Do you really think youtube comments is where "peer reviews" take place? :)

I would actually love to read an academic paper that analyses one of her videos (I was looking for one last weekend but couldn't find anything).

No, because to be her peer, people would have to have an even shittier knowledge of vidya ;P!

Alright, alright...
I'd love to see a round table discussion on the subject. That is - one where there would be non-SJW people for her to have a discussion with. I even think she might raise a valid point or two, but "therefore sexism/misogyny/patriarchy/whatever" would probably not slide. If there's one thing I'm adamant about, it's that we need smart and eloquent people to have discussions. That Sargon guy, for instance? Not the brightest bulb. Thunderfoot? IDK, but I'm inclined to agree with you, as long as you don't support Vainamoinen in his "serves him right" attitude toward getting suspended on Twitter...

That's not what that means.

That means that if I have a rock in my pocket and there are no tigers around that the lack of tigers shouldn't be attributed to the rock in my pocket as there aren't normally any tigers in this part of the world other than at the zoo.

There is no reason for me to see a tiger and drawing conclusion from something that since a statistically insignificant risk turned out to be untrue is meaningless.

In this case, though you have to consider that it's highly unlikely that a group of journalists would write the same basic op-ed piece in such a short time frame without some sort of signal to do so.In fact, I've never seen it happen spontaneously. There's always some sort of a trigger, usually a holiday or noteworthy event.

Even more so that I've never seen journalists declare their audience to be worthless people that aren't relevant. As if the audience is irrelevant, then why should they be reading?

Like I've said earlier, you seem to have a need for GG to be invalid for reasons that have nothing at all to do with the scandal.
Why would her papers get a peer review by serious academics? She's already been busted for plagiarism. There's also enough other serious problems with her videos that no serious academic is going to waste time on her. She's a professional victim and troll and we probably shouldn't be talking about her as much as we are. She makes her living by hating men and trying to destroy our toys.

That's cute, but that's not what it "means". That's just an example. Don't confuse an example with meaning. Perhaps the wikipedia page should be replaced with that cute little example that people use to explain the concept to children?

That very basic concept is just there to help explain that the correlation does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. The analogy between the rock and the tiger is used because it is absurd. The fact that another link between correlation and causation may make sense does not suddenly make the link proof. That is literally the whole point of the concept.

The fact that something is likely or highly likely does not make the proof any more valid, correlation still does not imply causation, no matter how likely it might be. You still need to take the next step and establish actual causation.

Or do you really think correlation implies causation?

I don't know why you are saying I am suggesting GG is invalid, i even said in the post that you quoted (admittedly with poor grammar), that I agreed that there was more than likely a link between the articles and GG, I was just explaining how linking correlation with causation is a logical fallacy. Did you actually miss that part?




Why does anyone do anything? I really don't know. Why did you ask me that question, as if I had some insight into what every single academic in the world, serious or otherwise, would do? The human mind is very mysterious.

It is funny that you think she is trying to destroy mens toys though. Insightful stuff.

Here's a couple of things I've dug up:
A Challenge to Anita (by Liana K.)
A very entertaining vid that... Ummm... Well - it shows the truth, but it doesn't pull punches. You can call it the gamer-side propaganda piece. (by shoe0nhead)
[url=https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bx1pMLZCMAA_ufm.png:large]Vivian James driven out of her homeland to wander the wastes in search of a new home.[/url]

What I think is that in this case that the likelihood of those writers all deciding to take basically the same route that runs contrary to their own interest is rather unlikely. It's also rather unlikely that some other factor would be involved as this is existential angst. Something had them scared shitless at the same time and at a similar thing.

Correlation is not causation really only applies to things like observation report studies and cases where you're taking research data and trying to make inferences based upon that. Medical studies on diet and exercise are rife with them and there are serious issues that result from it.

In this case, there are far better reasons for assuming that the articles are a response to gamergate's anger at their perceived nepotism and corruption.

Honestly, it could just be a feeling, but it does seem like you're requiring more of the prop--GG folks to prove their case than the anti-GG people. And that signature by your name really isn't helping with that perception. Regardless of whether or not it's relevant, I'm far more familar with the Anita feminists that are all about themselves and what they can do to put men in their places.

