I disagree with the moral assumptions of Anita Sarkeesian's videos. She wants to pour her version of politics all over something that, at minimum, was not created with the intention of creating political propaganda. Fans of the material are entitled to treat this kind of critical approach as a kind of vandalism. Worse, in this enterprise, there's always an element of pretending to uncover unintended hidden meanings in the source material. This is an act that can be easily taken too far. There's also an element of moral blackmail involved. The assumption is not only that the hidden meanings are truly present; but also that they need condemnation. You are an apologist for immorality if you deny their presence. You are also an apologist for immorality if you refuse to join the chorus of condemnation. You are an apologist for immorality if your reaction to the argument is not to care about this issue. I don't see why she ought to be immune to pushback if that's the public stance she has taken.
23 comments
I don't agree with most of what Anita says and I think she suffers from tunnel vision quite often (see her criticism of the episode of Power Girls where the villain is a man-hating woman, ignoring the fact that Ms. Bellum was providing a real feminist perspective)
But god damn her detractors are far far FAR worse than she can ever be.
I have literally never watched anything Anita Sarkeesian has made. Ever. Not even clips, I think. Not once in my life.
I know this guy is at least some percentage wrong, and that the people that agree with him probably either used to torture animals or like sending Creeper messages to women who have no idea they have been watched.
I agree with Zachski. Sarkeesian isn't exactly my favourite person in the world, but the people who treat her as if she were the Antichrist are infinitely worse.
As for OP, all I have to say is that politics is a defining factor in everything . You can't simply completely de-politicise something and ban all attempts to start a discourse on it, because politics is a branch under which all analysis of an even slightly socio-cultural nature falls. What you're actually calling for is pretty obviously "stop expressing opinions I disagree with".
Also I caught the Jorge Luis Borges reference in OP's username and now I feel clever :3
Ms. Anita is a media critic. Her job is to give an opinion on media. (Her opinion usually sucks, but...) All you are doing by complaining about her having the ability to give her opinion is give her attention she wouldn't get otherwise. Her current platform was only possible because of the amount of deaththreats she made. You made this monster all by yourself. Don't make us fight it.
... if your reaction to the argument is not to care about this issue...
... immune to pushback...
If you don't care, why do you need to push back? Especially to the point of death and rape threats?
Yes, she's an idiot. She has all the right to be one, as you have the right to try and out-idiot her, as you and your fellows do.
What Zachski and Insult to Rocks said. I don't agree with a lot of her criticism, I think a lot of the time she jumps to conclusions without solid evidence, and sometimes she's just plain misinformed, but leave her alone, she's got a right to her opinion.
Anita is a fucking fraud deserving of a punch to her hypocrite face, one from the guy gamers and the other from actual female enthusiasts of this hobby, whom she ignores each time she wants to make her point.
As to joining some damn chorus... I`m a 30 year old woman who enjoys video games from the time she was 4, honestly I`m fine with the conventions, specialy since there were always games with alternative protags/diffrent themes only they`re not always covered by the press. My favourite platformer is Shantae ffs, which gets as schlocky-animey sexist as they get and I do enjoy both the humour and the gameplay. I also enjoyed Alien: Isolation, a game she will not ever bring up since it fucks over her entire narrative.
Now just so I won`t get called out as defending gamergate(which I did do back when I actually believed in their message and could convince myself they were more than a bunch of bigoted whiny brats, not any more obviously) I have little problem with constructive criticism made to improve but it must be done by someone who a) Understands the medium b) Is at least herself personally invested in it and doesn`t treat it as a quick way to get attention and fame, so c) Has any personal integrity, something ms. Sarkeesian disgusts me with her utter lack of every time she opens her mouth. Oh she has every right to her opinion but none to actually censor others and stuff they want to make. In the end, Hatred got made, it wasn`t blocked and very good that it wasn`t for the piece of unplayable crap we could all easily see it was. Just think how much publicity this crap would`ve gotten if someone had attempted to censor it?
I'm not familiar with Anita Sarkeesian's wrongdoings. If anyone could enlighten me on what is so bad about her, that'd be terrific.
@Skide :
You started gaming at 4, too? Awesome! :D
@No One In Particular
My dad was one of the first to get their degree in our country and start working in informatics. We had a pc in our home for as long as I can reach with my memory and my first game was shareware castle wolfenstein while eating hawaii pizza. Now both hold a very special place in my non-literal heart muscle(Yes, I am a pineapple person and damn proud of it, pineapples on a pizza forever).
