in any other field/area must be nothing more than self serving BS...right? That's your position on Sarkeesian, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander....so....

That is completely ridiculous.

From the title of the video, to its subject, to the description, and on down through a number of the commentators , Sarkeesian has been held up as an example of 'Modern Feminism'.

I'm not sure which is more ludicrous, the thought that one pseudo celeb your not fond of can by, allegedly, self-appointment define millions of other people, or that somehow @Babymech was the one to present her that way. I think the reality of this is some people want desperately to make Sarkeesian the face of modern feminisom, and i suspect many of those, are not in any way feminists.

You want to talk about trivial stories getting media coverage?

Yesterday, the island of Vanuatu was all but destroyed by a cyclone. 24 people confirmed dead, tens of thousands left homeless and "the development of the country wiped out" but what was the headline on NZs largest news site (and bear in mind that NZ is the closest developed nation to Vanuatu)?

Some d-list celebrity said something mean on a reality tv show, and the country lost their shit.

So, when someone threatens "the deadliest school shooting in American history" at your speaking engagement, that is not "faux victimhood". That is genuinely fucking scary.

Bad shit happens to people every fucking day and it's not deemed newsworthy. If you really want to get pissy about it, why does this one womans awful experience merit more support than the 200+ schoolgirls that are still missing?

The answer is that it's not a zero sum game.
I can say that I feel that the representation of women (and non-caucasians while I'm at it) in video games is pretty bad and should change.
I can also say that this woman had an awful experience and I wish it hadn't happened.
And I can also say that I sincerely hope those girls don't get sold in slavery.
And a million other issues of social justice, environment, etc.

Some of those are more important than others. Doesn't mean the "lesser" ones should be ignored.

You immediately lost all credibility with "Sar-sleaz-ian".

Honestly, by biggest contention with this isn't that she didn't respond (although even a simple expression of sympathy would have probably been better than silence) but the way people reacted to the threats she got and how her status as victim has elevated her to the point where anything she says is beyond question in the eyes of many.

And you are right that smaller problems should not be ignored but that does not mean we should lose all perspective either.
Being threatened with rape over the internet and actually being raped is a world of difference and yet whenever you hear about the threats made against Sarkeesian they are always "serious". We're always told that we are not supposed to believe everything we see on the internet and yet the reporting on these events spoke as if they had nearly happened already. The guy who made the threats to shoot up Utah State University was hardly scary, hell, he wasn't even very creative, just copy paste other shootings or threats of shootings and watch everyone scurry.

And no, it's not a zero sum game, it's the media game, and in the media game perceptions and appearance are as good as truth.

It's *dead Jim. Looks like the account was terminated.

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by SDGundamX.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by SDGundamX.

So... she sent a tweet to a total stranger and is not only shocked that the stranger didn't reply, but assumes that she got no reply because she's a sex worker?

Oh, and people who receive threats of sexual assaults aren't victims, they're faux-victims?

No one takes what she's saying seriously, do they?

<Reads comments on Videosift>

*sigh*

Replaced video embed code with backup #8114 (supplied by member SDGundamX) - embed replaced by member eric3579.

*notdead

This dead video has been deemed functional; either it was accidentally declared dead or eric3579 is planning to manually replace the embed with a backup - declared notdead by eric3579.

OMFUCKINGGEEEE!

Asshats. This is why videosift is a ghosttown.

You all pretend your points are valid when in fact.. you just like arguing for the sake of it.

"Well, I didn't like the TONE in which you said THIS phrase. So clearly I'll have to prove to you that same point that we ALREADY AGREE UPON even HARDER"

"Psh, YOUTUBE COMMENTS! Everyone knows that OUR users and their comments are WAAAY more tempered & articulate WHILE still being SNARKY & PEDANTIC."

ugh, why did i think returning was okay.

No, seriously, stick around. We can do this in a calm and structured manner, without you calling anybody asshats, I promise. Outline the points you think we all agree on and the points you think we disagree on, and we can start from there. Or, if you don't want to do that, I can offer my theories on what we agree on and what we disagree on, and you can correct me. Nobody has to comment on 'tone', because nobody will waste time calling each other asshats or sheeple or pedants or whatever.

