Anita Sarkeesian posts a bizzare fanfic on blog

I think it means that people overvalue what Sarkeesian is doing both positive and negative. I like what she does but I don't think it is the end of the discussion or anything close to it. I also don't care what she does on tumblr any more than any other person with a tumblr nor does it really mean anything.

Ideas are important but they also have intrinsic value that can only go so far. Acting like any idea, positive or negative, are super valuable or undeniable or absolute or have the potential to change everything is nutty.

ps. Is this anger really over a fanfic?

Well jeez guys, she only kills him over Colonial Marines in the fan-fic, not for sexism. So... it's not that bad. I mean shit, I think Randy Pitchford is the fuckin' man and I still wouldn't mind slapping some sense into him over that POS game. Gearbox needs to stop trying to revitalize crap that never works and just move on with stuff that does.

But promoting this kind of silliness is just silly. Stop being so silly, Anita.

Pretty bad form in reposting it. I doubt if anyone had reposted that flash game of beating her up with the comment that it was weird but they kind of liked it, people would give them the benefit of the doubt that that person messed up.

Shes a maniacal, egotistical, hypocrite. Just ignore her until people get sick of her BS and eventually she'll fade away unless she starts offering genuinely thought-provoking criticism, analysis, and solutions.

@brodehouse: I certainly don't know of anyone here who's enjoyment of her videos is even a quarter of the level of hate she gets. Like at most people say "yeah I think that's a pretty cool video".

I aint even seen any of her gaming videos... even though I'm still subscribed to her on youtube for some reason? I literally do not care about her views on gaming. The hatred she gets is still disgusting though.

The problem is that she threatens me as a man and I just cannot deal with that sort of thing so I feel that it's my job, AS A MAN, to tear her down at every opportunity and for any reason. She is no longer allowed to make any sort of jokes or talk about anything other than feminism because it has become my obligation to over-analyze everything she says in search of veiled conspiracy or threats to my man-ness. She must be stopped from...making videos on YouTube.

Are you talking quantity of disagreement (or as you call it, 'hate'), or quality? Are you talking about how many people dislike her to like her (which I would agree is probably a 2:1 ratio or higher) or how deeply people like or dislike her? Because from what I've seen, merely pointing out anything negative regarding her qualifies as "you hate her so much, it completely absorbs your life". That's called building a threat narrative. That's why pointing out something dumb Hideki Kamiya did or said is normal, and pointing out something dumb Anita Sarkeesian did or said is "disgusting, creepy, disturbing".

Consider this; maybe the reason why people appear to be emotionally invested is because numerous people label any disagreement with her as threatening to her. In this very thread, at least six people have said that reading something she posted on her blog and talking about it is threatening behavior. Maybe the reason people get involved is because they don't like to be called "disgusting, creepy, disturbing", they don't like to be called a violent threat for daring to disagree with a public figure, especially if there's only certain public figures they're not allowed to disagree with. Have you considered that calling everyone who disagrees with her "disgusting" is maybe the reason why people get involved?

And personally, I haven't watched her third video or the responses because I just can't be bothered anymore. She's mostly repeating the same few talking points, and she doesn't respond to counter arguments, so there's really no purpose.

How cute you are... I wish I didn't read your post. Ugh.

The only response to these tired, played out hate-threads that I can muster anymore is sarcasm and disdain.

AND DON'T GET ME WRONG HERE. There is a discussion to have about sexism in video games, as in film and television. But these threads all devolve into people putting their fingers in their ears and saying "BLAH BLAH BLAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" I would love to have a tempered, even-minded discussion on the subject, but it's been, like, a year of threads about her and it has yet to happen.

That's fine, but if you're not Alex Navarro then relatively long snarky comments just doesn't feel right. That's all.

I think I'll be just fine.

So if disagreeing with Anita Sarkeesian isn't a threat to Anita Sarkeesian, then disagreeing with Anita Sarkeesian means you're a tyrant who is telling people what they're allowed to do. If you think Anita Sarkeesian is over-analyzing things to conform to her gender ideology, then the problem is is that you're over-analyzing Anita to conform to your gender ideology. If you think Anita Sarkeesian is a censor who wants to get rid of anything that offends her, then you're a censor who wants to get rid of Anita Sarkeesian. If you don't like her videos, then you're attempting to stop her from making videos. The threat narrative continues.

