Cash
-
Posts
1,604 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Cash
-
-
Since it's Christmas already...
Tables, next time you log in to Steam, accept a friend request from me (it's either CashandChange or coldsithmaster) so I can buy you your gifts! Sorry I didn't buy you something earlier, but I've been sick the past few weeks. I didn't forget!
-
I've been sick the past couple weeks, so sadly I didn't get a chance to finish my mix.
-
I've been sick recently, and still recovering now, so I haven't had a chance to do Secret Santa. My recipient should be getting their gift before Christmas, but there's a slight chance it could be after.
-
-
-
That's a pretty sweet collection wildfire, I think my favorite one there is the slime with the slime hat!
-
I... don't understand what you're saying, I'm sorry. How is "impact" excluded from "causation"? Are you saying that while correlation is absolved from implying causation, it is not absolved from arbitrary degrees of "affecting"? I feel like that undermines the whole point of the distinction between correlation and causation, which is that just because you see two things share a pattern does not necessarily mean they have anything to do with each other. That's Statistics 101 (like, it actually is, you learn that in Statistics 101).
This took me a few reads to understand what you were getting at, even though I agree with you. I believe you're trying to describe a distinction between perfect and partial correlation.
I'm actually not really sure what point I was trying to make, it made sense when I wrote it. Now that I read it again, it's confusing, so nevermind.
-
I DID miss it, possibly because a good number of those references (Kuchera, etc.) are just op-eds.
As for the actual studies, which of those links do you think provides "all the evidence" for a "profound impact"? Point me to the smoking gun that would back that sort of statement up.
None of them speak to causation, only correlation... some are with relatively small sample sizes... and as I mentioned, there exist studies that don't even find any correlation (http://kotaku.com/what-to-make-of-a-study-about-gaming-and-sexism-1698543308 - with a relatively large sample size).
I was responding to your statement that she didn't cite her sources. I'm not claiming there's a smoking gun, nor am I claiming Anita perfectly represented the availible evidence. I should point out though that 6 out of the 12 links are studies, and 2 of the links (in addition to the 6) are articles about other studies. There is in fact only one opinion piece.
(edit: forgot the other stuff I had written here before)
In any case, maybe she shouldn't have used the word "profound", or any words that imply more certitude than is warranted given the evidence. You can certainly make an argument that she overstated the evidence. However, this does not invalidate her points, and I don't think it should cause her arguments to be dismissed outright (which I don't think you're doing, just a general point).
-
Did you read the quote I provided? From http://feministfrequency.com/2014/06/16/women-as-background-decoration-tropes-vs-women/
I'm going to keep this simple:
- Talks about "profound impacts" without explaining why they're profound, or even what they are...
- Mentions "all the evidence" without explaining or citing what it is..
As I said in a previous post (maybe you missed it), she did cite the evidence. On the page you linked, the links and resources section, at the top.
-
That is absolutely NOT the implication; your logic is faulty. Read this quote of yours back to yourself; the implication was only that I think that depictions of people in art CAN be objectified, and that such objectification is not inherently bigoted. Deriving anything else from my statement was just blind extrapolation on your part.
I think the misunderstanding may have been here:
Native Jovian:
I wasn't giving objectification an out as not inherently sexist -- it is, the word "objectification" literally means that you're reducing somebody to an object instead of a person, which is inherently bigoted.djp response
Wait... what? What the what? WHAT?
Why is objectification inherently bigoted? Classical art and sculpture, which during certain eras was much more egalitarian in its focus on both female & male forms, was inherently bigoted? Painting the human form is inherently bigoted? Pornography is inherently bigoted? Uhhhh.... why? Because you said so?
Major disconnect; don't see where you're coming from.. at all. Objectification can certainly be paired with bigotry, and potentially exacerbate it, but it is not inherently bigoted... appreciating the pure aesthetics of the human form has been a classical & modern tradition in art for centuries; try not to shit on it...