(also I think the reason that videosift comments section is a ghost town is that the site design runs counter to actually following a discussion thread after the video disappears off the front page. I don't think videosift, as such, is a ghost town; people just watch more than they discuss)

I would also say 'stick around', but would suggest calming down as well, and being less disrespectful at the onset of conversation if you want respect back. Please read your first post in this thread as if it were written TO you.

I'm of the opinion that people starting their post thread by calling anyone that disagrees with their position (also those that don't stand up to defend that position) "asshats" (and other derogatory names) have driven many off the site, and convinced many others that commenting will only get them targeted for silly name calling. Making up kindergarten style names to call public faces you dislike is also not conducive to adult conversation.

Because YOU disagree with someone's point doesn't mean they're just 'arguing for the sake of argument'...are you just arguing for the sake of argument?...because I disagree with your position, and noted you didn't contradict mine in the least.

When you start out with calling all readers "Asshats", your tone is a problem, and your post will be read in the worst light possible.

Actually, yes, VS comments are exactly that...."WAAAY more tempered & articulate WHILE still being SNARKY & PEDANTIC"...and that's a good thing, a very good thing.


I wonder, can you back up any of your statements in your first post? Things like 'Sarkeezian finds porn disgusting, feels pity for sex workers, belittles sex workers, refuses to support victims (not publicly answering is not the same as refusing any support), somehow denying sex workers their chosen profession (by saying that selling your body for sex is prostitution?), etc? That seems like a lot of assumption coming from a non-response, but maybe you know her better than I.

@newtboy With contentious topics like this, the conversation is barely "adult".

It's nitpicky and tangential because everyone thinks they alone are adding some great insight to the discussion.

@Babymech hopped on the "Anita doesn't owe anyone anything" cart.

@Trancecoach was closer to base but then got all "you see, it's really the blacks that are the problem"

@ChaosEngine choose the "well youtube comments are generally insulting & abusive.. therefore it's okay to block valid criticism too!"

Great, what does that have to do with the message of the speaker.
Or my point of "hey, why are you completely avoiding the overall message of the speaker"

Furthermore, what's the difference between Baby's condescending tone and my outright insults?

Both are belittling & incongruent with "adult" behavior/conversation.

Ultimately, he too is trying to swat down argument/opinion that doesn't mesh with his.

Regardless of my brash way of speaking, my points are still valid.

I do my research. I don't talk about topics I'm ignorant on.
And as I said, I was once a fan of Anita Sarkeesian and her videos.

Then I ran into her bullshit.

There's tons of evidence on youtube that points out Sarkeesian's hypocrisy.

So if you're uninformed, why not take it upon yourself.. to educate yourself.

You folks are barely any better then lantern or bobknight with your knee-jerky devils' advocate defense of a pseudo-intellectual prestige-hound who is unscrupulous in the way she pursues her agenda.

Next you're gonna tell me that somehow Bill Cosby isn't a date-rapist.

"Well you know, it was only 25-30 women with identical experiences/anecdotes. ..MJ is still definitely a pederast tho."

My point here is:

You all frame this video with your personal opinion BEFORE analyzing the entirety of it's message & context.

I get that, because it's a pot-stirrer.
But seriously, if you just think it out:

A - Gamergate is first world problem bullshit
B - It has garnered unwarranted hype and a counter-cult of white-knight SJW supporters.
C - It's being conflated with an ACTUAL very serious set of issues.
Online Harassment. Slut shaming. The depiction & plight of genders in pop culture. etc.
D - Actual victims & movements, ON BOTH SIDES, are being undermined by this frenzy.

Juxtapose that with the brutal home invasion & sexual assault..

Then ask yourself if the nitpicky personal opinion you're about to express maintains the situation & context.

Otherwise, you end up expressing terrible mindless thoughts like @Babymech.
in effect - "regardless of her peer's brutal rape.. she has no right to expect an outspoken proponent of women's rights.. to respond to her.. or call attention to the most disparaged & vulnerable/easily victimized members of society, female sex workers"

This is why the videosift community can barely be taken seriously.

It's like 4chan flamewars for boring old people.

..now everyone is on my case for [aggressively] pointing this out.



PHO PHO PHO PHO PHO Bun cha gio, mmm.

