Drama in /r/videos when Christina Hoff talks about feminism and video games. You already know where this is going. Grab your popcorn. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
15 ups - 0 downs = 15 votes
70 comments submitted at 05:35:40 on Sep 17, 2014 by ShooterDiarrhea
At what point does this sort of thing become low-hanging fruit?
when you try to kick it and instead your foot sinks into it
What, you don't like low hanging fruit?
Are you telling me that you don't want to see the same gender war "drama" everyday?
This thread is turning into another drama. I won't be surprised if this gets linked on SRD
SRDD m8
Tis more frequent than you think, /r/subredditdramadrama covers the popcorn produced in SRD.
I'm not a gamer but are everyone agreeing with this woman because she's basically saying if you're not a hardcore male gamer you won't get the culture-when she basically says Sarkeesian & her supporters want male gamer culture to die ? I mean she's just pushing all the right buttons and they call her a nice understanding lady and these are the ones calling Sarkeesian a cunt,attention whore etc when both of them are external to the culture. Sarkeesian says games are sexist, this woman says pretty much the same thing stripped of SJW BS and she's a nice understanding lady.
well that video certainly doesn't seem very opportunistic.
i wonder how far reddit will go to background check this person's gaming credentials?
Didn't she admit she is not a gamer? The youtube channel should also have been a dead giveaway. "American Enterprise Institute" is synonymous with right-libertarianism/american conservatism.
oh absolutely, she is literally the professional controversy-jumper the 'gamergate' crowd are accusing anita sarkeesian of being. as usual the lack of insight is hilarious/sad.
/u/mach-2 is fucking killing it in the defaults. His edit is great:
>Haha. You rabid cunts spamming my inbox calling me mangina feminist SJW. That's the thing with you man children. You're like wild hogs that go absolutely fucking mental and eat their young. I have done fuck all for women's rights. I am not a white feminist woman. I am not a westerner and I sure as fuck am not this SJW you cunts speak of. I'm just calling you guys on your bullshit. You say you have no problem with women yet the devil is in the details. You say "it's inclusive" yet rage like stupid twunks at the suggestion of actually including people other than white men-toddler hybrids. Rational discourse does not matter to you cunts as long as it does not agree with you so I might as well fling the shit right back. Try not to froth at the mouths with the emotional intelligence of sociopathic pygmies. There's the SJW rhetoric you wanted. Cheers :D
Doing god's work right there.
Well we owe most of the butter to that edit, but it ignored the few pretty sensibly and respectfully posed counter-arguments that the rest of the comment spawned. Still, plenty of non-rabid dialogue followed between other users so it wasn't in vain. I found some unusually robust debates in the thread actually.
Being a popular default subreddit is a double-edged sword that way. You can't help but pick up all the duds, but the odd few decent interlocutors will pop up from time to time.
I wouldn't call anyone "sensible" if they ignore the elephant in the room and pretend that Christina Hoff Sommers, of all fucking people, is a credible critic of women's rights and video games of all things.
Her entire schtick is attacking feminism. That's what she does. That's why she's popular. Of course she wouldn't think games are sexist. Of course she would support what gamersgate thinks.
I mean, christ, there's ignorance and there's this level of ignorance. Nobody should upvote and post quotes from skinheads either, just because they made a cool video about how Israel sometimes goes too far. Even if they make a point, it's kind of really really relevant that they're skinheads.
The immediate reaction of reasonable people is "oh look, Hoff Sommers is catering to her audience again with shit-tier critiques of feminism. Have a downvote."
The immediate reaction of reasonable people is not to disregard things solely because you don't like their viewpoints or them as a person, but to critically analyze and base each thing solely on their own and not as a collective.
I'm up to four psuedo-intellectual pissing matches with philosophical navel gazers on this Quinn shit today. Four. I'm on a goddamn roll, let me tell you. This is giving my degree in philosophy a huge boner.
That fallacy you pointed out? Not applicable. The character of a person making an argument is a valid counterpoint when facets of that character are directly applicable to the argument they're making.
I don't need to hear what enlightening thing Mao has to say about political sacrifices made for the greater whole, because he's a genocidal dick, fuck what he thinks. I don't need to listen to a skinhead about Israel, because he's a fucking Nazi, fuck what he thinks.
> I'm on a goddamn roll, let me tell you. This is giving my degree in philosophy a huge boner.
