-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"Why Are You So Angry?: A 6-Part Series On Angry Gamers"
- Thread starter BUNTING1243
- Start date
Censorship is BAD (except when it's actually advocating for censorship):
https://twitter.com/JR_O6/status/624317727419711488
Angry Jacks never cease to amaze.
Wow, that tweet was beyond stupid. One thing that the video touched on that (for some reason) I didn't really get was the crazy biases and prejudices that are fueling most of the terrible actions from Gamer gate.
Lets be honest, its not just that Anita Sarkeesian is advocating awareness and representation from a feminist perspective in games, its that she is a woman advocating ANY sort of change in a supposed boys only territory.
Thunderfoot videos? Really?
yeehamuffins
Member
BUNTING1243
Banned
i watched that first video and it seemed like nonsensical ravings of someone who's angry that her comments are turned off and doesn't understand what sexual objectification means beyond "NO I'M SAVING WOMEN SO IT'S COOL." it's also a ten minute video with like two examples of her being "busted".
the second one is just ridiculous. i get it's trying to swap male for female but it just doesn't work. like, what's it even trying to say?
In the spirit of what Innuendo said, I'm going to take a whack at this, god help me.
The videos actually never make a judgement call on Anita's video's contents, not hold them as essential truth. It's explicitly stated that the Angry Jack lashes out because of doubt. He (or she, let's not assume all AJ's are men) knows that there are great 'evils' of the world; sexism, racism, misogyny.
Rather than acknowledge that these bad things can come up in a favorite hobby through various potencies, a hobby that costs a lot of time and money, Angry Jack feels like he or she is limited to binary choices:
1. I am not evil, so my hobby cannot be, and Anita is wrong.
2. I am evil, deserving of ridicule and being ostracized.
Since 2 is clearly out, they land on 1. Also I wouldn't really consider Anita an extremist feminist. She doesn't go into anything other than some basic fundamentals of feminist though. Nothing seems "out of date" but I'd argue it's not very expansive. However, with only the basics being brought out, I doubt Angry Jack and gamergate could handle some heavier material
Hipster Cthulhu
Banned
He's pointing out how this kind of Feminist theory holds a double standard.
The problem with thunderfoot videos is that they are so dense with bullshit points without any sort of organization or cohesion that build up to larger overall arguments. This makes them an absolute headache to unpack and dissect. He's obviously wrong to anyone without an agenda to see him as right, but actually address the bs he brings up is way more effort than you can reasonably ask of one person. It doesn't matter what the subject he is arguing is, the horrific presentation of them alone warrants disregard.
Not to mention the sheer laziness of it as an argumentive technique. Anyone who just substitutes a video for their own argument doesn't have anything to say and isn't looking to have a conversation. They are putting the onus on you to put in the effort to actually engage while they copy and paste. No, if they want to merit a response, they'll take the argument they believe in and put it in their own words.
Not to mention the sheer laziness of it as an argumentive technique. Anyone who just substitutes a video for their own argument doesn't have anything to say and isn't looking to have a conversation. They are putting the onus on you to put in the effort to actually engage while they copy and paste. No, if they want to merit a response, they'll take the argument they believe in and put it in their own words.
SolicitorPirate
Member
This has to be a parody post. I mean, even his fucking avatar has a fedora.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Thunderf00t should stick to chemistry, since that's something he's actually accomplished in. He does not have a leg to stand on when he tries to discuss feminism, or anything else really.
Hipster Cthulhu
Banned
I will believe that some people may subscribe to "Angry Jack" condition, because It is far more likely that GamerGate is a perfect storm of internet hate, a self-sustaining engine for trolls and bigots to feed off of, because I find it hard to believe that so many people find Anita's videos overweeningly filling them with doubt when she is so obviously full of shit.
And maybe it's just a matter of opinion but I find Laura Mulvey theory out of date.
Yeah thunderfoot is pretty scatter brained and lacking in good technique, but I think his videos have enough good points throughout to use as examples, and no one is without an agenda of some sort, but the videos are designed to be seen by people on both sides of the fence.
EdibleKnife
Member
What that video fails in is not addressing the larger cultural context that feminism, and by extension feminist critique, was born not out of a victim complex or to spite the other gender but out of the very nature of women being a frequently marginalized group of people and men being a frequently privileged group of people both in many areas within our culture (Men being paid more, women having their bodies legislated against, representation in media, etc).
