Ok, fair enough. But honestly the comments didn’t seem to warrant the response, that is it seemed a lot of baggage was added to it. The criticism was rather broad and mild initially. But this isn’t the first example and not unique to BB where I feel approaching posters from a more neutral tone should be the default. Of course add in the dreaded “first post” and all credibility goes out the widow.
I can’t read every reply so it is possible the hole has been dug deeper.
My complaint is a bit broader. Again I guess it is because I didn’t think the initial vanilla criticism really even warranted a response. (Even assuming he was driving trollies, it was such a broad criticism devoid of insults, the only result of taking that bait is opening up the option for it to get worse.) My complaint is how dangerous it is to approach this subject and others in some cases with out being lumped into a specific group.
You initially said basically, “Watch your tone, or people will think you are one of those jerks.” Now it has shifted to just, “You’re acting like a jerk thanks to your tone.” Which was it initially? Let’s be honest, there are people on the RIGHT side of arguments who are jerks too with snarky replies. How is that helping things? Why is one group ok with their jerk tone and not the other?
There are an established group of commenters here who have fought the good fight against mysogony and elitism in responses to these topics. They are naturally wary of newcomers, especially those who start by suggesting that this is the only content they dislike on BB. I’d ask you to respect that fact.
You’ve made your point, and I am choosing to accept that you are making these points on good faith. However, discussing how you feel you are being unfairly treated by others in light of the obvious issues surrounding these sorts of discussions on the wider internet does little to serve your cause, and could be considered an attempt to derail at worst.
Again, I’ll note (to everyone) that this topic isn’t about one poster, or past topics. If you disagree with a reply, offer your counter argument or ignore it.
I’m more than prepared to nuke trollies from orbit (I have lots of experience!) but just happening to agree with some points made by undesirable groups doesn’t automatically make someone a trolley, especially when they are prepared to state their reasoning in detail.
I think it warranted a response for the following reasons:
It was the first comment, so it was inevitably going to set the tone for the ensuing discussion.
It was not, strictly speaking, relevant to the post to which it is a response. There are plenty of places on the internet to go to criticize Tropes vs Women and be welcomed with open arms. When someone posts that sort of criticism on an unrelated threat it seems worth challenging to me.
It accused Sarkeesian of dishonesty, but only through assertion and not by adducing any evidence. I’ll pretty much always push back against someone accusing someone else of lying without providing evidence for why I should think so.
I disagree that it is a “broad criticism devoid of insults”. It specifically accuses Sarkeesian of dishonesty, but doesn’t provide any details for anyone to try to corroborate the assertions for themselves or to otherwise rebut them. This sort of thing seems calculated to discredit Sarkeesian, which is unfair and should be pushed back against.
I don’t understand the distinction you’re trying to make. I don’t read any of what I said as saying “you’re acting like a jerk thanks to your tone”. Let me try to clarify what I meant:
You want to criticize Sarkeesian. You can either phrase your criticism in such a way that it’s clear that while you disagree with Sarkeesian, you still respect her as a human being and you’re offering your opinion in good faith in the spirit of constructive criticism. Or you can phrase it in such a way that it seems accusatory, insulting, unfair, or otherwise like bad faith unconstructive criticism.
In the former case, you might get some people disagreeing with your arguments and engaging in good faith. (And, in some cases, jerks being jerks in response, no doubt.) In the latter case, you are being a jerk and you should expect that the response is for people being jerks back to you.
Let’s be fair, here:
The side making criticisms has a duty to be polite since criticism can always make people a little touchy.
Jerks have a tendency to inspire jerkiness in others; are you sure the jerks on the “right” side of the argument aren’t acting that way as a response to all the negative bullshit they’ve already encountered in this context?
The jerks are piled up much higher on one side than the other, and there’s a pretty clear record of “who started it” in this particular case.
