Anita Sarkeesian, Why? ( Locked)
1 3
1 3
Normal
Small
Posted by ajsears
#1

What is wrong with Anita Sarkeesian at GenCon? Well there are a few issues:

1. Anita has been proven over and over that she doesn't play games, like games, or even understand games. So why is she speaking at a gaming convention? Would it not be a better service to the gamers paying to attend GenCon to invite game developers, game writers, or professional game players as speakers?

2. There are around 100,000 people attending GenCon 2018, how many of these people are able to see Anita's speeches? Anitia was scheduled to have 2 speeches. The room holds around 1,000 chairs (I counted). So how many people actually get to see what she has to say? Around 2,000 right? No. The answer is 160 people. They only accepted 80 people to get tickets to each show. So GenCon paid a speaker to talk to 160 people at a convention of over 100,000.  Would it not be better to have speakers who can talk to a larger percentage of the people paying to attend GenCon?

3. No live questions would be taken. You had to write down any question you had and then Anita's team would pick which ones they wanted to answer. You got no follow up on Anita's answers. Would it not be better to invite speakers who actually want to talk to the people attending.  You must really dislike gamers if you are not even willing to talk to them during live Q/A sessions (my opinion).

A gaming convention with people who are very, very, very passionate about gaming lost the opportunity to go hear a speaker who was also passionate about games. Instead GenCon paid for a speaker who does not like games or gaming, only allowed 160 people to attend and took no live questions. This was a staged fraud meant to promote SJW values and opinions. No opposition speakers were invited for a true 2 sided conversation.

Gamers have a higher than average set of values of no cheating and being fair. If you cheat, lie or setup up a game only you can win, you will be ostracized by other gamers. Yet this whole Anita situation was unfair and staged from start to finish.  If GenCon was demo'ing a game there would have been nobody at their station.

I am extremely upset with GenCon's decision to bring a person who doesn't even like the gaming community, a person who will not even have open conversations with gamers, and someone who is pushing a political ideology at a gaming convention.  This was a slap in the face of all the people who really love gaming.

Normal
Small
Posted by austicke
#2

I’m glad they invited her. I was lucky to be able to attend her “uncommon conversation”, and it was very interesting.

And you’re in luck about your concern that only a few could attend her panels: They recorded it and will be posting the video. Good news!

Normal
Small
Posted by raidkillsbugsded
#3

I have no real investment or care much at all in who she is or what she has to say, but your second point doesn’t make sense to me. Couldn’t the same kind of reasoning be applied to every event?  Only 36   people had the chance to play in my events, and they’re basically paying me to run them since I get my badge compensated.  Only 100 got to hear Witmer speak on Thursday.  Besides, isn’t it basically water under the bridge at this point?

Normal
Small
Posted by imsasun
#4

Dammit!  If I knew she was here I would have made an effort to attend.

Most of your post make little sense to me.

There are nowhere near 100,000 unique gen con attendees.

All event hosts are free to set their attendance and the parameter for their event.

What data do you have to support your claim that "gamers have a higher than average set of values of no cheating and being fair" - I'm sure sociologists and psychologists would be very interested in these findings, if true.

It is bizzare to claim that a speaking event with parameters different than what you would have preferred is "unfair."  Unfair to who?  How?  What promises were you made that turned out to  be untrue?

Gen Con generally doesn't pay for any speakers or event hosts (there are exceptions to be sure) - are you certain Gen Con paid Anita (other than perhaps a portion of even tickets, in line with the policies for all events)?  If so, how did you gain this information?

FYI "SJW" is on a list of terms that the moderators here don't appreciate, as it is often used as an epithet.

 

Normal
Small
Posted by ajsears
#5

Raidskills - How many seats were available for your games?  The issue I had was that the room used for Anita had 1,000 chairs setup (I counted).  Yet they only allowed 80 into the speech.  Why?  Also with only 80 people in attendance why did they not allow live Q/A?  Yes, it is water under the bridge, but the water is very murky.  Why invite a speaker who has been proven to not play games, or like the gaming community?  Why pick a person with political goals to speak at a gaming convention?  Did I buy tickets to Politicon and just didn't notice? There are so many people who would have been a better pick for a gaming convention.  Seems like GenCon wants to get on the SJW bandwagon.

imsasun - There is no current numbers for unique attendees.  I believe 60,000 4 day tickets were sold.  Add in vendors, and one day attendees and the number could be anything.  I just used an aprox.  So lets say 60,000 plus attended and only 160 people were able to be in one of the main speakers speeches.  Seems like a poor use of a room that holds 1,000.

