What do you guys think? does she deserve it or not?
Forums / Discussion / General
232,594 total conversations in 7,776 threads
Anita Sarkeesian was named the 100 Most Influential People by Time recently.
Last posted
May 04, 2015 at 11:40PM EDT.
Added
Apr 17, 2015 at 10:22PM EDT
53 posts
from
30 users
Well, technically, she is influential. I mean, look at her patreon – she's duped so many stupid people into believing she's legit.
pug on toast
Deactivated
GamerGate BTFO
Samekichi Kiseki wrote:
What do you guys think? does she deserve it or not?
When nearly 80% of people have voted for her not to be on this list, she doesn't deserve it, AT ALL.
But then again, the list contains random J-pop singers, something is indeed rigged.
Feminism and gender politics have become the hot button issues in the last couple of years, especially online, so it was reasonable that they included Sarkeesian. After all, who else springs to mind as readily (especially with the shake-up that GamerGate caused) when online feminist activism is mentioned as she does?
Keep in mind that the TIME 100 judges decide purely on the basis of influence; the people "honored" could have influenced the world either positively or negatively, or both. Regardless of how much Sarkeesian's views align with your own, it is undeniable that she is extremely well-known and influential. Thanks in part (or in majority, I suppose) to her opponents churning out countless videos criticizing her and posting low-quality "evidence montage" images meticulously detailing everything she says or does in order to reap sweet karma points. I'm looking at you, GamerGate. You have nobody but yourselves to blame.
Particle Mare wrote:
Feminism and gender politics have become the hot button issues in the last couple of years, especially online, so it was reasonable that they included Sarkeesian. After all, who else springs to mind as readily (especially with the shake-up that GamerGate caused) when online feminist activism is mentioned as she does?
Keep in mind that the TIME 100 judges decide purely on the basis of influence; the people "honored" could have influenced the world either positively or negatively, or both. Regardless of how much Sarkeesian's views align with your own, it is undeniable that she is extremely well-known and influential. Thanks in part (or in majority, I suppose) to her opponents churning out countless videos criticizing her and posting low-quality "evidence montage" images meticulously detailing everything she says or does in order to reap sweet karma points. I'm looking at you, GamerGate. You have nobody but yourselves to blame.
Why do so many people believe GG is targeting Sarkeesian? People have been against her views for years on this industry. You really think people will allow a person to control developers of an industry she has openly says she was never a fan of?
But tell me again, how "Low Quality" the evidence is against her in facts and analysis.
rikameme
Deactivated
Congrats GamerGate, you did it!
rikameme wrote:
Congrats GamerGate, you did it!
Nope, Wil Wheaton did……
unusedusername wrote:
Why do so many people believe GG is targeting Sarkeesian? People have been against her views for years on this industry. You really think people will allow a person to control developers of an industry she has openly says she was never a fan of?
But tell me again, how "Low Quality" the evidence is against her in facts and analysis.
You're mistaken if you believe that my post was referring to GamerGate solely; I was pointing it out as a prime example. GG's fight with Sarkeesian over control of the dialogue on the GamerGate controversy is only one of many examples of her enjoying an elevated level of fame as a result of the opposition to her, and little more.
The very fact that someone took the effort to dig up a clip from 2010 (alongside the fact that it caused a considerable shitstorm on the internet, if Google is any indication) is a single of countless examples of her opponents insisting that she is made the topic of conversation. And yet it's puzzling when she is called influential?
Also, as a gamer, I want the views of developers to be formed based on their own assessment of critique of the industry, because I know that they are intelligent adults capable of forming their own conclusions and not brainless puppets vulnerable to being coerced by Muh Cultural Marxism. But that's a different discussion.
Particle Mare wrote:
And yet it’s puzzling when she is called influential?
Yes. It is puzzling when a "critic" beats a Syrian's Children doctor, Academy Awarded Actors and Actresses, and Numerous Politicians and Humanitarians.
Natsuru Springfield
ModeratorSr. Forum Moderator & Karma Tycoon & Karma Philanthropist & Community Artist & Shrine Maiden
Whether or not "the people" at TIME actually support her, and if so to what degree, is irrelevant in that there's literally no way in a million years we'll actually find out. We all know the real reason she's there, and of course, as usual, the piece is written by an individual they brought in with no official association with the publication to keep it at just the right distance.
unusedusername wrote:
Particle Mare wrote:
And yet it’s puzzling when she is called influential?Yes. It is puzzling when a "critic" beats a Syrian's Children doctor, Academy Awarded Actors and Actresses, and Numerous Politicians and Humanitarians.
