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

There's no actual plan for what to do with anything beyond $24,000 but keep the money rolling in.

So? Everyone who was still giving money KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON. They were not deluded fools, dude. The donation number is the highlight of the entire page, both target and total amount. They knew she wanted $6K, already had $150K, and chose to donate anyway.

There's only $130k above what's planned. You're showing those bullies who's boss.

Yeah, actually, they kind of did, didn't they? The assholes ended up giving her a hell of a lot more money and attention than she would otherwise have gotten. So, good job, haters, you helped her out. The good side of the Internet wins this round.

So tell me, Stephen, are you the author of that infographic? You seem intensely invested in the idea that the woman is somehow a crook, even knowing that most or all her supposed 'victims' knew exactly what was going on.

mudbunny wrote:

blah blah blah

Cool reading comprehension, broski.

Update #3: Project Evolving with Classroom Curriculum and Bonus Video #2

$26,000 - Bonus Video #2 - The Top 10 Most Common Defenses of Sexism in Games (and how to respond)

-- the last stretch goal

But yes, I am sure all you quoted will totally burn up that $150k. One person sitting in front of a camera for a couple 10 to 20 minute videos is *very* expensive to distribute on ad-supported pages on YouTube.

Malor wrote:

So tell me, Stephen, are you the author of that infographic?

Nah, although thank you. I do not find myself as articulate as the author of that infographic, and wish I could directly attribute them.

You seem intensely invested in the idea that the woman is somehow a crook, even knowing that most or all her supposed 'victims' knew exactly what was going on.

The people who bought Billy Graham his third mansion probably should have known better, and I don't think basically "Hey. Caveat emporium" is a strong enough defense against saying that he's abused the emotions of the religious to amass a personal fortune.

You're totally right, Stephen. Damn that floozy for telling the truth and tricking all those men with big, clear numbers. They were obviously hoping she'd travel to their houses and screw them if they just kicked in $25.

Fortunately, you're on the case, revealing the terrible deception of honesty.

You know, it *is* acceptable to say "I don't think that this project was worth funding". It is pretty apparent to me that you are just making up some vague ethical reason (which you haven't really explained beyond "I don't want people to give her money") to justify your feelings.

See, the difference between this girl and Billy Graham is that Graham tells you that you'll go to Heaven if you're a good Christian, oh, and give him lots of money. Graham is a fraud.

This girl is just promising to make videos. That's all. Just videos. No eternal salvation, no Official Seal Of Approval on your life. Videos.

Comparing her to Graham is silly.

Malor wrote:

You're totally right, Stephen. Damn that floozy for telling the truth and tricking all those men with big, clear numbers. They were obviously hoping she'd travel to their houses and screw them if they just kicked in $25.

Fortunately, you're on the case, revealing the terrible deception of honesty.

That's so mature of you! I'm glad you've proven yourself to be so much of a better person than me. It's good to see you've been discussing with me in good faith!

In your honor, because I couldn't donate $25 and feel so much better about myself for it due to my personal circumstances, I'll head down to the shelter on Thursday and volunteer.

I mean, I wish I could make a difference like this Kickstarter. I guess I'll just have to make do with helping out the homeless. :/

If they say anything, I'll be sure to tell them "No no! Don't thank me. Thank a man on the internet's slacktivism! Right now, I'm sure he's on an internet forum as we speak, righting the world's wrongs."

mudbunny wrote:

You know, it *is* acceptable to say "I don't think that this project was worth funding".

No mudbunny, it is obviously not. If you think that, you're just a misogynist. Do you hate women? I mean, I clearly do. Malor said so!

Malor wrote:

Graham is a fraud.

How is Billy Graham a fraud?

People **KNOW** where that money is going. Hey, if they don't know any better... Too bad!

Stephen_Clarke wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

You know, it *is* acceptable to say "I don't think that this project was worth funding".

No mudbunny, it is obviously not. If you think that, you're just a misogynist. Do you hate women? I mean, I clearly do. Malor said so!

You didn't just say that you don't think that the project is worth funding, you said that it was fraudulent and unethical. There's a bit of a difference between not liking something and throwing around baseless accusations.

If Anita Sarkeesian, takes the money, fails to produce any videos and then asks for more the comparison to Billy Graham is far more apt.

Right now there's no logical reason to paint her with the same brush, so until that happens the comparison is spurious.

muttonchop wrote:

You didn't just say that you don't think that the project is worth funding, you said that it was fraudulent and unethical. There's a bit of a difference between not liking something and throwing around baseless accusations.

