Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

The fact is, she obviously knows a lot about video games.  She's presented a lot of information about video games.  She obviously cares about video games, because she could end the project at any point and keep the money.

She knows a lot of video games. She's presented a lot of misconstrued and false information about video games. She seems much more interested in furthering her career than video games, ending the project would kill the momentum she's gained.

So when she technically implies, in a single off-the-record statement, that she doesn't currently play video games, I don't consider that proof of anything.  It's OBVIOUSLY a slightly inaccurate way of indicating that she *has problems* with video games - which would be a reasonable thing to say to the class. 
"Not a fan of video games"?  Me neither, I think the current market sucks with a few rare exceptions!  I still play games though, even overhyped overbudget triple-A male-dominated titles.

When she says she is not a fan of video games, had to learn a lot of them, wishes to play them but falsely believes they are all God of War and then claims she is a hardcore gamer who's been playing since she's 5, that proves she has a few problems with not just video games, but also her moral compass. Triple-A GUNS GUNS GUNS are their own separate market, away from every other genre - something she is completely blind to. Problems of industry become problems of gender, the "controversy" twisted so that they can be ignored under arguments of moral superiority, and again, based off of a lie founded in ignorance.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Why do people always just hear what they think she means, instead of what she says? Instead of "Well this is what she said word for word with video evidence" it is "This is what I believe she meant because my feelings"

You, I, and Loud Whispers have all said self-contradictory things in this thread.  It's an inevitability.  Productive discussion involves forgiving technical mistakes... And Anna has some very extenuating circumstances here, seeing as she's giving an off-the-record lecture.  Blowing it out of proportion is intellectually dishonest.

It would almost seem as if you are being apologetic about her lying. That is most definitely not a technical error, that is her spurning on the masses for money. Where I have contradicted myself, I have clearly sought to say one position I have said is wrong, I have never told a lie, nor have I ever asked for money. Lying about your intellect seems a great deal more intellectually dishonest than pointing this statement out.

What even is the criteria for being a "Gamer". Its clear she has played games...

Something like playing games for a long time [like since you were 5], eschewing large portions of time for it [pro/NEET gaming], or else having an incredibly large experience with worthwhile games.

Spoiler: ITT (click to show/hide)

So you are saying that she doesn't have to play a game in order to get good examples right?

Which is why I don't think she played most of them. That and some of them are pretty insanely tough for someone who doesn't constantly play videogames.

Frankly, there is no logic to your conclusion that the fact she's used it as an example is evidence she doesn't play games. She's already said she's a gamer, there is no evidence she's lying except for "hurr durr, she's a girl with opinions i don't like!".

In my limited defence it irritates me greatly to see people make unfounded claims about the validity of someones identity. If she says she's a gamer we should take her at face value. If she says she's been playing these games we should take her at face value. That's really all i have to say.

I doubt she played half the games she shown... or almost any of them.
So lets exclude the "Games she's played" from the list of costs.

Now i think we should at least give her the benefit of the doubt on that.
A lot of the nerd rage criticism i've seen of her is along the lines of "hurr durr durr, i bet she doesn't even really play video-games."
Which is baseless and unfair, the only evidence i've ever been shown to prove she isn't a gamer is that she has criticized games generally held in high regard, like bayonetta. Like suddenly it's evidence you're not a gamer if you have criticism of a game that is generally well received.

Hurrdurr was right, there's a surprise.

[alexandertnt]

Is there some new video on violence I missed? The last video I watched (I think it was the third one) did not claim all games are God of War or anything like that.

[Loud Whispers]

Is there some new video on violence I missed? The last video I watched (I think it was the third one) did not claim all games are God of War or anything like that.

It was in regards to this statement:
"I would love to play videogames but I don't want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads and it's just gross so hence this is my response to that."
The God of War thing was just an expression, God of War of course being characterized by boss fights of Titanic proportions; and ripping limbs off of other limbs.

[alexandertnt]

It was in regards to this statement:
"I would love to play videogames but I don't want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads and it's just gross so hence this is my response to that."
The God of War thing was just an expression, God of War of course being characterized by boss fights of Titanic proportions; and ripping limbs off of other limbs.

That could be considered a strawman, I suppose.

Its still important to note that this does not invalidate the arguments in her video's, which I thought were well articulated and relevant.

[Max White]

The fact is, she obviously knows a lot about video games.  She's presented a lot of information about video games.  She obviously cares about video games, because she could end the project at any point and keep the money.

So when she technically implies, in a single off-the-record statement, that she doesn't currently play video games, I don't consider that proof of anything.  It's OBVIOUSLY a slightly inaccurate way of indicating that she *has problems* with video games - which would be a reasonable thing to say to the class. 

