"AnonGamer" uncovers possible Anita Sarkeesian scandal

I just didn't want to make another thread about her. Just use an existing one, this was the newest one.

Why in the name of all that is holy is this thread still alive? Why has it not yet been locked?

Read the first post on this page, and watch this video. I'm fine with this being locked, but the quotes from Sarkeesian above are certainly worth discussion.

Maybe I should have made a separate topic. I just didn't want to get attacked for "Making another topic about her"

To be fair, you're going to get attacked either way. Most people probably won't even bother to watch the video first. That's actually why I posted the direct quotes themselves.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that someone famous on the internet is actually being disingenuous for the sake of furthering their career. The only thing bizarre about this is that some people stubbornly refuse to even consider the possibility, as if it will shatter their entire world.

Probably not. Just posting a worthless video without your thoughts to spur discussion let alone on this topic....you shouldn't bother.

@marokai: which people are you talking about exactly? A lot of her detractors seem to think there's way more hardcore fans of her than she actually has.

A video of someone saying "I am not a gamer" who has been claiming for well over a year now to be a gamer is worthless?

@animasta: Look at any video, any thread, any post specifically meant to criticize her, and the widespread reaction is roughly "here go the obsessive anti-feminist stalker trolls again!" Even people who consider themselves feminists rarely ever concede any ground when it comes to criticism of Anita, as if conceding someone might be right that Anita doesn't really know much about video games invalidates their entire worldview. People in the media who make excuses for every new feminist crusade similarly dismiss any criticism of her as unfair and "proving her point" without ever actually engaging (or even accurately acknowledging) the criticism themselves. It's why the aggression tends to simmer and fester on message boards, because a very large group of people feel like their points are being completely ignored by people who have already made up their minds.

It is about as valuable as someone taking a screenshot of a response from you that is negative about video games and post it a year from now and going "He isn't a gamer. Discuss!" :)

we all ave different opinions on what even a gamer is. So what if she is a gamer or not? That does not make her opinion better or worse. For me no matter if she is a gamer or not she is pushing her agenda trhough lies and that will never change not because she is no gamer but because she is a radical feminist which tries to force her view on other people and does not do anything to discuss her points with anyone who has not the same opinion as herself.

slow day at the vidja-games-scandal-ranch, eh?

Well, that's just a stupid analogy. It's not about saying something negative, it's about saying that you are NOT a fan of something, and later claiming that you have been a life-long fan of that thing.

It's a person saying that they've been a football fan all their life, and then later someone finding video of them saying "I'm not a fan of football, I'd like to be, but it's just people tackling each other all day."

Do you like football? Then you're a football fan. Do you play video games? Then you're a gamer. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.

You also can't even make the argument that she was referring to not being sure if she liked games enough to consider herself a gamer, because she then said "I would love to play video games, but I don't want to go around shooting people, and ripping off their heads, and it's just gross."

@krullban: I know that video frames her comments in a certain way and the robot sounds somewhat convincing, but I get the impression she was talking about how she didn't consider herself a gamer then and not a fan of modern videogames. When talking about how she is a fan of gaming, she usually refers to older games and ones that she perhaps appreciated in her youth. That doesn't mean she somehow "isn't a gamer". It just means she's like many gamers who fell out of it over time. Yet, more recently, she seems to have seen their value and become invested in them again. Which is nice. A lot of people played more games as a kid and then came back to it later. I don't think you have to be a fan of modern shooters to be considered a gamer.

I know a decent number of women who didn't consider themselves "gamers" back in college, as they had stopped playing games as much, but out of college, many started picking games up again. Like a friend of mine that just adores the Legend of Zelda even if she doesn't actively state that she's "a gamer". I'd say that she is one because she bought a Wii just to play the latest Zelda game, but hey, that's up to her. I know some people that recently got into Animal Crossing on the 3DS or the last Pokemon games on DS after years of not playing many games, and I'd still consider them gamers.

If Sarkeesian says she is playing games again and wants to champion the good aspects of games, then more power to her. I don't always agree with her opinions or methods, but she's as free as anyone else to share them online.

Also, why is it popular for some people to use automated voices in these kinds of videos? It always strikes me as a little creepy. Like speaking as a robot somehow gives your words more legitimacy. Anyone know the attraction to using this kind of thing for such videos?

dude, at this point? Like, a year and a half after the kickstarter thing comes around? I'm apt to concede any criticism of her to obsessive stalker trolls. The people who really care about her are not the feminists. They just aren't. Like, I have not seen any of her gaming videos. At all. I don't get into tone arguments with people, because I haven't seen anything from them. I get into people who rally around dumb bullshit like the OP or even this latest video.

That aggression? It's not simmering because the scary feminist agenda folks are ignoring people in favor of anita's world view. It's simmering because no one who isn't one of the people attacking her cares, when people on the opposite side of Anita think they should.

@truthtellah: I am not sure about the automated voice, I have always considered it cheap, it's possible that this person tried to record it with his/her voice but couldn't reach the desired tone

Fair enough, I missed this "controversy" when it made its rounds on kickstarter. I take that as a positive though, I think our community is more productive than most because we don't actively seek out this type of drama... right guys...

The more that people learn that she is a garbage tier fraud the better a place the world will be. ^_^

Speculating out loud here...

I'd imagine it's a great way for the fearful (whether due to legitimate fear of reprisal or outright cowardice) to attack somebody publicly without exposing themselves to the same risk as their target.