Plagiarism is a very serious issue in academia, getting caught plagiarizing somebody's work can easily get you run out of the discipline.

The reason I asked you is because you implied that youtube was an inappropriate place to be relying on for peer reviews. I'm just pointing out that serious academics are unlikely to be interested in reviewing the work of a plagiarist that had low academic standards even before being busted for taking other people's work for her own and misrepresenting the way she went about collecting her data.

You may not have intended to imply that, but it's a reasonable inference to make, otherwise, I'm not really sure what the purpose of your question about peer review was.

That's what her goal seems to be, it's certainly more likely than her assertion that she wants to critique the work to help women out. I don't think that women need her stirring up the muck over claims that she invents. Obviously, that might be a need that women have, but that seems rather misogynistic.

That's funny because this is how I would describe Anita's work and yet, you don't seem to have a problem with it there. I have no idea if it was Anita who got TF suspended on Twitter but regardless it is sad when such a big social networking site apparently try to silence dissenting opinions due to a technicality.

No, STOP! He'll make fun of you for this D:!
The things is - "correlation is not causation" applies ALL THE TIME. They are simply separate things.
What you are arguing against HERE is an imagined claim by him that there was ONLY correlation in the series of articles and not causation. HE NEVER SAID THAT! He's NOT making an argument! He made a general statement to lure people not patient enough to read carefully!

Nice to see GOG isn't censoring this.

As I understand it, Twitter doesn't have a person looking at bans but instead uses an algorithm based on reports from other people (though I could be wrong). As such, it's more of a automated thing that, as shown here, is open to abuse. It does beg the question though; if Sarkeesian and the rest are so convinced about their case being right, why are they choosing to try to silence reasonable opposition in this way rather than engage in critical analysis and debate? Each time something like this happens it simply reenforces the point that their argument is one based on a dogmatic stance which does not even hold up to simple common sense, never mind proper analysis.

I occasionally come and go from this thread as I don't hold a huge amount on interest in it (or not enough interest to check all the time) however it just seems that every time I come back there is yet another ridiculous situation that the antigamergate people have created that further diminishes their credibility and, ironically, makes the whole gamergate case and resolve stronger. I just wonder what they think the endgame will be in all this, as trying to silence the opposition just seems to make it all the more deafening.

EDIT - Turns out the ban wasn't automated, but actually enforced by a person at Twitter. A real shame, yet another institution that has let proper debate down.

I agree with this pretty much 100%.

I could not disagree with this more. Correlation never implies causality, its just a logical fallacy.

I don't really know what the anti-GG people are arguing for. I guess it is a lot easier to criticise someone who are making positive assertions (such as the pro-GG people). I think the GG thing is good. Another source of information, one which attempts to be unbiased (although that is impossible) is definitely good. I personally have a huge problem with people who make arguments based on false premises, lack of logic, lack of rationality and lack of proof. If I predominantly argue with pro-GG people, it is because I see pro-GG people making what I consider to be weak arguments (whether or not they are). That was why I explained the "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy. Everyone benefits if arguments are made stronger and people are encouraged to think critically and are made aware of logical fallacies.

My signature. It is a challenge. I am not a feminist in the traditional sense. So many people bad-mouth feminists and make straw-man (or maybe straw-woman) arguments against feminism that I like to challenge those people.

I often play a female character in a game because she looks good, I don't mind heading off to a strip club (in real life) every now and then, if I see a good looking girl I'll take a second look, I am superficial and have lately only gone out with women younger than me. On an intellectual level I acknowledge that I do objectify women every now and then and I don't think that makes me a bad person (there are other reasons why I am a bad person).

I am far from a perfect feminist. I often have real life arguments with feminists about things. Just recently I pretty much ruined a chance I had at a relationship with a pretty decent chick about the importance of the sex industry and strip clubs (I was pro, she was against - we both argued passionately - she couldn't handle that we disagreed on a subject that apparently she was quite passionate about - I decided I would be better off without a girl who couldn't handle having arguments about things like that so we went our separate ways). I still think I am right and that a true feminist would support a woman's right to work in the sex industry (provided consent was freely given).

