Well, I guess I'll never agree with you with anything on this subject.

To me, you're purposedly watering down her sexist and discriminatory claims on twitter to make them more acceptable, for whatever reason.
Essentialising mass murders and shootings with everyday men and boys and implying that, for each of them, their own masculinity will transform them into bloodthirsty terrorists if "toxic" (concept so vague I personally can't seriously consider it)... that's just undefensible.
Generalizing the case of a psychopathic and murderous man to all men and labelling them all as potential terrorists. Please.

I still don't understand how you could give credit to such reasoning.

On criticism and opinion, I don't understand your approach either. Are you trying to exempt Sarkeesian videos from criticism and defending lies and catastrophists interpretations based on nothing but ideology? She certainly has the right to express her opinions, like everyone else, but don't expect people to not react against her mediocre assesments.

Criticism is not a science, but for someone who values exactitude and really wants to understand a phenomenon, critics based on facts, honesty, knowledge of the subject matter and ideological neutrality are far better than others based on nothing.
That's what differencies a just analyst from a snakeoil salesman or a fanatised predicator.

And concerning your conclusion... Frankly, and with all due respect, I find it ridiculous.
Earlier you depicted Sarkeesian as an art critic and a videogame critic (a point I disagree with), and now you're saying that the characters, the backstory , the background, the game mechanics etc. of the very videogames she's supposedly analyzing are worthless for that said analysis.... because they don't exist in real life ?
Really ?

I expect from any analyst or critic a basic knowledge of the material they're analyzing and criticizing, be it real or fictional. Sarkesian, not only fails at that, but also always tries do demonize anything she could relate to "patriarchy". Even if it means outright lying and labelling everything as sexist in the process.

Just looking at her Hitman analysis.
Anyone who actually played one of the game of the franchise knows that stealth is valued over brutality and blind murder. Not surprising, coming from a stealth game involving an assassin main protagonist.
Without any basic knowledge of the subject and with a huge pinch of integrism, these games became some sort of horrid playground rewarding the player for murdering women (which is false) and satisfying the necrophiliac pulsions of the average male gamer (which is utterly stupid and absurd).
Jack Thompson was a small player compared to her, and I don't even exagerate.

Opinions and critics are a two way street. And criticizing or mocking Sarkeesian's dubious critics aren't a bad thing in my book.

His arguments being
1.Anita was harassed, so she can be unethical
2.Anita was harassed so people reporting on her can be unethical
3.Anita is taking everything out of context and spinning it into her own narrative, but she has the right to lie about whatever she wants when there are 100% debunkings of her theories
4.The MSM would cover GG positively if it was about ethics. lol are some NBC fanboy or shill or something?
5.Art is subjective; so saying 2+2=7 is correct
6.Shills do opinion pieces on GG on youtube and rationalwiki so they're also correct
7.GG opinions are not correct because Hitler says so
8.Citing tard biased websites as source and citing UNRESEARCHED OPINION PIECES AS SOURCES WHILE NOT WANTNING TO LOOK INTO CLAIMS OTHERWISE.
9.Tim Sockpuppet is an working established game developer and his opinion is more equal than yours
10.All opinions except GG opinions are correct

So more or less a very dumb troll who cannot distinguish between opinions and facts or a troll trying to get his superiority fix shilling for Anita.

Never addresses any arguments and just goes on making more and more claims. Not very smart; but who said the women of the world need a smart person to save them from the patriarchy? Note how he never addresses any arguments against aGG but doubles down on rebuttals of his own claims with more claims and links opinion pieces as sources.

Indeed. A classification/description/proposal/interpretation of tropes/stereotypes in narrative media is not to be understood as "fact" and only very dumb trolls refuse to understand that for three years and hundreds of thread pages.

If gamergate supporters finally attempted to put Tropes vs. Women in the correct scientific context, we may even have a discourse. But, no, apparently a subjective interpretation (that heavily relies on trope recognition on the side of the viewer) consists of "facts" which can be "proved" or "disproved" or "exposed" as "lies".

You don't have the toolset to understand Tropes vs. Women. And that won't change, because you don't want to touch those tools.

I got news for 'em, Britain took a knee long ago in their fight against the men with wild facial hair. They just happened to be an offshoot version of the Soviet Union that happened to keep the Romanovs around.

So it cannot be a fact or unproven claim but can only be description / proposal / classification? For people trying push inclusion up everyone's ass; you don't seem to have the tools to deal with multiplicity of descriptions yourself.

