Phaedrus' Street Crew
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ThunderPeel2001

  1. What in the actual fuck? That seems completely insane to me; I've never been told not to get raped, literally or metaphorically.


    The message isn't literally "don't get raped", it's "don't put yourself in a position where you might get raped". I'm sure you've seen that message many times ("safety in numbers", etc. etc.). If you think that people were only telling you, a woman, to do that to prevent yourself from being robbed, I'm afraid I think you missed the subtext. Men are actually more likely to get robbed/beaten than women -- but we don't get that message drilled into us.


    So why is the message, "women -- stay safe!", instead of "men -- don't rape!". At worst, both messages should be put out there -- but they're not.

  2. Fair enough. I should just watch the video...I'll watch the video at some point and report back. If she really wants to say that Mario is toxic sexist bullshit even in a magical fantasy land where Damsel in Distress isn't a trope and women and men are perfectly equal, I think I'd have to disagree. As far as I can tell, the problem with Mario isn't that Peach is a woman. The problem is that Peach is a stereotypical Damsel in Distress (and she is lots of other stereotypes too, which doesn't help things at all).


    Wait, you haven't actually watched the video that's being discussed...?

  3. Mh, you raised this issue in a threat that was already a burning mess of anger and cantankerousness, you raised it at page nine and it was already acknowledged and discussed at page one (as well as other pages), you raised the issue while the threat was rather talking about the strange and suspicious level of hyper-scrutiny this particular video gets treated with and the issue was part of this nit-picky, hyper-sensitive, sometimes schizophrenic scrutiny for the whole run of the thread. I don't mean to throw you in with this mess, really, maybe just explain why people reacted the way they reacted.

    I agree, it is worth talking about, but (as I said like twelve pages earlier) I didn't have a problem with it, for me it worked.

    Thanks for explaining that. I'm guilty of not reading the thread. My bad!

  4. I hope people are at least aware that it is problematic and emblematic that people are apply this level of scrutiny and criticism to 1 second, two words, of expressed emotion. it's really something else.

    FFS, I'm getting so sick of deliberately belligerent comments like this. What has happened to this forum? Once upon a time you could express your opinion on something and get reasonable feedback. Instead you post a perfectly well reasoned observation, and all you get is people going out of their way to tell you you're wrong, or that you're wrong to even bring it up.

    Any counter points are completely ignored, and the same empty comments get repeated, over and over.


    It's blatantly fricking obvious that the video was meant as a serious attempt at tackling a serious issue. Indeed, if proof is needed (and really, it shouldn't be) it was stated as much on their Kickstarter -- where it was revealed, amongst other things, that her videos have been integrated into University Curriculums, even including Law Schools. I worry that using subjective language found in rants [like this one] can only undermine those attempts at being taken seriously.

    It's not even really a question of taste. It's unprofessional and unacademic.

    The only thing up for debate us how negatively it affected the message of the video, but EVERYONE AGREES: It doesn't, really. Thankfully.

    But the fact that it slipped through the editorial net, in an otherwise serious and objective piece, is worrisome to me. Why? Because I don't want it to undermine what I consider to be a potentially very important series.

    Don't tell this isn't worth bringing up. Don't tell me I'm wrong to be concerned (unless you can actually back up what you're saying).

    It's not a big issue, but I'm not wrong for raising it.

  5. I don't see why it undermines anything. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion on a subject. It's a youtube video, not a dissertation. In fact, I think it would be odd not to have some kind of value judgement in a series called "Feminist Frequency". 


    Fair enough. I personally think she was trying very hard to produce something professional and objective. Indeed, I would not have sat through two minutes if it was just someone stating their opinion, never mind 23. Also, just because it's on YouTube doesn't mean a video can't strive to be objective.


    The reason I loved it so much was because it wasn't just a video with somebody going, "here's what I think", it was somebody taking the time to document something and try to educate the audience. A rarity in this day and age.

  6. It's because she got a hundred and fifty grand to make the videos and so far it's indistinguishable from any other random Youtuber talking to camera about the topic with a budget of zero.


    I disagree with this. The amount of research involved, even just to get the clips to illustrate her points, must have taken many man hours -- and are exactly the type of thing you don't get with YouTube videos with a budget of zero. (Instead you usually just get people ranting, with no attempts to back up what they're saying at all.)


    I was personally very impressed with how professional the whole thing was -- with the exception of [redacted].

  7. Thank you, Gormongous, for taking the time to explain rather than write a sarcastic comment! :tup:


    To the first quote: I stand by that "using terminology like that just undercuts her whole detached and professional approach" -- because it does. Does that mean it undercuts her approach to the point where what she says is invalid? No, I don't think so, but it definitely detracts from from her approach.