I like how describing myself as a feminist automatically puts people on the defensive. It amuses me to see people to continue to argue against things just because of preconceived notion about me - sometimes people even tell me what my views on various things must be because I am a feminist, sometimes they assume I am a woman. Again, it just exposes a lack of critical thinking.

My question about peer reviews was specifically about the "comments" section of youtube videos, not youtube videos themselves. I don't believe the comments section of youtube is a good place to have a reasoned sensible discussion. If you would like to extend that to the whole of youtube, go for it.

My question was directed to the person who implied that Anita's youtube comments section was closed was to avoid "peer reviews" (although I suspect he or she was not being entirely serious), the purpose of the question was to see if he really did think that the youtube comments section was a good place for peer reviews. I would have thought that was clear just by reading the sentence.

I don't think her goal is to take away boys toys at all. I just think she likes criticising things (as do I) and she is passionate about feminism and tropes and all forms of pop culture are fertile ground for discussing those issues. The fact that many people get so defensive about it all, and think that she is trying to take something away from them or suggesting they are bad people because they might enjoy a game that contains a trope, is something that really amuses me.

Anyway, that's my essay. I'm off to bed.
Aww!! You saw it straight away!! :) :) :)

I didn't do it to lure people though, I was just trying to explain the concept. Some people just like to argue with everything, though, even when they are wrong ;)

No, getting a critique of your art isn't harrassment. That's because the critique is usually not directed personally against the creator (and even less against the consumer, I might add!). But that perfectly is what thunderfoot does day in and day out.

No, the tropes Sarkeesian lays out are neither incredible nor willfully misinterpreted; that unfortunately doesn't make them well presented.

As to the spokesperson thing, as I've said some pages ago, it's clear Sarkeesian didn't set out to be an authoritative voice. The unexpected backlash to the Kickstarter video made her more than she should have ever been. Thunderfoot on the other hand is the actual person to ride the wave of public outcry.

I'm glad he finally found a way to be the professional victim he routinely blames other people to be.

To be honest, my take on Anita's motives is that she is a merc, not an ideologue. I may be wrong, but see her as making logical arguments which actually are selective and successful in their emotional appeal to the intended audience. She is the medieval firebrand preacher, that does not actually believe, and is smart enough to see very well that there are other interpretations, equally valid of reality. In contrast, the other flashpoint lady in this whole discussion, strikes me as a true believer.


I insist, why do you feel this to be true? I highlighted the word choices that struck me as particularly prescriptive.

When you ask me not to do it. Is it because you felt disrespected?

I didn't mean to hurt you, but I did exaggerate on purpose to rethorically prove a point. I simply reviewed / criticized your expression. It's not a baseless extrapolation... and I would like to explore it with you further per the above point.
Let me now make an ethical appeal to a figure of authority that you should recognize: "I perceive these parts of your expression to be inadequate, and would like you to make a different attempt next time."

Do you see my point? Am I making a personal attack or not? You can't have it both ways...

Taking shortcuts and relying on contextual and background information is crucial to efficient communication. Providing FULL, exhaustive information every step of the way is either very difficult and inconvenient or (most likely) outright impossible. As such - we rely on people making the correct assumptions and "following along" our path of reasoning.
The are pitfalls to the above, what you've mentioned is a result of one of them, and I'd hesitate to blame all people who fall for it. The term "feminist" has been hijacked by extremists and bears an understandable stigma. Calling oneself a feminist can create ambiguity at best, confusion at worst. It's an old conundrum - if we have a group of people who don't believe in equality, do we simply not call them feminists? Then many self-proclaimed feminists would have to be constantly rebranded as faux-feminists. On the other hand - perhaps if feminists stopped believing in equality, then being a feminist no longer means what it used to? In such a case we'd lose the original meaning of the term in the name of (a different) consistency...
That's why people prefer to avoid the term altogether and slap the SJW moniker on radical groups who believe they are the chosen ones of forced societal change. People who believe in equality... are just called "normal" ;P.

I'm the Admiral Ackbar of Internet discussions...

It's all completely idle, unsubstantiated speculation, but hell - let me chip in with my this:
Another difference is that Anita has class... at least to a certain degree. There's some finesse about what she does and how she does it. She seems to be a person who'd lie to your face without batting an eye. The other lady, while still manipulative, is... weak. She's the Vinnie Gognitti of SJWs.