Gamer standards (board and RPG not computer).  Have you ever caught one of your gaming group cheating?  I have had many gaming groups and never caught anyone trying to cheat.  If I had, that person would not have been invited back to the group.  So I have no statistics on this, just my personal observations which may or may not be correct for the gamer community.

A speaker with political goals (feminism, LGBT, etc) with no opposing views or no ability to do a live QA is not really an open and fair discussion.

Anita does fund me items for things that are free, so I highly doubt she wasn't paid.  Even if no money was paid, she was paid with prestige and a platform for her politics.  GenCon gave her a free platform then controlled it in such a way that no opposing views would be given.  This is going to benefit her monetarily even if they did not pay her (which I would be greatly surprised she didn't get paid to attend).

Anita has bullied and forced people to be quiet.  Just watch Anita's performance at VidCon where she berated people in the audience with no provocation.  She also berated one of the male speakers after the panel.  Yet, GenCon is worried about the acronym SJW?  Wow, seems like bad priority setting.

I don't like Anita and the hate she spews.  However, I think she has the right to speak.  I was just disappointed in GenCon inviting someone with a more political agenda than a gaming agenda.  I get enough political crap at home, I don't really want it at GenCon.

Normal
Small
Posted by raidkillsbugsded
#6

Ok

Normal
Small
Posted by jerryh
#7

Ajsears,

I wholeheartedly agree with you on almost every point.  More could be said but is there any point?

Normal
Small
Posted by cman811
#8

If you hate her why did you go to see her speak? Also I didn't attend her speaking.  Did she say anything that particularly upset you? 

Normal
Small
Posted by lot
#9

A speaker with political goals (feminism, LGBT, etc) with no opposing views or no ability to do a live QA is not really an open and fair discussion.

These issues may have been politicized by some, but that does NOT mean they cease to exist in the day-to-day lives of affected individuals.  You, and everyone else I've seen use this term, seem to be attempting to marginalize this guest by using the term "political".  

Yet, GenCon is worried about the acronym SJW?  Wow, seems like bad priority setting.

Can you walk and chew gum?  I do agree with your point about not taking live questions - not doing so is definitely a trust reducer.  Don't know about the # of tickets thing.

Normal
Small
Posted by qmslager
#10

all your other points are dismissed the moment you use the pejorative SJW.  you even had valid ones, but I cant honestly believe you are interested in a good discussion about this if you are immediately subjecting your readers to nonsense pejoratives.

Normal
Small
Posted by ajsears
#11

Lqmslager - So you dismiss my opinion because I use the pejorative SJW.  Well, I am sorry that offends you but Anita is a social justice warrior.  Anita argues that games and game designers are sexist but doesn't even play games.  So the urban dictionary definition of SJW fits Anita like a glove.

Your ire proves why Anita was a very bad choice and why I don't understand GenCon making her a speaker.  She is highly controversial and has no real interest in the gaming community, except to put it down and cause issues.

Again I have no issue with Anita saying what she wants to anyone she wants, my irritation is at GenCon for making a great gaming experience into a platform for politics.  Like I said, I get enough of that at home, I don't want it at GenCon where I come to have fun and enjoy gaming with other participants no matter what their politics are.  It is supposed to bring gamers together not tear them apart with political ideologies and controversial subjects.

I can listen to people I do not agree with and try to understand their point, even if they use pejoratives.  How can we ever come together if we can't even listen to each other.
 

Normal
Small
Posted by unsoundergnome
#12

Seemed like a weird, barely relevant choice for a guest speaker to me.  Ah well, I never really care about the guest speaker most years anyways.

Normal
Small
Posted by rhone1
#13

I don't really have an opinion of her.  She has a following, she has some interesting points.  If people want to go listen to her they should.  If they don't, they can do something else.  Gen Con feels there is an audience so they bring her in.  