>Syrian’s Children doctor
Care to name who you're talking about specifically? Or do you mean the role in general? Because once again, "influence" and hence entry into the TIME 100 is judged simply by how prominent a person is in current culture, and not necessarily by the positive impact they've had. There's a reason why they used the word "influential" and not "best" or "greatest"; it's meant to be a gauge of popular culture and is therefore unsurprisingly filled with a generous share of Hollywood celebrities. Case in point: Kim Kardashian is on the list.
Once again, it's not Sarkeesian's fault that she's talked about as much as she is (Logic 101: if people stopped talking about her, she wouldn't be talked about). I would choose a humanitarian aid worker in a warzone as a better candidate for being named a good person than she is, but I won't deny the reality that there's a reason why I know her name and not the worker's; Sarkeesian is more influential.
@Natsuru Springfield
Remember moot and mARBLECAKE? Remember that time Kim Jong Un was voted Time's Person of the Year?
It's been announced time and time again that the poll has little if any impact on the final cut, which is decided by the editors of Time. As elitist as it may seem, they trust their professional analysts more than random netizens, Youtube commentators, or anons from 8chan.
There was this one video talking about Sarkeesian. i can't find it anymore, but it basically summed up my opinion on her and the whole situation. She would have NEVER gtten so famous if nerds hadn't lost their shit over her. If you pay attention before her kick-starter for her Damsel in Distress shit she was relatively unknown.
She was about as big as any other YouTube feminist. Then the nerds found her video. And lost their shit. I mean it. Death threats, just about every big name youtube ranter making videos "refuting" her claims, people searching for proof of her supposedly evil deeds. And this put her into the spot light. Notice how all the articles about her hardly mention the work she does and talk about the harassment she got. The people constantly wanting to fight and debate her. They were the ones who made her big.
tl;dr, if people had just learned to ignore sarkeesian from the start none of this would have happened.
TripleA9000 wrote:
There was this one video talking about Sarkeesian. i can't find it anymore, but it basically summed up my opinion on her and the whole situation. She would have NEVER gtten so famous if nerds hadn't lost their shit over her. If you pay attention before her kick-starter for her Damsel in Distress shit she was relatively unknown.
She was about as big as any other YouTube feminist. Then the nerds found her video. And lost their shit. I mean it. Death threats, just about every big name youtube ranter making videos "refuting" her claims, people searching for proof of her supposedly evil deeds. And this put her into the spot light. Notice how all the articles about her hardly mention the work she does and talk about the harassment she got. The people constantly wanting to fight and debate her. They were the ones who made her big.
tl;dr, if people had just learned to ignore sarkeesian from the start none of this would have happened.
But does "ignore it and it'll go away" really always work out? It's undeniable that she used all the attention from those that strongly disagreed and took a disliking to her ("the nerds"? Really dude? Is this fucking junior high?) to her advantage in our reality, but there are many other ways to get well known.
0.9999...=1 wrote:
But does "ignore it and it'll go away" really always work out? It's undeniable that she used all the attention from those that strongly disagreed and took a disliking to her ("the nerds"? Really dude? Is this fucking junior high?) to her advantage in our reality, but there are many other ways to get well known.
i say nerds because the grand majority of people who hate her were nerds. Do you see nerd as being a derogatory statement?
0.9999...=1 wrote:
But does "ignore it and it'll go away" really always work out? It's undeniable that she used all the attention from those that strongly disagreed and took a disliking to her ("the nerds"? Really dude? Is this fucking junior high?) to her advantage in our reality, but there are many other ways to get well known.
No publicity is bad publicity, the motto goes. She's primarily a Youtube commentator; people in her industry depend on views to their videos or they'll sink. I guarantee you that if you subtracted all of the people who trawled through her content searching carefully for things to discredit her with, her content wouldn't seem nearly as popular (view-wise) as they are.
TripleA9000 wrote:
i say nerds because the grand majority of people who hate her were nerds. Do you see nerd as being a derogatory statement?
