Jake

Idle Thumbs 173: Ridonkulous Rift

Recommended Posts

I'm just popping in to say I really, really appreciate this community. I wasn't on the show this week because I've been on *vacation* -- however, both my girlfriend and I are getting a steady stream of online abuse (and in her case, hacking threats), so, we're really still in the middle of internet shithatestorm 2014.

 

There's an emotional cycle with this stuff - it starts with rage: "how dare these misogynist assholes!" and it often devolves into utter exhaustion and a desire to have nothing to do with the internet. So having a place to go where people are empathetic, smart (and sassy when the time comes) is very important. To me, anyway!

 

Keep on keeping on.

 

As much as I respect the opinions of the other Thumbs, it's personally gratifying for me, as a woman, to hear another woman's voice on this podcast. I hate that this gratification comes at the expense of someone else's emotional well-being, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PC gamer magazines filled a similar role to those VHS you guys talked about. The demo CDs and the previews/reviews. Half of them from local authors, half of them translated from the british PC Gamer. 

 

They harped on and on how great Half Life is, there was a demo somewhere I think. I couldn't get past the pushing the cart in the beam, I was too scared. Never went on. I still believed them that it was the greatest game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't the exact quote on the 'cast, but it's the general idea, said in reference to reacting to the awful shit people have said about Sarkeesian and Quinn: "Don't do that, because you don't say these things about another human being.  What if that ended up on CNN?"

 

I understand that feeling.  But the problem is that we see this shit all the time, and sometimes it doesn't even register.  All the racist shit said by people, some of them elected officials or professional media personalities, about Ferguson.  Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a slut for testifying in front of Congress.  The litany of gay hate from all sorts of public people.  The insane and violent language used around talking about abortion.  Sometimes they catch shit for it, but it usually doesn't have a big impact on anybody.  Of course people on the Internet are going to act this way, we've been teaching them its fine for years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't the exact quote on the 'cast, but it's the general idea, said in reference to reacting to the awful shit people have said about Sarkeesian and Quinn: "Don't do that, because you don't say these things about another human being.  What if that ended up on CNN?"

 

I understand that feeling.  But the problem is that we see this shit all the time, and sometimes it doesn't even register.  All the racist shit said by people, some of them elected officials or professional media personalities, about Ferguson.  Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a slut for testifying in front of Congress.  The litany of gay hate from all sorts of public people.  The insane and violent language used around talking about abortion.  Sometimes they catch shit for it, but it usually doesn't have a big impact on anybody.  Of course people on the Internet are going to act this way, we've been teaching them its fine for years. 

Those kind of unacceptable statements though have two effects:

 

The first is that people already blindly tied to an individual / personality get even closer. But it comes at the cost of the second effect,

 

Which is that people finally realize that individual has crossed a line they can't cross either. The net gain is lost influence, even if it's stronger with the fewer that remain. It's a slow burn though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me start with the sound "ugh." I'm a huge Idle Thumbs fan and have been for a long time. I'm writing under a separate account because I think I'm going to draw a lot of ire with this comment. I think you guys have really gone to a point of excess with this Sarkeesian/games critique discussion, and I want to bring a little bit of critique to the conversation because I think this episode sounds like an echo chamber of people who are so committed to a particular set of beliefs that they're not making reasonable critiques of their own positions. As evidence of this, Chris is basically calling critics of Sarkeesian and others neckbeards (particularly with the anime avatar remark), asking for Campo Santo and Idle Thumbs to be boycotted along with other game studios that have had some role in defending Sarkeesian, and insinuated strongly that he would like to hit people who disagree with him. Jake and Sean seemed to agree. Sean also went to great lengths to praise Sarkeesian's supposedly mind blowing work. 