@GenjiKilpatrick, you're not the only one who's done their research on Anita. Unlike you, I didn't start out a fan. My first reaction was that it was bullshit. But almost every video I've seen critiquing her is either barely contained misogyny or has confused criticism with censorship.

As for blocking valid criticism on YouTube, it's pointless. The signal to noise ratio is so low as to be nonexistent. Trying to pick a valid point out of a sea of bile and idiocy is a waste of time.

And no, gamer gate is not some first world problem bullshit, it's a fucking disgrace and makes me embarrassed to call myself a gamer.

It can remain adult, the first 6 comments (including ant's, ending with bareboards') were adult, then it quickly devolved into grade school faulty reasoning, lack of comprehension, blatant racism, and derision by someone well known for that type of post.
Conversations will never remain 'adult' when people start their posts with silly blanket derision like "Ugh, everyone in this thread is acting like an asshat." That's not an adult thing to say, and adds nothing to any discussion. Also, you include ant in that (he had posted in the thread by then) for adding it to the 'talk' channel. WHAT?!

To answer your questions,
@Babymech made a quite valid point with a clear example of why Anita doesn't owe anyone anything, and a second post explaining that even more clearly (the second with some snark, because of the insulting comment(er) it was replying to).
You just started by insulting everyone...posters, speaker, Anita, "everyone in this thread"... and made huge leaps to assume she hates and belittles sex workers (who are prostitutes if they sell sex for money, BTW).
Then you go on to apparently claim rape, or people caring/not caring about rape, or perhaps people caring/not caring about other people caring/not caring about rape is a first world problem?

Trancecoach (I had to "show it anyway", he's on ignore for obvious reasons) had absolutely no valid point to make, only a complete misread of babymech and a racist insulting rant making insanely wrong claims and conflations.

@ChaosEngine (and I) explained why she disabled comments on youtube. It was not to block valid criticism, or they would never have been open in the first place. It was because of daily rape and death threats and good advice from friends, cops, and youtube.

Your points are not valid IMO. Particularly your point about her turning off comments, I find that point completely without merit for reasons already delineated.

I'm not interested enough in her to investigate her, and see no need. I'm not a fan. That said, when people make silly statements about her (like "youtubers - commenters & personalities alike - started calling her on her bullshit. In response, she disabled the comments on all of her videos.") when I know that's not correct, I will correct you.
Gamergate (EDIT: for a vast majority of people) WAS about "an ACTUAL very serious set of issues.
Online Harassment. Slut shaming. The depiction & plight of genders in pop culture. etc. " because of the harassing, slut shaming, threatening comments it generated. That's why people know about it, not because of it's original message. Juxtapose that with the repeated serious threats of brutal home invasion & sexual assault...Then ask yourself if the nitpicky personal opinion you've already expressed maintains the situation & context. Otherwise you end up expressing terrible non-sequitur mindless thoughts like Trancecoach.

in effect - "regardless of her peer's brutal rape.. she has no right to expect someone you have labeled an outspoken proponent of women's rights (in gaming).. to respond to her.. or call attention to what you (not her) are calling the most disparaged & vulnerable/easily victimized members of society, female sex workers"...yes, absolutely. Sarkeesian is not an anti-rape advocate, she's a 'women in gaming' advocate, and has no obligation to take up another cause and drop her cause. It's disturbing you don't se the difference, and I think it's intentional.

@newtboy
At this point, you're just arguing because I don't agree.

You continue to nitpick at the semantics of my points, because -

@newtboy said: "Your points are not valid IMO.. ..when I know that's not correct, I will correct you.."

Precisely.

I saw everyone here blindly jump to the defense of an unethical "political thought pundit" (or whatever you wanna label her. Again, semantics).

I figured - 'if they actually knew the bigger picture of the matter, they would see Sark's hypocrisy. I should point that out'

Nope. You believe want you want to believe.

In this, you're just like Trancecoach or Lantern or anyone else that spins or ignores facts.

By your own admission, you don't even care about this topic.

@newtboy said: "I'm not interested enough in her to investigate her, and see no need."

You then have the audacity to say some shit like -

@newtboy said: "and [you] made huge leaps to assume she hates and belittles sex workers (who are prostitutes if they sell sex for money, BTW)."

