But shes basically putting a band aid on an infected wound. The wound needs to be targeted. Society's view on women is what needs to be fixed. From media and social norms. Videogames are nothing more than a derivative of the bigger problems that are stemming from the world around us. WIth or without videogames, you will still have women being put into corners and viewed nothing more than cattle to produce children.
/v/ does not care about public reception, because 4chan as a whole is considered taboo.You'd be surprised how far people are willing to go just out of spite or to divert negative attention away from themselves or to be able to try to be on some moral high road without really believing in the cause. Not saying everyone or anyone from /v/ is doing it because of such selfish, stupid reasons, but it wouldn't be all that unheard of. To be able to use the whole "but I've donated for the cause" weapon, as if that allows them to be dirtbags in the future. It's kind of like the equivalent of "but I have gay/black friends" crap that some shitheads use after sprouting hateful crap about them.
I don't know much about this controversy, but the idea of V needing to actually create a woman who agrees with them is pretty funny.
Hitting the nail on the head here.All this confusion about /v/'s actions over the past week or so just makes me think about how right moot (4chan owner) was 11 years ago. People care about who says something far more than they care about what is said.
Since any allusion to GAF being a hivemind gets stern looks, I see no reason why the same luxury cannot be afforded to /v/ and 4chan.
I think this might be a good example of the difference:And the difference would be...?
Hmm. We had a thread over on the OT yesterday or the day before, about whether or not altruism really exists. Like, if someone gives to a good cause, but their motivation is to get warm fuzzies, is it really altruism? I didn't respond in the thread since I didn't have time to really put my thoughts together coherently, but my take on the question is basically that in these cases, your motivations are trumped by your actions.
If 4chan members are donating to a good cause because they're angry or spiteful or trolling or whatever else, well, so what? Whether or not it's a good cause is independent of their motivations for donating. And there are far, far worse things to do with spite and anger than donating your money to a good cause (see: Sarkeesian getting death threats). Sure, you could make an argument that if these donations are coming from a place of spite that it's maybe not as praiseworthy as if it came from a place of genuinely wanting to make things better... but that just isn't enough to flip it around into something that should be derided.
Ok, so then there's the question of whether this is, in fact, a good cause. I may be wrong, but this appears to have been chosen on the basis that Zoe Quinn opposed it or didn't like it, which doesn't seem like a solid metric for finding good causes. Also it's an IndieGoGo, which I personally consider a red flag as far as something being a good cause. Probably better on the whole to find an appropriate charity and donate. On the other hand, if the project successfully does what it claims it's going to do, it's not like it's a bad thing.
tl;dr Donating to a good cause out of spite is still donating to a good cause. There are probably more effective places to send your donations, but oh well.
The word "SJW" has become more of a term for "overly zealous person that actually wants control, not equality" or "overreacts and hates something fairly innocent never intended to be offensive". Some SJWs(especially in the deep corners of tumblr) have gotten to the point that you're oppressing them for being white and/or male and just existAnd the difference would be...?
I think this might be a good example of the difference:
Equality person 4chan might be okay with:
"There could be more female protagonists in video games." (Clearly likes said video game, appears knowledge about video games.)
SJW 4chan seems to dislike:
"You shouldn't refer to cross-dressers as 'traps' in video games!" (Person has never played said game and never would have.)
I think part of it too comes from how knowledgable they preceive that person to be as well.
Gail Simone (a very popular comic writer) retweeted the stream to get support. One of her friends told her to be careful because Anita and Zoe don't support that project so she deleted the tweet. I never saw a statement by Anita but yeah, that's about it. They're going by what her friend said.
They might be dicks but I gotta hand it to them, this is some next level shit.
Thats some nefarious trolling right there.Yeah, the VICE writer acts like there's no legitimate reason for /v/ picking this particular charity/cause.
Here's the tweets that have been linked in past threads.
This is a good idea.Since any allusion to GAF being a hivemind gets stern looks, I see no reason why the same luxury cannot be afforded to /v/ and 4chan.
I can't understand a god damn thing in this article. The random bold links aren't helping.
I wonder how many more twists this could take. Maybe Vivian gets co-opted by real feminists ("real" in this case meaning those with motives other than spite)?
What is even going on anymore!?
And the difference would be...?
/v/ doesn't actively do anything to harm women, do they? They're just angry loners that hate everything and themselves most of all. Remember: /v/ hates video games. /v/ looks for any excuse to hate something. Them doing something good is insane, they'd probably think this was a scam.
/co/ is fine.
/a/ is is /a/ super elitist and hostile
/b/ is a horrifying cesspool of stupid.
let's not even talk about /pol/
It's actually possible to critique the behavior of a community without boiling it down all the way to sweeping generalization. "4chan" isn't a singular entity like "GAF" isn't a singular entity. Rather, there's a subcommunity of individuals on 4chan who are misogynist assholes, along with some other people who aren't; this funding is coming from a mix of people who are well-meaning and people who are purposely supporting this indiegogo as a spiteful whitewashing campaign. But anyone who isn't actually trying to defend internet misogyny should really not be using their money to give the worst people on 4chan cover. Donating money as part of an effort to provide money "from 4chan" does mean that the people who donated are signing off on the intent, both positive and negative, of that collective donation.
Already happening.
Let me see if I can try to make sense of this nonsense.
So, /v/ accuses Quinn of using feminism as a means of attention, and thus decides to make their own "real" feminist movement, and then creates a fictional character that caters to the litmus test of an ideal female character while also....mocking the feminist movement at the same time so they....can stick it to the...man?
What is even going on anymore!?
It's actually possible to critique the behavior of a community without boiling it down all the way to sweeping generalization. "4chan" isn't a singular entity like "GAF" isn't a singular entity. Rather, there's a subcommunity of individuals on 4chan who are misogynist assholes, along with some other people who aren't; this funding is coming from a mix of people who are well-meaning and people who are purposely supporting this indiegogo as a spiteful whitewashing campaign. But anyone who isn't actually trying to defend internet misogyny should really not be using their money to give the worst people on 4chan cover. Donating money as part of an effort to provide money "from 4chan" does mean that the people who donated are signing off on the intent, both positive and negative, of that collective donation.
But anyone who isn't actually trying to defend internet misogyny should really not be using their money to give the worst people on 4chan cover. Donating money as part of an effort to provide money "from 4chan" does mean that the people who donated are signing off on the intent, both positive and negative, of that collective donation.
Yeah,
I do think FYC should have probably not included her in their product. But I also understand they probably need the money. Soo.. I mean, is it wrong to troll trollers by taking their money and playing along to push your agenda?
Inceptiondog.gif
That's an incredibly biased article. People were calling the writer out in the comments and look at how they're all deleted now. It's really spiteful to twist 4chan donating money to a good cause into something bad.
Yeah, the VICE writer acts like there's no legitimate reason for /v/ picking this particular charity/cause.
Here's the tweets that have been linked in past threads.
I think this might be a good example of the difference:
Equality person 4chan might be okay with:
"There could be more female protagonists in video games." (Clearly likes said video game, appears knowledge about video games.)
SJW 4chan seems to dislike:
"You shouldn't refer to cross-dressers as 'traps' in video games!" (Person has never played said game and never would have.)
I think part of it too comes from how knowledgable they preceive that person to be as well.
This is probably how the author views /v/:
I like how comfortable you are just hand waving a board with thousands of thousands of posters as all being of the same mindset.
It is a popular opinion about 4chan as a whole. That is like, 20 mil unique posters per month.
http://i.imgur.com/xTjrTs7.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]
This, by far, is the most appropriate banner ad to represent the site.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/AonXVua.gif