Welcome to the party. You’re only 12 years late.
Join the 15 year anniversary of Megaman with Battle Network 3!
Follow oldgamemags on Tumblr for more awesome scans from yesteryear!
This is quite clever. It’d be nice if this was common to help read Katakana.
Genuine stupidity or desperation? You decide.
It’s hilarious to see people who obviously know nothing about imageboards try use them and then frame the users
It’s like a bumper car wreck with clowns
Who the hell would even buy that? It’s so bad and fake it’s cringeworthy.
>The Leader of Gamergate
You’ve gotta be shitting me.
"as a proud supporter of #gamergate"
Pwahahahahaha this is so fucking fake.
Did they really fall for something so obvious?
Remember when I talked about feminists who look for reasons to be offended? This is exactly what I was talking about.
It’s one thing to enjoy playing video games and happen by a scene which is genuinely fucked up (I mean chances are it was intended to be fucked up; it’s like people complaining about the violence and drug use in Far Cry games), but it’s entirely another thing to grind through something you don’t even enjoy for a demographic you evidently dislike playing content that you barely understand, removing context and information, just so you can have a reason to take offence. It’s pathetic.
That’s called research my friend. How the hell is she supposed to talk about something if she does not do research ?! If she didn’t, you’d be first in line to say so. I bet thinking and researching a subject before you talk is not a problem you must run into too often is it ?
No, it’s called confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty. Good try, though.
Except calling her research into her proposed /argument/ ‘confirmation bias’ and ‘intellectual dishonesty’ is absolutely ridiculous.
No, it isn’t, because it’s backed up by fact. Just because you don’t want to hear it doesn’t mean it is automatically rendered ridiculous or invalid. Do you understand what confirmation bias is? It is having a hypothesis, and then only looking for things that support that hypothesis, and either ignoring or refusing to research anything that contradicts that hypothesis. It is any good researcher or analyst’s worst enemy, and evidently something Anita Sarkeesian doesn’t give a shit about.
You’re expecting someone who is arguing a point not to be swayed by personal belief, as if firstly an argument cannot be created unless in complete isolation from all personal influence; two, that both sides of this entire debate aren’t influenced by personal belief and three, her argument and research is any less valid than the other side just because her evidence relies on something gained through thoroughness.
This argument is complete bullshit. I never said she shouldn’t have her own personal bias; we all do in every aspect of our lives. But her job as an analyst is to put that aside and not be swayed by personal belief as it can, and if you allow it to, will get in the way of your results, and skew them beyond belief. For you to try and excuse being swayed by personal bias is juvenile, and apparently a misunderstanding of how proper analysis works.
Sure she finds one example in a videogame to prove her point and sure it isn’t useful for her argument, but to infer that it is nitpicking discredits the entire basis of an interpretation based on passages, sources and evidence. Although this is hardly an established academic setting, this is exactly how academic papers are created.
Are you joking? Of course nit-picking and cherry-picking call her argument into question. It’s called nit-picking or cherry-picking because it removes the point being argued from the context in which it originally existed, thereby removing any chance of properly understanding the circumstances around it, and effectively misrepresenting it. She did this with Hitman: Absolution, she did this with her critique of Bayonetta, she did this with her critique of the casting for the Hunger Games, and how you cannot understand how that qualifies as intellectual dishonesty is baffling to me.
'Removing context'? Although I cannot vouch for FremFreq's analysis entirely, I think the context created is entirely set in the society we live in - a sexist scene might seep into a game due to notions already established in society, which is being attacked by FremFreq for upholding them. The 'Hitman' example comes to mind, in which a woman's corpse is used as a distraction.
I already addressed this in a link above, but you’re penalized for interacting with the prostitute with a points deduction, which later affects how you, as an assassin, can buy equipment for the next mission, and it also affects your stats. This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say intellectual dishonesty, so thank you for giving me a prime example of it.
What context is needed here apart from the established argument that women are objectified?
If you want to make an argument, then use one that you don’t have to manipulate. Simple as that. The example she gave of being “rewarded” for objectification is nullified by the fact that 1. You are effectively penalized for it and 2. You can do the same exact thing, and worse, to the male guards in the game (i.e. strip them almost naked) and 3. the context of the mission, where you’re there to kill the strip club owner.
A thing proven time and time again through examples in the media outside of videogames?
But we’re not talking about examples outside of video games, we’re talking about video games, so this is completely irrelevant.
You’re attempting to tackle a praxis by looking at things that Anita says in isolation; in relation to only videogames and denying that sexism elsewhere in the media can’t possibly seep into the Videogame Industry.
