|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
Puppy Time posted:As a creator, after a certain point I just give up and go, "Welp, I can't please everyone, so I'll just do what I think is cool." There's just too many cases where there's no really optimal choice for individuals. Same, I guess I have to accept my story will be deemed chauvinist male power fantasy patriarchal propaganda cause it has a male for a protagonist. I could just swap him and one of the female main character's roles around but it wont help cause they'll see my ruse as the protag uses violence and that is a male only thing.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
You can also just not be afraid of straw men, they can't hurt you.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Testekill posted:There's a lot of 'Feminist Frequency doesn't like this but I do' which kinda kills her argument. It's not as if Kerzner is the only woman who's taken issue with FF. I posted some tweets from Mariel Cartwright, the lead animator for Indivisible and Skullgirls a couple pages back, and I did because she's brought up FF in the past: https://twitter.com/kinucakes/status/443474972808212480 - https://twitter.com/kinucakes/status/601087489911103488 https://twitter.com/kinucakes/status/601087571217682432 - https://twitter.com/kinucakes/status/739934278864113664 https://twitter.com/kinucakes/status/739936071660621824 It prompts me to bring up a stupid and potentially loaded question I've been meaning to ask. FemFreq has said that there's a need for female protagonists that aren't sexualized. I agree with that, but does that mean that you can never have a character like Bayonetta, or a make another game like Skullgirls again? Like, in a hypothetical (and unrealistic) scenario, let's say that in order to publish any sort of media like a movie or a game, it had to go through Feminist Frequency to be approved of. If you were to submit a game like Bayonetta or Skullgirls, would it be possible for it to be approved? If not, then would that be justified? I know this is a really stupid scenario, but I think it ties in with what Leal posted; you can say that you're free to create whatever you want, but if you present it to someone, and they scrutinize it as being sexist in some manner, then do acknowledge their criticism and change it, or ignore it and stick to what you came up with originally?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
She is being deliberately obtuse yeah.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
being the lead animator of a video game that hired a guest animator because the people who made it were impressed by the quality of her flash animation pornography of one of their characters is a bit of a black mark in this conversation, yes
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
Anita Sarkeesian is not out to ban games that feature violence -or sexualize women you daft motherfuckers. Edit:^^^ also this
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
Yeah I'm sorry but all artists draw porn. They gonna make cash somehow.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
Tired Moritz posted:Yeah I'm sorry but all artists draw porn. They gonna make cash somehow. not all artists are Zone e:vvv There's also a difference between an artist who draws nude/porn pictures on the side and artists who primarily do porn. Alaois fucked around with this message at 08:33 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
There's a difference between hiring an artist that does porn and hiring an artist because of their porn.
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
If you hire an animator who does well animated porn for their animation, what's the big deal?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
do we need to talk about the concept of "optics" again
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
I guess you can be shocked at an animator getting work but I'm not going to shame a comapny for hiring someone working in a niche service because they draw cartoon porn for money. Like when is it good to drag someone because of their job now?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
I think they made porn of cartoon children.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:50
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I think they made porn of cartoon children.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
The goal is simply to have more variety. Because more varied games is good.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
Max Wilco posted:It prompts me to bring up a stupid and potentially loaded question I've been meaning to ask. FemFreq has said that there's a need for female protagonists that aren't sexualized. I agree with that, but does that mean that you can never have a character like Bayonetta, or a make another game like Skullgirls again? This is actually a problem of FF's analysis being kinda shallow and in my opinion being too descriptive. She's after all mostly just introducing these ideas and concepts but never really goes anywhere with them. She will tell you some variation of how 'this could be the manifestation of a power structure' but that is also where she will stop. Things are never this or that, they are simply problematic. If you're from societal studies side of academia you will immediately recognize her concepts because you've heard all of this before if you've used any theory based on constructivism in your discipline. (which feminism itself as a theory does too) I think Contra brought this up last year. If you're familiar with feminism as a theory, then FF has the problem of not adding any value by being too descriptive. If you're unfamiliar with feminism as a theory, or constructivism as an ontology, then you instead have the problem of not understanding the basis from which she draws her observations and rejecting her for that. Guess which camp you fall in by the very fact that you felt the need to ask this question. It's never actually about the individual problematic cases, it's about the normative implications of the society that shaped those cases. Constructivism assumes that society shapes the individual, so what about society made the creators make these creative decisions in the shaping their characters? Now where you go with that depends on your ideological leanings (of which there are just as many in feminism as any other ideology) but there is no objectively right or wrong answer to your question. Some would say yes and others would say no.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
watho posted:There's a difference between hiring an artist that does porn and hiring an artist because of their porn. Well yeah but the game is Skullgirls which is just a step above porn so it was a lateral move
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 09:12