"Not a fan of video games"?  Me neither, I think the current market sucks with a few rare exceptions!  I still play games though, even overhyped overbudget triple-A male-dominated titles.

Why do people always just hear what they think she means, instead of what she says? Instead of "Well this is what she said word for word with video evidence" it is "This is what I believe she meant because my feelings"

You, I, and Loud Whispers have all said self-contradictory things in this thread.  It's an inevitability.  Productive discussion involves forgiving technical mistakes... And Anna has some very extenuating circumstances here, seeing as she's giving an off-the-record lecture.  Blowing it out of proportion is intellectually dishonest.

The fact is she is flying around the world giving lectures about this shit, she has every incentive to keep going regardless of how she actually feel about games. This is her business, why give it up? As far as knowing a lot about video games, she has certainly presented a shallow wikipedia style view into them.
Now regardless of if you play games even if you don't like them, she has outright said that she doesn't play games because she doesn't like violence. Now that could have changed since when she said it, after all most people don't like their day job, but she can at least stop pretending this is some holy crusade for her to protect a beloved media, she is selling a product... Now the fact that a product is on sale doesn't make it of less quality, but it is important to understand that every time Anita says how much she loves games that can't be taken on face value.


You need to stop granting her an infinite amount of free 'This is what she really meant' tickets...

Look, I get it... Really I do! Imagine a loved one is sick and for years people say you are wrong and they are perfectly healthy. Over the years it gets worse and worse, and still people are reluctant to accept they your loved one needs help... Then one day somebody claiming to be a doctor shows up and says they have a diagnosis and can help. It is only natural to be over joyed that finally somebody cares! It makes sense that you are going to get defensive about that doctor and support their diagnosis against people saying the loved one isn't sick. But you need to try and see reason and realize that the doctor might not actually have the right diagnosis, even if the patient really is sick, and especially when it comes to light that they don't have a medical background.

Anita has the wrong diagnosis. We are allowed to accept that without it meaning there is nothing wrong with the industry.

[Rolan7]

When she says she is not a fan of video games, had to learn a lot of them, wishes to play them but falsely believes they are all God of War and then claims she is a hardcore gamer who's been playing since she's 5, that proves she has a few problems with not just video games, but also her moral compass. Triple-A GUNS GUNS GUNS are their own separate market, away from every other genre - something she is completely blind to. Problems of industry become problems of gender, the "controversy" twisted so that they can be ignored under arguments of moral superiority, and again, based off of a lie founded in ignorance.

she says she is not a fan of video game

A gamer is not required to be a fan of games in general, we are allowed to enjoy niche or particularly decent titles.  But at least she said this technically once off the record while making a point, yes.

had to learn a lot of them

A gamer doing a fact-filled documentary on games might be expected to do research to ensure the accuracy of the facts they present, rather than sharing a bunch of opinions.

wishes to play them but falsely believes they are all God of War

And here we go!  Without anything constructive to add, you resort to putting more words in her mouth.  You should have stuck to declaring that she "presented a lot of misconstrued and false information about video games".  Despite offering no evidence whatsoever, people probably would continue to take you seriously!  Instead you continue to, as before, absolutely fabricate a position to argue against.  Post what you will, I refuse to derail this thread with another pointless, sprawling nonargument.

[Rolan7]

The fact is she is flying around the world giving lectures about this shit, she has every incentive to keep going regardless of how she actually feel about games. This is her business, why give it up? As far as knowing a lot about video games, she has certainly presented a shallow wikipedia style view into them.
Now regardless of if you play games even if you don't like them, she has outright said that she doesn't play games because she doesn't like violence. Now that could have changed since when she said it, after all most people don't like their day job, but she can at least stop pretending this is some holy crusade for her to protect a beloved media, she is selling a product... Now the fact that a product is on sale doesn't make it of less quality, but it is important to understand that every time Anita says how much she loves games that can't be taken on face value.


You need to stop granting her an infinite amount of free 'This is what she really meant' tickets...

Look, I get it... Really I do! Imagine a loved one is sick and for years people say you are wrong and they are perfectly healthy. Over the years it gets worse and worse, and still people are reluctant to accept they your loved one needs help... Then one day somebody claiming to be a doctor shows up and says they have a diagnosis and can help. It is only natural to be over joyed that finally somebody cares! It makes sense that you are going to get defensive about that doctor and support their diagnosis against people saying the loved one isn't sick. But you need to try and see reason and realize that the doctor might not actually have the right diagnosis, even if the patient really is sick, and especially when it comes to light that they don't have a medical background.