 

I think you guys are so wrapped up in this whole mess that you're not recognizing just how little value Sarkeesian is providing. She's pointing out gruesome things that happen to women in games, and you guys are losing your minds over it as if this is causing scales to fall from your eyes. You're also pretending like people want to silence her because she is bringing this critique to light, because her critics are misogynists. In reality, games are brutal generally, and Sarkeesian is just cherry picking examples that fit her agenda without providing the necessary context to actually understand what these tropes mean. She'll point out a woman who is brutally murdered in Red Dead Redemption, but totally ignore an equally brutal killing that happens to a defenseless male character in the same game. Same for Assassin's Creed, where almost all of your victims are male, yet she picks out the few women who are brutally killed. Those two games just happen to be very brutal, and pointing out that some women are killed in terrible ways while ignoring all of the men killed in terrible ways isn't interesting or beneficial critique, it's a hack job. Violence against women isn't especially used to create realism, violence generally is. 

 

Then Sarkeesian draws her inevitable critique for this cherry picking at the expense of gamers, and people are shocked. I think it's terrible to threaten or harass anyone online, but it's not like Sarkeesian's experience is unique. Almost every personality online draws some flak, particularly those who are controversial. At this point I honestly think Sarkeesian revels in the hate, because it's what makes her relevant. If she wasn't being attacked, I doubt she would have nearly the following she does now. I think she uses this to draw sympathy, which results in people exclaiming how valuable her work is, when in reality she's just cherry picking and providing almost no insight whatsoever. I think you've been suckered, and it's painful to watch. Chris, you talked about how you've worked hard to develop your ability to critically analyze your beliefs, no matter how deeply they are held, and if necessary to change them. I think that's precisely what is called for here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost every personality online draws some flak, particularly those who are controversial.

 

Seriously? You're going to go there? I can't name a male online personality who has received a rape threat.

So I dunno, maybe they all get them and never talk about them, or maybe you're full of shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me start with the sound "ugh." 

 

NOBODY is losing their minds over the gross sexist shit in video games. They're acknowledging that it exists and acknowledging that it is problematic. What people are losing their minds over are the FUCKING DEATH THREATS ATTACHED TO HOME ADDRESS AND RELATIVES AND FRIENDS. What people are losing their minds over are the ENDLESS HARASSMENT OF PEOPLE WHO ABSOLUTELY DO NOT DESERVE IT.

 

My advice to you is to stop getting mad about people disliking something in your favorite stupid little video game and start thinking about how society works.

 

EDIT: ya i'm fuckin mad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As evidence of this, Chris is basically calling critics of Sarkeesian and others neckbeards (particularly with the anime avatar remark), asking for Campo Santo and Idle Thumbs to be boycotted along with other game studios that have had some role in defending Sarkeesian, and insinuated strongly that he would like to hit people who disagree with him.

The people we are talking about are the people who are being disgustingly abusive. If what you took from this is "I would like to hit anyone who reasonably disagrees with Anita Sarkeesian," you're not listening well enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me start with the sound "ugh." I'm a huge Idle Thumbs fan and have been for a long time. I'm writing under a separate account because I think I'm going to draw a lot of ire with this comment. I think you guys have really gone to a point of excess with this Sarkeesian/games critique discussion, and I want to bring a little bit of critique to the conversation because I think this episode sounds like an echo chamber of people who are so committed to a particular set of beliefs that they're not making reasonable critiques of their own positions. As evidence of this, Chris is basically calling critics of Sarkeesian and others neckbeards (particularly with the anime avatar remark), asking for Campo Santo and Idle Thumbs to be boycotted along with other game studios that have had some role in defending Sarkeesian, and insinuated strongly that he would like to hit people who disagree with him. Jake and Sean seemed to agree. Sean also went to great lengths to praise Sarkeesian's supposedly mind blowing work. 