Don’t straw man arguments, it isn’t flattering. Nobody has argued that no tropes have ever existed; of course they do, and they have, you’d have to be completely obtuse to deny it. But arguing the entire video game industry is misogynistic for having video games with perceived misogyny in them would be to argue that a library is anti-Semitic for having a copy of Mein Kampf in it. Doesn’t make sense.
Besides which, to complain that someone who goes through a medium. of which they are not a casual consumer, and points out social issues is being petty is ridiculous.
My complaint is that she evidently understands so little about the games she is criticizing. If you’re going into a medium of which you are not a casual consumer, the obvious thing to do would be to conduct copious amounts of research, and whether or not that research supports or rebuts your claim you stick with it. That is what analysis entails. It also highlights one of my biggest issues, though, and that is the apparent influx of social issues being injected into websites that are about video games. Naturally it wouldn’t be wrong to point out certain things from time to time, but websites like Kotaku have become social issue-charged, reactionary and absurd clickbait shitholes that incorporate issues that, in many cases, have nothing to do with video games at all. You can go through Patricia Hernandez’s articles to see that much.
You claim that she is under confirmation bias when you use her example to tar all feminists as easily offended - you picked out a cultural critic investigating a new medium in this case.
Don’t put words in my mouth. When did I ever say anything about “all feminists”? Find it. But you won’t, because I didn’t. Fuck off with your flimsy fallacies.
On belief - if anything, her being divorced from the subject in any way is better for her critique because she is not swayed by nostalgic notions of video games.
It would be great if this were actually the case, but she went in with a preconceived notion about video games. Before she even started Tropes vs. Women she is on record as stating that she would play video games, but and I quote: “doesn’t want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads”. Because apparently before she started, that is what she believed video games consisted of; she didn’t even seem aware that there are genres of video games.
However, her detractors constantly cite cultural critics such as herself as bringing about a degeneration in videogames, claiming that they want games to be apolitical and wishing for some status quo, at least in the removal of the influences of these critics. That entire argument is swayed by belief - it is an inherently reactionary/conservative stance on games that comes about due to a perception that before games were questioned, it was better.
I love this argument because it’s one parroted by all of Sarkeesian’s supporters: That her opponents are either reactionary, conservative or more specifically “ultra-right Republicans”. Because God forbid someone who isn’t your political opponent disagree with someone you support. Alienating arguments you disagree with is a very poor tactic. Reflects badly on you.
There is a valid point being made on the “conservative” part, though: Video games aren’t about politics; why inject them into it? If you have a legitimate claim to be made, then fair enough, but turning video games and websites into social justice issues? That doesn’t strike you as the least bit absurd?
The constant complaint that feminists whom critique gaming are just biased is ridiculous - the buzzword ‘truth’ is constantly thrown around when dealing with the Gamergate issue in that those who propose the ideas of the campaign are trying to deliver an unbiased and inherently true version of events. No matter how you look at it, both sides are in an argument that is jettisoned by political belief and you cannot get away from that by claiming to be apolitical, which is a common tactic.
Gamergate is about politics because it was made political; provided this slacktavism and websites like Kotaku had never partaken in the activities that they did, that wouldn’t be a point. But it’s why we are where we are; journalistic integrity. And when you talk journalism, politics will undoubtedly follow.
Gamergate is a conservative movement, as evidenced by the fact that the same people who denounce Anita are throwing their hats in with literal Breitbart.com writers.
Jesus Christ could you sound more pathetic? What is the purpose of generalizing a group as “conservative”? Does it make your argument more valid? Obviously not, it just makes you look juvenile.
Also ‘scenes that are supposed to be fucked up,’ yeah that’s something, but when the argument rests on the idea that games are doing fucked up stuff all the time to certain groups, it falls down, doesn’t it? The argument that sexism remains in video games is partially propped up on the idea of sexism’s normality, however subtle or blatant it is.
No, because the games being called into question are doing it indiscriminately. God of war is brought up because of how he treats the women in the game, conveniently ignoring the fact that he tortures and mutilates everyone in Olympus indiscriminately. Hitman: Absolution is brought up because of how he treats the prostitutes, ignoring the fact that you can not only do worse to the men, but that you are actively penalized for it. Someone even brought up Assassin’s Creed II for the prostitute mission where an “escort” is killed, ignoring the fact that your mission is to save her, and if you don’t you fail the mission.
Bottom line is if you need to remove context from something to support your argument, your argument was flimsy and questionable to begin with.
never in my life did I think that toilet doors would make me so angry
i love you chongo