Revisiting the “Tropes vs. Women” Series, Videos 2 & 3

In all honesty I find Tropes vs. Women in Videogames to be an entirely depressing series of videos to watch, write, and generally think about. This is not, however, related to the videos themselves but instead the issues they highlight and the more vocal and malignant responses. Of course, not all of the retorts which try and counter Anita Sarkeesian’s arguments are spiteful, close-minded, half-baked personal attacks which are fed by an unfounded fear that Sarkeesian is some kind of crazed “feminazi” on a personal mission to ruin videogames and kill your dog – only most of them. I previously wrote about the responses to the first video in the series which you can read here and validate my existence as a human being.

Shameless self-promotion aside, I was half considering a re-tread of the matter here but two realisations stopped that idea dead: firstly, such an effort was entirely redundant on every conceivable level and secondly that much of the criticism for the second part of Tropes vs. Women in Videogames is exactly the same as it was for the first part. Essentially there are a lot of people who upset that the video didn’t address everything in the entire world ever and is therefore unfair for not mentioning Samus Aran and that one time Princes Peach saved Mario. Therefore I have decided to take up the banner of rationality which has been left by the roadside that is the internet and attempt to wade through all of the self-entitled Men’s Rights Activists and offer some more articulate and balanced criticism of the series thus far.

You may be about to suggest that attempting to cover three episodes at once is just foolhardy, but therein lies the source of my main criticism with the series. While well-presented and articulate, there is a certain lack of weight to Sarkeesian’s argument; that is not to say it is biased or poorly constructed, just somewhat insubstantial. For example, at the start of the first video, Sarkseesian offers up an origin and definition for a “Damsel in Distress” but then spends an inordinate amount of time illustrating how prolific such a trope is. I fully understand that in many ways the unyielding focus on the use of the trope itself is the point, but the problem here is that Sarkeesian is merely showing that it exists and doing little else.

This technique of constantly iterating how pervasive the trope is was used for the majority of the first two videos, and although she highlights some the more common twists on the trope, Sarkeesian is again just pointing at something that exists and saying, “Hey, look at this thing.” Each variation of the trope is noted and a flurry of examples thrown towards the viewer in order to cement the existence of the trope within our minds. While it is important to address such worrisome aspects within our beloved medium, merely pointing and saying they are bad is unproductive. Most of us are aware of how ubiquitous the lazy writing that leads to the “Woman in the Refrigerator” trope is, but what we require here is an attempt to explain why it’s such a noxious element within the industry. Sarkeesian doesn’t hit her stride until over half way through each video, and up until that point it really can’t be considered anything more than a history lesson.

Part one is particularly guilty of this. Of course, it is important for one to cite their sources so as to compound the argument within the viewer’s mind, but, even so, the sheer emphasis placed on such a task is overwhelming to the point of banality. This fault is largely overcome, however, thanks to the wider array of subject material addressed within the second video as she moves away from the vanilla incarnation of the “Damsel in Distress” trope towards the malformed variants of the “Woman in the Refrigerator”, the “Damsel in the Refrigerator”, the “Euthanized Damsel,” and, the old favourite, the dead wife, daughter rescue double act. When addressing these tropes Sarkeesian begins to make some genuinely interesting points as she constructs more of an argument around the trope while simultaneously deconstructing the trope itself. However, as with the first video, it is not until towards the end that we witness Sarkeesian’s rhetoric evolve into something more interesting.

One of the more disturbing observations was how writers, “build a narrative on the backs of brutalised women,” by making the death of a female character more meaningful than their life. This all weaves into the possession complex that is used in order to develop a motive for the protagonist. In most games which rely on one of the aforementioned tropes, the female character is often disposed of within the opening sequence and thus receives no characterisation which would make us want to care about her – the only reason the developers think we should care is because she belonged to the protagonist and was in some way stolen. The crystal skull in 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand gets more characterisation than most female characters before it is stolen in order to spark the arbitrary rampage.

This in turn leads onto another of the more interesting lines of Sarkeesian’s argument which is in relation to game mechanics.