So
1 - Why the FRECK are you still "debating" with me. if YOU DON'T EVEN CARE!?!?
2 - How the hell can you assert i'm jumping to conclusions, when YOU yourself are the uninformed party?! Admittedly!
3 - Do you realize that referring to a group of people outside of their preferred nomenclature is highly denigrating?

So while I could cite all my sources, what good would that do?

You've clearly already made up your mind about me & my positions

@newtboy said: "Then you go on to apparently claim rape, or people caring/not caring about rape, or perhaps people caring/not caring about other people caring/not caring about rape is a first world problem?"

And the topic itself

@newtboy said: "Gamergate WAS about "an ACTUAL very serious set of issues."

Again, all without substantive knowledge of the topic or parties involved.

THAT is the behavior of a fool. i.e. jackass, ass, asshat.

That is the exact behavior that caused you to ignore Trance, Lantern, Bobknight.

They (you) don't know what the fuck they're (you) talking about.
But yet they (you) still ride in on their high-horses to every debate.

So the rest of this is just gonna be me slappin' unsound arguments out yer hands.

I asked you if you had evidence of your claims, you ignored that query, so I logically assumed you don't. You still refuse, claiming it would do no good, but you have never tried (because you've clearly already made up your mind about me & my positions), still leading to the conclusion you don't have any.
I have the knowledge/memory of the reported threats, and her reaction. That's all I needed to dispute your contention that she cut comments off solely to silence reasoned debate.
Again, you have still not backed up any of your statements, which leads to the reasonable conclusion that you can't, and are just riding your high horse and acting the fool. Please prove that impression wrong by supplying the repeatedly requested evidence, or prove it correct by continuing to simply claim it will be ignored and so refusing.

EDIT: and I'm not ignoring Bobknight!
and if using a word's technical meaning is denigrating, that's the denigrateds' problem IMO. They should own it, there's nothing wrong with it. I didn't mind being called a janitor instead of a custodial technician. If she's called them 'dirty whores on film', then she meant it to be denigrating, and I'll change my mind.

We'll start with the "youtube comments are toxic".

We're in agreement. Even youtube agrees.

While it's unfortunate that the comment cream doesn't rise on youtube..

This still doesn't eliminate that fact that tons of valid criticism is being censored by Sark & plenty of other unscrupulous agenda-pushers.

It's a perfect opportunity to squash any dissent, under the guise of -

"there is no real debate here. only insults & threats. I had to disable comments to spare my audience the vitriol"

However, imagine if the youtuber was an outspoken Scientologist or Creationist..

Snowball's chance in hell you aren't viewing that as a deceitful tactic to avoid scrutiny.

"Everyone knows creationism is easily debunked/scientology is a cult. Clearly they've disabled comments because they want to squash dissent/valid arguments"

Rarely, if ever, would you think -

"Disabled comments? I get it. They probably just got too many death threats. Scientologists have feelings too yuh know"

Nonetheless, when the EXACT SAME scenario is put in front of you..

..with regard to topics that tug at your liberal, tree-huggy sympathies..

You lose all skepticism. Why is that?

Literally all it takes is a 30 second google search to discover the inconsistencies in Sarkeesian's statements & actions.

From the first article -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the words of Tumblr user robbiebaldwin:

“She says she wants to ‘create a dialogue’ or ‘force video games into open debate,’ except she turns off both comments and even ratings on her videos. Wanting to hear your own voice in an echo chamber is the total opposite of ‘open debate.’”

Leading the charge against Sarkeesian’s decision is Tumblr user amazingatheist, who posted a ten-minute video entitled "Who’s The Damsel Now?"

Arguing that Sarkeesian’s “censorship” of YouTube comments counteracts her message about strong women
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are you seeing the larger picture now @newtboy @Babymech etc.?

This self-described - "critic of sexism in pop culture" - is espousing a set of ideas & strong statements..

Then completely cowering, juking, and being absolutely non-responsive when called on her shit.

She disabled the RATINGS for FSM's sake!
The neutral, objective, non-threatening, non-absuive RATINGS!

That's the way you stand strong for your cause, right!
By disallowing even your supporters from showing their approval!

And before you even mention that cancel lecture of hers.