I can see how your response can be interpreted as believing that the definition of objectification is depicting people in works of art. In response to Native Jovian's use of the word objectifification, you express surprise that he thought depicting people in art is bigoted. You use examples of artistic depictions of the human form in reference to the use of the word objectification. This statement in particular:
"Objectification can certainly be paired with bigotry, and potentially exacerbate it, but it is not inherently bigoted... appreciating the pure aesthetics of the human form has been a classical & modern tradition in art for centuries"
I can see how this statement, coupled with the above statements, could be seen as implying that the definition of objectification is depicting people in art (which is what I concluded at first glance). In the same sentence, you use the word objectification and appear to define it as "appreciating the pure aesthetics of the human form". Perhaps that was not your intent, but it doesn't seem like a stretch to conclude that you were defining objectification as depicting people in art.
Perhaps you thought Native Jovian was using was "depictions of people in art" as the definition of objectification? Maybe you took Native Jovian's use of the word "object" to mean an image or likeness of a person; a depiction of the human form. Native Jovian's response explaining what he meant by objectification seemed to makes sense to me perhaps you felt differently.
Native Jovian
You're taking the term "objectification" way too literally. Painting a picture or carving a sculpture of someone is not objectification. Yes, you're creating an object that depicts that person, but you're not reducing that person to an object.What objectification means is that you're considering people as things that you can use to fulfill your desires (or threaten them) rather than as people with thoughts and feelings of their own. If you treat women as "a thing I can have sex with" and nothing more, then you're objectifying women. If you treat black people as "a thing that might rob me" and nothing more, then you're objectifying black people. If you treat Muslims as "a thing that might target me with a terrorist attack" and nothing more, then you're objectifying Muslims. All of that is bigoted.Perhaps this statement threw you off: "Yes, you're creating an object that depicts that person, but you're not reducing that person to an object." I can see how this statement could viewed as unclear. Maybe it would have been clearer had he said "Yes, you're creating an object that depicts that person, but you're not reducing that person to a thing that you can use to fulfill your desires", as he said below. I can see how the conversation could be thrown off if you were unclear/mistaken as to what Native Jovian meant by "object".
This is all speculation on my part and I could be completely wrong, but this is how I interpreted the discussion. I hope none of this comes across as condescending, I just thought another perspective might help clear up the miscommunication.
-
She's CLEARLY invoking the shoddily-researched, inconclusive, uncited BOOGEYMAN of the corrupting power of art & media, here... see it for what it is, please???
Andy, you too...
Andy used the word "fearmongering" earlier... to me, THIS is fearmongering.
She linked (on the page you linked) to quite a few studies that back up her arguments, that suggests to me that Anita didn't just get on camera and start ranting without any evidence. Maybe the research she linked isn't reliable, but that seems difficult to determine without actually reading those studies.
This wasn't "Anita Sarkeesian decrees", but rather research, which was cited, shows. She's not just making shit up. Believe or not, people have actually researched what she is talking about.
I'm not saying one way or another whether her argument is sound or not, only that research exits to support it. I am in agreement that art does not cause people to act a certain way. However, in my mind, the idea that art has zero impact on society is as equally absurd as saying video games cause people to carry out certain behavoirs.
By the way, I would say "profoundly impacts" and "caused by" are two different things. Claiming games and other media influence/reinforce already existing attitudes in a society is not the same thing as claiming that these media cause certain behavoirs.
-
There seems to a lot more people this year (thanks The Damned!
), definitely excited. It's great to see some new faces (new to me at least, I've done this for the last 2 years)! -
Holy shit there's still people who believe this wasn't all for profit and that there were victims. And people straight-face lying then right after saying "stop spouting crap".
Is this real life?
Yes, they were victims, no, this wasn't about profit.
According to you and others' false narrative, gaming doesn't have a problem with harrassment of women and protrayal of women. It's all overblown by scheming, manipulative, money-grubbing liars, who are "professional victims".
I doubt anything I say or link would change you mind from believing it. And you obviously believe I'm the one who believes a false narrative. There's no point in me continuing, and I've already said what I wanted to say anyway. Nor do I have the time to keep posting.