Normal
Small
Posted by cman811 ajsears
#14

ajsears wrote:
Lqmslager - So you dismiss my opinion because I use the pejorative SJW.  Well, I am sorry that offends you but Anita is a social justice warrior.  Anita argues that games and game designers are sexist but doesn't even play games.  So the urban dictionary definition of SJW fits Anita like a glove.
Your ire proves why Anita was a very bad choice and why I don't understand GenCon making her a speaker.  She is highly controversial and has no real interest in the gaming community, except to put it down and cause issues.
Again I have no issue with Anita saying what she wants to anyone she wants, my irritation is at GenCon for making a great gaming experience into a platform for politics.  Like I said, I get enough of that at home, I don't want it at GenCon where I come to have fun and enjoy gaming with other participants no matter what their politics are.  It is supposed to bring gamers together not tear them apart with political ideologies and controversial subjects.
I can listen to people I do not agree with and try to understand their point, even if they use pejoratives.  How can we ever come together if we can't even listen to each other.
 

Did you have an issue with GenCon when they threatened to pull out of Indy if Mike Pence signed that religious freedom bill a few years ago?  You might not like it, but a massive convention that pulls in dozens of millions of dollars is inherently political.  

Normal
Small
Posted by cerealkiller195
#15

I didn't know who it was when announced and after some research it didn't change my mind. I don't go to seminars in general and it isn't my cup of tea so it's a simple pass and keep going for myself. 

When it comes to politics or issues of discussion if I'm with my friends or people that are willing to have a conversation in person I'm all for it . But we also live in an age where it's near impossible to not offend someone. Now I'm not saying you should aim to offend people but sometimes it happens. For example my friend was playing a card game tournament out of state and his turn was finished so he said "after you sir " the person responded with "don't use my gender identifier" or something along those lines. Now he didn't mean to offend the person but it was a force of habit that he tried to curb, no disrespect was intended it was just a force of habit.

Its the world we deal in and yes it's not perfect . Being Hispanic in Indy I see a very different tone change in the 10+ years that I've attended. I would tell my friends that everyone eyed me as if I escaped the kitchen at times lol. I may have strayed a bit but my point is that we have to have an open dialogue and actually listen not just preload rhetoric and canned lines the second we see something we don't like or agree with. If we draw party lines and see the opposing person automatically as the "enemy" we will never progress.

Normal
Small
Posted by fatherofone
#16

[This post has been removed]

Normal
Small
Posted by mbroadwater ajsears
#17

ajsears wrote:
 This was a slap in the face of all the people who really love gaming.

Speak for yourself. You aren’t the spokesman for all or any games but yourself.

Normal
Small
Posted by fatherofone mbroadwater
#18

mbroadwater wrote:
ajsears wrote:
 This was a slap in the face of all the people who really love gaming.

Speak for yourself. You aren’t the spokesman for all or any games but yourself.
Change the word all to most and it is correct.   Those that believe that inviting someone as toxic as her is a good thing are the minority.  Now couple that with the FACT that one of her supporters physically attacked another attendee because he dared to say that she shouldn't be an honored guest...  well you know why "most" people feel that way.  

GenCon, please keep politics out of your events.  I realize it is your event, but I don't like to see good people get assaulted because of their beliefs.  I thought of all people you would realize that. 

Normal
Small
Posted by austicke fatherofone
#19

fatherofone wrote:Those that believe that inviting someone as toxic as her is a good thing are the minority. 

But those who object to her appearance are a much smaller minority.

I conduced a poll in the Fans of Gen Con Facebook group and 195 said they were unhappy with her appearance, 372 said they were happy she was invited and over 1,000 said they didn’t care or didn’t have an opinion.

Normal
Small
Posted by cman811 fatherofone
#20

fatherofone wrote:
I agree with the original poster, but will add that inviting a radical SJW person like her also has effects of brining in other people that assault other people.   This is very sad, but again not unexpected.
Now would everyone be acting the same if say Gencon invited Ben Shapiro (who actually plays games) and say a trans guy was assaulted by one of his supporters?   Unfortunately we all know the answer to that.     
Lastly, in case you didn't know Jeremy from Unsleeved media was violently attacked at a bar by one of  Anita Sarkeesian supporters and a 4 day Gencon attendee.  This criminal went up to Jeremy and asked him if his name was "Jeremy" and he said yes and extended his hand to greet this criminal.  The guy then attacked him.  People managed to pull this criminal off of him and then he smashed a window at the bar.   
   
so how is this Sarkeesian's fault??? Are you going to blame the incident with the guy trying to film up a ladies skirt on her too? Can we blame it on Jeremy instead since he was there? That's how it works right? Person attends, so bad stuff that happens must be their fault. 

This topic is locked. New posts cannot be added.
1 3
1 3