So its fine when Anita lies about anything but when other people do it; they have the wrong thoughts? Absolutism of free speech means exactly that; that one is allowed to lie, and if you support Anita's right to lie, then other people can write / draw / say / express anything they think about her as well.

fact is, she does't collect her own footage, which isn't hard. Just play with fraps (or any recording software) on and then pick good parts. Not that absurd, especially with a budget of a whopping 400000 $
she could easily hire full time editor with that kind of money

people with fractions of that budget do stuff like that

The patriarchy jacked up the prices. OF EVERYTHING. So Anita would be silenced; but she was too stronk and independent and it wasn't successful. MacIntosh is just a myth; we don't have proof that such a thing even exists, like non toxic masculinity.

He assumes in his book that we as a culture(western culture) have evolved so far that we can improve/evolve through discussion. He states that to ensure that only true statements(and he says as much that in social/cultural/political matters there is no "real" truth like in mathematical systems, it is more based on an ethical moral framework, at least I did understand it that way) are your/societies guide you must confront it always. And all opinions must be heard, all sides must be heard.

So to ensure that your statement, that what you believe in is true you should always be open to test it or better said discuss it, confront it with other opinions and facts to ensure that it is true or the best of the available and can't be refuted by other arguments. You should "always" engage in discussion with you opponents or people who do not believe in what you believe and so on. You should even always consider the other side as a possible truth, because as long as you do not place your statement on the table you do not know if it can be refuted.

For example, when Ms. Sarkeesian says all games are misogynistic and must evolve to a more women friendly direction I ask well, show me that it is the case. When she brings her Hitman, Dragon Age example I will ask, well that are two games last year 1345 games were released. What is with the other games? Are they misogynistic too?

When she states then, yes I got a 150k and the last two years we did build a theoretical framework to measure it, here it is and it holds, we have placed it open to discussion for 1 year. On that basis we did test 6500 of the 7563 released games of the last 5 years and it shows that in 75% women dust your broom as a reward, well I will cave in and say yes, that looks like a problem.

That is what I a mean with discussion and her so called research. It is nothing, it is an opinion and as has been proven she made false claims to prove her points. She demonizes games, she demonizes men who play games and she gets a platform. And the real question is, why, who benefits from laws to curb freedom of speech?

edit:
I am reading the book at the moment, as English is not my first language, it is quite tough to get through it. I hope I got the meaning right.

It's hard only the first time you do it. And there a free applications out there that let you pretty easily do what Sarkeesian put up. It's a few days of work, granted, but nothing more - if you aren't a total computer illiterate. It's no miracle that the youtube-community exploded since video-editing tools became easy to handle by everyone. Sarkeesian is on par with the average successful youtuber, and those people are not the most tech-savvy - just interested amateurs.

No, it doesn't work for me either.

You are again truncating Sarkeesian tweets to isolate and focus on two words. If you're cutting everything but the words or terms you like and want to discuss, you could even magically soften any hate speech you'd like to promote. That's just ludicrous.

She litteraly exploited the Rodgers' mass murder to paint all men and boys as potential nutkillers if their own masculinity - so, part of their own identity - doesn't fit the masculinity she labelled as non toxic.
She's generalizing the very special cases of deranged mass murderers to the global male population to push her paranoïd views of masculinity, conveniently labelled as toxic if it isn't onpar with her views... and supposedly prevalent in our culture, somehow.

What I see here is just another authoritarian naysayer sharing her binary views of good and evil, of sinners and penitents.
That's basically : "Watch out penitent men and boys, and keep your masculinity in check, or else you could finish like Rodgers, murdering people because of his toxic manhood. "
Doesn't change anything to me if she put all of her ramblings under feminism, her positions and logic on her subjects often sound like cultist reasoning.

Besides, I can't really take seriously the concept of "toxic masculinity", as it is, to me, a flimsy notion entirely dependant of personal interpretations.
The way this notion is used, especially in the radical feminist branch, is just utterly ridiculous. It is one of these portmanteau terms which blindly encompass everything and nothing, especially designed to demonize any disliked or hated view at no cost.