"people putting their fingers in their ears and saying "BLAH BLAH BLAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" I would love to have a tempered, even-minded discussion on the subject, but it's been, like, a year of threads about her and it has yet to happen."

Maybe they have been happening, but you've been too busy putting your fingers in your ears and saying "BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU'RE ALL DUMB". Like you did in your previous post.

weird

This thread started because people over-analyzed a bad joke SHE DIDN'T EVEN MAKE. For the record, I don't really care for her videos but the people acting like she's this God-complex-having tyrant of the internet seem to forget just how easy it is to ignore her and how little effect her campaign is having. Her videos have consistantly failed to be ground-breaking enough to warrant this campaign against her. Like I said, there is a discussion to be had on the subject and I welcome it, but it's been hijacked, for the time being, by "Men's Rights Activists" who do nothing but rail against feminism as a concept. Pretending that's not what every one of these threads has turned into is a total fallacy. Just so we're clear: I want to talk about sexism in games, film and television. Full stop. It's a discussion I think needs to be had. But these forums clearly are not the right venue for it and making a new thread about how terrible she is as a person every time she does anything is lame.

Can I post this great Ryan/Jeff fanfic I found?

fucking eat me, dude.

(now i wonder if that's too morbid)

Don't spoil the climax!

well it is a little intenstine...

(I am sorry)

My reading of "eat" was a little different, what with this being a Giant Bomb fanfic and everything.

Do you have the one where Ryan is in a restaurant meeting with a fan?

@brodehouse:

You aren't really representative of the normal dislike of her. On here there are only a few people I think that really dispise her legitimately. Most people just don't want to watch her videos and state that time and time again. What always gets me though is that I don't often see a reasonable criticism of her videos. A lot of other things outside of her videos are brought into the conversation about her videos (atheism for done odd reason for example). But few are really looking at her criticisms with an open mind.

I say this because I can't imagine a person with an open mind disliking every part of her videos. I've watched them and they seem fine and make some good and poor points. They are average videos at best.

People are allowed to criticize average font get me wrong. But my perception of a well rounded argument usually has some positive points about what is criticized right? Because few things are all the way bad.

But Anita's videos get essay length responses filled with disdain and, most often, dismissive remarks along the lines of 'she just sucks lolololol...'

But maybe my perception is wrong.

@mariachimacabre: I don't find it difficult to ignore her. I've ignored her entire third video and all the responses to it, but that has more to do with the fact that I've already heard all her talking points. If she does anything original or outside of her usual behavior, I might take notice. Like I did here. Remember that discussion forums are for discussion, and if people want to discuss Phil Fish's behavior, they can. If they want to discuss EA's behavior, they can. But I find it beyond hypocritical that discussing any negative behavior of this specific person is 'creepy, disgusting, disturbing'. That's just a threat narrative.

I also find it interesting that you don't think there can be a discussion about feminism so long as there's "Men's Rights Activists". Apparently, a discussion can only be had if anyone who would possibly disagree are removed from the forum beforehand. This line of thinking says you can only have a discussion about religion if you make sure that all the atheists are out, then the followers of minority religions, then the minority denominations of the majority religion. Only then can you have a discussion. People want to talk about sexism, but apparently only if there's no one to disagree, or to look at each specific case and disagree based on the evidence. If you want to have this discussion about sexism, present an argument, and then present evidence. Anita Sarkeesian has presented arguments, and presented some rather faulty evidence, and people have disagreed. Do you want the discussion if it comes with disagreements, or are you going to paint anyone who disagrees as threatening, abusive, ignorant assholes, irrespective of their arguments, as you've just done?

And technically, "pretending that's not what every one of these threads has turned into is a total fallacy" is not actually a fallacy. It may or may not be true, but evidence must be presented to ascertain. A fallacy is an argument in which the evidence presented does not entail the conclusion reached. But that's just me being a doucher.

Why are you guys continuing to give this woman attention? The amount of words that have been written about her and this is the type of stuff she does. I'm laughing at all the people who pour over her videos, give her money, etc. So funny.

I'm fine with Men's Rights Activists being present in the discussion (so long as I get to tell them how much men still dominate almost every aspect of the world) but not if it's going to devolve into "LOOK AT THIS VIDEO OF THIS ONE FEMINIST DOING A DUMB THING THIS IS ALL FEMINISTS NOW." Which it has in every one of these threads. It's not about disagreeing or not disagreeing, it's about civility. Calling her a cunt or starting a smear campaign based on a joke she essentially retweeted is not civil and it's not a discussion.