“When violence is the primary gameplay mechanic, and therefore the primary way that the player engages with the game world… The player is then forced to use violence to deal with almost all situations, because it is the only meaningful mechanic available.”

This is so troublesome because of how often such limitations lead to violence against women within the game. You may of course raise your hand and ask about the several hundred guys the protagonist had to kill in order to arrive at the grand finale. While it is a valid query, it is also a rather different beast from that of the stylised, almost romanticised violence we often see against a female character. It is the reinforcing of the stereotype that we all know: women are to be protected and live in deference to men while the men go out and smash things with their rippling muscles and swords the size of cars.

Such storytelling techniques actually make both genders look rather bad, but the difference is that while the former is reinforcing an existing stereotype, the latter is playing into the idea of the male power fantasy. Furthermore, it encourages the perception that a woman’s only purpose is to exist for the man. This is achieved by providing shallow character development for the male protagonist. Women are continually portrayed as weak and pathetic in constant need of saving from themselves and everyone else around them. Whereas men are made to look ridiculous for buying into that – most of us just haven’t noticed that yet. Of course, as Sarkeesian noted, we do not have a, “monkey see monkey do attitude,” and so games which rely on these tropes are not actively encouraging misogyny. More importantly, however, time and time again videogames fail to challenge the idea of the patriarchy and in doing so, also fail to encourage the player to challenge their own preconceptions.

The third video is by far the strongest so far and is why I have the least to say about it. I won’t simply regurgitate her argument here but I will highlight some of the more interesting elements. It manages to avoid many of the major faults with the first two, focusing instead on a well-rounded deconstruction of the issues highlighted within the video itself. Sarkeesian’s look at the inverted “Dude in Distress” is really rather interesting as she adeptly explains why the role reversal is of little real significance. “The Damsel in Distress” is so damaging because it perpetuates a long standing gender tradition in story telling whereas the “Dude in Distress” is, at best, slightly subversive of the trope. It doesn’t encourage any pre-existing sentiments and, especially in the case of Super Princess Peach, is little more than a poor joke or a market novelty; a game designed simply to appeal to the young female demographic which erupted with the success of the Nintendo DS. It does little to think beyond the cliché and does not help counter the pernicious elements found alongside the application of the damsel trope in the first place.

With the indie development scene being so famous for its subversive nature and counter to the bloated and stagnating AAA market, Sarkeesian turns her attention to some of the more popular and successful games in order to see whether they go against the grain regarding gender stereotypes. In short, they don’t. The “Damsel in Distress” trope still rears its ugly head in numerous indie titles, and, although, I would consider it to be the less detrimental incarnation, Sarkeesian would disagree, suggesting that the parody of the trope seen in games such as Super Meat Boy and Castle Crashers is just a shallow Meta commentary used ironically or as homage. They do little to challenge the trope itself. In fact, it actually perpetuates it by lacing it with humour which makes it appear to be more acceptable.

In reflection, her argument is actually very convincing, highlighting how the application of the trope, even done so humorously, should be considered as sexist parody, rather than parody of sexism. The difference between these two concepts is a very interesting one and is illustrated well by Sarkeesian as she argues that the former encourages the player to mock or trivialise gender issues while the latter disrupts the status quo and various gender conventions. While some games are more adept at applying the latter, there are a great many more which are guilty of applying the former. This is largely attributable to the parody and homage paying nature of indie development in the current market. Humour is a stronger force within indie titles than it is in AAA but it must be remembered that humour is a powerful cultural tool, and recreating a damaging trope such as the Damsel in Distress one, even if done so jokingly, does not necessarily excuse its use in the first place.

Sexism is prevalent within our society, but most people view it as entirely innocuous and that such clearly defined gender roles are not only the norm, but should remain that way. I am told on a regular basis that I should meet a nice woman who can cook for me, or that I should help with various “manly” tasks – both of these are ridiculous generalisations. Very few people seem to recognize that, instead they believe that these are simply the way things should be. It is important to address the root of the matter rather than just a symptom, but gender bias within videogame narrative straddles an uneasy line of both symptom and cause. Videogames are a product of our culture and thus mirror it; therefore, in a society in which passive sexism is the norm, they regularly adopt the conventional stance and simply play along, thus perpetuating the cycle.