Creating a video about all the gay characters that play villains that antagonize poor straight characters would be an equally nonsensical video since within a larger context, there aren't a myriad of biases that could be enhanced to continue a legacy of marginalizing straight people because they are already of a privileged class within larger culture and have been for a very long time.
SolicitorPirate
Member
It was only a 100 years ago that women were not included in the legal definition of persons in Australia. That kind of systemic discrimination takes generations to even begin to address and undo.
Trust me, no, they don't. But you're not going to get an argument on it from me until you actually buckle up and put it into your own words. I am generally willing to engage with any argument. I am not, however, going to engage a video you use as a substitute for your own arguments.
Hipster Cthulhu
Banned
I think thunderfoot understands why feminism exists and it's larger cultural context, but he is pointing out the flaws in this certain brand of feminism and how Anita ignores the context of the media it's self
P.S. Please don't bring up the wage gap that's a whole other mess, that we don't need to get into right now.
Ok, that's fair.
Example of Anita being dishonest: in her video Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games she claims that GTAV facilitates male violence against women and rewards the player for it, she fails to mention how the game facilitates male violence against males, or female violence against females or males.
Wrong.
That isn't her being dishonest. Facilitation of other variations of gender on gender violence doesn't mean male on female violence isn't incentivized and rewarded. She's saying X exists. Just because Y also exists isn't evidence that X doesn't exist.
Also, having never played GTAV, while male against male violence is a given, you're going to have to provide proof for player facilitation of female on male/female violence, since as far as I know, you don't play as a female. But even if you do, its still going to be besides the point because the game is not divorced from the context of reality. Male on female violence in real life is a different horse than male on male or other variations (which it probably shouldn't be, but that's a seperate argument altogether).
Next.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Did GTAV allow you to play as a woman?
SolicitorPirate
Member
"Let's discuss feminism but lets not actually discuss issues important to feminists because reasons."
Hipster Cthulhu
Banned
Yes but X and Y are intrinsically linked and ignoring one when the basis of your argument is connected to both is dishonest
No, there is no difference, violence is a crime regardless of who you do it to, men may be more commonly stronger than women but that just makes the crime easier.
I'm counting Online.
Paradoxmoose
Banned
If you agreed with his argument before you watched it, you'll like it. If you didn't, you won't. He isn't changing anyone's mind with the way he characterizes those that he disagrees with.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Okay, well, clearly she's not counting GTA:Online. Nor should she be since she's usually more concerned with the narrative elements. Unless GTA:O is just GTAV with the ability to substitute your own character into the story then she's not being dishonest using it as an example. I don't actually know myself because I haven't played them.
Edit: And I'd like to know if you can have sex with male prostitutes in either GTAV or GTA:O.
Wrong. Strawman. The argument was never that violence is not a crime in any gender variation, but it has different connotations depending on the gender dynamics in play due to the context of societies we live in. In fact, it accenuates her point. That men on men violence is viewed as more acceptable is also the result of toxic masculinity, but harmful in a different way than man on woman violence is. Still, the focus of her videos is specifically depiction of women in games, not of men. Even if it were a relevant point, the men of her videoes are only used as reference points to show how women are treated. Not to mention that the greater point of this all is empowerment dynamics. Men on women violence empower men. Men on men violence empower men. There are works that depict a violent world where men and women are on equal grounds, but GTA is not one of them.
Next.
Hipster Cthulhu
Banned
She is criticising the open world mechanics of GTAV which are exactly the same as Online and every other GTA so I think it stands, even if you don't agree she also uses Fallout: New Vegas, a game where you can play as any gender and commit violence against any gender, though when talking about NV she does mention male gigolos.
No she claims that any violence against women is bad, that it incites sexism and misogyny regardless of the context of the media. Even if the focus is of how women are treated, the full scope and nature of the situation should be considered, including the treatment of men and how that effects the treatment of women. And concerning empowerment, violence is not always about empowerment and when it is violence empowers the person committing the violence regardless of their gender or of the person they are assaulting.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Can you have sex with men in GTA:V/O?
And I doubt I would agree with her NV example, but I'd have to review it. In any case one or two bad example doesn't disprove her point. Nor does it make her dishonest unless she intentionally did it to mislead. Which would be silly since there are examples of gender problems in so many games that you could spend the next week listening them.
