|"What About the Men? HA HA HA! They don't count."|
|Anita doesn't have an "Army of Feminists" but it is nearly 7 thousand strong.|
The way Anita phrases the criticism is that she not only was willing to receive all the emotional abuse that such a backlash would create, but that she also has "an army of Feminists" to spam 4chan, so that her Kickstarter would be successful. Now her argument is that it's silly to think that she has the resources to do this, and that she wanted to be emotionally abused by said backlash. However, to spam a website doesn't require an army of anyone, all it requires is one person over the course of said a weekend. Just copy and paste the same message a half dozen times and then screencap the most suitable responses for your goals. As for the emotional abuse, if you orchestrated it yourself, it can't be abuse, in that case it's just use. You used the emotions of not only the individuals participating in the backlash, but also your audience who doesn't want to be associated with this kind of negative group.
Besides, this argument is built on circumstantial evidence, you have a history of moderating or disabling comments, you KNOW of 4chan and their opinions about you (source), yet for your Kickstarter you not only left the comments completely open, but there was also a wave of spamming in your name TO your Kickstarter video, where those who "disagree" with you are opening to "disagree," you then paraded around a composite image of all the "negative" comments you received from "gamers" (most of which never identified themselves as gamers) to garner support for your project, and the result was that you got your project funded to the tune of ~$160,000. Just saying that, that's just silly, will not make this criticism go away.
Now before I move on to the BIG issue, let me clarify that there is a difference between the logical fallacy of the Appeal to Ridicule and the logically valid counter argument Reductio ad Absurdum (Reduce to the Absurd). Appeal to Ridicule relies solely on misrepresenting the argument in question to make it appear silly and then dismisses it on the grounds that it sounds silly. On the other hand, Reductio ad Absurdum takes the argument in it's true form, and then either takes said argument to it's most logical extreme or apply it to something else, and uses that argument to reach an absurd conclusion, thus exposing the logical flaws in the argument's form. This is the core of Satire, and as we've seen in Anita's third Damsels in Distress video, she knows nothing about it.
|The gamers that Anita is talking about.|
How does Anita employ such an obviously fallacy? Well, when she says that her detractors are worried about having our "Games Taken away by Feminists." You know, with the visualization of that screeching red-hair banshee of a feminist kicking down our doors and taking away our 3DS's and the Play Station Vitas of the 2 people who own them. Taking and throwing games like Dead or Alive and Dragon's Crown into a bonfire and lighting a match. Though I can only speak for myself, but I'm pretty sure none of us are afraid that games will be ripped from our hands and we will never be able to play them ever again. No no no no, it's far more dire than that, what I, and many like me, are afraid of with this brute force of feminism invading our hobby is that we will see a lack of creative freedom due to the enforcement of implicit or explicit guidelines about what is acceptable in a video game. What female characters are allowed or not allowed, what plot elements are permissible and to whom, and how characters are suppose to be portrayed. And before you think this fear is unfounded, let me briefly (too late) divert you the game I reviewed last week: Senran Kagura Burst.
|The PAL Boxart... I can't see anything anyone could possibly find wrong with this cover.|
Think about that for a second, Don't read about it, Don't watch anything about it, Don't read reviews of it, and don't buy it. So we can't check out the game in any way to form our opinions about it, or even to check whether or not you were accurately representing the game and it's content (which you weren't), and we are just suppose to take your word for it and that this small niche game designed to primarily appeal to a certain, predominately male, demographic is going to destroy our industry because you think it is offensive to women? You know if we changed "offensive to women" to "Promotes school bullying" this entire argument would be the same as Jack Thompson's argument against the game "Bully," and just like with Bully the entire gaming community came down on Mr. Rooke for this blog. The best part is the number of female gamers who played and enjoyed Senran Kagura, getting ticked that this guy was claiming to know what they find offensive.
|A strong, confident, female cast or some guy's perverted fantasy. Why does it have to be one or the other?|
The problem is this doesn't seem like what Anita wants, it appears she wants the entire industry to cater to her particular tastes in games and particularly female characters. She isn't trying to take away our video games, that is true. But what she is trying to do is keep video games chained to a set of ideals that nobody except Anita wants. And if that happens the first thing to go is creative freedom, and with it games like Senran Kagura. Games who's only crime is they are a bit too sexy for feminists.
Sorry for the amazingly long winded post. Review next week, I promise. Until then