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:This is actually a problem of FF's analysis being kinda shallow and in my opinion being too descriptive. She's after all mostly just introducing these ideas and concepts but never really goes anywhere with them. She will tell you some variation of how 'this could be the manifestation of a power structure' but that is also where she will stop. Things are never this or that, they are simply problematic. If you're from societal studies side of academia you will immediately recognize her concepts because you've heard all of this before if you've used any theory based on constructivism in your discipline. (which feminism itself as a theory does too) I think Contra brought this up last year. If you're familiar with feminism as a theory, then FF has the problem of not adding any value by being too descriptive. If you're unfamiliar with feminism as a theory, or constructivism as an ontology, then you instead have the problem of not understanding the basis from which she draws her observations and rejecting her for that. Guess which camp you fall in by the very fact that you felt the need to ask this question. 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
Yeah that is about what I expected, but I tried! 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:I'd be more interested in a book-length treatment of the economics and political economy of youtube vs blip in the style of Dan Olsen's fascinating (relatively) quick takes on the subject. So many of the people circulating around youtube as content producers (except CA and Chez Apocalypse alumni, it seems) have a naive and under-theorized understanding of how the platform functions, or simply or what capitalism actually is. I want to use this quote as a jumping off point to discuss a trend I'm noticing. Blip was never profitable (neither is Youtube, but they're part of google and too big to fail) and ended up being bought by Maker and later Disney, who quickly went "well, this isn't making us money, time to scrap it !" Then, a lot of content creators went to Screenwave, who use the JW player. Only now Screenwave is saying that player is too expensive (so they're not making money either) and shut it down. So now, I'm seeing a mass migration of creators to vid.me. Another video player. One that also has no idea on how to sustain their business. A quick google search reveals the vid.me team has vague ideas at best on how to turn a profit. So the trend I'm seeing is this : Content creators that won't or can't rely on youtube move to a new platform en masse. This platform then experiences a bandwith cost increase that should scare the crap out of them, leading to them getting sold or shutting down, cycle repeats. The only way I can see this cycle being broken is when somebody comes up with a way to make a video platform profitable, and if even google can't figure it out, good luck with that. Edit : I expect vid.me to shut down within a year. Bad Wolf fucked around with this message at 10:16 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 10:14
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Yeah that is about what I expected, but I tried! No, I get what you're saying. I've just been wanting to use that image for a while. It's been brought up before that FemFreq is sort of just Feminism 101. It is the kind of thing where with a couple of the episodes, I go "Aren't most people aware of this stuff simply from it being poked at or satirized in other media?" The constructivism is where you lose me (sort of). What I was trying to ask or get across is that Kerzner and Cartwright are both women who take issue with FemFreq's critique, and the content they like or create conflicts with the ideas put forth by the critique. It's not that I think that's FemFreq is trying to ban games or suppress speech, but that they seem very adamant on their perspective, and don't really seem open to highlighting or acknowledging those grievances
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 10:15
|
|
|
This cycle is doomed to repeat forever.
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 10:30
|
|
|
remember Viddler
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
in spite of that lady's obtuseness I think feminist frequency's argument that violence is inherently masculine is a bunch of stupid bullshit, it's probably the biggest problem I have with FF's stuff
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
Alaois posted:remember Viddler Remember Revver? God that feels like an eternity ago.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
i'm so tired of all these gamer gates
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Well yeah but the game is Skullgirls which is just a step above porn so it was a lateral move The game is actually good though and they went back and redid a bunch of animations that had skeevier stuff in it a while back now.  Also lol at Alaois posted:There's also a difference between an artist who draws nude/porn pictures on the side and artists who primarily do porn. That difference is a big fat what, there's nothing wrong with drawing porn in most cases, it puts money in your wallet the same as any other artwork, if not more when people start to really like your style of drawing the bepis and vag. Yardbomb fucked around with this message at 11:48 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
cat doter posted:in spite of that lady's obtuseness I think feminist frequency's argument that violence is inherently masculine is a bunch of stupid bullshit, it's probably the biggest problem I have with FF's stuff Violence is quite fluid, I can assure you. If you use glorious hanzo steel, the cuts are precise, quick. Very feminine. But if you use a warhams it's pure blunt destruction. Very manly. Very masculine. It's the trouble when you discuss concepts. Everyone has their own idea of where on the spectrum it lies. I think the push-back on that particular issue, or any issue in the FF video (outside the misogyny) is that those videos are taken as gospel. Or at least the impression is given that they are.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
Honestly, unless you pay for the stream, I can't ever see a video platform making money. Videos just eat too much bandwidth for the dying concept that is traditional advertising.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
Jimbot posted:Violence is quite fluid, I can assure you. If you use glorious hanzo steel, the cuts are precise, quick. Very feminine. But if you use a warhams it's pure blunt destruction. Very manly. Very masculine. nobody takes those videos as gospel dude, even outside the raging hate boner gamers have for her, I've seen more feminists disagree with many of her arguments than agree like her stuff is very women's studies 101 but there's plenty of room for actual substantive criticism it's just the narrative isn't out there I guess
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
Puppy Time posted:Edit: ^^^^ It's nice to see someone using pronouns the way he prefers. Probably because every time someone has a counterpoint to FF, it's pretty much shot down immediately for being absolutely 100% wrong by both anti-Anita GGers and extremely passionate forum posters and tweeters. I have never seen a rational discussion about anything she says in a video, even if a point someone makes is entirely reasonable albeit sometimes misguided. "I don't agree with this." "Well, actually, they're right, and you're wrong/ignorant/willfully dense."