WHAM!

BAM!

Straight from Utah State -

"Throughout the day, Tuesday, Oct. 14, USU police and administrators worked with state and federal law enforcement agencies to assess the threat to our USU community and Ms. Sarkeesian. Together, we determined that there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and that this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event."

They were all "Please don't cancel. We love con-artists! We're Mormons, remember!"

*TooLong,Don'tGiveaFuck*

Anita Sarkeesian is a self-proclaimed pop-culture critic..

Who claims that she wants to 'create a dialogue' & 'force video games into open debate'..

She then proceeds to disallow any & all discourse or scrutiny of her work - positive or negative - going so far as to disable like & dislike ratings on her videos.

Oh and I forgot to add..

She conveniently forgot to disable the vitriol 'whining' on her Kickstarter page until AFTER those comments boosted her campaign to over $150,000 in donations.

[i'll search for the video while you whine about citing sources]

BUT AGAIN! THIS ISN"T JUST ABOUT HER!
It's the overall debacle & all the stupid articles surrounding it.

Tho first I have to slog thru this shitstorm because you're easily distracted by syntax & word choice.

Shit, this is pointless.

Oh well. Done for now.

Online Harassment - been apart of the internet since chatrooms were available.

Are you ashamed of being an "internet-er" too?

Slut Shaming - been apart of society since clothes were invented.

Are you ashamed to being part of society?

Gamergate is specifically about game "journalists" and reviewers being bribed for positive reviews & articles.

Full stop. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I feel sorry for you or any other male "gamer" who attaches part of their indentity to the 4chan trolls who blew this entire thing out of focus.

And not for nothing. But the shit coming out of the mouths of Anti-GGers, SJWs, modern feminists, whatever..

It's JUST as batshit crazy, abusive, threatening, demeaning, belittling as the 4chan trolls & their bandwagon.

Saying "gamers are dead". They're all greasy basement-dwelling neckbearded 30 yr old virgin pig losers who should be exterminated..

isn't exactly becoming of polite, civil, "adult" discourse.

If anything, feel embarrassed to be a WASP because.. seriously, history.

I'll stop right there tho, before i cause another shitstorm.

I never said "youtube comments are toxic".

If the poster NEVER allows comments (like "Christian mom debunks the science museum"), yes, that's not good and indicates a lack of interest in opposing viewpoints.
If the poster disables comments after repeated rape and death threats, that's only prudent, no matter who the poster is or what they post. That's what was reported in this case, rape and death threats.

Once again, since it's not sinking in, getting serious repeated detailed death and rape threats is not "being called on her shit", and your insistence on calling it that gets you distain and incredibility from my camp. Only a seriously demented douchebag could honestly think they are the same thing, or is it you are claiming that it didn't happen? If the latter, please provide evidence of that claim. She disabled comments and ratings and canceled appearances on the advice of the police/FBI, from what I recall reading back then. Perhaps she was not getting the same threats on her kickstarter page (could it possibly be moderated better?), or maybe she forgot it with the stress of being threatened?

But once again you ignored the point and my request for verification about WHAT SHE SAID ABOUT SEX WORKERS...we never disagreed that she disabled comments, only on why she did it. I'm certain you understand that and are trying the "look, look at the monkey" technique for distraction from the points at hand. That indicates to me that there is none and you just made up what you wanted her to have said. That will be my position until you prove it wrong, do so and I'll change that position.

You seem to think death and rape threats are faux-excuses and not serious. I'll hope you never have to find out differently, but many people have. It's unseemly to imply a single woman should ignore such threats or assume they are not credible, and does not make you look good in my eyes.

It's obvious you have severe hatred of her, and distain for anyone that doesn't, and that you take anything she says or does in the worst light. That makes further discussion moot...and I just don't care. My main point was your aggressive, insulting tone, and it's unlikely to change since you ignored my stated points entirely.

I don't give a shit if a homeopath or an astrologer or a climate denier or any other nutjob you care to name disables comments on youtube. It's simply not a meaningful channel for debate. There are other, better channels.

There's no one claiming to represent everyone who uses the internet saying that online harassment is ok.