There are dozens of different ways to define that word. Which one are you using? And I'd imagine that the person who says something like "the nerds found her video… and lost their shit" would be the one who sees it as a derogatory term.
Guys, please try to keep on topic. Wouldn't want to lock the thread this early.
0.9999...=1 wrote:
There are dozens of different ways to define that word. Which one are you using? And I'd imagine that the person who says something like "the nerds found her video… and lost their shit" would be the one who sees it as a derogatory term.
I see nerd in a neutral light. The people who hated Anita fell under the title of nerd. Because they had the characteristics of nerds. And i say lost their shit, because that's exactly what happened. But thats a discussion for a different day. The fact is is that people got mad at anita. Its like that phrase says "Haters make me famous" thats exactly what happened.
Blue Screen (of Death) wrote:
Well, whether it was good influence or bad. I certainly do think she has caused a massive influence of some kind.
Just look at all the dried lakebeds of salt she left behind!
I expected butthurt and I got exactly what I came for.
Also, whether or not people will want to admit it, Anita has been kinda influential, if counting making people mad as influential.
Particle Mare wrote:
No publicity is bad publicity, the motto goes. She's primarily a Youtube commentator; people in her industry depend on views to their videos or they'll sink. I guarantee you that if you subtracted all of the people who trawled through her content searching carefully for things to discredit her with, her content wouldn't seem nearly as popular (view-wise) as they are.
Yeah, I know. Let me put it a different way, if not her, then the ideas and attitude she represents were eventually going to find their way into the Zeitgeist for public debate somehow. That's just the fact of the current trend- the individual themself doesn't matter as much.
0.9999...=1 wrote:
Yeah, I know. Let me put it a different way, if not her, then the ideas and attitude she represents were eventually going to find their way into the Zeitgeist for public debate somehow. That's just the fact of the current trend- the individual themself doesn't matter as much.
I suppose you have a point in terms of broader society, but the topic here is the TIME 100, where the individual is everything.
Ignoring her wont work neither can criticizing her. She will still get money and publicity from being an expert of misinforming people. We should just leave her and hope she goes away.
unusedusername wrote:
When nearly 80% of people have voted for her not to be on this list, she doesn't deserve it, AT ALL.
But then again, the list contains random J-pop singers, something is indeed rigged.
When nearly 80% of people are so salty that they vote for her not to be on the list, she definitely deserved it.
RandomMan wrote:
When nearly 80% of people are so salty that they vote for her not to be on the list, she definitely deserved it.
Ah, the ol' Fred Durst mentality. No press is bad press.
Particle Mare wrote:
Care to name who you’re talking about specifically?
Sarkeesian Beat Tom Catena, a Children's Doctor from Syria, who works in War-torn Sudan.
Trollanort
Deactivated
….
In the words of AlphaOmegaSin, she may be a crooked wannabe, but she is a damn good advertiser and con artist.
Also, why so much salt on both sides? Sheesh, she's nothing special.
why are people even surprised she is there
this list is made to show the popularity of a person, good or bad, and anita has been the center of the feminist argument for years even if she did jackshit compared to most ppl in it
remember Moot? he has done for humanity about as much as anita yet he was named the most influential person by the same magazine, because back then 4chan pretty much shocked the entire world.
Spider-Byte wrote:
Ignoring her wont work neither can criticizing her. She will still get money and publicity from being an expert of misinforming people. We should just leave her and hope she goes away.
well yeah, now its far far too late. What i was saying is that if people had ignored her from the start we wouldn't have reached this point. But no one likes a captain hindsight
poochyena
Banned
You understand this is an influential list, right, and not a most liked list?
Of course she deserves it, she influenced many people to follow her, and is basicly the leader of gaming feminism, or w/e it is.
The question is, was she influencial, not, do you like her.
I don't see why Gamergaters/Anti-Anitas would be salty about this. I don't know about you but I would never want to be on the same list as Kanye West. I honestly think that makes it a win win for both sides. Anita's fans get to go "Haw haw, suck it nerds! Your death threats got our lord and savior even more famous!" while the GGers get to go "Haw haw, she's as influential as Kanye West!"
Well played TIME.