And the "fallacy" thing...Fuck you, okay!? I had to go do stuff and I was in a rush. Is that good enough for you, ya jerk?

(Atheism gets brought up half because of me, and half because feminism discussions 'took over' atheist conversations shortly before feminism 'took over' gaming discussions. And I think atheists and gamers are uniquely counter-opposed to the kind of mainstream feminism Anita stands for; both atheism and gaming are big fans of skepticism. So apologies if you're tired of hearing it.)

I have an incredible open mind, but that won't change the fact that I don't agree that her evidence entails her argument. Her argument is that art that portrays traditional gender stereotypes actively (and uniquely) damages women. It's not that I don't believe Mario is based around traditional gender stereotypes, it clearly is. Mario is the man whose worth is judged by his ability to do good for Peach, Peach is the woman whose worth is judged by her beauty and 'noble' birth. It's that I disagree that a) gender stereotypes (or if you prefer, gender performance/expression/whatever) actively and uniquely target women, and b) that art causes these gender differences to exist in life, rather than recognized gender differences in life informs their inclusion in art. I disagree with these on their merits, and her evidence fails to entail either.

I disagree that in order to be 'rounded', an argument must look for positives on the other side. An argument must do nothing other than include evidence that logically entails it. What you're talking about is 'moderation', which holds absolutely no ethical value. About the things I would identify as, I am a fundamentalist in every regard. I'm a fundamentalist egalitarian, I believe quite deeply that all people deserve equal treatment under law, equal opportunities in society and no moral value, positive or negative, applied to them based on the nature of their birth. Would you want a 'moderate' egalitarian, who believes in equality in some cases, but is willing to let a little inequality slide?

And let's be fair. Anita's responses receive both essay length respones and "she sucks lololol"... not often essay length responses of "she sucks lololol". And then the essay length responses are ignored, and the "she sucks lololol" responses are applied to anyone who dare disagree with her. Any reasonable person can understand how that sucks.

As I said earlier, the thing that bothers me most is not this woman enjoying this thing that men can't enjoy, or this man enjoying something women don't enjoy, it's hypocrisy. It's always been hypocrisy, and anyone's attempt to restrict others freedom based on their own preferences. Because I've seen it since childhood and it's bothered me since.

@brodehouse:

I guess I always approach open mindedness as trying to look at issues from multiple viewpoints but to each his own. It does suck in forums when people speak in general terms about others because it isn't clear who this general 'you people' are. But from where I sit you've been pretty reasonable throughout.

there's been some legitimate counterarguments that people have made that isnt just lol and hate

but i dont blame you if it gets lost with the blind rage that generally surrounds this stuff.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You've connected disagreeing with something Anita Sarkeesian did with calling her a cunt and starting a smear campaign. I just searched the topic, you are the first person to use the word 'cunt'. But now you've presented the argument that this entire topic is not a discussion, it's just people calling her a cunt.

She is a public figure, of her own volition. She wanted to be a public figure, she posted this publicly for everyone and anyone to see. When you're a public figure, you are not immune to criticism. Anita is no more immune from being criticized than Phil Fish, or a corporation, or the guy who said that you'll want to protect Lara Croft. Everyone piled in to call that person a sexist, an asshole, a patriarchal terrorist. I might disagree whether he's this epithet or that, but I would never state that criticizing a public figure constitutes threatening behavior against that public figure.

And if an argument against a public figure sucks, if it's merely "X sucks lololol"... you either ignore it, or make it look ridiculous. But ignoring it is much easier. Instead we've chosen to ignore the actual, complicated, evidence-based arguments and go into a tizzy over trolling.

lol

Oh great, another thread about this mongaloid.

and oh great, another post bitching about this mongoloid getting attention.

I'M SORRY OKAY!? CHRIST. I'm just...I'm just so goddamn tired of this subject. Every time she does anything now, there's a new thread about what a monster she is. And, as you said, it always turns into a thread about how evil feminists are.