Feminist Frequency is legally a 501©3 non-profit charity, unless you think the website is also lying?
-
Literally all of the information in that video is simply discussing objective facts - things that have actually happened. You have all the access to the same info he does and that info is coming right from Feminist Frequency and Zoe Quinn.
In the actual feminist frequency 2014 report, they refer to the money received via donation as "revenue" which literally means income as a business and here is a quote right above those charts
"We only made necessary purchases for production/research needs and we were paid bare minimum salaries, volunteering much of our time to the organization."
"We were paid bare minimum salaries"
"Paid bare minimum salaries"
"Paid...Salaries"
Whatever "minimum" is, is not defined and nor is said what "administrative" costs entail, but Anita openly is admitting here that she and maybe some of her underlings do pay their bills with this. There is also nothing stopping her from giving everyone a pay raise - you giving her your money at this point gives her every right to use it as she sees fit. Her company made over 400,000 last year and only had 64,000 in expenditures.
If a company pulling in nearly half a million in a year with expenses less than 100,000 and paying some "staff" with it doesn't count as "profit" to you, then you are simply delusional. OCR provides transparency in exactly how the money is used and I'm pretty sure aren't worth over half a million. They also aren't saying "Yeah, we pay Larry a "bare minimum salary" which even if they did, we'd all know it was in McRibs.
Zoe Quinn has also made a shitload via the gamergate thing as also evidence in that video so she's in the same boat as Anita.
The facts aren't my issue with the video, it's the conclusions that were drawn. The shit about being a "professional victim" in order to make money is the disgusting part.
Non-profits don't exist for the purpose of profit. That's what makes a company a non-profit, any excess revenue has to be put back into the company to support its projects or to save for future expenses. Technically speaking, yes, extra revenue is profit, but not in the same way as a for-profit company. The are some restrictions on how a non-profit can use that extra revenue/profit. One of those restrictions is not being allowed to give that extra money to company owners. Anita is not lining her pockets with money. That 2014 reports supports this. And as you quoted, they paid bare minimum salaries, so I don't think Anita is getting rich off this.
If you look at the proposed budget for 2015, it aligns with the revenue made in 2014. As you can see, they plan on using the money that they made to continue the company's work. That extra revenue came in the last quarter of 2014, the first three quarters made less money than the total expeditures. Meaning that the company, up until October, was spending about the same amount as it was taking in. It also wasn't "nearly half a million", the company took in less then 380k when you factor in the expenses. That, by the way, is 20k less than 2015's proposed budget of 400k.
In the next paragraph down from the one you quoted: "This unexpected increase in revenue will allow us to dedicate these new resources in 2015 to expanding Feminist Frequency’s writing and support staff as well as our programming." This extra revenue was unexpected, there wasn't some sinister plot behind the scenes. That increase in donations coincides with the extensive harrassment she was recieving. Like I said in my last post, the harrassment caused the extra attention and outpouring of support in the form of donations. It was not due to her being a "professional victim", which is such a disgusting term.
No, I don't consider paying staff to be profit, because it's not. Profit is by definition revenue after expenses, salaries are an expense. You and others in this thread are acting like for-profit and non-profit companies are the same thing, they're not. You're trying to find dirt and controversy where there is none. This whole argument that you and others in the thread are making is just grasping at straws. Just more of the same gamergate shit, side stepping the arguments made by these women, and attacking her as a person. Trying and failing to discredit her, and in the end giving here more supporters.
-
If we're talking about making profit off gamergate (which I thought people were), how is the Tropes vs Women kickstarter, which was funded 2 years before gamergate, relevant?
The amount of complete crap in that "professional victims" video is vomit-inducing. The victim blaming in it is disgusting.
People are donating to Feminist Frequency, a non-profit company, donations aren't profit. That money goes back into the company (like any non-profit) in order to continue the Tropes vs Women series and other work. She's not just pocketing the money. Maybe a point could be made if Feminist Frequency hadn't made a single video, but that's not the case.