Realistically, you need to pay attention to context (like gamergate) to avoid pissing people off in discussions, especially ones that are already touchy because they involve criticism and social justice issues.
well this brought out the man babies faster than I expected.
yeesh. while yes there are some valid nits to pick with the tropes series as a whole it opened my eyes to stuff and put into words some things i kinda found icky/creeper like in games i have played and has made me think about what i will support in the future.
and this video makes a solid point on the some of the trump graphic digs that was not quite obvious but bugged me in a way i couldn’t figure out till now.
I actually agree that Fem Freq videos (when it comes to games, can’t speak for any other topics as I have not watched them) are super cherry pick-y and skew the perspective wildly to make bogus points… pretty much all the time.
Difference is, I just ignore them, rather than complaining ad nauseam or going on a stupid internet jihad that serves only to advertise Fem Freq in the medium to long term.
You grey username new user mysteriously-just-arrived-to-complain commenters should try ignoring things you don’t like once in a while. It really is liberating!
I think Sarkeesian’s on a hiding to nothing, trying to change society by removing homophobia and gender-based language from our swears. After all, we (most of us who do the swearing thing; I’m sure there are exceptions) all use “fuck” as an exclamation and intensifier, which word should describe a loving and tender act between two or more individuals who have come together to share something something, etc, and shouldn’t have anything to do even metaphorically with whatever we’re swearing about.
As a Brit, I use the c-word to describe awful people, and I typically don’t use it to describe female genitalia — but even I can’t deny the sexist root of the awful-people meaning. But I’m not going to change it, because it’s an enormously satisfying way to describe someone: that hard K-sound and the almost-spat T at the end, it’s just got good mouth-feel and sounds like an awful person. On the other hand, I am more careful about who I’m using it in front of these days. I would try not to use it in front of the Queen, my sister or Sarkeesian, forex. (Or type it here, as you can see.)
Similarly, while Colbert’s “cock-holster” joke is based partly on homophobia — or at least my reaction to it is partly based on the homophobia of the society I’ve spent fifty-plus years in — the joke is also about a sex act which can be read as a strongly submissive/dominant one, especially in the purported relationship between Trump and Putin; the use of “holster” implies that Trump is very much the sub in that relationship. So I laughed because there are elements of homophobia in me battling with my SJW aspirations, but also because the President of the United States shouldn’t be sucking anyone’s cock, least of all the President of Russia’s. Not even as part of a loving something something, as above.
Sarkeesian can disapprove of such horrible memes, of course, and I can’t say she’s wrong to do so, but disapproval of swearing hasn’t done anything to remove it from general society, ever.
Bonus picture: Gerald Scarfe’s '60s cartoon of Prime Minister Harold Wilson trying to kiss President Johnson’s arse. Is one’s reaction to it mainly homophobia or is it about an unflattering characterisation of the relationship between the two (and by metonymy, their countries) as well? And at this level of symbolism, is it a fool’s errand to try to unpick the two threads?
[quote=“gregor, post:39, topic:101364”]
I didn’t even follow GamerGate, nor do I really know what it is about. So I if really matched the talking points, that’s by chance.
[/quote]Or, it’s because you’re getting some of your points from TFoot, who is cribbing them directly from Gamergate, because that’s the crowd he was playing to with those videos. Not that I think you are or are not necessarily on board with those pricks, I can’t read your mind - but it’s not coincidence. The reason you sound like a Gamergater when you say those things, is because you’re basically repeating them getting them from a Gamergater and repeating them largely unaltered.
I’d like to think my point was more nuanced than that. But, unusually for me, I caught the video a couple of hours after it was put up a couple or so days ago, and — desperate to try and get the thread onto the subject and away from the forensic investigation of commentary on commentary of the video — Sarkeesian’s thesis or sub-thesis that we can’t change society unless we change the way we swear was the only thing I recalled that I had doubts about. You may take it either that I don’t disagree with anything else or that I don’t recall anything else about it.