We must face the reality of the situation. The videogame industry is not some sort of sexist imp resting on our shoulder whispering misogynist poems into our ears while we sleep, but it simply doesn’t know any better. Sadly, this industry is not only lacking in genuine writing talent, it is still reeling from the hangover that was the nineties. It relies on the same outdated techniques as ever. It is almost as if the industry itself is unaware of its own potential as a narrative medium. The majority of the effort is placed firmly into the gameplay department, leaving the story alone in a darkened room where it is only allowed out in order to provide us with a flimsy pretext for the onscreen mayhem.

The issue of videogames being a male dominated sphere only encourages this. Of course there are more and more women gamers, but the industry itself is largely populated by men. While the disproportional male to female employment ratio is detrimental in and of itself, the really pernicious aspects come from marketing side. In recent months we have seen Naughty Dog fight to keep Ellie on the cover of The Last of Us, Elizabeth from Bioshock Infinite demoted to the back of the box and Remember Me fight tooth and nail just to publish a game with a female protagonist. This is where the hangover from the nineties comes into its own twisted element; the outdated view that videogames are still exclusively for young males encourages the pervasiveness of the male power fantasy and the lure of subservient woman because the industry believes that it will appeal to that demographic. The industry has run ahead of itself. Its brain is stuck in an antiquated time warp while its potential runs rampant in the modern day.

In part one Sarkeesian is sure to clarify that use of these tropes does not automatically condemn a game by ripping it of all meaning or value. It is important to mention this because, as a plot device, the damsel in distress is not without its merits, but the sheer ubiquity is what makes it so damaging. This is furthered by how the damsel in distress becomes more than just a “synonym for ‘weak,’ instead it works by ripping away the power from female characters, even helpful or seemingly capable ones. No matter what we are told about their magical abilities, skills or strengths they still ultimately captured or otherwise incapacitated and then must wait for rescue.” This again plays a role in the trade-off between female disempowerment in favour of male empowerment and a continuation of the archaic, yet established societal norms.

Sarkeesian is often too busy illustrating a concept or simply criticising the use of a trope to address these wider issues in any real depth, and subsequently leaves her argument somewhat lacking any real drive. Of course, as I have mentioned, it is important to highlight and equally vital to criticise but such methodology provides but the barebones of a polemic. However, I will finish by saying, as I have said before, that Tropes vs. Women in Videogames is one of the most valuable contributions to academic debate surrounding sexism within videogames, the industry, and the culture which surrounds it. While videogames have been in our homes and hearts for decades now, it’s only in last ten or so years that they have been worth taking seriously enough for the problems to actually become so harmful. To point and say, “Hey, look at the terrible sexism,” is insurmountably better than simply ignoring it. We have to start somewhere and Sarkeesian is, in that respect, doing a rather good job.

  • As ever, the writing and events that come from GAB are coming from a good place! I’m a supporter of the cause you represent. But I’m afraid this article just comes off as needing/wanting to make criticism of the series for criticisms sake. It doesn’t tell me anything about GABs plans to be productive in this conversation.

    The author doesn’t seem at all familiar with the work of Sarkeesian or the meaning of it (she does research, gives talks/lectures, and otherwise engage this social issue and promote its resolution), nor the fact that pointing out problems is a revolutionary act in itself. She’s not some internet commenter just making observations in fancy videos, but grounding those observations in deep, constructive research and using a video series to promote that research. This is the opposite of being “unproductive.” Your point makes no sense there especially after you condemn her critics for complaining she doesn’t do enough …then you go on to say she doesn’t do *anything* but talk about a problem. That’s called irony and even hypocrisy.

    Even *if* all she did was point something out, that’s not being “unproductive.” Pointing something out is the very catalyst which spurs action. The central purpose of the series is to show how tropes are used in video games against women. The series does exactly that. Can you explain what would make her work seem more productive for you? More importantly, how will GAB be productive on this issue?