Anita has the wrong diagnosis. We are allowed to accept that without it meaning there is nothing wrong with the industry.

Okay, there's a lot of truth to that.  She does have a reason not to shout "Psyche I never was a gamer at all!" and lose this "career".  I ignored that in my post.

As for the rest, I've disagreed with some of her points before.  She doesn't back up most of her claims scientifically, she just presents some evidence which supports what she's saying.  I'm honestly not sure, but I *think* that's how documentaries are supposed to work - not proving, but educating or raising awareness.  These aren't thesis papers after all.  That's why I try to figure out what she's trying to say, not what she literally says.  After all, some of her implications are a lot more extreme than what she specifically claims!  And when those implications are too crazy, they bother me. 

All in all, though, I think she's done a good job of raising awareness.  I wasn't aware of many of her specific examples.  I know a lot more about the issue now, both from her documentaries and from the arguments they started.  That's why I consider the series a success.

[Loud Whispers]

A gamer is not required to be a fan of games in general, we are allowed to enjoy niche or particularly decent titles.  But at least she said this technically once off the record while making a point, yes.
A gamer doing a fact-filled documentary on games might be expected to do research to ensure the accuracy of the facts they present, rather than sharing a bunch of opinions.

She's not a fan, she has done "research" without actually playing the games, doesn't know what she is even trying to change and has been lying through her teeth. Her accuracy is demonstrably all over the place, and where I thought it was shallow because of her ideology, it was shallow because she actually had no idea what she was talking about.

wishes to play them but falsely believes they are all God of War

And here we go!  Without anything constructive to add, you resort to putting more words in her mouth.

"I would love to play videogames but I don't want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads and it's just gross so hence this is my response to that."
Oh how horrible of me, it appears I have taken her volition of speech away.

  You should have stuck to declaring that she "presented a lot of misconstrued and false information about video games".  Despite offering no evidence whatsoever, people probably would continue to take you seriously!

She cited Dear Esther who kills himself as a good way of dealing with loss.
She is clueless.

  Instead you continue to, as before, absolutely fabricate a position to argue against.  Post what you will, I refuse to derail this thread with another pointless, sprawling nonargument.

Oh right then, listen to what you just said.

I'm honestly not sure, but I *think* that's how documentaries are supposed to work - not proving, but educating or raising awareness.

Sir David Attenborough is disappoint.

All in all, though, I think she's done a good job of raising awareness.  I wasn't aware of many of her specific examples.  I know a lot more about the issue now, both from her documentaries and from the arguments they started.  That's why I consider the series a success.

She has done far more damage to the cause she's exploiting than anyone else could have done. Imagine Kony 2012, but worse.

[Rolan7]

wishes to play them but falsely believes they are all God of War

And here we go!  Without anything constructive to add, you resort to putting more words in her mouth.

"I would love to play videogames but I don't want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads and it's just gross so hence this is my response to that."
Oh how horrible of me, it appears I have taken her volition of speech away.

No, you misquoted her so you could knock down a strawman.  Maybe you don't understand that fancy phrase you used?  (You do, you're just being deceitful).

  You should have stuck to declaring that she "presented a lot of misconstrued and false information about video games".  Despite offering no evidence whatsoever, people probably would continue to take you seriously!

She cited Dear Esther who kills himself as a good way of dealing with loss.
She is clueless.

There are some games that try to explore loss, death and grief in more genuine or authentic ways that do not sensationalize or exploit victimized women. Dear Esther, The Passage and To The Moon are a few indie games that investigate these themes in creative, innovative and sometimes beautiful ways.

She cited Dear Esther who kills himself as a good way of dealing with loss.

You're not stupid, you're just a shameless liar.  You should be blacklisted from any moderated discussion.  You know your argument is wrong, yet you try to prop it up through deceit - for reasons I don't care to guess.

I don't like you.

She has done far more damage to the cause she's exploiting than anyone else could have done. Imagine Kony 2012, but worse.

[Neonivek]

She's still right.

You know what? That is the worst thing of all if it is true. Nothing makes a stance harder to defend then someone defending it through dishonesty.

I believe in a lot of things but one thing I never will never change is the ideal that you should present knowledge with as much accuracy as possible.

So, yeah it matters all the more that she is right if the allegations (and some of them are outright unarguably) true. Since it just means she is another person who do whatever they want so long as they get people on their side... and I won't defend that.

Mind you, I concede that there is at least a line of thinking that "The end justifies the means" in the case of trying to inform.