When was Marx ever out of fashion? All students of (good) economical schools - yes even the most radical capitalistic think tanks - are required to read Marx, because in his time he was fucking brilliant and most of his analysis in Capital is valid until today. And most of the things wrong in Capital were put there by Engels after Marx's' death.
There is no scientific context with Tropes vs. Women, let alone a "correct" one. Reading any basic book about psychology will show you that the context only it can be put in is as an example for confirmation bias.

And no, I'm not in any way associated with gamergate. For me Sarkeesian and Tropes vs. Women have very little to do with gamergate, other than Sarkeesian jumping onto the Anti-GG bandwagon and screaming "misogynist" at both her critics and GG people.

She will never make an episode that woudn't be debunked. Because then it wouldn't be brain dead clickbait trash that pays her bills.

Brutal but true.

Pay her bills... and vote for her. That time will come. Senator Sarkeesian might be a term we have to brace ourselves for.

2045. Earth. Galactic Matriarch Anita Sarkeesian addresses the Alien council over the offensive nature of Gleep-Glop's giant phallic shaped space tentacle. Earth's last surviving male human was not available for comment, as he is currently on the run and believed to be in hiding.

Apparently your trolling and contempt for other people have made you a very very stupid person. Certainly things Anita claims can be factually disproven, but once again an ignorant fool chooses to ignore that. For example, when Anita claims that every possible action a player can take in a game is both planned and expected by the developers, that clearly is false. But yet here we have our resident troll claiming "everything is subjective" so it cannot be debunked. And the sky is orange and the grass purple. Almost all of her analysis can be debunked just by taking what she claims for female avatars and applying it to male avatars in comparison.

Yet, here we have some ignorant troll once again stupidly claiming Anita is immune to counter-argument "because it's subjective" or "because she's a critic". Both completely fallacious claims...

The one here "lacking a toolset" seems to be you. I think you should try to save one of the last two brain cells you may have left...

Strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman. Not what I said.

The basic methodology of her series is the proposal of stereotypical character types.
I can not prove the existence of a stereotype.
You can not prove that it doesn't exist.
Ohhhhhhh.

Didn't get out of that all ad hominem rhetoric yet, did ya. Here's an ad hominem for you: You're boring.

Too bad you didn't read a book about psychology, but went to gamergate school instead. They taught you fancy words there, certainly! But they were pretty shit at teaching you their meaning. And I assure you, "confirmation bias" is not the same as "basic premise".

When I hear the word "debunk" alone. Neanderthals thinking themselves intellectually superior if they manage to smash something with a stone.


[Edit May 9th, 2016: Removed one instance of inappropriate, derogatory name calling]

You of all people calling others out for ad hominem attacks...
I guess calling everyone in this thread "very dumb trolls" isn't one in your idiotic stupid and unintelligent mind...

Who gives a shit about what you claim her basic methodology is when she is outright wrong on so many points. Or that most of what she claims as stereotype are also true of the males in the same games...clearly this makes the bulk of her arguments logically false and thus "disproven"...

The fact you are so stupid as to claim its impossible to "disprove" her begs the question. Someone clearly dropped you on your head as a child, because you certainly have a screw loose.

Its rather funny how these SJWs make these ridiculous claims...
Like there is no such thing as a SJW...or no one can disprove Anita, its impossible...or that only the special SJW flowers can understand enough of what Anita is saying to understand it. They get these dumb arguments out of their echo-chambers and since no one there disagrees with them, they foolishly think they have some merit...

Vain, you are nothing but a useless troll. You say absolutely nothing in your trolling and contemptuous posts and then post the foolish claim you are saying a lot and no one is smart enough to listen...

RWarehall
How was the article "biased" exactly?

Also this quote jumped out at me when he was probed regarding criticism of Absolution's lurid nature"I think that if you take computer games as a medium, I think it’s super good to be critical about what we do in general. I think the tone of what we’re doing here is a little bit different to Absolution. Absolution was in many ways a game that was over the top, and here I’m speaking in a general sense. Everything was just a little bit more crazy […] So what we wanted to do this time around is create a world that feels a little more grounded. "

I also really don't feel like going through 260+ pages to find these debunkings you are talking about. Could post links to them please?

arrjayjee
YouTube comments are the only means of communication on the internet. There's e-mail, and there's Twitter. Now if it is ethics that you only care about, answer me this. What has Anita Sarkeesian (who is not games journalist mind you) done that was unethical?

Tza
Toxic Masculinity doesn't encompass all of masculinity. It's cretin aspects of it there are pretty bad. Like seeing emotion as a weakness, or that women exist for competition. As a man I don't want to be associated with those concepts, and the idea that 'boys will be boys" is no excuse for this kind of things. Men , and women are not defined but what is expected of them because of there gender. There are positive aspects to masculinity, and those should be worth striving for.

Curious, to you what are some "positive" aspects to masculinity?