Also if you are the type who has trouble controlling your passion in your speaking voice and are aware of it, this possibly eliminates some of the potential criticism of your tone/person instead of your argument.

That's the feeling I get, as well. At least, that appears to be the intention. To me, though, it kind of just reminds me of text to speech voices in conspiracy theory videos. Or terrorist or kidnapper videos in movies. ha. They conceal their voices in these robotic tones that just sound more menacing than anything else.

Yeah I can totally see that too. I'd think though they'd probably would go with a deeper voice tone though if they were going for that effect.

fwiw in this particular video the author sounded much more scared than menacing to me, especially toward the end. Given that the author specifically appealed to their audience to not attack her, I think he/she probably deserves the benefit of the doubt re: her/his intentions.

Whoever bumped this should be perma-banned. I'm not joking.

Perhaps. Though, I feel like they were just using a few comments from an incomplete video to reinforce a preconceived notion. It's one thing to go from "this seems like a confusing thing for her to say at one point, she should be asked to clarify her position on games so that we can better understand her" to "this is clear evidence that she is a liar with an agenda who doesn't like games at all".

It sounds to me more like she had a falling out with games for a while and then came back to them. That's not uncommon, and even if there was a period of time where I didn't play many games, I'd still consider myself a lifelong gamer. Personally, this seems to call for her to clarify what she means by lifelong gamer more than it means she's definitely a liar that has never been a gamer.

@milkman: I suppose I can understand that level of response, but I think it would be hard to justify, considering this thread wasn't locked. Maybe a warning to be more cautious about bringing up old threads in the future might be nice instead.

Gamer is different than just a fan. According to this industry gamer are very passionate fans who sped a lot of money and time on games. This industry has many other names for people who play games. Some of them are casual and non gamer, there is a metro gamer as well and so on. But again if she is a gamer or not doesn't make any difference here at all.

A casual gamer is still a gamer. A non-gamer is someone who doesn't play games, and I've never even heard of the term "metro gamer" before today. If you say you are not a gamer, you're saying that you don't play video games. Seriously, it's just that simple.

gamer is just like nerd. You are very passionate about something in this case games and there is nothing wrong about passionate.

Why is it worth discussing? Whether she is a gamer or not doesn't change whether she has something legitimate to say about video games, especially given the context of her videos has nothing to do with how video games play.

Video games aren't immune to criticism from people who don't play them. There is enough recorded footage, synopsis, and outright scripts for them that criticism of their stories and messaging is fairly easy without playing a minute of it.

Beyond that, trying to discredit her for the least important of lies in and about her videos and motivations feels like its grasping for straws. There are probably more legitimate and meaningful arguments that could be made against the content of her video than trying to discredit her motivations.

I love how people in this thread, like many in politics, feel that changing your mind on a subject is a weakness, or falsehood rather than the sign of an emotionally mature adult who can take a step back and reconsider their position. No sir, in the land of game virgins no one but shrill, hardline ideologues have valid points of view.

Oh, oh! Next can we talk about how a woman expressing a point of view contrary to yours is impinging on your rights as a man?!

Fucking grow up.

@spaceinsomniac:

The problem is, and you hinted at it, is that it seems like some of the quotes are taking out of context which is where my snide remark about Fox News Reporting comes from. For instance, I think there are serious flaws in some popular games where it would be easy enough to take those thoughts from posts it would not be hard to make it look like I don't like video games or like to play them.

There are honest criticisms with her work. This latest bump is not one of them. Seriously, there are better arguments to be made than whether or not she is a "fake gamer girl" which seems dubious along with being one of the dumbest concepts video game fans have ever come up with.

Bringing truth to light is one thing - the verb "discredit" implies other things, usually slander or libel. All I've seen of her makes her look pretty legit, but then again, I'm not a sleazy scumbag dredging the sewers of the internet for a bit of dirt. The source itself says AnonGamer has a negative history with her; I don't see a reason to believe they're completely impartial with this nugget of info.

This isn't fox news. Its like when someone lies about being a war veteran to bolster their argument, it does matter, It isn't "fox news" to bring it up. Yes its separate from the substance of their argument, but like it or not their credibility does matter. If they choose to lie about such a thing they do it because they intend on using the false authority and implied experience of the title to bolster their argument, it says something about their character and lack of faith in their argument that they would have to stoop so low.

All the rebuttal videos out there don't make her "look pretty legit". Sure the quality varies but many make valid arguments against her, and their dissection has revealed suspicions that she doesn't seem to be a gamer, being that her knowledge seemed superficial, just enough wikiknowledge to be wrong. And of course the fact that she stole lets play videos. Everyone else makes their own videos, even people with normal jobs like james the angry Nintendo nerd, its not hard, so theres no real excuse.

Again, being caught misrepresenting yourself doesn't make her look "pretty legit". I somehow doubt you'd be so forgiving in a politician you didn't like said he had war service he did not actually have. If you lie on your resume and are caught and just dismiss it out of hand and demand people look at your substance you know very well that kind of thing doesn't fly, you get fired. And that's my real problem with this case and the people who are defending her, there seem to be no standards for her at all. And frankly that's the real issue people should talk about, when you have such a special standard low for someone, one could say some sexism is behind it, and that's kind of the angle of sexism no one speaks about on this issue.

The Predominance of Male Protagonists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5L2MBPBl3I

http://www.youtube.com/user/dangerousanalysis?feature=watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoPxuqRGies