"Mens Rights Activists" Impersonate Domestic Violence Organization online. Hilarity ensues.

I'm just pointing out that when someone on the left here posts a story from an obvious heaviliy left leaning site and someone points out it's an obviously biased site you guys always come back with "then refute it", but when it's a right leaning site, or in this case someone you don't agree with, you feel perfectly justified in attacking the source and not the message.

Ok, I just rewatched those minutes. At no point in there does she come close to saying that video games cause rape.

The only way in which she even mentions rape is saying that

1. when they've recently or constantly seen depictions of rape, they're more likely to think of the concept of rape, and

2. when they've recently or constantly seen hypersexualized depictions of women, they're more likely to believe in rape myths that pick up on hypersexualized presentations of women and blame them for rape.

I find no fault whatsoever with these two statements. Both seem eminently reasonable, and 2 is indeed confirmed by many of the misogynistic reactions to her videos. If you disagree with these two points, you might want to explain why. But whatever you do, don't pretend she's saying that video games cause rape here.

As others have pointed out, that's not her making that claim, but, more importantly, "a link between some video games and violent attitudes towards women" ! = "video games cause rape". It's not even saying "some video games cause violent attitudes towards women", although I personally don't see how the latter could possibly be false. To think so would either mean having to believe that all violent attitudes towards women are innate or completely accidental, or that video games differ from all other input in that they can never leave any trace on people's attitudes. But for the given claim, you could even believe that all violent attitudes towards women are indeed innate, as long as you don't rule out that these innate dispositions would also impact a person's choice of video games.

The old "she didn't say these exact words" ploy.

Always a WF favorite with certain people.

She didn't say anything remotely similar. Moreover, what she says is true, and if you think it isn't, you should be able to say why.

Oh, I didn't realize you were having a conversation with somebody else entirely. Sorry to interrupt, I'll come back later.

Yeah I know, this the part where you deny you guys do that and start babbling like Garamet.

no u

I've had good luck with it as well. The best thing is how precisely you can target.

I thought this post was interesting. I would have cut and pasted it with the time stamps from the video but I honestly don't know how to do that on a Kindle.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.856153.21208783

Yeah, I talked about that in an earlier post. She's right, and there is supportive evidence to back that up. I think she has a fair point that needs discussion.

Like others I have no dog in this fight, there are misogynist every where, there are feminists looking to guilt men as a whole into some sort of submission as well. Just look at the recent scandal at Occidental College if you don't believe the latter. Liberals are becoming as prudish about sex as the Victorian codes they railed against.

Anyways, if we're going to single out gamers, then we can single out rap/hip hop as well right? What about politicians? Aggressive, entitled men in power are certainly bipartisan in their treatment of women. Or Islam? A woman was just hung in Iran for the crime of stabbing and killing her rapist.

I know there are more, bit what I'm saying is that from the outside, gamers appear to be a soft target. Go after rappers and you're a racist. Go after politicians and you could find your journalism career blacklisted. Go after Islam and we'll, we know how that ends. Gamers? Come on, these dorks aren't getting off the couch.

Pretty much this. Right now gamers have no clout or political power...for the most part. But that is going to change for a couple of reason. There are some game publishers that have very deep pockets, EA, Activision, etc...

Also, eventually the dinosaurs in power are going to die off and be replaced with people who actually grew up with games.

That doesn't seem logical to me. She says they're so harmful that there is a "well established link" between images of objectification and actions in the real world. She is saying it is so harmful that video game companies need to change their content. Either she is saying video games cause violence and other harmful effects or she isn't. If she isn't then her calls for video game companies to self censor and change their content don't make any sense so you really are picking an illogical line of thinking here.

She's not only claiming that video games cause real life violence but she is also calling for a form of censorship. Not the old fashioned the government bans stuff type of censorship but she is saying gaming companies need to start self censoring, I.E. no longer publish, works which she personally does not like or approve of and THAT most certainl is a form of censorship.