It's unethical to accept funds up to $125k beyond what you asked, yep. There was no update on "What will I do with more money?" beyond the $25k. That was reached and... Well, more money was accepted. To what end? Who knows? Who cares!

I'm sure that will be updated and resolved before the fund-raising drive ends.

Oh.

If Anita Sarkeesian, takes the money, fails to produce any videos and then asks for more the comparison to Billy Graham is far more apt.

Billy Graham produced results. He sent missionaries to Africa. He sent Bibles to the Middle East. He dug wells in China.

He also take a f*ck load of it.

But he DID produce something with it. Just with a healthy skim.

Stephen_Clarke wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

You know, it *is* acceptable to say "I don't think that this project was worth funding".

No mudbunny, it is obviously not. If you think that, you're just a misogynist. Do you hate women? I mean, I clearly do. Malor said so!

Where's that eye-roll emoticon when you need it...

Still waiting on a reason beyond "the internet gave her money" for why it is unethical. Also, for you to accuse *her* of doing something unethical, it needs to be her (or someone whe is in charge of) doing the unethical action. Now, I fail to see how she is doing *anything* different from every other Kickstarter fundraiser. They all basically boil down to "I have this great idea, will you give me money to do it. I think I need $XXXX." Sometimes people agree with them and their project gets funded. Sometimes people don't and there is no funding. Sometimes a project really strikes a chord with a lot of people and you end up with situations like this and the Double Fine kickstarters, where they get a whole crapton of money.

You have yet to explain why accepting freely given gifts of cash is unethical.

I think that most recent argument, mudbunny, is now that you shouldn't give her money, because you should give it to more worthy causes instead, those causes being defined by Stephen.

It's amazing how the argument moves around, with only one core component: you shouldn't give this girl money. Lots and lots of different angles... first that she was taking advantage of pliable men, then that she was being unethical by accepting more than she needed, and now that she's somehow depriving other causes of capital.

In the face of such shifting arguments, with only one constant point, I think we can be pretty certain that Stephen doesn't like this girl getting money. But I don't think we're hearing the real reason why, because every time we torpedo one, he comes up with another.

Fundamentally, I think it's just that he doesn't like her message.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

You have yet to explain why accepting freely given gifts of cash is unethical.

Oh, this Kickstarter projects was cash gifts?

I thought it had some sort of... Goal... And budget...

Malor wrote:

It's amazing how the argument moves around, with only one core component: you shouldn't give this girl money.

Do you mind writing the rest of my sentences Malor? I'll take the day off. You can go fight the good fight for me.

I mean, it's not like I've actually *said* I understand $25,000, to fund the project as it was stated, and actually well beyond the initial $6000. It's not like I've repeatedly mentioned the unaccounted for $125k above it.

What else do I have to say, Malor? I'm curious to hear more!

Stephen_Clarke wrote:

It's unethical to accept funds up to $125k beyond what you asked, yep. There was no update on "What will I do with more money?" beyond the $25k. That was reached and... Well, more money was accepted. To what end? Who knows? Who cares!

I'm sure that will be updated and resolved before the fund-raising drive ends.

Oh.

Again I am asking if you actually read the kickstarter page. As the money kept going up, she kept adding things to the project. Seems like she was doing *exactly* what you are accusing her of not doing.

I'm entertained that this particular thread is devolving into sarcastic dick-waving.

While this has been a fairly interesting example of the theory presented on page one and other such things, I'd suggest we move sharply out of "clever derision and one-liners where I totally put you in your place bro" games and back to actually discussing things before this previously-interesting topic gets put on lockdown.

Stephen_Clarke wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

You didn't just say that you don't think that the project is worth funding, you said that it was fraudulent and unethical. There's a bit of a difference between not liking something and throwing around baseless accusations.

It's unethical to accept funds up to $125k beyond what you asked, yep. There was no update on "What will I do with more money?" beyond the $25k. That was reached and... Well, more money was accepted. To what end? Who knows? Who cares!

You do know how Kickstarter works, right? It's not like she has to personally accept each individual donation. The project continues to accept pledges until the deadline is met. Was Double Fine unethical for receiving $3.3M when they only asked for $400k?

clover wrote:

I'm entertained that this particular thread is devolving into sarcastic dick-waving. ;)

Shush you!! Your bettors are bloviating!!

Yeah, you guys are right, this isn't productive. I'll just drop out of the thread for awhile.

Bloo Driver wrote:

While this has been a fairly interesting example of the theory presented on page one and other such things, I'd suggest we move sharply out of "clever derision and one-liners where I totally put you in your place bro" games and back to actually discussing things before this previously-interesting topic gets put on lockdown.