But those GG assholes claim to represent "gamers", and no, it's not even slightly about ethics in journalism. It is, in fact, the complete opposite. This is a group that called on Nintendo to withdraw support from reviewers who were critical of Bayonetta.

The fucking hypocrisy is mind blowing. Seriously, think about it. A group that is supposed to be anti-censorship and pro-consumer told one of the biggest names in the industry to boycott a publication because it criticized their product. It is to Nintendos credit that they ignored these assholes who can't understand the difference between critique and censorship.

There isn't some balanced 3rd party POV on GG. Those people are fucking troglodytes, and the sooner they're consigned to the dustbin of history the better.

And yes, of course, I'm ashamed to be part of society sometimes.

I'm not a WASP, but I am Irish and I'm deeply ashamed of some of the racist bullshit associated with my country. I was raised Catholic. Take a wild guess about how I feel about that.

The "gamers are dead" thing has been completely misinterpreted. Did you even read the source article? It's saying that the target market for games isn't "gamers", but just people. Stop marketing to a fictional teenage boy demographic.

And quite frankly, I'm considering buying a t-shirt that says SJW. How the fuck did advocating social justice become a pejorative?

Since Newt keeps hounding me and you all are too lazy to research yourselves..

Anita Sarkeesian is a puppet

Who is only looking to further her career

Who blatantly steals the work of others

Even other women within the sub-culture she's trying to "expose"

Going so far as to fabricate gameplay footage, just to fit her narrative agenda

Now respectfully view these poor oppressed women who are clearly shunned & barred from the horrendous boys club that is Gamer-dom!! spooky spooky!

Asshats. the lot of yuh

I shouldn't do this @newtboy you lazy fuckin' bastard.
It's definitely not going to change your mind.

Are you sure you're not autistic or something?

"Pro-sex-worker activists legitimately criticized the third Feminist Frequency for its use of "prostituted women" to describe sex workers, which is an agency-denying code phrase used by sex-worker-eliminationist radical feminists. "

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/06/17/new-feministfrequency-video/

https://www.readability.com/articles/24yxtecr

https://everydaywhorephobia.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/swerfsterfs-the-westboro-baptist-church-of-feminism/

From your descriptions, none of those will give the verification I've been asking for, and are more likely just the first 6 anti-sarkeesian videos that came up on the tube. Even if every description is 100% correct, it does absolutely nothing towards proving the point.

OMFG!!!! Did you even watch any of them?!? The first one is about how the creator of the video re-edits videos to say what HE wants them to, instead of what the people actually said! Why would I watch another second of his admittedly falsely edited, self serving, BS, lame and boring time waste?
Try again. This time try sticking to verifying what you claimed she said please.

Lazy bastard, yes, but not too lazy to read these...they were on topic at least....mostly.

Ok, the first one said what I said, that she used the term technically. It's maybe the listeners who don't understand that a 'prostituted woman' may be prostituting herself, so it's not pejorative or denying women having 'agency of their own'.
The second was the same thing, commentary about her saying the words 'prostituted women'.
The third was about the Westburrough Baptist Church?!?! WTF? Yes, it mentions "radical feminists" and derides their puritanical prudeness, but it never mentions Sarkeesian, and never quotes these "radical feminists" to support their claim that they really are puritanical.
I bothered to read all 3, and nothing there was in dispute, she did say sex workers are "prostituted women" (and disgustingly ignored the prostituted men, that uber bitch, burn her!). EDIT: because some took it as " agency-denying code phrase used by sex-worker-eliminationist radical feminists" does not mean it was meant that way, perhaps it was, but I'm not yet convinced. A video of her saying it with disgust on her face and in her voice would convince me....if that matters to you. She's off my radar.
I said originally that I think the term applies, and is only pejorative if the listener thinks selling sex is bad. That's why I can't understand porn stars being upset by it, but could understand them being upset by being called 'dirty whores on film' or something like that.
I still can't say if she meant it in a negative way, only that it's clear that she likely said the words about sex workers, and some took it negatively.

EDIT: I never said she was a good speaker, which is why I'm not a fan. She had a point to make originally, but her style and the over reaction to it overshadowed her cause. That makes her a terrible spokesperson for anything....in case you thought I support her.