That is why it becomes import to review actual facts to see if her claims are even factually true. Hint: They're not. They're also mostly based upon cherry picking and being deliberately deceptive.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=anita sarkeesian busted&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QtwIwAA&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRSaLZidWI&ei=4txSVI7GPMfmiQK8kIDYBA&usg=AFQjCNGy2rWJor3tmKk5hhrXnQ0Naxbo2A&bvm=bv.78597519,d.cGE

Where is this supposed supporting evidence? She did not list it in the video and has refused to do so when multiple other people requested it so, no, it really doesn't look like she has much evidence or at least knows it is flimsy and wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

I gave up on believing claims without evidence after we got lied into the Iraq war.

You mean the links I posted right under the video?

I assume you are talking about post 355. The popular press is nice and all but I'm refering to peer reviewed articles especially ones which have completed the peer review process without being debunked, so heavily modified as to weaken their central finds to the point of them becoming useless, or which the authors have been forced to retract. There was one link to the University of Buffalo but it only said sexualized pictures of women are increasing in frequency which is a nice fact to know but doesn't help to establish the claim that video games objectify women and that exposure to said video games increases real world violence against women.

I'll give you a hint based upon the finds I have seen bloggers and vbloggers do in summaries of actual peer reviewed studies. They couldn't rule out that watching violent or objectifying media caused violence to increase but they could prove that if such a factor existed it was a very small one.

Yes, I know that is popular press stuff which I just said isn't that great of a source and that is why I was asking for public domain peer reviewed findings as they would be nice to read for myself. I'm pretty sure most of those are going to be behind pay walls and not public though.

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/27/15/3016

This article is peer reviewed, and rather in-depth. Yes, it's behind a pay wall, but the abstract does point out something important:

"Rape myth acceptance"? What exactly is the definition of that? Are we talking about the old "she wore a skirt so the dirty slut was asking for it" line or are we talking about less cut and dried stuff? What effect on actual violence rates does this "acceptence" have and how can we isolate it from other variables and measure it?

Honestly, stuff like this is why I have always disliked the social sciences and found them wishy-washy. In geology there are very firm answers to most things. It doesn't matter if it is geochemistry, hydrology, geoengineering, or some other topic. It is usually numbers, chemical equations, or flow rates. Stuff which can be accurately measured and/or mathmatically determined.

Then nothing presented to you will be accepted. Packard gave you access to that peer reviewed journal article and your answer is "these words are strange to me, I won't accept this."
Nothing more can be done.

I didn't say it wasn't acceptable. What I did say was I needed help understanding exactly what it meant to determine if the claim was true. I.E. what exactly do certain terms mean in an emperical and measurable sense so can we determine if violence or objectification in video games leads to an increase in violence against women?

Btw still reading the article.

And Shooter you shouldn' be so quick to agree with his trying to give up here.

Also it is mburtonk's file I am looking at not Packard's.

Am I the only one who finds tablets to be useless pieces of crap compared to an actual computer?

I'll agree with whoever I want, scooter.

...having a brutal case of the Hershey squirts all day, s'why I've been floating in and out.

I'm sorry, at the end of the day, this is still "white people problems", to me.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali gets genuine death threats from Islamic maniacs, and still soldiers on, and she does more for real women's oppression breathing in a room for 5 seconds than a gaggle of bloggers will in their whole over privileged lives.

The gaming industry is a heaving burping bloated dinosaur that'll be killed by internet democratization just like all the obsolete institutions of this goofy country.
There are real boogeymen to sweat over, we don't need to make 'em.

I have a Note II phone, which like a tablet with cell phone service. It works well to watch movies on in my rack onboard the ship and listening to music at the gym.

But for old fashion writing and typing on message boards? Gimme a PC any day. I will say this phone's keyboard inputs are a lot better than the Xperia 10z I had four years ago in Japan where I had to backtrack every third word, so that messaging on here and FB aren't too bad.