    What lack of “weight” exists within the current 3 parter? That wasn’t made clear at all in the length of this article. It’s part of the reason this comes off as criticism for the sake of it, without any real purpose.

    Sarkeesian seems to mostly understand who this series is targeted at and the episodes read accordingly. She starts with a hypothesis, shows the evidence, and draws her conclusions into nearly airtight lessons. That you find the final minutes of each part more interesting than the early ones seems to show that she’s nailed her goal. It is constructed in this way. And by the way, most research is constructed in this way because contextualizing the information makes the conclusions stronger. I feel like you meant to say you didn’t enjoy the presentation of the data, which is completely fine. What you end up saying is that it’s unproductive and weightless without describing what it means to be productive and weighted. Isn’t *that* unproductive?

    I’m not here to defend Sarkeesian. Her work speaks for itself as well as the causes she represents. She is a journalist. She researches topics and writes about them. A good journalist will do more than just write, but will promote that work if they believe in it. She does. I’m not sure why you believe this is not enough or “unproductive” or how you believe your criticism is more valid and thoughtful than the others you condemn in the first paragraphs of the article (in which you say people criticize her for not doing everything).

    GAB has an important role it could play in this discussion, but so far this article doesn’t seem as unproductive as it does counter-productive. If you believe that her research and conclusions are sound, the real question is why this article isn’t about what GAB can do to help support that body of work, promote it, and contribute to it.

    • Haydn Taylor

      I always appreciate feedback on my work as it helps me improve anything I may do in the future. However, I also feel it is important to defend myself where necessary.

      I find it curious that you believe Sarkeesian’s observation that the negative portrayal of women in videogames to be revolutionary. She is not the first, nor shall she be the last, to highlight these problematic elements within the medium and the wider culture. Furthermore, the notions you seem to have regarding her research are a little disproportionate. Women are often misrepresented in videogames and Sarkeesian diligently provides various notable examples of where this is true. However, this is hardly groundbreaking. This is why I feel that the overwhelming amount of time spent highlighting these examples is entirely misplaced.

      To quote you directly: ‘Your point makes no sense there especially after you condemn her critics for complaining she doesn’t do enough… then you go on to say she doesn’t do *anything* but talk about a problem. That’s called irony and even hypocrisy.’

      The thing I point out is very different to the stance her critics take on the matter. The critics I mention (critics being a generous term) shout and rage because she did not mention every single female character which is not portrayed negatively and thus her critique of the issue is invalid. I, on the other hand, suggest that merely pointing out a well-known problem does little to solve it. I felt the difference between those two stances was obvious at the time of writing, especially with the link I provided which helps to establish a context and draw a distinct line between the rhetoric of myself and someone like The Amazing Atheist.

      You seem to be primarily concerned with my assertion that, so far, the series has lacked a certain weight to the argument and been unproductive; points which you also seem to have taken entirely out of proportion. I suggest that, and I shall repeat myself, merely pointing to a well-known issue, and saying it exists, is unproductive. It doesn’t achieve anything. It is essentially no different from me saying “Hey, you can use the internet to check your e-mail.” We all know you can do that, much like we all know that the portrayal of women in videogames is largely negative. And although, like I said, compounding your argument through evidence is important, there is little argument there to compound. That is not to say there is nothing and that it is “weightless”, like you seem to believe, but that it *lacks* (crucial word) a certain weight and is *somewhat* (another crucial word) insubstantial. Using the power of context, we can understand the definition of those words to be entirely different to “completely”, “entirely”, “void”, or any other words which imply an absolute; a value which you appear to have assigned to them.

      I also, at no point, implied that Sarkeesian did not achieve her goal. I did, however, imply that perhaps she needs to refocus what that goal actually is. At risk of repeating myself some more so as solidify this concept with you, the actual argument itself is lackluster. She provides heaps of evidence that a problem exists. We know it exists but where the real value of her contribution comes from is *why* it is a problem.