 

I think you guys are so wrapped up in this whole mess that you're not recognizing just how little value Sarkeesian is providing. She's pointing out gruesome things that happen to women in games, and you guys are losing your minds over it as if this is causing scales to fall from your eyes. You're also pretending like people want to silence her because she is bringing this critique to light, because her critics are misogynists. In reality, games are brutal generally, and Sarkeesian is just cherry picking examples that fit her agenda without providing the necessary context to actually understand what these tropes mean. She'll point out a woman who is brutally murdered in Red Dead Redemption, but totally ignore an equally brutal killing that happens to a defenseless male character in the same game. Same for Assassin's Creed, where almost all of your victims are male, yet she picks out the few women who are brutally killed. Those two games just happen to be very brutal, and pointing out that some women are killed in terrible ways while ignoring all of the men killed in terrible ways isn't interesting or beneficial critique, it's a hack job. Violence against women isn't especially used to create realism, violence generally is. 

 

Then Sarkeesian draws her inevitable critique for this cherry picking at the expense of gamers, and people are shocked. I think it's terrible to threaten or harass anyone online, but it's not like Sarkeesian's experience is unique. Almost every personality online draws some flak, particularly those who are controversial. At this point I honestly think Sarkeesian revels in the hate, because it's what makes her relevant. If she wasn't being attacked, I doubt she would have nearly the following she does now. I think she uses this to draw sympathy, which results in people exclaiming how valuable her work is, when in reality she's just cherry picking and providing almost no insight whatsoever. I think you've been suckered, and it's painful to watch. Chris, you talked about how you've worked hard to develop your ability to critically analyze your beliefs, no matter how deeply they are held, and if necessary to change them. I think that's precisely what is called for here. 

It seemed clear to me that the comment about hitting people was speaking about how you feel inside when someone you're trying to talk to more or less shuts you out, just repeating themselves. Not acting on those internal feelings is what makes one a better person. Speaking about feeling it is not the same as doing it.

 

Part of what Sarkeesian points out is the difference in how women die. If there's a fault to her argument, she doesn't present enough examples of how males die in these games compared to how female die. But when discussing Watch Dogs she did point it out - the male victim will actually fight back (and is an aggressor sometimes). But the women who die in it are helpless and pushed around always. The argument has never been "only women die." It's all about the depiction and substance.

 

Edit - Also "echo chamber" being used for describing people you disagree with is pretty lame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me start with the sound "ugh." I'm a huge Idle Thumbs fan and have been for a long time. I'm writing under a separate account because I think I'm going to draw a lot of ire with this comment.

 

I enjoy that you know your comment is ridiculous to the point that you created a throwaway account for it. A very brave stance you've taken.

 

Please come back when you feel like posting under your real username.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy that you know your comment is ridiculous to the point that you created a throwaway account for it. A very brave stance you've taken.

 

Please come back when you feel like posting under your real username.

 

Amazing restraint you've shown not piecing together the real username from logs and dropping it for all to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing restraint you've shown not piecing together the real username from logs and dropping it for all to see.

 

I tried, they used a throwaway email address and (I'm guessing) Tor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy that you know your comment is ridiculous to the point that you created a throwaway account for it. A very brave stance you've taken.

 

Please come back when you feel like posting under your real username.

Is it that it’s not enough to obey him, You also must love him. 1984 George Orwell

 

 

Nice forums mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it that it’s not enough to obey him, You also must love him. 1984

Nice forums mate.

Welp. What does it take to get a boot stamping on this dude's face forever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it that it’s not enough to obey him, You also must love him. 1984 George Orwell

 

 

Nice forums mate.

 

Yeahhh I think you've had your run too fellow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long time listener, first time writer here!

 

Just thought I'd finally register and say how great the latest episode was. If I was in the position of anyone involved in this complete mess I'd have just walked away long ago, it takes a lot to just stand your ground like this. However, I am disappointed that Campo Santo didn't make that list of SJW companies to boycott. Disappointing guys, very disappointing.

 

Keep up the good work. :) And release Firewatch on the Vita!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it that it’s not enough to obey him, You also must love him. 1984

 

Nice forums mate.

