Reading further down in that twitter post actually details why those tweets needed to be deleted. What Sushi was doing is called Sea-Lioning and is considered as Spam under Twitter's rules.
As I was reading through your post, I had a lot to say... but then I came upon this little nugget here.
Mashiki cut off her quote to just "everything is sexist/racist/homophobic" to summarize her idea. You disagree, but instead of showing a different idea, you just talk about a different approach (that is, seeing all that sexism as systems, individual vs societal levels). That's not a new idea. That's a new approach to promote her idea that there's sexism in our society.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you really suggesting there's not sexism in our society? That people do not suffer discrimination based on their sex/gender? That's the only way I can think of her promoting the idea that there's sexism in our society is a bad thing. If you think it's a lie, then of course you're going to think what she's doing is evil.
And if you really DO think that's a lie, then I'm concerned for the people around you. Are there no women in your life? Have you never spoken to one who's had to deal with men in the workplace? Have you never watched a commercial trying to use breasts to sell hamburgers/cars/web hosting? (Seriously, GoDaddy alone is a prime example...) We live in a world where you can get erectile dysfunction medicine for free on your health plan, but you have to pay an additional tax just to get pads or tampons for your period. Wait... Roosh, is that you?
We shall now return to our regularly scheduled post. (But seriously, holy shit, dude. What the fuck?)
You can't help? No, there are plenty of ways you can help. It's called understanding what an analogy is and isn't. It's called getting a sense of humor. There are plenty of ways you can do to help yourself be more capable of understanding what other people meant in their words.
My Star Wars analogy was to show that changing approaches is orthogonal to changing underlying ideas and beliefs. You spent the rest of your post talking about a bunch of other things you THINK my analogy meant to show, when I never meant any of those things. This is extra funny and sad because this sub-discussion is over what Anita meant, and here you are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what I meant.
Oh, I know you were making an analogy- the problem is, it's a pretty fukken shit analogy. No one compares someone to Hitler because that person's art is bad. The people/things/objects you choose to make an analogy with have meaning beyond what you intended. As for the lack of a sense of humor, it's not my fault your joke sucks. It did give me a good opportunity to practice my Vader impression though when reading your post to my coworkers... that was good for a laugh, so thanks, I think.
Indeed, which is why my analogy was not meant to make that comparison. As I said above, whatever you think I meant by my analogy is fiction in your head.
Again, not my fault your analogy sucks. Just for your future reference, here's what analogy means:
analogy
a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification. "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
a correspondence or partial similarity. "the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects. "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
Choose your analogies carefully, and be mindful of who you make comparisons to. I'm actually a little surprised you didn't jump right to Hitler, but hey, at least Vader was redeemable.
Well, the only one using that example is you.
Eh, so it's not an "example". Poor word choice on my part, but largely irrelevant to the content of the discussion. I won't begrudge you for nitpicking, I've got so many other things to begrudge you over.
Nonsense. I'm the one who pointed out that it's not her changing approach that matters, but her underlying ideas.
That may be true if you'd actually been clear in what you meant- again, using Vader really muddied your analogy in a discussion where muddied waters are sort of the point. That's exactly what that six second clip is meant to do- not to show what her approach is, it's trying to convince people that it contains Anita's underlying idea. Unfortunately, without the context around it- the idea of systems, sociology, etc., people will actually believe that she thinks EVERYTHING IS EVIL. It's not. And you'd know that if you watched her videos/read her words with an open mind. No, I suppose you'd rather not take an approach that could cause you to question your beliefs and past actions.
As is her new approach. That's my point. What approach you take to promote an idea doesn't change what your ideas are.
Her old approach was "everything is sexist/racist/homophobic and you got to point it all out" Her new approach is "individual and societal/systematic sexism"
Mashiki cut off her quote to just "everything is sexist/racist/homophobic" to summarize her idea. You disagree, but instead of showing a different idea, you just talk about a different approach (that is, seeing all that sexism as systems, individual vs societal levels). That's not a new idea. That's a new approach to promote her idea that there's sexism in our society.
We've already gone over what I think about your statement here. It's frightening. And beyond that, the quote from youtube isn't summarizing her idea at all- but we've gone over that time and time again already.
Wrong on its face. I don't have to have a problem with Anita's ideas to point out that you have failed to refuted Mashiki.
Not quite as wrong as you think it may be- especially since if you DIDN'T have a problem with her already, you'd see how incredibly important the context of what she's saying is. The full quote is more than enough to refute(d?) Mashiki. See? I didn't even have to put in effort to refute him, the rest of the panel's video does that just fine.
After you. It was you who had to show you have an understanding on what Anita mean to Mashiki. You haven't. I'm just pointing it out before he does (I'm sure he's a big boy and could defend himself if he wished)
Until YOU can show an understanding of her ideas, it's pointless for me to try and discuss those ideas with you.
Looks like we're just going to have to disagree on whether or not we understand Anita. As for Mashiki defending himself, he's done a pretty piss-poor job so far. I'd say he should send you a thank you note with a fruit basket, but frankly your defense hasn't exactly been impressive either. Just... long. At least he tried posting "evidence"- though unfortunately for him, none of it offered any proof (and so far has only served to hurt his cause.)
That's a problem on your part. My post had more than that, but you've been consistently bad at understanding what other people mean.
That's also why I called you ignorant. I'm not saying it to hurt you. I'm saying it to drive the point that it is you who is so terribly terribly wrong.
Apologies, let me rephrase that- all I got from your comment that's useful or relevant is that you're a fan of Star Wars. Everything else was shitty analogy, shitty humor, and lackluster logic.