I'm really scared that people are going to see this as Her Being Wrong At Everything Now And Forever Amen and there's going to be even more of a backlash

Which frankly I don't blame the community for, but I find it incredibly aggravating whenever I talk about feminism with someone who isn't... because frankly they just keep referencing these.

It is like there is a catalog of bad feminists that people keep under their beds to read before falling asleep.

As for me personally, I never watched Anita's videos to see my own arguments mirrored back at me and the largest issues I found with her videos is that she was so sparse and light with the information she gave that it often felt uninformative or a non-argument. So there wasn't a lot there to agree or disagree with... and frankly I think she done more to convince me that issues with female frequency in gaming is a non-issue then the opposite (simply by being bad at arguing it).

I also don't really care about these allegations as far as her arguments are concerned. I do not believe someone is ever disqualified from having a valid opinion or from knowing facts (After all everyone hates hypocrites but will listen to one if they change hypocrite to victim). I am just disappointed that I can no longer get open minded people to watch Anita videos anymore so we can have discussions.

[alexandertnt]

All in all, though, I think she's done a good job of raising awareness.  I wasn't aware of many of her specific examples.  I know a lot more about the issue now, both from her documentaries and from the arguments they started.  That's why I consider the series a success.

She has done far more damage to the cause she's exploiting than anyone else could have done. Imagine Kony 2012, but worse.

Thats completely baseless. Perhaps this only exists in your head?

If I may use a personal anedocte, it has certainly changed my mind on the subject of women in video games.

No, you misquoted her so you could knock down a strawman.  Maybe you don't understand that fancy phrase you used?  (You do, you're just being deceitful).

So wait, what Loud Whispers quoted is not what she actually said?

Damn it, why can't people just use quotes correctly.

She cited Dear Esther who kills himself as a good way of dealing with loss.

So I expect you have something to demonstrate that she suggests that suicide is a good way to deal with loss?

[Neonivek]

it has certainly changed my mind on the subject of women in video games

And oddly enough I feel like her videos made my perceptions a bit worse and more confused.

Then again it always a confusing topic.

For example Sexuality and women in videogames. Is a Sexy woman in a videogame bad?

Women are sexual beings, women like sexy women, there are sexy women in real life who would be considered respectful... So no, a sexy woman in videogame isn't bad.

Yet why are many videogames clearly in the wrong? Is this wrong or is there a difference between an appropriate and inappropriate sexy female character and what is that difference? As well what does frequency say?

It honestly could make entire videos (and I watched entire videos that tried to delve into it all which purpose different reasons for this... Some get a little muddled with the fact that they are women which may sound a bit weird to say for people reading it... but lets just say there is such a thing as overexposing a plot point)

[Vector]

I'd expect "suicide is a good way of dealing with loss" to mean "a game with suicide as an element is a good representation of what it means to deal with loss."

Look, otherwise she'd basically be flame-breathing Hitler.  She may not know what she's talking about, but I don't think she's that degree of immoral.

[Neonivek]

I'd expect "suicide is a good way of dealing with loss" to mean "a game with suicide as an element is a good representation of what it means to deal with loss."

Look, otherwise she'd basically be flame-breathing Hitler.  She may not know what she's talking about, but I don't think she's that degree of immoral.

I agree with the second.

As well Esther actually deals with the suicide in a detailed way instead of making it a background point "Ohh, yeah I was sad so I committed suicide ok bye!"

[Max White]

Okay, there's a lot of truth to that.  She does have a reason not to shout "Psyche I never was a gamer at all!" and lose this "career".  I ignored that in my post.

As for the rest, I've disagreed with some of her points before.  She doesn't back up most of her claims scientifically, she just presents some evidence which supports what she's saying.  I'm honestly not sure, but I *think* that's how documentaries are supposed to work - not proving, but educating or raising awareness.  These aren't thesis papers after all.  That's why I try to figure out what she's trying to say, not what she literally says.  After all, some of her implications are a lot more extreme than what she specifically claims!  And when those implications are too crazy, they bother me. 

All in all, though, I think she's done a good job of raising awareness.  I wasn't aware of many of her specific examples.  I know a lot more about the issue now, both from her documentaries and from the arguments they started.  That's why I consider the series a success.

See the thing is misleading documentaries don't cause constructive discussion, they just spread misinformation and controversy. I would be very surprised if you can find a biologist who is happy about pro-creationist documentaries because of all the people getting into the field having watched one.

A documentary that attempts to provide some sort of information but isn't really based on anything objective and factual isn't going to do much good at all, and while it might be nice to think that this has caused some sort of real discussion, the truth is that most people are just hung up over whether she is right or wrong, rather than what the real underlying causes might be...