Well yes, if by viewpoint you mean cases. It is important to me to look at an argument or a belief from both the common case and any edge cases I think of. Before I'm capable of really holding a belief, I need to test it against any edge cases or uncommon situations to see if it remains fair or just. That may just be that I have a lawyer's brain (a judge's brain, really). When I disagree with Anita, it's not merely because fuck her I'm a man hurr hurr, it's because I look at her cases and either see that they fail to entail her argument, or that she's failed to consider a case/viewpoint in which her proposition becomes unfair or unjust. It's why I turned my back on feminism after being one for the majority of my life, because I realized that the preferred case/viewpoint took precedence over any other case or viewpoint. And they had no problem in restricting the freedom of others if they were freedoms they didn't want to use (ex; I don't want to own a gun, so no one should own guns, etc).

Also, as I said earlier, the reason why people like me tend to get entrenched in these debates, is because people pushing the idea that disagreeing with Anita Sarkeesian makes you an awful, sexist, abusive, threatening monster. If you haven't noticed, I'm beyond fastidious about my moral values, so to have them overwritten by someone mischaracterizing me (or people like me) naturally gets me involved.

So I dunno... don't post in these topics?

Clearly, I'm not the only one who thinks the sudden outrage over an obvious joke is silly, though. She basically retweeted a joke and said "This shit is really weird, right?" That should have been the end of the discussion. As others have said, if Jeff had done this exact same thing, none of this would have been an issue.

You do realize why it's worth noting that she made this joke and not Jeff, right? It's not because she made a silly joke that can be construed as sexist out of nowhere, it's because a person who has spent the last few years publicly lambasting anyone who has done anything that can be construed as sexist to make a silly joke that can be construed as sexist is incredibly hypocritical. People don't like hypocrisy.

Not to extend this into other popular feminists, but what upset people most about Adria Richards and Donglegate was not necessarily that her argument (men enjoying private innuendo actively hurts women in technology) was specious, it was that she herself enjoyed some innuendo days before. People don't like hypocrisy.

It's not "Anita said it so get 'er!" it's "X doesn't practice what they preach".

@brodehouse:

(I can't quote over mobile but I'm referring to post #137)

What terrifies me when I post on here with my therapist hat on is that when I post as a normal person the 'you're a therapist!...etc etc!' will be thrown back at me. The thing is I'm not always acting like a therapist.

I'm sure it's a similar case with Anita. She probably doesn't always have the social critic hat on. I see your point and all. But that sort of thinking sucks for folks like me.

@brodehouse

I'm also not a big fan of hypocrisy, but I guess I see it in different places. If there is a commonly-acknowledged problematic social phenomenon, and a set of people who want to point out that it's bad (some of whom are arguing their case poorly). You have a choice in how you react. If you direct nearly all your anger at the missteps of the people trying to bring attention to the problem, and barely even pay lip service to the idea that their complaints are legitimate, that says something about you, and maybe calling yourself a "fundamentalist egalitarian" isn't really accurate.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you probably fall short of being a "fundamentalist egalitarian" in a lot of areas. You seem to be against those who actively try to highlight inequalities (because they aren't always good at presenting their arguments), but don't seem to be that concerned with those who, if nothing changes, passively have those same inequalities working in their favor.

If you'll allow an analogy, there are some people who will complain all day about how horrible unions are, and then say nothing at all when a union-less corporation treats their employees like absolute shit. That kind of thing is the hypocrisy I get mad about.

Also, one doesn't necessarily need to "look for the positives" in the other side, but if you're ignoring them, you'd better not present the negatives as if they represent the whole, goodness knows people have accused Anita of doing that quite a lot.

Wouldn't this moreso be a riff on the fact that Gearbox makes nothing but really violent games so the natural ironic thing would be for them to be killed in a way not completely dissimilar from the games they worked on? If you weren't scared of clicking links you would have read that its over Alien: Colonial Marines being terrible (which the entire industry seems to validate) and not gender issues in Duke Nukem. And again, context, she didn't write it, says that its kind of surreal and weird in her description before the post and the actual killing is depicted as though it was in a game as he disappears and bandits start spawning all around immediately. Its a joke about violent game creators, kind of like Alec Holowka's I'm OK- A Murder Simulator. Simmer down.

I have never believed you must make accommodations for an opposing argument. I however insist people always look controversies from the other point of view but that is something no one can require of anyone else. Your opponent didn't come up with their stance random or surreptitiously where they probably have good reasons for taking that stance. Recognizing the other side has "good reasons" helps understand and formulate better arguments.

