Feminism/Sexism and Gaming/Geek/Popular culture Catch All

So, in essence: people were beating her doors down to give her money, no strings attached, and you're calling her unethical for taking it?

I don't think that's a reasonable standard. Would you hold that same standard for someone who agreed with you?

I should also point out that it's not like this came as a surprise to anyone. Kickstarter shows the rolling total, to within a minute or two of the current time. So it's not like she said, "Gee, gimme $6000" and then hid that tons of people were giving her way more than that. Every single person who donated above $6K knew they were doing so, and knew how far above $6K she was. That last person, at however much money it was, knew that the total was well over $150K, and still gave her money.

No fraud, no deception, no force. If she was unethical to leave the Kickstarter open, then the people who gave her money were just as much at fault. But, somehow, the men who are giving her the money (per the infographic) -- THEY aren't the unethical ones, they're the ones being taken advantage of by that slut.

Men can't control themselves around women, you know. They're just not responsible for their own actions. It's all her fault for being a sneak and a liar and taking 'sympathy money'.

Malor wrote:

I should also point out that it's not like this came as a surprise to anyone. Kickstarter shows the rolling total, to within a minute or two of the current time. So it's not like she said, "Gee, gimme $6000" and then hid that tons of people were giving her way more than that. Every single person who donated above $6K knew they were doing so, and knew how far above $6K she was. That last person, at however much money it was, knew that the total was well over $150K, and still gave her money.

No fraud, no deception, no force. If she was unethical to leave the Kickstarter open, then the people who gave her money were just as much at fault. But, somehow, the men who are giving her the money (per the infographic) -- THEY aren't the unethical ones, they're the ones being taken advantage of by that slut.

Men can't control themselves around women, you know. They're just not responsible for their own actions. It's all her fault for being a sneak and a liar and taking 'sympathy money'.

I find it amusing that a person who, for her entire adult life thus far (that I'm aware of), has engulfed her life in the fight for gender equality and the education thereof is being accused of ethics violations because random people on the internet decided to give her more money than she asked for initially.

Anyway, she isn't planning on walking away with the $119K after making some Youtube videos-- she's clearly stated her intentions with the rest of the money, and if people want to back that decision, that's their bag. Stephen_Clarke, I find your judgement of her ethics before she's even done anything (or done nothing) to give your claims credence pretty abhorrent.

Well, okay, I should back off slightly: when I say 'no fraud, no deception, no force', I don't yet know about the fraud part. She could just waltz with the money and not give anyone anything. I doubt that would happen, but it could, so I shouldn't make the 'no fraud' claim yet.

I can say, however, that there's no known fraud.

One of these days the internet will find a way to mete out the expected punishment for threatening to rape someone in the face online as is meted out for threatening it in person. Until then people are likely enthusiastically support stuff like this.

Malor wrote:

Well, okay, I should back off slightly: when I say 'no fraud, no deception, no force', I don't yet know about the fraud part. She could just waltz with the money and not give anyone anything. I doubt that would happen, but it could, so I shouldn't make the 'no fraud' claim yet.

I can say, however, that there's no known fraud.

And to be accurate, that is a problem with *any* fundraising done through Kickstarter. (I don't know about IndieGoGo or any of the other fundraising services.) There is *no* contract of any sort signed between the donor and the person asking for the funds guaranteeing that anything will come of the money that has been donated.

And 4-Chan doesn't mention that he has been invited to 6 different NFL training camps to try out for a spot on their teams. That right there, whether it be for real or just for PR by the NFL teams (and the NFL is image conscious enough that I don't think it can be anything other than a real invitation) is going to guarantee him some $$$ from a Movie of the Week.

Malor wrote:

Actually, Stephen, I don't think there's a good point anywhere in that screed. It is an absolutely perfect example of the unrelenting hostility toward women in gaming culture. Let's go through it, shall we?

(oh, in case that image gets pulled or goes away, which I think it may, I mirrored it here. I'll inline it later if necessary, should that version disappear. )

Okay, so first he states some facts, to try to look reasonable. She makes videos. Note that he's careful to point out that she "frames it from a feminist perspective", so he's already starting the digs right away. A feminist perspective is different than usual. It's not the normal way of looking at things, it's strange and scary. Talking about how women are portrayed in gaming is pushing an agenda. And he can't even get to the bottom of the second paragraph without starting the insinuations:

"When these videos are complete, she will make a considerable amount of money from them through ad revenue. Donators will not see a red cent."

So he goes straight for calling her unscrupulous. Why, she's stealing from you! And everyone. Oh, she's such a slime. She's asking for money to make videos, and then she'll profit from the videos, without giving the money back.

But that not how Kickstarter works. You don't normally get a share. This is patronage. If you donate to a theater to help fund art, they don't cut you a check at the end of the season. It's a donation, not a transaction. And if you donate enough, well, she'll send you some stuff, just like NPR does.