Haha. No one thinks that but you. Pretty much everyone in this thread is calling you out.
>That fallacy you pointed out? Not applicable. The character of a person making an argument is a valid counterpoint when facets of that character are directly applicable to the argument they're making.
Except it is when your entire argument is essentially "she said something I don't agree with".
>I don't need to hear what enlightening thing Mao has to say about political sacrifices made for the greater whole, because he's a genocidal dick, fuck what he thinks. I don't need to listen to a skinhead about Israel, because he's a fucking Nazi, fuck what he thinks.
...so you're comparing someone who has an opinion that you don't agree with to a mass murderer and a white supremacist? Wow.
I really don't care if lots of people don't know how terrible Hoff Sommers is, why she's known for this sort of shit, and why that means you should immediately discount what she has to say about anything do to with women's issues. I don't actually base my views on anything but reality, but I guess I could try harder to cater to whichever way the SRD jerk goes, which is a lot of different ways. Seeing as how I get downvoted and gilded in the same parent posts and all. So I guess I'm just going to with saying stuff I think is true, if it's all the same.
My argument is actually Hoff Sommers said exactly what she always says, which is why I don't take it seriously. Better people than me have pointed out why calling yourself a feminist while supporting 0% of feminism makes everything you say tainted by the regular suspicion that you're full of shit and like to pander to people.
And I'm comparing how discounting what people say based on what they've done in that context is a completely normal thing to do. But if you're not following how I'm refuting your inappropriate invocation of a fallacy with relevant counterpoints, fair enough. Here's another: if someone's entire media schtick is court controversy by critiquing everyone else's cooking, and their own cooking is objectively terrible, absolutely nobody should take their critique seriously.
Is that benign enough for you not to be distracted by irrelevancies?
Nothing pisses these people off more than women and minorities that don't 100% fall in line with their rhetoric. If you don't agree with them you are worse than straight white men.
I don't understand this reaction. Even Skinheads can make valid points, as weird as that sounds. How about you consider peoples opinions by themselves? I could do the same: "Oh look, Beanfiddler is catering to her audience again with shit-tier critiques of shit-tier critiques of feminism. Have a downvote"
Yes, you should actually consider the character of the person who delivers an argument. If that means you don't like the bias you think I have, fine.
>HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU THEN SAY IT IS AN INCLUSIVE MEDIUM? YOU CANNOT HAVE YOUR CAKE AND WATCH THAT CAKE EAT ANOTHER. THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF EXCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE. LOUIS VUITTON IS EXCLUSIVE BECAUSE IT MARKETS WITH A CERTAIN PRICE POINT. SAME GOES FOR ABERCROMBIE. A GAMER IS NOT A MAN WHO PLAYS GAMES. A GAMER IS SOMEONE WHO HAS INTERESTS IN PLAYING GAMES AND AS SUCH GENDER/SEXUALITY/RACE SHOULD NOT BE CRITERIA ON WHY TO MAKE GAMES. BUT REALITY AND THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS DOES NOT REFLECT THAT. CRYING ABOUT A GAMERGATE AND THEN VILLIFYING OPPOSITION IS A SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY SHOWING HOW RABID THE GAMING CROWD CAN BE. GROW THE FUCK UP. THEY ARE NOT AFTER YOUR GAMES. THEY ARE AFTER YOUR SHITE ATTITUDES.
Killing it, eh? Killing himself perhaps with blood pressure that high. Look at his hair trigger the wrong way and he spins out across 4 lanes of traffic.
That would probably be something I could write, albeit not in all caps. It does imply something bad about one's blood pressure.
To be fair, mach-2 is usually the whiniest user on this sub, and was definitely moaning hard in that thread.
The all caps was a bit much.
This guy's going down with all guns blazing
Damn, as of now the man has been gilded 19 times in 9 days. Maybe the tide has turned and reddit sees how stupid the loonies are for harassing Anita and Zoe, and that gamers do have a problem with women.
It's just so precious that they call her a "nice understanding lady" because she agrees with them. Can they be any more transparent? The whole condescending head-pats for Hoff are part of the very same misogynist outrage that leads similar people to go bat shit crazy on people that don't agree with them.
They don't get how approving of women that agree with you and disapproving of women that don't agree with you is still misogyny. Guilding black people that say "as a black person... [insert racist opinion]" isn't proof that you're not racist. It's proof that you are.