Anita is pretty much a proffesional bitch. Most of her stuff consist of bashing the entire vide game industry with a fucking broad stick at that and without any counterpoionts or arguments, since she doesn`t like to disscus with others and this coupled with the bullshit she spews makes quite a few people and not only nasty gamergaters mad at her ramblings. All in all she pretends to be a critic while possesing no integrity of her own, so a loud hypocrite nad a one campaigning actively to fuck over some folks favourite hobby. Why can`t more people be like the Young Turks crew? Actual critics and journalists with fuckload of integrity and principles.
@No One In Particular
While I've watched very few videos by Sarkeesian in my time - better things to do - what I've seen suggests Skide's analysis is pretty much dead-on. Anita is a pure politician who only deals with issues of video games and the like because they'll get attention, not because she has any real love for the medium, which leads to a lot of patronising assumptions and research failures. She also has the sense of priorities of a Tumblr moonbat, in the sense that she will find any minor excuse to claim there are problems with something and proceed to make that minor issue dominate her entire discussion of the subject
@Skide , Uilleam:
Thanks so much! :) I'd wondered why MRAs hated her so much all this time. I guess, even though they're awful, awful human beings, they might have a point.
Totally agree about TYT. They've got some serious integrity, and they actually remain consistent in their beliefs instead of remaining loyal to one party (like criticizing Obama for drone usage, even though they're progressive).
@AnonAtheist
Part of it is the same reason you see very few quotes in general from groups typically thought of as the victims of bigotry, as opposed to bigots themselves - there's a widespread fear of appearing to punch down instead of up. Another part of it is that she's very hard to quote in such a way that you quickly and succinctly become aware of how awful she is, the way you can with right-wing extremists. The hard left is generally a lot better at cloaking its more insidious aspects, or couching them in language that makes it difficult to extract a snappy soundbite.
@Uilleam
Precisely. The scum of the left are more often than not rather skilled at operating within their own narrative and a proper debunk would require a full presentation of actual contradicting facts, few outright lies and a whole truck of misrepresentations, term abuses, picking on a single example and bald faced ignorance, all served in deliberately insidious(misinforming) way. So all in all a proper meritorical debunk of hers would mean A LOT of work for the debnunker.
@No One In Particular
Before you agree with two people who they admit are biased against Sarkeesian you might want to educate yourself on the criticisms that have been leveled against her.
This is a great page that explains all of her alleged "wrongdoings" and explains why they are all bullshit.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian#Criticisms
So no, MRAs absolutely do not "have a point" about Anita Sarkeesian.
@Uilleam
While I've watched very few videos by Sarkeesian in my time - better things to do - what I've seen suggests Skide's analysis is pretty much dead-on.
So while you admit that you are mostly unfamiliar with Sarkeesian's works you agree with someone who said that she is "deserving" of being violently assaulted (ie. "a punch to her hypocrite face"). Really?
@#2036790
Yes, though perhaps a slap with an open palm would actually do better! If some idiots behave like discussion refusing bratty children while at the same time claiming they represent MY perspective, they deserve my opinion on their representation. None of what you provided has dispelled any of my criticisms of her. Do tell me how is her dealing with the media for some time now had any impact on her integrity as a journalist or did anything to broaden her perspective beyond harping on petty details?
It did not and you cannot defend her on these meritorical grounds, so instead you immidiately dismiss this as MRA`s not having any points(some of the points I brought so did they) and bring up my utter disgust with her while being fake shocked. YOU might believe in never ever mentioning phyical violence, even in the context of deservance and measure but not everyone does. In certain specific situations it`s quicker to make your disapproval known with a quick punch, a spit and a turn on the heel if the other side refuses to discuss and instead prefferes to behave like a toxic propagandist(and to add insult to injury such a dipshit proffeses to speak in your name). To me her treatment of what I do consider to be one of my passions does warrant such a reaction, since public discussion and debunk would be impossible with her MO.
Yeah, Sarkeesian can be annoying sometimes, but you can do what I do and just ignore her, rather than bitch halfwords about her on the internet.
My point about Sarkeesian is a fairly simple one. Moral-policing other people's entertainment is always an inherently hostile and aggressive act. And that was Sarkeesian's shtick.
FWIW, I wasn't a participant in Gamergate, either, just someone who was aware of the controversy. She had the right to publish her series, and not to be harassed for doing so. And I generally don't have issues with feminism when it's about -women-, either.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