Feminists argue that violence against women is one of the ways in which sexism and misogyny is perpetuated in our society and that the oppression of women by men is reflected by the high incidence of violence against women by men. Moreover, our society expects and encourages women to conform to certain gender norms and empowered ass-kicker is not one of these. By facilitating male on female violence GTAV reinforces and perpetuates the notion that women are less capable than men and that because of this they end up the victims of men. This point is not invalidated by the fact that GTAV also facilitates male on male violence and just violence more generally (which, btw, has its own issues).
Wrong. Like, literally everything here is just incorrect.
1. Please give a direct link where she claims "any violence against women is bad, that it incites sexism and misogyny regardless of the context of the media". I expect the literal quote and citation here, thank you.
2. She's not under any requisite to broaden the focus to your personal tastes. There is nothing wrong with her choosing to focus on women's depiction. She never argues that the argument is complete with only the women's side (as if any argument is ever truly complete...), so she's within her rights to limit her discussion however she likes.
3. As far as violence empowerment goes, thank you for your utter lack of context awareness relating to reality.
Next.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Oh gods Thunderf00t videos and now more blatantly dishonest "dissecting" of her videos in a thread that's not even really about Anita. It never ends
Shrike_Priest
Member
No, not a lot of twelve year old girls play GTA, but make no mistake that tons of boys do. That was kind of my point. You don't get those sales without catering to the under 18 crowd. And in this particular case I chose the exemple specifically because I'd seen geordiemp mention that his son had played GTAV. He said there's nothing to correct. I wanted to make the case that maybe there was.
As for the butt shots, take a look at something like mgs, mass effect, Bayonetta (not to forget the classic prince of Persia:warrior within), and many many more. Games that adolescent males play. Many more games besides weird Japanese up skirt titles focus a disproportionate amount of their screen time on asses.
My point was that the gaming landscape is geared towards a male audience and that limits options for girls. We (as a society) find playing some games acceptable for boys, when maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't for girls. Because of the content. Hence, maybe, just maybe, there's something to address.
shanshan310
Member
There is a lot of media targeted to children, or at least rated acceptable for children, that has sexualisation. Not as overtly as something like GTA, but it's still present. I remember how much I liked playing DoA beach volleyball when I was 12. It was rated PG. Even in movies like who framed roger rabbit you can see it.
Dog Problems
Banned
Has anyone asked if she's really a gamer yet?
Basketball
Member
Female FBI agent (also a character in GTA 4) smashes captive's hand (male) and threatens to shove the large object up the innocent guys butt. ..... Innocent guy then is tortured by Trevor later in story.
Messofanego
Banned
linking to Thunderfoot vids
Why can't these people make videos under 10min long? Oh right, cause they're scatter-brained rants and not very well thought out in advance.
Can someone advise how to get rid of Sargon recommendations from Youtube? "Not interested" doesn't seem to fix it. Does that dude employ some spamming algorithm? I've never even watched one of his videos.
EdibleKnife
Member
You're right. The conversation has devolved and I can't really participate. This topic is only barely about Anita as much as it is about the larger conversation about feminist critique in multiple areas from the creative to the industrial. The entire point about the video series is this antagonist and/or nitpicking response that try's to reduce Anita to a wholly imperfect feminist who should be completely ignored when being perfect isn't her expectation nor does it affect the ultimate truth her (and all feminist ideas) are born out of: that there are pervasive negative tropes and biases that do need to be looked at with a critical eye which several feminists in the industry agree on even, surprise, women who don't agree with literally every point Anita has or will make.
If you think she's wrong about Hitman or GTA, fine. If you think she and all feminists are wrong about how the industry, that's a bigger hill to climb. And if you think anything about the vitriolic reaction to feminists within the industry, Anita included, is either overblown or justified in someway or somehow not indicative of an actual issue, you've got a whole lot to prove but that's what this topic is about and that's what I'll wait for instead of being told what GTAs you can totally play a lady in for the 100th time.
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
While I don't think she's infallible I think this "critique" is just wrong. The problem is that these people hate her. Personally. They infest the discussion. They are the Angry Jacks the videos are meant to portray. In order to invalidate the entire videos (that this thread is about) they choose to discuss only the Anita aspects and "prove" them wrong in order to
Invalidate everything. Also proving the videos correct. Ironically.