Same thing here.
> They don't get how approving of women that agree with you and disapproving of women that don't agree with you is still misogyny.
I'm guessing the irony here is going to fly right over your head.
It's very clear what she meant. You're going for a gotcha, but it only works if you disregard the entire context of what she previously said.
I am literally a misandrist because I disapprove of people that pander to misogynists with bullshit, hostility to academics, and anti-intellectual posturing.
Got me pegged good, man.
It made no sense. Death and rape threats from the minority aside (which is obviously fucked up), criticism of a woman's view is not fucking misogyny just because it happens to be a woman who's view is criticised.
Let's not pretend this happened in a vacuum. So far, the only female viewpoints I've seen supported by the gamersgate side are people using #notyourshield to (so fucking ironically) be shields for them, and a "feminist" who is known to jump on whatever anti-feminist bandwagon she can because that's just the particular kind of click-bait controversy chaser she is.
Because they agree with that viewpoint? Any man coming out in support of the anti-gamergate thing is getting shit on too. There are some people being anti-women as fuck, but the majority opposing the feminism side are doing it because they disagree, not because it's a woman's view.
Haha that's very true. I mean you could spend all day picking out double standards they have too. I mean I thought since Anita isn't a "real gamer" her opinion doesn't count, but a lady who says Anita is wrong is cool, even though she clearly has never played a game in her life.
I knew Hoff would get involved in this drama eventually, to be honest this is exactly the kind of crowd(brogressives who hate feminism) that would read her books.
And that quote from Anita is taken totally out of context. She says she has played a lot of video games, but she doesn't consider herself a gamer. While, despite the thousands of dollars I've spent on gaming, neither do I, due to recent enlightening events about what exactly the "gaming community" entails.
At least she played video games, even the ones she critiques. Hoff Sommers is a click-bait internet personality that makes money by catering to feminisms' detractors. I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't know what casual games actually are.
I can't even imagine what kind of world a person lives in that arguing about internet social justice with video game fans on reddit is "god's work." Everyone arguing about this is an idiot, and praising one boilerplate ragepost as "killing it" is somehow, unbelievably, even dumber.
I think you have missed the point of SRD -- finding drama, laughing at drama, and having fun with people that make other people mad.
Fair mistake. It's not like the subreddit has "drama" in the name or anything.
I love how one of the comments in response is basicaly "Don't trust him, he's a psycho from SRS". Fucking pathetic.
The entire thread is just a disgusting clusterfuck, i can't even bear to read the rest.
Maybe, just maybe, SRS has a fucking point when /r/videos is upvoting Christina Hoff Sommers to the frontpage.
Who is she exactly?
She's relatively prominent as someone who takes a counter point to third wave feminism. She wrote The War Against Boys back in 2000. I wouldn't be surprised if we now have a video from her on /r/videos because of her recent article about "myths in feminism".
She's a libertarian "feminist" that spends her entire time denying that sexism exists, denying that we need to do anything about it, and conveniently calling herself a "feminist" (even though she agrees with exactly none of feminism) so misogynists will buy her books and go to her lecturers so they can say "I'm not a misogynist because I listened to a feminist (who agrees with me about everything)!"
And she does so with facts while people like you, the ones crying about MUH SEXISM and MUH MISOGYNY, do so with zero examples.
"bu-but this female NPC isn't treated like a super special snowflake so the game is sexist!!!!"
"What about all of the male NPCS that aren't treated like a super special snowflake?"
"FUCK YOU MISOGYNIST!!!!! STOP RAPING ME!!!!"
This is the hyperbole I was totally talking about. Someone talks about misogyny in gaming in the same way outlets as terrible and awful as The New Yorker do, and everyone has to start a circlejerk about SJWs and rape and whatever else /r/TumblrInAction circlejerk they think they can start.
> Someone talks about misogyny in gaming
Let me stop you right there. There is no misogyny in gaming. Until people like you actually learn the god damn meaning of the word, you will be a joke to educated people.
Even if there's zero issues related to women in the development of games, there's a heck of a lot to be addressed in gaming communities.
Well I guess all the people in this study and in this one are just lying then.
Remember what I said about learning the god damn meaning of the word? Yeah...