      While I do resent your assertions regarding my feelings about the presentation method, I will give you credit for being correct in that regard. However, I deliberately left out any criticism I had relating to the actual presentation as I felt it irrelevant to the wider argument.

      Your criticisms are misplaced and poorly focused, taking aspects of the article out of context or completely misinterpreting it. I shall forgive the patronizing assumption that I do not understand how research is presented but the following suggestion I must take issue with: ‘What you end up saying is that it’s unproductive and weightless without describing what it means to be productive and weighted. Isn’t *that* unproductive?’

      I make it clear why I took that stance and so I shall directly quote the text for you: ‘Sarkseesian offers up an origin and definition for a “Damsel in Distress” but then spends an inordinate amount of time illustrating how prolific such a trope is. I fully understand that in many ways the unyielding focus on the use of the trope itself is the point, but the problem here is that Sarkeesian is merely showing that it exists and doing little else.’ I have already articulated why more is required than a “point and look” approach. Even if we were to assume that the audience is completely uninformed on the matter, this approach does little to help them understand the issue. They have learnt that it is a problem but they will have gained little understanding as to *why* – to teach someone the illusive *why* is to be productive. Furthermore, I never suggested that her series as a whole was unproductive, but that one aspect of it was.

      Finally, I your suggestion that I believe my criticism to be more valid than those I condemn…. Well, we return to the matter of context and, if you read the original post, you would perhaps have some understanding of the difference between my argument, and that of those I originally disregard. The majority of their argument, if you can call it that, comes from a sense that Sarkeesian is missing vital evidence, such as Zelda’s inclusion in Smash Bros. However, I do not focus on such meaningless omissions but rather missed opportunity to elaborate – not on the fact there is a problem, but once again, *why* it is a problem.

      In answer to your final question, the reason this article is not about what GAB can do to help support this body of work is because, if it was, it would be a different article. Furthermore, this actually is promoting the material in question by encouraging others to go an view it for themselves and draw from it their own conclusions. To open up the debate regarding the existing body of work, to critique and deconstruct, to field our own theories and forward other wider arguments. To blindly endorse something, regardless of its flaws, it so let it stagnate. To criticize, pull apart and dissect… that is how we can further the discussion and drive the cause forward, by challenging preconceptions and opening up the floor to something greater than smiling and nodding in agreement.

      • You can let down your guard. I disagreed with one of your points, described it, and pointed out what’s problematic about it. I focused exclusively on your writing and I posed questions and exclusively on the question on being unproductive. I’m open to learning how I could have made that more focused and more well-placed.

        You’ve over-reacted I think — and in a personal way — to my criticism of your article. I re-read my own response and I don’t know what about it seems “unfocused” or “misplaced” or any of these personally charged attacks (in which you basically say my comprehension is poor and I didn’t read it correctly) on my comment. I think the points I bring up are completely founded, legitimate, and worthy of an answer to their content. You’ve left the discussion in an awkward place for me. I guess this is also the reason I don’t feel you were inviting readers to anything here, much less review of the videos. As I said before, this article felt like criticism for criticisms sake, especially since you claim to agree with Sarkeesian’s videos.

        There was no intent to patronize you or offend you. In your response I don’t see or feel reflection. I see and feel reaction in which you seem intent on patronizing me instead of just assuming I was being genuinely interested in your words.

        The author has to be willing to take criticism. I write daily so I know how painful that can sometimes be. You were extremely dismissive, however, of my points and questions. As you said, you clearly resented my comment and it comes through strongly, so much so that I think your response was less about really considering my points and more about avenging your article. Again, I’m not trying to offend but understand.

        As to the article and my comment …

        I didn’t take any of your words out of context, but rather I think you’ve misunderstood my points so I’ll re-explain.