Yeah, I know I've said that it's important to engage with trolls, I think this object lesson has gone on long enough. Can the non-trolls possibly disengage and leave the other person to speak to himself?

muttonchop wrote:

Was Double Fine unethical for receiving $3.3M when they only asked for $400k?

Of course not. Double Fine's run by a man.

Stephen_Clarke wrote:

I thought it had some sort of... Goal... And budget...

It did and does. She set her goal, and had a budget. Then people kept on giving her money. So she kept on revising her goals (by adding in stretch goals) and presumably her budget as well. Some of the things, like a curriculum, will cost a crap-ton of money, especially if she is doing it in such a manner that teachers can take it and use it.

Serious reply: the project was initially budgeted for $6,000. Anita may have planned for some reasonable stretch goals beyond, but getting $125,000 over what were probably her wildest dreams has almost certainly caused her to have to rethink what to do with the windfall. I'm sorry she hasn't met your arbitrary timeline, Stephen, but I think your case would make much more sense if you were to make it in a year, if she hasn't produced anything beyond what was stated on her website, rather than now, when she hasn't yet had a chance to make anything.

I wonder whether you feel similar outrage towards Steve Jackson Games, for taking a couple of hundred thousand dollars in return for a promise to theoretically start working on a Car Wars game at some point?

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Yeah, I know I've said that it's important to engage with trolls, I think this object lesson has gone on long enough. Can the non-trolls possibly disengage and leave the other person to speak to himself?

Serious question:

Do you seriously define "troll" as "person who disagrees with me"? Wow. Guess how I define close-minded?

Anyhow, I'll let Malor field all my responses. He knows what I got to say before I do, after all.

I'll let you guys know how Thursday goes though.

So, actual question plus laziness here -

I started watching the Lego videos because I figured I would have time, but apparently I am expected to work today. Which is crap, but whatever! So I didn't finish the videos out, and I have some questions that I realize might be addressed later in the video (I only got about halfway through #1 and will probably finish them from home tonight). Well, not "questions", really, but a bunch of variations on the same observation, really. The video states Lego was promoting largely (or exclusively, I can't recall exactly) to boys in the past couple decades. Which, from some of the sets, I can understand. But a great many of the sets are actually somewhat gender-neutral. Her complaint moves on to how "girly" the Lego Friends sets are with how they're all dolled up and bucket painted with pink and purple.

Which I understand is a valid complaint in some regards, but something struck me - you don't get it both ways. She specifically cites "Lego City" as the oldest running set, and that set really isn't gender biased. It actually sounds like what she would want for a fair and inclusive set, free of the gender stereotype reinforcements all through the Friends city. Which is fine, and so since it exists ... what is the problem? Is the problem that Lego Friends also exists and is kind of a poke in the eye to girly girls? Aren't those alright to exist, as well? The girls who don't want the frilly lace whatever can just pick up Lego City or the Bionicles or the other relatively gender neutral lines, right? Maybe the marketing should be tweaked some, but... I dunno. I guess the idea that "Legos are aimed at boys" seemed like an unusual revelation to me, since the sets that seemed more tilted towards boys felt like an exception.

I have never seen so many GWJers so consistently trolled.

NSMike wrote:

I have never seen so many GWJers so consistently trolled.

Well, I think people were in the spirit of engaging, rather than ignoring.

Stephen_Clarke wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Yeah, I know I've said that it's important to engage with trolls, I think this object lesson has gone on long enough. Can the non-trolls possibly disengage and leave the other person to speak to himself?

Serious question:

Do you seriously define "troll" as "person who disagrees with me"? Wow. Guess how I define close-minded?

Anyhow, I'll let Malor field all my responses. He knows what I got to say before I do, after all.

I'll let you guys know how Thursday goes though.

Assuming you mean it when you say serious, no I don't define a troll as someone who disagrees with me.

A troll is someone who disagrees without making a serious argument, makes accusations and unsubstantiated claims, shifts their viewpoint around without backing up their statements and gets passive aggressive to dodge having to make a straight answer. It's not about sharing a viewpoint, it's about 'winning' an argument by tiring out the people who would rather have a serious discussion.

And that is the absolute last little bit of effort I'm going to spend on you.

Bloo Driver: Watch the damned videos man :p they total 23 minutes, but I'll answer your questions anyway.

City itself is pretty gender neutral, but the minifigs are apparently (haven't played with a City set ever) all male. And the marketing is really the issue, I don't watch American TV, but the examples of commercials she has are dominated by boys and fathers. It's possible she's cherry picked, but it would be easily debunked and challenged if she has.

She also objects to the overtly feminised girly minifigs in Friends (I can't remember exactly what they are called)