They’re no more important than the rantings of the local homeless man on the street corner screaming about the aliens. Her value lies only in being an object lesson of how toxic third wave feminists are, and how everything they touch turns to shit.
Because no one in any of those fandoms would take her imbecilic arguments seriously. Gamers have serious self-esteem problems and need to grow some backbones.
The only thing she’s “teaching” is that she’s an unrepentant fraud, in addition to being an incredibly shallow thinker. She’s Jack Thompson with a vagina, the only difference being that he was laughed out of the room by games “journalists,” and not embarrassingly deified.
…now now now, these are nice forums. You shouldn’t use your first two posts here to be so ANGRY! I mean, what exactly are you so angry about?
But if you really want to express yourself, feel free to step over to the pit thread. Then that will give us the opportunity to express ourselves to you as well.
My first point was merely that I don’t think racism and misogyny have grown, it’s just that its visibilty has. There’s no denying that (as you say) the internet has created whole new ways to be an asshole.
Secondly, it’s pretty much a truism that if one seeks to explain something about assholes someone will always leap to the conclusion one is excusing assholes. Thanks for not disappointing me in that respect. My point about the shallowness of the misogyny is not that that makes it OK, but just that I think it’s not really about that: it’s more that I suspect these assholes are just trollish. They do whatever the hell they can to upset people. That misogyny happens to be something that riles people up real good is happenstance.
I kept seeing these multiple page threads popping up on multiple forums and I could never really understand what all the fuss was about, so thanks for starting this thread for us normal people. Even that thread in the pit is full of frothing rubbish.
Now that it has been explained what strikes me is how utterly inane this all is and yet it has warranted so much attention (relatively speaking). Its a “gate” for gods sake, anything with a “gate” on the end should be more important than this.
My old fart question is the same as it was during Elevatorgate: why aren’t flocks of lawyers swooping in picking pockets like vultures plucking eyeballs? If the Beatles can end up suing each other and everyone else in sight, what’s wrong with the current generation?
I can’t believe its simply because of the relatively youth of the participants. “Litigation takes the place of sex at middle age.” - Gore Vidal
Sue who over what to achieve what? The Streisand effect means that suing over this sort of thing just makes it worse, if you are trying to play something down. And suing internet nobodies is a losing proposition.
Pretty much everything done by everyone on all sides of this issue has made it worse. A lawyer comes in, looks for something plausibly actionable, looks for a link to someone or something plausibly liable and who has money, and we’re off to the slug races!
I don’t know about Australia, but in The UK, the law has (finally) gone after internet nobodies who’ve made death and rape threats.
That’s not much of a standard. The Loose Change videos on YouTube (regarding a 9/11 conspiracy) also received instantaneous, outrageous backlash – mainly because they were rock-stupid, provided cherry-picked information and gave a fake, twisted view of events to promote an agenda. Not that Sarkeesian is at the same level as 9/11 conspiracy theories but “received a lot of negative backlash” isn’t an indicator that someone is correct or sincere.
Sarkeesian got backlash before she even made the videos. Her kickstarter campaign was blasted, mocked, hated upon and some counter-kickstarters were started to blast her and her ideas.
Loose Change was viral but wasn’t blasted until it came across people’s FB pages.
Sure, I laughed at her Kickstarter as well when I first saw it because it was obvious even then that she already had a predetermined agenda and was just looking to make videos to project that agenda, not because she was looking to do “research” to see if she was correct or not. There was no scenario where she would have played all those games and said “You know what, I was wrong.”
Instead, she had a list of 12 tropes guaranteed to pigeonhole every female character ever and she was going to make sure each one found their home. So, yeah, it was blasted from the start for being ridiculous, not because she was so correct.
The problem is the “someone with deep pockets” part. No civil lawyer would want to wade into this mess unless they were sure of being paid - and do any of the participants have significant cash? My bystander’s impression is “no”.
Criminal matters are a different issue - a prosecutor could get interested in death and harm threats, depending on their budget for such stuff.
You can have a defendant class, though this is unusual. The problem is one of the economics. Plantiff classes “work” economically because each plaintiff in the class has a financial incentive to participate - they get a (usually modest) pay-out, with (usually) plantiff counsel taking around one-third as a contingency fee. The plaintiffs in the class contact class counsel - that’s why you sometimes see adds in the media, advertising for potential plaintiffs (“where you injured by asbestos? If so, contact …”).
With a defentant class, how is the lawyer going to chase down each and every defendant and get them to contribute? They have no incentive to do so voluntarily. They are likely to be in multiple jurisdictions, requiring yet further court proceedings to get ‘recognition and enforcement’ of the local judgment against them. Unless the sums from each defendant are substantial, it will not be worth it.
Be that as it may, it does show that she was being attacked critically (fairly or unfairly) from the get-go.
By comparison, Loose Change was on its 2nd edition before most people heard of it. I had been actively mashing down 911 CT nutters since almost 9/12/01 and I hadn’t heard of LC until it started plopping down on social media and on message boards.
After that, hell yeah I blasted the heck out of its claims, but it was full of stupid from the get-go.
Really, my goal isn’t to litigate the similarities or differences between the two but just to point out that “Received immediate backlash” isn’t evidence that either side is correct. You’re “right” because you have your facts together, are accurate and make a compelling case not because someone else got mad at you.
The OP contains a link. If you’ve never heard of her, you are not compelled to reply. In other words, no threadshitting. If your ire is sufficient, you know the way to the pit.
I mean, what exactly are you so angry about?