        I only used your own wording within the contexts you established in the article, namely “unproductive” and “weight”. I’m sure I haven’t misunderstood the words on this page about “unproductive” so that leaves us with a disagreement on the definition of productive and the context in which we judge it. You never explain what “productive” is for the reader and I requested that you do in my original response for greater understanding. That’s a legitimate criticism that doesn’t deserve dismissal just because you think you explained it. If you think you did, I’m requesting you be more clear. You quoted yourself without considering that in that quote you do not explain what it means to be productive, thus the question remains unanswered. Your claims that the general audience isn’t better informed about the issues in the videos after watching them is also baseless. You are clearly not the target audience and we all probably have anecdotal evidence of how the results play out. But the fact is, experts and professionals have commended her work and requested more of it. They apparently feel it’s very productive and your article doesn’t even address this.

        I never called Sarkeesian revolutionary, as in lionizing her as a figure or claiming firsts or bests, nor implied any of it. I suppose it *could* be read it that way, perhaps you genuinely thought I was claiming she’s the Malcolm X of sexism. So to be clear, no, that was not what I meant by that statement on revolution. I called you on the claim that speaking out on important social issues is unproductive by stating that doing so is actually a revolutionary act — the opposite of unproductive. I maintain that it is. Again, you need to spell out what it would mean for Sarkeesian to be productive because that’s not clear to me from the article.

        My questions remain: Can you explain what would make her work seem more productive for you? More importantly, how will GAB be productive on this issue? I’ll explain both of these separately.

        I give specific reasons for why I think you didn’t define what “productive” would be in Sarkeesians’ case and pointed out that your critique in that regard is little different from the
        commenters you criticized for doing the same. That hasn’t changed. I spent my entire first comment focused on that.

        You saying that she’s unproductive has the net same effect as those saying the videos haven’t done enough — it’s dismissive, even as you try to lump some praise on top, some commendation that “it’s still good”. The analogy is a person demanding someone “shut up!” and another simply saying “be quiet” with a nod and a smile. The latter may be more polite, but they achieve the same end. This is why I compare your saying “unproductive” is quite on par with others claiming she’s not saying enough. And this is why it’s essential that you define productive. That would separate the idea from the others.

        I pointed out to you that her videos have been very productive on this issue by citing more examples of the work that she does around the videos and the career she pursues. I guess I always see the videos as a really small part of the greater work she’s been doing, especially in the past year.

        Pointing out a single video series of hers amongst the dozens of videos she’s dedicated to the issues along with the dozens of talks and interviews she’s given is the definition of judging something out of context. Your article focuses exclusively on this to draw the conclusion that the series is unproductive, but you do not prove it nor make a counter-example to show what it would mean to be productive. You’re thinking that you’re just reviewing the videos, but you’ve actually made a judgement that *merely* making a video is unproductive or that the videos themselves are unproductive. This is why I point out that she’s done (and is doing) much more than just videos on the issue. This is what brings me to ask you to point out what it would mean to be productive. This is also why I explained that the videos have a specific audience in mind. Perhaps I should have been clearer, but I tried to say that this is indicative of her achieving the broader goal. I guess it’s like I mentioned before, judging the video quality as a matter of editing is one thing, but you take that further by saying it’s unproductive. I think this comment box will break if I mention that word one more time, but I want to be sure that this comment is as focused and well-placed as I can get it.

        Finally, to the part about GAB’s stance on this.

        We are on the GAB.org site. Putting out opinion pieces might be something you all do willy-nilly here, but when you publish behind that name readers expect more than unproductive criticism. Show your work. Show some research on how Sarkeesian’s video series is unproductive. The article is clearly an essay expressing the authors personal opinions on the video series, and you are of course entitled to do that. But again, the context is at the GAB.org site, where I’ve seen you guys say precious little on the issues of sexism, give any talks, push out any research, make any videos, show up at any conferences …and then you turn around and call the videos of Sarkeesian unproductive. Yes, that’s called irony and often hypocrisy. Don’t take that as a personal indictment, but an observation of what I see going on here as a supporter.

        And that’s why the question of how GAB is being productive remains an important inquiry. Without that answer, this critique of the Tropes series is empty and weightless, and even more so since your organization is supposed to be active on these kinds of things (maybe you personally are doing more, but it’s not mentioned in the article for relevance). Like I said before, this felt like reading criticism for criticisms sake, felt insubstantial, like you were just spit-balling some after thoughts. Maybe that was the aim? I expect much more from this
        organization. Context is crucial. With all do respect, GAB’s opinion on how substantial Sarkeesian’s videos are is far less important than what you guys are actually doing to prove it and improve it.