I coughed up $120 to my local NPR station, in exchange for which I got a $15 umbrella. I do not expect a profit-sharing check, too. Only an insane person would demand one.

Ok, so then this writer admits, hey, some bad stuff happened. This is the Internet, what the f*ck do you expect, moron? Obviously, this is all Anita's fault, because she didn't immediately suppress all evidence that the Internet is a horrible place.

This is so completely, utterly, absolutely brain dead. She didn't hide evidence of how horribly misogynistic the Internet is, so it's all her fault.

How the hell are you able to read that and nod your head? By that logic, if they actually HAD showed up and raped her, as they promised, she should just shut up about that too, because showing evidence of the crime IS the crime.

She's talking about how women are perceived and treated in gaming, and then the Internet shows up and treats her like sh*t for doing so, and somehow, in this writer's head, it becomes her fault because she didn't press delete. Well, I'm here to tell you, there is no delete button in her brain. She had to read all that stuff herself, like it or not. Even if she had deleted, the Internet would still be wrong to treat her that way. She did exactly what she should have done: left it up so we can all see it.

And then he's off scorning the people that hated his opinion enough to give her more money as an apology for what an asshole he is.

And then on top of that, he actually starts rules lawyering about what Kickstarter should be used for. This guy is a dick. There are tons of projects exactly like hers, but somehow, talking about how women are perceived in gaming becomes "funding an awareness campaign" in his head.

Besides, the terms of service are between her and Kickstarter.

Here's what's really going on: he doesn't like her opinion. He wants her silenced. And he's willing to do whatever he can to shut her the hell up.

I know everyone, including me, hates huge block quotes to make a tiny comment, so apologies. But I wanted to say I consider this your best post in P&C, to my knowledge, ever. Bravo, Malor.

I really with 4chan would just implode.

Stephen_Clarke wrote:

To continue accepting people's money beyond that, for a nebulous end that is now no longer related to the video series, which are completely funded by now is unethical.

When game company Double Fine first went to Kickstarter, they were aiming high. They hoped to raise $400,000 to fund an upcoming adventure game.

When their campaign concluded last night, they had raised 3.3 million, a Kickstarter record. Financing for indie games might never be the same again.

Donations continue until the deadline, not when the goal is reached. The goal is not a maximum amount, it's an estimate of what the project needs to get off the ground.

I continue to be both disgusted and impressed by this thread. I'm thinking it amusing that, after discussing how people need to speak up and slap down ridiculous internet comments, we actually get a chance to put it into practice

Bravo.

If you enjoyed her Lego videos, go on and watch the others. They're all very interesting.

The most awesome thing about this?

When she does produce the videos, and puts them up, there will be so many views from people who will be watching them just to "prove" that they are crap, they will gain a visibility orders of magnitude higher than if they had just shut up and not said anything.

In the accepted parlance of the 4chan intertube bottom feeder:

lolwut?

I am sure none of you find any problems with the missionaries for Africa funds that Billy Graham raises on his television channel indefinitely. I mean, if you did have a problem with Graham, you must hate Africans.

Do you hate black people?

But personally? Yeah, not a fan of televangelists or kickstarterangelists.

Help Billy Graham buy a new yacht^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H raise the money to save souls.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

In the accepted parlance of the 4chan intertube bottom feeder:

lolwut?

Concern troll is concern trolling

Well, I imagine I'll check them out. I didn't donate, so if they end up sucking, well, eh, that's life. But if they're good, then the schadenfreude will be delicious.

This isn't even really a major issue for me, one way or the other. I mean, I know it's a problem, but it's not high on my list of things to worry about. But after watching all the bullsh*t in the Conservative War on Women, seeing more of it from that 4chan dude went way over my tolerance level.

Stephen_Clarke wrote:

I am sure none of you find any problems with the missionaries for Africa funds that Billy Graham raises on his television channel indefinitely. I mean, if you did have a problem with Graham, you must hate Africans.

Do you hate black people?

But personally? Yeah, not a fan of televangelists or kickstarterangelists.

It is everyone's prerogative to decide what types of fundraising efforts they feel comfortable giving to. I don't think that anyone here will ever question that. However, you have gone past saying "I don't like this" to accusing her of behaving unethically, based solely on the fact that a lot of people wanted to see these videos made.

What I (and I suspect others as well) would like to see is for you to expand this argument. How does a lot of people giving her money to create these videos result in something unethical happening?

If you don't like the topic, and think that her thesis that in many video games women are displayed poorly, just say so. Don't make what I feel is a baseless accusation of her behaving unethically. If you have proof of said unethical behaviour, present your proof.

But personally? Yeah, not a fan of televangelists or kickstarterangelists.

So, are you completely impervious to the idea that she might be right? Are you so sure she's wrong that if she collects money to talk about these issues, she's automatically a fraud?

Tanglebones wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

In the accepted parlance of the 4chan intertube bottom feeder:

lolwut?