That's like claiming donations recieved by OCR are profit. By that logic, OCR's Balance and Ruin kickstarter was all about the profit, and OCR staff pocketed the cash. No, the money goes back into maintaining the site, just as the donations recieved by Feminist Frequency go back into the organization and towards continuing to make content.
If your accussations of profit stem from donations recieved by a non-profit organization that continues to produce free content, you're grasping at straws. Is it so inconcievable that people actually support Anita's content and that being the target of endless harassment could lead to an increase in support? People love to paint her as a manipulative mastermind that played the victim card to rake in cash from gullable idiots. Yet it was these types of accussations and a campaign of harrassment (shit like this) that led to a huge increase in support and recognition. This whole gamergate embarassment propeled her into national headlines, not anything that she did. That video lazygecko posted sums it up pretty well.
-
Gamergate started because the ex-boyfriend of a female game developer, Zoe Quinn, posted an angry rant full of bullshit acusations about her. It then morphed into a campaign of harrassment directed at (mainly) female game developers and activists who dared to speak out about the portrayal of women in video games. Developers and activists such as Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, and others faced constant harrassment across social media and other online platforms (such as YouTube). Complete with numerous death threats, and leaking of personal information, while calling for violence against them. These women are absolutely victims of sustained harrassment.
These accussations of profit are completely absurd. None of these women made a profit. People keep talking about profit, yet never provide any evidence. Who made money? How do people know they made money?
This idea that these wanted the attention is disgusting. They wanted contant harrassment and continous death threats? They wanted to have their addresses posted online and have people call for and threaten their murder and for the murder of their families?
RE: on opportunists who relish attention being thinly veiled victim blaming
See: the book and movie
Also very much of the accusations were fabricated, see: Brianna Wu, who posted her own information on 8chan then claimed to have been doxxed.
To blame a victim there must be a victim.
All I see is profit!Stop spouting crap. She didn't posted her own info. She absolutely was a victim.
-
Ditto!
A well advertised monthly one with a few featured remixers would probably see more patronage than the weekly format the show had.
Yeah, I think I'd like that. I watched most talkbacks, but sometimes I didn't bother because I was busy or wanted to do other things at the time. I probably would be more likely to catch a talkback if it were more of a special occassion, like a monthly format. Plus I'd imagine it would be a lot easier to organize and find available remixers.
-
Been about 6 months since the last talkback, any plans to do more in the future? I'd love to see a comeback at some point!
-
- Cash
Flight of the Peacock (Cyber Peacock in Observatory Hall [X])
Go Ahead And Jump (Vanishing Gungaroo in Observatory Hall [X])
Disco is NOT Dead, Disco is a Giant Metal Seahorse (Toxic Seahorse in Observatory Hall [X])
Wily's Rejects -
Thought the deadline was 5:30 for some reason, just submitted now.
-
- Cash
Probe (Tunnel Rhino in Cyber Maze Core [X5])
Cyberfunk (Splash Warfly in Cyber Maze Core [X5])
This is Illegal, You Know (Blizzard Wolfang in Cyber Maze Core [X5])
Wily's Rejects -
Hey guys, due to some severe family related stuff I won't be remixing this week, Cash will be taking my place instead.
Just to add to this, our plan is to have Supercoolmike remix in round 8, and Trism remix in the final round.
-
- Cash
Palace Of The Beast (Slash Beast in Sigma Palace [X8])
Chiral (Spiral Pegacion in Sigma Palace [X8])
Requiem for a Reploid (Shield Sheldon in Sigma Palace [X8])
Wily's Rejects -
- Cash
Mind Flip~ (Cyber Peacock in Final Weapon [X4])
Vector Point Engineering Sigma Fortress (Blizzard Buffalo in Final Weapon [X4])
Space Base (Shining Hotaronicus in Final Weapon [X4])
Wily's Rejects
OCR Secret Santa 2015
in General Discussion
Posted
I got my gift from theshaggyfreak last week, but forgot to post! He got me a nice handcrafted finger piano, thanks theshaggyfreak! Much appreciated!