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 13:03
|
|
:
|
Takoluka posted:Probably because every time someone has a counterpoint to FF, it's pretty much shot down immediately for being absolutely 100% wrong by both anti-Anita GGers and extremely passionate forum posters and tweeters. I have never seen a rational discussion about anything she says in a video, even if a point someone makes is entirely reasonable albeit sometimes misguided. We just had a reasonable discussion about a FF counterpoint on this page, so I'm not sure where you're seeing this behavior. Like, the bulk of her videos are literally non-objectionable, she is just listing examples of a thing.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
cat doter posted:nobody takes those videos as gospel dude, even outside the raging hate boner gamers have for her, I've seen more feminists disagree with many of her arguments than agree I'm sure they're not but that was just an impression I got with some people. WampaLord posted:We just had a reasonable discussion about a FF counterpoint on this page, so I'm not sure where you're seeing this behavior. Also in this topic there have been unreasonable discussions on her videos. And elsewhere on the internet. But her videos were the new hotness during that time, so you couldn't criticize them.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
utter nonsense
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Yeah like every time I see FF brought up, there's a lot of people with criticisms of substance that nobody (or few people) argues about because everyone p. much agrees with them. She's dry, she's 101-level, she'll get some minor facts wrong or pick imperfect examples... heck, just read a bunch of posts here and look at what's being argued about versus what isn't. There are stupid and wrong criticisms to be made, sure, but there's also criticisms that everyone agrees with. Perhaps the problem is that your personal criticisms get argued with? In which case maybe pay better attention to the arguments and figure out why everyone thinks you're wrong, because I can tell from experience that it's not because "Oh no, this subject is sacrosanct!" it's because the argument was either wrong or expressed in such a bad way as to look stupid. (Also the presence of multiple people in an argument doesn't necessarily indicate a consensus, just that some people want to have that argument and everyone else doesn't care.)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Yeah, that was worded weirdly on my part. I clarified that in the previous post. From personal experience, I've seen people take them as gospel when the criticism presented was one of those things. I used to argue for context but I stopped on that front since that really isn't the purpose of her videos. And I've made bad arguments before. But I've always argued weak examples and the like have been shot down by the more radical defenders of those videos. I've just had the displeasure of discussing, albeit briefly, with such people. Their heart's are in the right place, but such people exist. Jimbot fucked around with this message at 14:05 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
I think Anita Sarkeesian is okay. I think she holds back because she doesn't want to offend creators or indict the video game and entertainment industries. I kind of wish she did. My issue with her is that she frames her issues too often as "constructive criticism" when I want destruction. But yeah, she's okay. She's been unfairly accused of practicing "true Scotsman" feminism. And people accuse her of not being a "true Scotsman" feminist. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 17:01 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
It seems like the most upsetting and radical thing in the videos is the claim that media are culturally conditioned and exist in a wider context that partially dictates how people receive and understand ideas.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:It seems like the most upsetting and radical thing in the videos is the claim that media are culturally conditioned and exist in a wider context that partially dictates how people receive and understand ideas. what a radical idea! Echo Chamber posted:I think Anita Sarkeesian is okay. yeah she's ok, I sometimes say I don't think she's very good at what she does, but it's more accurate to say that her videos aren't for me, since the ideas she explores are fairly surface level and stuff I'm pretty well read on, that and she says a few things that I strongly disagree with but in general, in the matter of fact feminism 101 kind of way, she's fine
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:48
|
|