For example, taking your examples of toxic masculinity.
To my mind, they're both highly debatable and cannot be de facto labelled as toxic masculinity.
I don't see any harm in learning our own children to temper their emotions, since they are clearly a weakness in specific situations easily encountered in life (anger in disputes or debates, envy in seduction etc.). I'm not talking about supressing or ridiculing their emotions, but tempering them. This is a matter of education, not toxic masculinity.
And women, like men in our society, are constantly in competion to achieve their own goals in their life. I don't see any toxic masculinity in that.

And let's not speak of Sarkeesian views of toxic masculinity. From fabricated necrophiliac pulsions of male gamers, to the demonization of simplistic game scenarios she doesn't like...
Well, no. For the love of reason, I can't give Sarkeesian any credit on anything she discussed on her videos.

Respect: the point I was trying to make was that AGG seems to have no respect for those on their own side like how Brianna had to beg forgiveness for the cardinal sin she committed when she had a business lunch with Brad.

Duty: A journalist's duty is to inform their readers, not say "Your inclusiveness is problematic, SJWs should get that treehouse you worked hard to build."

NOTE: Dan Golding not Bob Chipman (be careful, one can get harshly low-rated for messing up the small details in this thread, just something I've experienced first-hand)

Why don't you guys just give him a link to http://www.deepfreeze.it/ and be done with it?
There you got all the facts, details and proof easily accessible for a good reason.

Klumpen0815
So gamers have there own version of The Daily Mail? Reading through was more depressing then Come and See. All working backwards from a preconceived notion.

The problem here with what you are doing is that even as we show problems with Anita's ideas and show ethical issues in game journalism, you seem to just ignore it. I see what you are trying to do, but its bound to fail. You are waiting to find some logical weakness in what one person says and then come out and say "Gotcha, see Gamergate really is toxic" when the reality is all things need to considered together.

In truth, I don't believe you are acting in good faith here. You fail to acknowledge issues with Anita's videos but rather than dispute them, you just ignore them.

Even with Deep Freeze, if you actually really read it with a view on the truth (and not just for your vain attempt to cherry-pick it and distort it for evidence against us), you'd see that there have been quite a few bad actors among game journalists. People reviewing their friend and former roommate's games...people writing stories about people they are supporting on Patreon...people promoting games they have business relationships with...

But hey, just ignore all that and call it "conspiracy theory" instead, because if you cannot dispute something, try to change the subject and make an unfounded claim that its just radical with no proof or evidence on your part whatsoever...

Did you click the links? They have proof of every claim. How do read the minds and find out they created those linked archives through pre-concieved notions? And it shouldn't be of too much concern to you who believes in everyone's right to lie about everyone and everything.

Shadowstalker16
I did click the links. What we basically get there are journalists who have some some connection to a publisher of some kind, but the articles about the publishes say "hey, these guys are doing this thing." That's not a breach of ethics, and it's not impossible for a journalists to friends with someone who works at a publisher and still have creative distance from each other.

''Hey they're doing this thing'' amounts to promotion; and they're not simple connections but connections that are confirmed to be informal in nature. That is why they don't say everyone id friends on the least suspicion. You yourself cited the SPJ code and under that; reporting on a conflict of interest is unethical.
Friends and acquaintances are different and I bet you to click on any friend related entry on DF and find them much more than acquaintances. And it is not at all impossible for them to be friends. Does mainstream media become friends with ISIS? Do movie critics become friends with actors? The friendship based entries on deepfreeze are of people who should have kept an ethical distance away from their reporting material. A professional relationship. And writing on your roommate's game is certainly not professional distance.

Writing about your roommate's games four times, mind you...

Shadowstalker16
Ok, I think you're stretching the definition of promotion here. Just because some journalism talking about a company a company that has someone who they are acquainted with in somehow doesn't automatically mean that have been bribed, or forced in someway to give coverage to them. Plus pretty much all of the articles they say indicate conflicts of interest are impartial.