Both sides have a point here: Things are not equal between the genders in games. Things don't always have to be equal between genders in games. I don't think anyone including Sarkeesian has stipulated that but too many are acting like someone has.

That something is 'commonly-acknowledged' does not make it true. The gender wage gap being 70 or 80 cents to the dollar is commonly-acknowledged, when the truth is more complicated (and 94). This is a fallacy, ad populum.

I don't need to 'pay lip service' to the possibility that anyone's complaints could be legitimate, I merely have to ascertain whether or not their evidence entails their argument. You don't need to 'pay lip service' to the possibility that the complaints of racists could be legitimate, you merely have to ascertain whether or not the evidence entails their argument. If it does not, then it does not. If it does, then it does, and even despite being racists, they would have a legitimate complaint. This is the core of rationalism.

Thank you for labeling me as an unjust tyrant, though. Thank you for speculating about what I 'really' believe. Unfortunately, I am a fundamentalist egalitarian. It's not just my viewpoint, it is the constitutional foundational principles on which my viewpoint is built.

At what point do I not seem concerned about injustice and inequality? Please provide examples. I'm concerned with every injustice that happens, provided that there is evidence that proves it exists, and the 'solution' is not as unjust as the original problem. This goes to every situation, not merely those that are 'commonly-acknowledged'. I'm concerned when people are subjected to legal inequality. I'm concerned when gays don't have the same legal rights as straights, and I would be concerned if gays were advocating for legal rights that straights don't get. I'm concerned when men or women are kept from positions they are qualified for in favor of someone's gender ideology, in either direction. I'm concerned when women don't have the same legal rights as men, and I'm concerned when men don't have the same legal rights as women. In any country, in any culture. When Muslims say that a woman's position is subservient to men, that women can't work, that women can't own property, I'm against them. When my government says women should receive special benefits not available to men if they want to get into a STEM field, or that we should lower the burden of proof in prosecuting crimes where a woman was allegedly victimized, I'm against them. I'm certainly more concerned with the plight of Muslim women in theocracies or women in the third world, even though I recognize that even after being 'liberated', most will cling to their chains... but that doesn't mean that men having no reproductive rights in Western countries is somehow okay.

But the difference between me and the social justice warriors is I respect people's freedom, and they do not, especially when it comes to art.

But once again. Thank you for labeling me as an unfair, unreasonable, piece of human shit based on your suspicions because I dared to disagree. Thank you for publicly assassinating my character because you don't like my argument.

Jeff has nothing to do with this. The true reverse to this situation is if Randy Pitchford posted fan fiction where he killed Anita Sarkeesian, and then said "I think I like this." Do you honestly think that there would be "no issue" with that?

@brodehouse: You said you called yourself a feminist earlier in life so I assume you must have believed at least some of their complaints as legitimate.

I think you're exaggerating a little bit there.

I will say that for someone who is very touchy about others mis-characterizing you, you seem to be awfully quick to assign bad motives to others that you disagree with.

ZOMG ANITA SARKEESIAN THREAD EVERYBODY BE A DOUCHE TO EACH OTHER

Seriously guys, I love you all but sometimes your signal-to-noise ratio gets way out of whack. I'll be here if you want to talk about anything.

@spaceinsomniac said:

No, of course Jeff has nothing to do with this, but I was using him in an example. Honestly, there's a difference between a bit of fanfiction where Sarkeesian kills Pitchford or Pitchford kills Sarkeesian, and this thing. It's not some psychopathic revelling in Pitchford's death, it's just a really silly story with no particular meaning or implications behind it. Anita Sarkeesian fights a zombie Duke Nukem, the Green Goblin is working for Gearbox Software, when Pitchford dies his soul returns to The Warp from Warhammer, etc. It's amazing to me that people are treating this seriously. If Pitchford reblogged the same kind of story with Sarkeesian in it, it might turn a few heads, but people wouldn't be trying to hold it up as proof that he was crazy or evil the same way people are with Sarkeesian.

Just in case you want to know what Randy Pitchford thinks.

I hope this is the start of a beautiful romance.

ITT no one understands how Tumblr works.

Pretty sure the vast majority of people understand that she reblogged another post and put the caption "I kinda like it" before the story, which is exactly the action most people are scrutinizing her for here. I don't really see many people even commenting as if they believe she wrote the story herself.

Oh crap I just bumped this topic, uh, okay, starting now we stop posting here. Okay, Now!