"bu-but this woman was told TITS or GTFO"
That's nice, sweetie, but it isn't misogyny.
"bu-but this woman was called a bitch"
That's also nice, sugar. Still doesn't apply.
> There is no misogyny in gaming
http://gfycat.com/GrimLameDorking
Dude going from your previous comment you would be a joke to educated people too.
Well they are also up voting a critique of the video and gilding it multiple times.
Fair point. Although, let's be honest, that's very reddit. Lots of shit-tier stuff makes it to the frontpage, and the comments are nearly all "wow, this post is fucking shitty."
I mean, that seems to be the point of /r/adviceanimals.
Yeah but you wouldn't know that going from SRS though, you would think every top comment is "sieg heil mein fuhrer".
The place is very much full of opposing viewpoints and the upvotes can go either way depending on the day.
This Anita drama never ends and all of the idiots harassing her have brought her more spotlight and are actually helping her spread the word so to speak. Shit it was even on the BBC world service yesterday, a small segment but still.
With this and their take down of the racism on this thread mach-2's been on fire this past couple weeks. Bravo(/a).
And the SRD thread which was removed under the hilariously flimsy pretense of a "biased title".
Probably because it, you know, actually had a biased title
SnapShots: 1, 2, 3 ^[?]
^^Anyone ^^know ^^an ^^alternative ^^to ^^Readability? ^^Send ^^me ^^a ^^PM!
ITT: More drama than in the actual linked thread.
Can someone explain the anti-gamergate position to me? I've been on the pro- side and would like to hear the opposition. I don't want to argue or anything, just get a better understanding.
Gamersgate is apparently a conspiracy theory that SJWs are destroying gaming journalism and independent gaming development. Their movement was seemingly founded on the ashes of a controversy fueled by harassment and doxxing of a female developer. Thus, their movement is colored by that origin, and attempts to silence people that talk about it because they're perverting journalistic integrity or whatever. All very hilariously hypocritical, since there's been a great amount genuine critical journalism about gaming, all fueled by this Quinn stuff. Except it doesn't agree with them, so it's corrupt or something.
They're actively stifling discussion. Replace "SJWs" with "Jews" and "games" with "banks" in /r/KotakuInAction and you should see what I'm talking about.
Well, that, and the idea that people that are actively hostile to social progressivism aren't socially progressive, so nobody that has "controversial" views like women are people, gays are okay, and black people are just like everyone else really wants anything to do with it.
This is one of the most terrible summaries I've seen yet. All the more hilarious because you throw in "apparently"s and "or something"s like you're barely following the whole ordeal, but are clearly invested.
Honestly, I haven't been paying too much attention to it, but from I've seen, I find it hard to take it seriously.
So it seems it all started because Quinn's game got a lot of glowing reviews from the people she's had sex with. The thing is... where are these reviews? I've searched on Google. I've searched on Metacritic. I can't seem to find a single one. Whenever I asked for a link, all I got were downvotes. I don't see any evidence that these reviews exist at all.
On reddit at least, it seems to be mostly calling them "neckbeards" and "virgins" over and over again. Some of the anti-gamergate position is based on people overrreacting and taking things way out of proportion, but they seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater by not differentiating between the people who are and the people who aren't by labeling all pro-gamergate people as one group.
that there is no issue and the entire 'shit storm' is a barely disguised hysterical loathing of women and weird conspiracy theory fear of 'social justice warriors' taking over video games somehow?
I dunno there does seem to be corruption and nepotism within the game journalism industry. But yeah a lot of people seem to focus on some wild conspiracy about SJWs coming to steal everyones games.
I think it's pretty transparent when they start blacklisting every single outlet but Brietbart because they put out pieces that talk about Quinn's harassment.
That's journalism, right there: reporting on the facts. A lady got harassed. There's sexism in gaming. How controversial (this is sarcasm). But it's apparently "corruption" to talk about things they don't agree about.
Which is not how journalism works, but it's nice that they try.
"The video was almost entirely an opinion piece. There was very little in terms of logical argument or fact.
Edit: your downvotes have proven me wrong. It was full of logical arguments and facts! I have seen the error of my ways and rejoined the herd. "
That made me chuckle.
Hot dog! This is going to be a big one.
> The fact that mouth-frothing diatribe got gold 9 times is just more proof of how pervasive SRS/SRD still is around here.
hehehe