Advanced Search Protips

Guts Cosplayer With An Impossibly Huge Sword On His Shoulder Inspires Redraws
What's Up With Memes About A 'Leopards Eating People's Faces' Political Party? Memes About Face-Eating Leopards Explained
What Is 'OCDA,' AKA 'Occupational Cares Diversity Affairs'? TikToker Calimar White's Boss-Hating Complaints Company Explained
What's A 'Cleveland Steamer'? The Gross Slang Term Popularized By 'Family Guy' Explained
What's The 'You Digging In Me' Meme? The TikTok Sound From A LoveAndLightTv Video Explained

+10

Anita Sarkeesian - Anita Sarkeesian's "Values and Concepts of Normalcy"

PROTIP: Press the ← and → keys to navigate the gallery, 'g' to view the gallery, or 'r' to view a random image.

Anita Sarkeesian's "Values and Concepts of Normalcy" One of Anita Sarkeesian's more controversial statements is: We must remember that games don't just entertain. Intentional or not, they always express a set of values and present us with concepts of normalcy. It's easy to show that, taken in one sense, this is false. But in another sense it seems true. I thought it was worth remarking on this, because it is a TRICK that Anita makes use of. Ayn Rand is very fond of this same trick; those of you who know her, will recognize it in action. Anita's statement is ambiguous. It may be read in at least two senses. In Sense 1, it is true but trivial. In Sense 2, it is important but false SENSE 1 is that games "express values and concepts of normalcy" in the way any kind of stories do. In other words, it amounts to the claim "stories are stories" or "stories do the things that stories do." This is, as I noted, true but trivial. Of course stories are stories and do story things. SENSE 2 is that the stories presented by games have a profound and powerful impact on those who behold them, even a little bit, and have the power to brainwash, condition, or fundamentally alter a person's attitudes and beliefs, with the mildest amount of exposure. This is an interesting and serious claim; it is also not true. It is important but false. THE TRICK is this: When Anita needs to argue her thesis is true, she appeals to the true but trivial sense. But when she needs to make judgments about what should be done, calls to action or reform, she appeals no sense 2, the important but false version of the claim But since Sense 2 is false, there is no reason to act on it, by e.g. reforming video games. As a further example, Ayn Rand does this with the term "selfish." She argues that all human actions are "selfish" in that they involve the self (true but trivial). But then she claims that all human actions are selfish in another sense, that is, they should be for the sake of the good one's self and no one else. The is a much more substantial claim, from which she seeks to derive her ethics. Unfortunately, this claim is important but false. She can only get it to be "true" by appealing to the other sense. But this is simply a fallacy of ambiguity or equivocation You can do something similar with the term "subjective." You can point out that "All knowledge is subjective because it involves the mind, that is, the subject." This is true but trivial. All knowledge does indeed involve a subjective aspect, the knowing mind. But then you can try to argue that "all knowledge is subjective" in the sense of being person-dependent, such that each person gets to decide what counts a knowledge. That is a much more substantial claim, but it shifts the meaning of the term subjective," so that the claim is now important but false. The fact that minds are part of knowing doesn't mean that minds make truth or that objective knowledge is impossible.

View Gallery Random Image

Top Comment

Sir Lenny

Sir Lenny

Jan 06, 2016 at 01:06PM EST

So it begins

Another shitstorm has risen.

+3

+ Add a Comment

Comments (17)

Display Comments

Legal Information: Know Your Meme ® is a trademark of Literally Media Ltd. By using this site, you are agreeing by the site's terms of use and privacy policy and DMCA policy.
© 2007-2024 Literally Media Ltd.