Concern troll is concern trolling

I dunno, I saw it as a pretty thin straw man. "You have poked holes in my argument, but I will pretend you're telling me I can't say anything because it's sexist! Hah, now the moral high ground is mine, Anakin!"

mudbunny wrote:

If you don't like the topic, and think that her thesis that in many video games women are displayed poorly, just say so. Don't make what I feel is a baseless accusation of her behaving unethically. If you have proof of said unethical behaviour, present your proof.

There's no actual plan for what to do with anything beyond $24,000 but keep the money rolling in. There's only $130k above what's planned. You're showing those bullies who's boss.

Also, visit my site often when these videos go up, each ad click counts.

So now 4chan has this.

IMAGE(http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll120/MrDeVil_909/1340020860507.png)

So they are complaining that Ms Sarkeesian is getting too much attention and someone else isn't getting enough. Maybe if they put a tenth as much effort into raising awareness for Mr Banks and a bit less protecting their unused sexual organs from rampant feminists, then he would have some support and none of us would have heard about Tropes Vs Women in Videogames.

Morons.

I watched those Lego videos, they are really awesome and illuminating. It's bizarre to me how Lego has been shifted from being gender neutral to being mostly for boys since the 80s. It's startling that society is becoming less progressive, not more.

Even if (as seems to be suggested by some) she's some kind of manipulative mastermind, the fact that someone can say "hey, women are poorly represented in popular culture" and she and others expect her to be repeatedly threatened with sexual violence is probably something we should all step back and take a look at.

MrDeVil, your picture link doesn't work. 4chan appears to not like hotlinking... even going there directly results in a 'leech' page.

If you have a local copy, I can host whatever it is in my webspace. PM me for an email address.

(this, by the way, is why I mirrored the other link -- 4channers aren't exactly known for standing behind what they say. Stuff they post has a habit of going away.)

Maq, your signature in juxtaposition to that post is, um, somewhat startling.

Thanks for the heads up, I just popped it in my Photobucket, link fixed.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

In the accepted parlance of the 4chan intertube bottom feeder:

lolwut?

Concern troll is concern trolling

I dunno, I saw it as a pretty thin straw man. "You have poked holes in my argument, but I will pretend you're telling me I can't say anything because it's sexist! Hah, now the moral high ground is mine, Anakin!"

Probably both, but I actually genuinely barely understood the actual sentences of the post until the link was added in an edit.

Stephen_Clarke wrote:

But personally? Yeah, not a fan of televangelists or kickstarterangelists.

I think more of us could take your argument here seriously if it there were a campaign to harass Kickstarters in general. You may be shocked to learn that there are for-profit companies who have made MILLIONS of dollars there. Seems like they would be a good target for your ire.

If your problem is then with the funding model, might I suggest another thread dedicated to how the Kickstarter model is unethical? Then we could also discuss other examples without derailing this thread.

Stephen_Clarke wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

If you don't like the topic, and think that her thesis that in many video games women are displayed poorly, just say so. Don't make what I feel is a baseless accusation of her behaving unethically. If you have proof of said unethical behaviour, present your proof.

There's no actual plan for what to do with anything beyond $24,000 but keep the money rolling in. There's only $130k above what's planned. You're showing those bullies who's boss.

Also, visit my site often when these videos go up, each ad click counts.

I liked the part where you pretended this hasn't already been addressed as not necessarily unethical. You are indeed showing them yourself!

Stephen_Clarke wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

If you don't like the topic, and think that her thesis that in many video games women are displayed poorly, just say so. Don't make what I feel is a baseless accusation of her behaving unethically. If you have proof of said unethical behaviour, present your proof.

There's no actual plan for what to do with anything beyond $24,000 but keep the money rolling in. There's only $130k above what's planned. You're showing those bullies who's boss.

Also, visit my site often when these videos go up, each ad click counts.

That is your proof? Really?

Did you even look at her kickstarter page? The large number of stretch goals that she kept on putting up as the amount donated kept on going up?

Damsel in Distress - Video #1
The Fighting F#@k Toy - Video #2
The Sexy Sidekick - Video #3
The Sexy Villainess - Video #4
Background Decoration - Video #5

1st Set of Stretch Goals Achieved!

Voodoo Priestess/Tribal Sorceress - Video #6
Women as Reward - Video #7
Mrs. Male Character - Video #8
Unattractive Equals Evil - Video #9
Man with Boobs - Video #10
Positive Female Characters! - Video #11

2nd Stretch Goal Achieved!

Let's Bump up the Production Quality!

3rd Set of Stretch Goals Achieved!

Tropes vs Women in Video Games Classroom Curriculum
Video #12 - Top 10 Most Common Defenses of Sexism in Games

Malor wrote:

Maq, your signature in juxtaposition to that post is, um, somewhat startling.

Well I've been thinking I should change my sig for a while but no-one's said anything more correct since