Nope. He's either so oblivious to how saturated in a stereotype he is or he IS aware of how he's behaving and attempting to troll in a room full of people having a relatively civil discussion about behaviour and politics, because good lord, we can't let a single discussion stay that way when Anita Sarkeesian's name was mentioned in it!
I appreciate someone trying to engage Hipster Cthulu in calm discussion, but the whole point of his presence seems to be to detract from the actual discussion, which is not even really about Anita Sarkeesian, but where excessive gamer outrage can sometimes come from and how it reacts (and we react) in discussion of personal politics, which is a topic that expands well beyond the GG discussion points.
So, Hipster Cthulu, unless you want to contribute to the actual topic or take your Anita discussion with your new sparring partner to PM, you're doing a massive disservice to the discussion. If you can't do either of those things, I'll simply ignore list you and would implore others to do the same. We deserve at least ONE conversation that doesn't devolve into GG shouting-point argument garbage.
I know your pain, made the mistake of listening to one video of his (it was awful) and it plagued my recommendations since. I think if you clear your history then that helps. Otherwise see if you can go onto his profile and actually block the account.
BumblebeeCody
Member
Godlike series of videos! Really well put together and exactly what I think.
YT seems to think that his videos are related to Anita's and other feminist videos. You could watch them (Anita, not Sargon) on a second profile or in incognito.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
While logged into an account click their channel, then about, then the little flag near the upper right, then 'Block User'. I believe that stops their channel from showing up (as well as prevents them from commenting on your stuff I think). Alternatively you can use extensions. Chrome has: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/video-blocker/jknkjnpcbbgcbdbaampbjlhkcghmgfhk
Messofanego
Banned
I'll have to try that. Thanks!
This is a great video series, though the follow up blog post is just as important.
Talking to Angry Jack is a good idea in theory, but in practice it just leads to a spiral of collateral damage against the already harassed.
We apparently need a new law, like Godwin's or Lewis', something along the lines of "Any conversation on the internet at least tangentially related to Anita Sarkeesian will eventually result in someone posting unlabelled Thunderf00t videos in place of an actual argument."
Seriously, if you have a point, try making it without linking to some shitweasel's unhinged rants and polluting my history and recommendations with that crap without any kind of warning.
Oh my god, you're my hero!
Talking to Angry Jack is a good idea in theory, but in practice it just leads to a spiral of collateral damage against the already harassed.
We apparently need a new law, like Godwin's or Lewis', something along the lines of "Any conversation on the internet at least tangentially related to Anita Sarkeesian will eventually result in someone posting unlabelled Thunderf00t videos in place of an actual argument."
Seriously, if you have a point, try making it without linking to some shitweasel's unhinged rants and polluting my history and recommendations with that crap without any kind of warning.
Oh my god, you're my hero!
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Anton Sugar
Member
It's shocking, really, especially given how Thunderf00t is the definition of an Angry Jack. I remember first watching those videos and immediately seeing the twisted rhetoric he used to turn Anita's position into an argument she never made, and then arguing against that.
If you can't come up with your own argument, just admit it. Spare the clicks for that asshole's videos.
This series is absolutely incredible. Really opened my eyes to so much. Not just about gamergate (which now I feel I fully understand, finally, thanks to this video series) but also about human nature. Lots of personal reflection happening in me right now. Not about how I feel about the topics of gamergate... but how I feel about day to day things too. Perhaps a bit too much... like how I went to get lunch in the middle of these videos, and wondered if the person in front of me thought that I was judging him after he took one slice of bread with his hot-beef meal while I only took one. It makes me think about how small choices I make don't only affect me, but also how they may affect the people around me.
There's a facet I've noticed of the angry jack that wasn't explored, and it's the idea of how it's more visible than ever than other people than straight white cis men are part of gaming culture, and how if the reasonable request that these others are given representation in video games, Jack fears that this means a loss of identity. Not just a question of "What if I'm wrong?" but also a more paranoid "What if I don't matter?"
Certainly not exclusive to game culture, I mean just look at what happened when people wanted a black spider-man and when Johnny Storm is now played by Michael B. Jordan
Certainly not exclusive to game culture, I mean just look at what happened when people wanted a black spider-man and when Johnny Storm is now played by Michael B. Jordan
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
Thanks, that will be very useful for all the times someone post one of these shitty videos without labeling what it is.