...? Are you serious? There's not a damn thing to support your statement in the link you provided, just several statements she made regarding the shit she and other women have had to deal with. And she's right about all of it, too.
It's bullshit to be labeled a "professional victim" just because you're willing to talk about the abuse you've had to put up with.
Assuming she doesn't play games because she's a woman is pretty sexist- and before you bring up the 2010 quote, she references gaming earlier in her life (unless you think playing NES games doesn't count.) Honestly I wouldn't call MYSELF a gamer either... not if it means being associated with people like you.
The games press is in no way obligated to allow people to post whatever shit they want (harassment, abuse, etc). There's a private business and should probably take down things like rape threats and well, anything that violates their ToS if they're so inclined. She's not saying "if you disagree with me about gaemz, you should be silenced!" She's saying "Women shouldn't have to put up with violence/abuse when they're just trying to talk about games."
She's also right about the Bayonetta reviews- not a whole lot said about the sexism of the games. There's an interesting aspect/dynamic to it regarding female sexual empowerment, but given that Nintendo worked with playboy for professional Bayonetta cosplay, you can't tell me THAT was about making female gamers feel good about themselves.
And hey, in the last quote she's not even talking about games! Just about how many mass shootings in the US are committed by men, especially men who feel royally butthurt over not getting laid. I kinda wished she'd mentioned the entitlement so many men feel, but that's for another discussion entirely.
If you really want to prove what you're saying, you're going to need to provide waaaaay more evidence. When her job is being an activist and pointing shit like this out, you're going to see her POINTING SHIT OUT. That doesn't mean she's pointing it all out- all the time, constantly. That doesn't mean she thinks literally every game is sexist, or that each individual man is evil.
Though with the constant harassment/threats she receives, I'm not even sure I'd blame her at this point. How dare she be a woman who talks about our precious vidja gaemz in a negative light!
So what? So she changed her approach. She isn't changing her underlying ideas and beliefs.
Darth Vader:
First off, I can't help but think someone who was bent on controlling the Galaxy isn't really an apt comparison to someone who wants better representation in video games, but that's as relevant to the conversation as, well, the rest of your post, I guess. (Which is to say, not at all.)
I sort of joke about how it was the most liberating thing that's ever happened to me, and the most frustrating for everyone around me. Everybody's faith is lacking, everybody's power is insignificant next to the power of the Force, and I've got to point it all out in the form of choking people to death.
Informing people that there are systems of oppression/sexism/racism/homophobia/take your pick isn't QUITE the same as murder. I know you're just using this as an example, but it's rare I see an equivalence that's quite THIS false.
And then you settle into it, you start to understand these people have been living within these systems of Imperial Rule, with the Stormtrooper Academy for Marksmanship. So now I pick and choose my battles. I only choke people HALF to death. And I just cut off my son's hand and offer him to overthrow the Emperor with me. A new approach!
Ignoring again how irrelevant your example is (in that there's a big difference between pointing out problems in our society and outright MURDER), you're once more willfully ignoring the context in which this statement was made- which is to say, the difference between sexism on an individual level, and on a societal (systematic) level. She is not saying "That black pen on the desk is homophobic!", she's not saying "Eating chinese food is racist!", and she's not saying "AC's Slave Leia body pillow is sexist!"
You: But look, Vader is saying his old approach is not ACTUALLY useful way to approach issues!
Her old approach is largely irrelevant to how she is now, and there's only a problem if you think her underlying ideas and beliefs are a problem. So far, you haven't actually shown me that you UNDERSTAND her ideas and beliefs. Hell, you haven't even shown me you understand basic sociology. All I got from your comment is that you're a fan of Star Wars.
Yeah, Mashiki's right. You are ignorant.
I'd be hurt... if I had any real care for what you thought of me. In a world where I require your opinion for personal validation, I'd be devastated! You can call me names and insult me if you'd like- but it doesn't make you any less wrong.
I used it to show what you REALLY WERE saying.
Feel free to go look up the entire context of that, I'll await as you prove yourself to be as ignorant as your comment is.
Done. As it turns out, AmiMojo is completely right in that she's saying the opposite of what the clip you posted suggests. The quote below comes from the point of the panel referenced in the youtube clip, in which she discusses her initially learning about feminism, and then growing from that starting point into trying to do actual good.
"I sort of joke about how it was the most liberating thing that's ever happened to me, and the most frustrating for everyone around me. Everything is sexist, everything is racist, and everything is homophobic, and you have to point all out, to everyone, all the time. So there's a good year of my life where I was just the most obnoxious person to be around.
And then you settle into it, you start to understand that people have been living within these systems, and it was just sort of a liberating moment for me, and you learn how to pick and choose your battles, and that sort of thing, but, I think that's the critical piece here that we have to understand this as systems. And I really like what you're saying, because that's fundamentally challenging power dynamics. We don't want equality within these oppressive systems, we want to create actual real equity. "
She's saying that the approach in the clip you posted isn't ACTUALLY a useful way to approach issues (and how awful she was when she was acting like that.) She makes it very clear that she doesn't approve of the approach you're ascribing to her. Specifically this is in reference to another part of the discussion, in which she's talking about the differences between sexism/oppression and individual choice versus those same things as a system (so, sociology.) The only way to come to the conclusion you've chosen is to either only watch the 6 second clip, or to willfully misinterpret her words in order to reinforce your predetermined conclusion of her/her cause/feminism/what have you.
I wish
to spew bullshit.
Funny how clever editing that removes context works. The youtuber used it to say what they wanted people to think Anita was saying.
I used it to show what you REALLY WERE saying.
"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