UnKewln00b wrote:
I don't see why Gamergaters/Anti-Anitas would be salty about this. I don't know about you but I would never want to be on the same list as Kanye West. I honestly think that makes it a win win for both sides. Anita's fans get to go "Haw haw, suck it nerds! Your death threats got our lord and savior even more famous!" while the GGers get to go "Haw haw, she's as influential as Kanye West!"
Well played TIME.
"Ha Ha, you are as influential as a 128 award winning artist, how does it feel loser?"
Trollanort
Deactivated
UnKewln00b wrote:
I don't see why Gamergaters/Anti-Anitas would be salty about this. I don't know about you but I would never want to be on the same list as Kanye West. I honestly think that makes it a win win for both sides. Anita's fans get to go "Haw haw, suck it nerds! Your death threats got our lord and savior even more famous!" while the GGers get to go "Haw haw, she's as influential as Kanye West!"
Well played TIME.
See, its optimism like this that brightens my day.
Thanks man.
Trollanort
Deactivated
James Blunt wrote:
"Ha Ha, you are as influential as a 128 award winning artist, how does it feel loser?"
128 awards doesn't cover up universal douchebaggery and massive ego-stroking.
Trollanort wrote:
128 awards doesn't cover up universal douchebaggery and massive ego-stroking.
at the risk of derailing this thread
how does that make him less of an artist/less influential.
Didn't Anita already have a following by the time her critics showed up? I mean, why did so many people speak up against her unless she already had a substantial following?
poochyena
Banned
Just btw, Kim Jong Un was on the list too.
While this clip is done to death (though it does have fair reason to be)
Mfw Wheaton's immature, insult-slinging, circlejerking article
I noticed majority of the guys hate her… I really wish she wouldn't block her comments on YouTube, it makes her kind of immature. I've noticed she can be a bit hypocritical, and a lot of people even says she's faking everything. Then again, I don't really know a lot about her other then her videos.
Ryumaru Borike wrote:
Didn't Anita already have a following by the time her critics showed up? I mean, why did so many people speak up against her unless she already had a substantial following?
the following she had was about as big as any other youtube blogger, think Amazing atheist, thunderfoot level. She was somewhere around their. But people's hatred of her pushed her past their level of fame.
Good for her. She's done a great job standing up to oppressive stigmas and stereotypes, people like her deserve more recognition.
Wheaton did it again.
Taryn
Deactivated
I'm just glad Time got a little religion and decided to put God on the cover.
Devil's Advocate here, but it would be absolutely a lie to say she wasn't influential.
She's widely hated and despised, and she's so much a farce that it's painful to watch through her videos, but honestly? Thanks to her bullshit, I think a lot more casual video game players have become a lot more alert to how the press has been pushing down an agenda in vidya, and how the media does try to control what content is produced and what is not by trying to sell the idea that it somehow hurts women or other minorities.
I don't think she belongs on that list, there are far more influential people who are deserving of a spot, but she is most certainly an influential person. A huge influence on internet communities, stirring the lives of hundreds of thousands; support, disgust or otherwise.
Calling somebody influential doesn't mean that they're praiseworthy. Kanye West is doubtlessly influential because of his immense fortune and fame. Prior to the advent of new information technologies, fame was won through renown, which was earned with worthy or otherwise monumental deeds. The over abundance of information that the digital age has produced means that fame can no longer be associated with either renown or worth; instead, it is the product of chance.
What I mean by "chance" is that it is circumstance that makes people famous nowadays: you could be doing the same thing as a hundred other people and those hundred could be doing it better, but if you have some angle that makes your story marketable, you will be the one catapulted into public knowledge. Personally, I think the way in which media culture works nowadays means that fame is earned unjustly and needlessly, shoving people into the limelight who are unequipped to handle it. Time was, leaders were the ones with fame; now, it's anybody marketable.
How does this idea correlate to the topic of the thread? Well, the thread's subject had a marketable story, and so they were catapulted into the public sphere,despite their inability to handle what it means to be famous in this day and age (and also they are probably camouflaging their opportunism behind the banner of gender politics). The poisonous stranglehold that progressivism has on contemporary intellectual discourse definitely helps them, too…
Also, as Particle Mare and Triple A have said, a knee jerk reaction from a certain type of people has contributed to the marketability of this story; they need to take some of the responsibility on themselves, as difficult as that may be.