        • Haydn Taylor

          In retrospect I was a little over defensive but I must say that none of my comments were aimed at you personally. I simply took your comments and addressed them individually.

          I have, after reading your retort, noticed that much of your continued comments are rather reminiscent of your original post. I have articulated myself both within the article, and then repeated much of what I said in my original comment. If I was unable to convince you on those two occasions, then we are clearly on entirely different wavelengths and will invariably continue in this cyclical manner. Much of what you say is a repeat of your original suggestions and so I refer you to my previous comment, the article itself, and the one before that. If you still take issue with anything I have to say, then we shall simply have to agree to disagree on the matter.

          Having watched the videos numerous times, I have had plenty of time to collate my sentiments towards them and there is little you can say you convince me otherwise. Likewise, it is clear that regardless of what I say, you will continue to hold on to your own opinion. There is little progress to be made on this front, especially when there is a certain amount of misinterpretation to be found.

          Furthermore, if you take issue with my sole focus on this particular series, then there is little that can be done on that matter because, as the title suggests, this is in relation to ‘Tropes vs. Women in Videogames’ and not her other work. I am merely critiquing the immediately relevant material.

          In regards to your final comments: I feel that, as with the series in question, although not perfect, we must start somewhere and that is worth more than anything. I see the potential in Sarkeesian’s videos and in GAB.org, but as with all good things, they require work and dedication, and simply cannot become everything you want it to be quite so easily.

          • Guest

            Loldongs.

  • WeeItsNookies

    It really is quite sad that an outlet to escape reality (videogames) is now being littered with the overly PC, pseudo-intellectual crowd and they have found a way to make gaming a political, social debate. It’s quite fucking sad tbh. That said, this chick that makes this tropes videos gets absolutely DESTROYED by everyone. Her videos are picked apart and destroyed by arguments. It’s hard to take someone seriously when they have a “im wrong, you’re wrong, I don’t care about your opinions” mindset and they instantly block comments, disable the like/dislike feature. I guess this person doesn’t realize the red dislike bars on her videos is very, very large compared to the very tiny green bar.

  • Guest

    ‘Only most of them.’ – Idk what part of the internet you lurk, but clearly you’ve got your head lodged so far up your arse you’re skewing your perspective. The vast majority of retorts to Skeezy are debunking the flawed logic used, along with the corruption exhibited by Skeezy as a scam artist graduate of scam school. But hey, if you want to worship a false messiah it may as well be her as any batshit insane lunatic spouting sophistry to appeal to feeble minded folks. Part of me likes the idea of GAB, but as a first time visitor to this site I can honestly say it’s my last time visit. The representation of people here seems to be pushing a political agenda. Nothing poisons things faster than politics, except maybe religion.

  • Whilst I admire the idea behind GAB, as a first time viewer, your article has encourage this to be a one time visit. I hate pseudo-intellectuals trying to push politics down peoples throats. Video games are an escape from real world woes, like dickheads pushing their political agenda down your throat. I don’t think anything poisons things faster than politics, except perhaps religion.

HIGH SCORE 000005525PLEDGES

The Pledge:

As a gamer, I realize I contribute to an incredibly diverse social network of gamers around the world, and that my actions have the ability to impact others. In effort to make a positive impact, and to create a community that is welcoming to all, I pledge to not use bigoted language while gaming, online and otherwise.

Bigoted language includes, but is not limited to, slurs based on race? (e.g, "chink," "nigger," "wetback"), ethnicity? (e.g., "kyke," "polock"), gender? (e.g., "cunt," "bitch," "tranny"), religion? (e.g., "dirty jew," "papist"), sexual orientation? (e.g., "gay," "fag[got]," "dyke"), and disability? (e.g., "retard[ed]").

Read more about the pledge, including what is and isn't included, and the overall purpose here.

Read why you shouldn't use the word "rape" casually here.

Sign the Pledge