Well, even if you did say they were toxic I'd have agreed with you, like others here have said any reasonable comments made would have been buried under a metric fuckton of bullshit anyhow.

I think there is a misunderstanding here however, when GenjiKilpatrick and others are talking about Sarkeesian "being called on her shit" they mean the reasoned criticism, not the threats, nobody here is arguing in favor of that.
I am curious though, unless you know something about these threats that I don't, how do you know that they are in fact "Serious"? Most people can dream up all kinds of crazy shit or even talk about it, but that still doesn't put you into Dexter Morgan territory (Dexter would be too polite to say anything like that anyhow, and Sarkeesian doesn't fit Harry's Code).
If you are referring to the UCU lecture that she cancelled, then no, neither campus security nor the FBI advised her against going through with the appearance, she made that choice on her own.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58528113-78/sarkeesian-threats-threat-usu.html.csp

You also say "It's unseemly to imply a single woman should ignore such threats or assume they are not credible", which makes me wonder if this was a man we were talking about would you still feel the same way? Adam Orth received death threats to both himself and his family and while it did create a lot of discussion, even heated discussion, it did not generate the same kind of mass outrage that this has so far. Gabe Newell also got a threat from a developer some time back and that got barely a peep out of anyone.
Simply put, we still live in a society that puts on a good public show of equality for men and women, but privately we still teach our little boys that men are still the true protectors of our society. We don't get as upset when men face danger because that is what we expect of them, and this kind of deeply embedded cultural belief is the real heart of sexism in our society. This debate over the role of women in video games is all superficial because I believe it comes from those much older beliefs.

I'll agree too, they are toxic. I just had not said it before.

I only know about the whole gamer gate thing because of the reported insane threats that required police intervention and cutting off the youtube comments etc., and I don't think I'm odd in that respect (I know I am odd in many other respects). I never thought cutting off the comments had anything to do with stifling debate. I could be wrong, but I need to see evidence to convince me. EDIT: as I understood it, she only cut them off after the threats, not right after the criticism.

I think any threat to kill or rape someone in writing is serious. I remember it being reported that she was instructed to cancel personal appearances, that may have been inaccurate, but it's what I recall reading about the case.

Well, yes, you caught me being inadvertently sexist by saying 'single woman'. Mea Culpa. I should have said a person. Their sex and marital status is irrelevant, but I was thinking about her personally, not in general. I think death threats are serious, no matter who they're made against...same for rape threats, men get raped too. People bold enough to make public written threats should be taken seriously, IMO.

HOLY CRAP!!! I would have canceled under those conditions too.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58521856-78/sarkeesian-usu-video-feminist.html.csp
The reasoning the FBI gave for saying that "the threats against Sarkeesian would not prevent a safe lecture, even if firearms are permitted" was that similar recent threats to kill her had not been carried out yet. Even though there had been numerous specific threats to mass murder attendees, Utah state law prevented them from restricting firearm possession at the event, they weren't even going to check for them (to know who to watch). So while I was wrong to say she did it because of police advice, I do think it was the smart decision. Imagine if she had gone ahead with her event after the threats and someone shot 45 people, starting with her. At that point, "I told you so" seems pretty hollow.

I suspect the FBI's reasoning for not considering it a genuine threat may be in part because the number of people who would actually go through with the kind of shit that she gets threatened with is statistically very small. Conversely, the number of jackasses on the internet who are willing to post all manner of vile garbage simply for their own amusement is HUGE. So that's why I have such a hard time taking the threats too seriously, that and people tend to focus on mass shootings and wind up greatly overestimating their chances of actually being involved in one. Seriously, you're way more likely to be run over while crossing the street by some dumbass texting while driving. Make sure to look both ways before crossing.

While i'm sure your right, regarding the statistically small rate of internet threats being legitimately acted out on, i think its ludicrous to blame her for canceling a speaking event under those conditions. In many ways think it would have been irresponsible for her not to. To continue your example of crossing the street, Its extremely unlikely i'll get hit by lighting but i tend not to go out in a storm and I damn sure don't jump in a pool.

