htown1980: Or do you really think correlation implies causation?
hedwards: 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.
I agree with this pretty much 100%.
hedwards: 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.
I could not disagree with this more. Correlation never implies causality, its just a logical fallacy.
htown1980: 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?
hedwards: 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.
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.
htown1980: 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.
hedwards: 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.
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.
hedwards: Correlation is not causation really only applies to things like (...)
Vestin: 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!
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 ;)