    As for the second one: Yep, that definitely gave out the wrong message. I apologize. I really did enjoy the video. But the fact I enjoyed it so much is why it bothered me that she made that slip. I don't want people to use it against her argument. (And if anyone thinks that's what I'm doing, then you've totally misunderstood my intent!)

  8. For me, it's really sounding like she's expected to ride this incredibly fine line between being completely objective but also engaging and conversational. This whole issue is over literally two words she said in a 23 minute video, and I really find it hard to believe that two words can completely dismantle her entire argument.

    I think I'm finding it difficult to believe that A) People seem to have some issues with accepting that it was inappropriate and undermining of her argument as a whole, and B) Anyone thinks I think it ruined the whole video (or indeed its central argument...?).

    Did you miss the part where I wrote: "Anyways, it was still great. It was so nice to watch someone build a very logical and consistent argument, and back it up with a ton of examples. I've never seen the "games are sexist" argument put forward in such a conclusive way before."


  9. I think it's painfully obvious that she's trying to keep as neutral a tone as possible throughout the video, to avoid any of the 'overly emotional' criticisms that are too often leveled at women. I'll admit that the attempts at maintaining neutrality are a detriment to the video, but you can't blame her for doing it. I guess I wasn't bothered by her expressing an actual opinion, because it's virtually impossible for someone to remain completely neutral on a subject, especially something they're passionate about. Even the most season academics slip up and express an emotion every now and then.

    Most academics aren't able to have complete editorial control of their video, though. She could have easily dubbed that moment (especially as it occurred when she wasn't on camera). It was an unfortunate slip that only undermines her objective argument (and I would feel exactly the same way if it was a guy).

    Anyways, it was still great. It was so nice to watch someone build a very logical and consistent argument, and back it up with a ton of examples. I've never seen the "games are sexist" argument put forward in such a conclusive way before.

  10. Pretty much every Michael Moore film is much more guilty of those kinds of subjective moments of telling and not showing than this video. He is constantly editorializing in his films, to a much larger degree than Anita does here.

    Michael Moore never just came out and said, "Bush is an asshole". As manipulative as his films are, he at least tries to show instead of tell.

  11. And usually modelling as well. 'blix lives for the camera.


    I know. How many photos do we need of him on here?? It seems he posts a photo of himself at every available opportunity.

  12. Michael Moore isn't the best example of a well-known manipulative documentarian...? Who else is there? :-/


    Neither of us know where the future is headed, so not sure how you can disagree with a worry.


    Anyways, I think we largely agree: It was very good apart from that minor hiccup.


    (Personally, the next time someone complains that games aren't sexist, I'd like to end the discussion by just sending them that video -- but it's subjective moments like that that totally undercut its otherwise very strong message.)

  13. Calling regressive crap "regressive crap" doesn't strike me as petulant. It's maybe slightly inconsistent, tonally, but it's also maybe three seconds out of about twenty-three minutes of talking. I appreciate that the professional and even tone is what makes this video so effective, but I don't think it's out of line to show a little emotion during the worst and least defensible of examples. It's certainly not enough to make the assumption that the whole thing will unravel into emotional outbursts. 


    Come on, man. I'm not saying it's not regressive crap, but it is very unprofessional to throw in a term like that into the narrative voice of documentary. Even Michael Moore attempts to show rather than tell. The tone of the video is one of a newsreader or a thesis, and that's what makes the video worth watching: It's not just another talking head getting angry and ranting, it's very well researched and executed.


    If a newsreader or thesis said something was "regressive crap", it would seem very out of place, and that's exactly what it felt like to me. As Stephen Fry once put it: One turd spoils the whole bath.


    Also, I'm not making any assumptions, I just hope that side doesn't come out again (fingers crossed it won't -- I'm really looking forward to Episode #2).

  14. Just watched the first episode. Loved it!


    My only qualm is when she says: "Most recently Double Dragon Neon in 2012 re-introduced new gamers to this repressive crap yet again, this time is full HD."


    It's the only time in the whole video when she came across as petulant and unprofessional. We all understand it's bad, but using terminology like that just undercuts her whole detached and professional approach. I hope the other videos don't slowly degenerate into stuff like that :(

  15. I really love hats. and theyre not unlocked yet...

    Please people buy bioshock, not 'cause it's a great game, but... because i want some more TF2 hats.

    *taps wrist*


    I think this is an unacceptable attitude. Who cares about hats? I want you all to pre-order Bioshock Infinite so I can have a free copy of X-Com.