You are probably statistically right, but if you got dozens of disgustingly threatening emails telling you people are watching you and are going to run you over the next time they see you on the street, including one person being specific about the time and place they'll do it, would you go walking on the street they reference at the time they specify with no protection? I wouldn't, even if the cops told me 'it's unlikely they'll really try to run you and those with you down, it rarely happens'.
Now, lets say it's an airplane, and someone claims they put a bomb on it. What do you think happens? I don't see much difference, people have shot up large groups more often than people have bombed planes...so they should just assume it's a fake bomb threat and let them fly, because it's more likely to be fake, eh? But that's not what happens.

You see how your arguments don't hold water.

Yet you still refuse to concede that Anita is full of shit and a con-artist.

"But if?!"

What if Jesus came back. What if a meteor hit.

..What if that "good guy with gun vs. black bad guy with a gun" bullshit actually worked out.

Breaking News: 45 concealed carried Utah State students stopped an alleged gunmen who made childish threats during Sarkeesian lecture this afternoon.

Again, 4chan trolls are trolling you with a mind virus.

http://videosift.com/video/This-Video-Will-Make-You-Angry-CGP-Grey

What?
Try reading. Your entire post makes no sense except as a trolling attempt.

I don't "see how my arguments don't hold water", I never said anything of the sort, and you can't explain how they don't, still. In fact, you can't seem to even comprehend my argument. You certainly haven't replied to it.

What I did day is I was incorrect about one minor point because apparently she canceled the one event NOT on the advice of the police (even though at the time that's what was reported)....but because the police in this case didn't take safety or death threats seriously at all and refused to limit firearms at the event in any way or offer her/the audience any protection, so canceling this one event was intelligent and proper.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58521856-78/sarkeesian-usu-video-feminist.html.csp

You have not shown her to be a 'full of shit con artist'. For your proof of her evilness and hatred and derision of sex workers, you pointed me to 2 vitriolic commentaries about a single innocuous phrase she said with no context to show her intent/meaning, and a third completely unrelated article about Westborough Church, and now you say that proves something? Still better than your first try which turned out to be by a guy who begins by clearly explaining how his organization cuts and re-edits videos to show what he wants rather than what actually happened. Who's full of shit now?

I never said "But if". Please stop making shit up to get angry about, it's the third time in this thread alone that you've attributed things I never said to me, twice in this single post. That's a useless infantile trolling argument style right there.

And so now you make up your own ridiculous, statistically impossible "What if" scenario to prove....? I guess to prove that you'll make up and believe any crazy thing rather than concede there was a specific danger she attempted to avoid (and I will note she didn't cancel other events where firearms would NOT be allowed inside, even after the threats, so what's your point in the first place?)


I made the point quite clearly above, I'll repeat it for your convenience. If this was an airplane flight with a bomb threat, it would have been canceled. It's statistically far more likely that the shooting threat is credible than any airplane bombing threat, so if it's reasonable to cancel the threatened flight (and they do), it's more reasonable to cancel the event.

You're just trolling here now, you're not making any salient point and you're just blatantly making things up to argue about. I think you're just pushing to be ignored now.

EDIT: and damn, I totally missed the racist bit the first time through your post. " ..What if that "good guy with gun vs. black bad guy with a gun" bullshit actually worked out." I'm thinking it's a mistake to continue engaging someone I would avoid in real life like the plague, so buh bye.

I'd keep crossing the street like I always have, heck, I'll even jaywalk.
My point being that anonymity + The Internet = people shooting their mouths off. The airplane bombing scenario is a totally different situation, big companies like that live by a different set of rules than a single individual, it also never stops people from flying anyhow. Beyond that I'm not sure what else I could say on the matter.

Well, you are free to live dangerously if you like.
I agree, most internet threats are people shooting their mouths off, but it's impossible to filter those out and keep only credible threats, so you either consider them all credible (and prosecute them) or consider them all not credible (and hope there's not one nutjob in the gang of asshats.) I think that's a decision that should be left up to each individual based on the risk level they are comfortable with, and see no problem with people choosing either way, but do have a problem with people saying only their decision is proper and someone else's is unthinkably evil and duplicitous based solely on their comfort with risk.
If it's OK for big business to be safe, it's OK for individuals, IMO. Flights are canceled due to bomb threats, so some people are stopped from flying, not the majority though, they are merely inconvenienced, and once the threat is passed they fly on. That wasn't an option in this case.