 

Apparently, it is now censorship to believe that a person should have a name attached to the comment they make. As Sean might say, "censorship" is now dead to language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 In reality, games are brutal generally, and Sarkeesian is just cherry picking examples that fit her agenda without providing the necessary context to actually understand what these tropes mean. She'll point out a woman who is brutally murdered in Red Dead Redemption, but totally ignore an equally brutal killing that happens to a defenseless male character in the same game. Same for Assassin's Creed, where almost all of your victims are male, yet she picks out the few women who are brutally killed. Those two games just happen to be very brutal, and pointing out that some women are killed in terrible ways while ignoring all of the men killed in terrible ways isn't interesting or beneficial critique, it's a hack job. Violence against women isn't especially used to create realism, violence generally is.

 

If you have been a part of this community I honestly don't know how you've missed this part:

 

Men and women, as well as different races have fundamentally different experiences. Things that happen to women, don't happen the same way to men.

 

This is a tiny pivot, but when talking about Ferguson Sean Hannity said "I don't know what the problem black people have with police is. When I get pulled over, I step out of the car, and lift my shirt to show the officer I have a gun, and everything is fine." You can understand how this experience is fundamentally different to a white person than if a black person, specifically Michael Brown tried it, right?

 

There is NO general male analog to the sexualized violence that Red Dead presents to the random woman. Men outside of prison do not reasonably live under a threat of sexual violence. Women do. Any comparison you make, where those things are equal are totally specious and do not reflect reality. This is of the utmost importance for "both side" people to understand.

 

EDIT: Also, if you honestly think Anita, or ANYBODY would "revel" in the kind of abuse she receives you really need to spend more time trying to understand the human condition, because you have a shocking lack of empathy and practical lived experience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried, they used a throwaway email address and (I'm guessing) Tor. 

 

That's an impressive amount of hoop jumping just to whine about girls on the Internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, it is now censorship to believe that a person should have a name attached to the comment they make. As Sean might say, "censorship" is now dead to language.

 

That line would be more 'oh snap' if he'd said censorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an impressive amount of hoop jumping just to whine about girls on the Internet.

 

That's what I thought. Nothing says 'respect my opinion' like multiple layers of anonymity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And release Firewatch on the Vita!

 

I was going to make a snarky comment about dead hardware but it struck me that the rear touchpad could actually be used for some pretty interesting stuff when utilized by smart people like everyone working at Campo Santo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That line would be more 'oh snap' if he'd said censorship.

 

I'm sorry, I tried it with "totalitarianism," but it didn't have the same ring to it. If the rejoinder to my comment is, "Hah! I didn't mean censorship, I meant totalitarian oppression in general!" then I really don't have the energy to care.

 

Also, I felt pathetic even just echoing his 1984 reference about a forum admin on the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look, another claim about cherry picking evidence followed up with a complaint about an echo chamber. Don't let the irony get lost in the reverberations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you guys are so wrapped up in this whole mess that you're not recognizing just how little value Sarkeesian is providing. She's pointing out gruesome things that happen to women in games, and you guys are losing your minds over it as if this is causing scales to fall from your eyes. You're also pretending like people want to silence her because she is bringing this critique to light, because her critics are misogynists. In reality, games are brutal generally, and Sarkeesian is just cherry picking examples that fit her agenda without providing the necessary context to actually understand what these tropes mean. She'll point out a woman who is brutally murdered in Red Dead Redemption, but totally ignore an equally brutal killing that happens to a defenseless male character in the same game. Same for Assassin's Creed, where almost all of your victims are male, yet she picks out the few women who are brutally killed. Those two games just happen to be very brutal, and pointing out that some women are killed in terrible ways while ignoring all of the men killed in terrible ways isn't interesting or beneficial critique, it's a hack job. Violence against women isn't especially used to create realism, violence generally is. 

 

Everyone has probably heard this argument a million times already.  I know I have.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now