|
On August 01 2013 03:01 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:00 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 02:52 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:52 Sevre wrote:On August 01 2013 01:47 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:
When you verbally attack a gay person, its homophobia.
and if you did not know that that someone is gay does that still count as homophobia ? if you learn after the fact, does that change retro-actively your state of mind at the time and make you an homophobe ? What I hope you meant is 'verbally attacking someone _for being gay_ is homophobia' Yes yes it is. For example, calling someone a "faggot" (even if it is a straight person) a) assumes that they are gay, b) says that this is something to be ashamed of and signifies that you think less of them as a human being as a result. You cannot use homophobic language without being a homophobe, it doesn't matter if you lack a particular intention to be homophobic, I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. It's like saying I can insult Jews when they're not around me and not be anti-semitic as a result, it's absurd reasoning. c) assumes that the person being called 'gay' would be offented, hence _he_ would be a homophobe for taking such offence ? When I was very little in pre-scholl or a little later, some other children started to make pun with my first-name (which was/is a very common one where I was)... It was getting me mad a lot... then in a glimpse of wisdom, my parent taught me that me reacting so much to it was the reason of its effectiveness... I started to ignore the attemtped offense and, guess what... the power of the pun dissipated and soon enough something else was attempted to be occasionally mean... Note that _nothing_ I could have done, not even successfully banned the offensive name-calling, would have eliminated the underlying motivation to be mean. My point is that words do not have intrinsic power... and it takes 2 to tango. My alternate point is well summarized in this old nursery rhyme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones_(nursery_rhyme)Sticks and stones will break my bones But words will never harm me. are you asking the victim to stop being offended by people using slurs? No, he's saying that even if you are offended, the problem will only persist if you keep reacting to it. As long as the troll gets attention from you, he's going to keep trolling you relentlessly because he knows he's getting a reaction out of you. That's how he gets his entertainment. what direction would you recommend for eliminating unjust negative prejudice?
My idea? No one would like it.
If you really want to get rid of, or curb most dickish behavior online it is pretty simple. Remove complete anonymity on the internet. You are tied to your real name, a picture of yourself, and the location where you live. It's pretty simple. Of course, people will cry foul about that. That being said, studies have shown when you do something that drastic, all of a sudden people aren't such jackasses to each other.
On August 01 2013 03:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:54 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:48 TWIX_Heaven wrote:On August 01 2013 02:19 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:16 Sevre wrote:On August 01 2013 02:09 Vorenius wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 01:40 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
There is no systematic abuse of females in competitive gaming. At all. Until you can prove there is, you don't have to preach 'oh we need to stop this abuse against females!'
Like I said, the problem isn't 'female only.' The problem is lots of people on the internet are assholes.
If the community attacks women, then there is a problem in the community. If the community attacks gays, then there is a problem in the community. The problems do not disappear just because many social groups are being attacked, it just means the community is more fucked up than you believe. So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point. I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem. I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic. And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds. I think were I would disagree is that people aren't necessarily sexist or homophobic, they are simply dicks in general. If someone on the internet is a different race, they use a racial slur. If it's a different gender they use a sexist one. If it's a different sexual orientation they'll say something homophobic. Failing all that they'll wish you some cancer. They are saying it to hurt someone, not because they believe women are inferior. I'm not defending those kinds of people, or saying it's okay, but if you want to change it, you have to attack the right causes. you can't just stop people from being dicks to women, you have to stop them from being dicks. I agree that we have to stop people from being dicks but you have to understand that using sexist/homophobic/racist language is what qualifies you as being sexist/homophobic/racist, not a particular malicious intent behind it. What we're saying in this thread is that women suffer quite a bit in particular and I don't think that's in dispute, many women are attacked just for being women as opposed to annoying someone in particular i.e. "tits or gtfo". We've already covered this, there is a novelty still of women playing mostly 'male' games. As such, they get increased attention, which thus also causes them to become the main targets of most jackasses on the internet. It's not fair, but that's just how it is. That being said, I have seen very few women complain about the positives of the 'increased attention novelty factor.' On August 01 2013 02:18 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:04 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:58 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 01:49 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point.
what no he has been reiterating that there are lots of problems for like 2 pages now are you serious? Main point is that you're bitching about people being jackasses rather than about a specific problem about 'women being systematically discriminated against.' That's not a female only issue, it's a lots of people are an assholes on the internet issue. On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point.
I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem. I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic. And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds. Whoa now, so when you get caught with your pants down in your argument, all of a sudden I'm getting personally attacked. Good job. Says the man who calls everyone in this thread a White Knight. Its not like people here are making some ground breaking argument. Sexism is still a problem in the world and its likely a problem in gaming. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. There are other problems too, but we can deal with those on a case by case basis. I mean, you don't have to read this thread, so why do so? If you don't think its an issue and you aren't sexist, what is the problem with the discussion? Actually I've only called you and Thieving Magpie white knights because you are exactly that. You're trying to make it like there's a distinct problem against females in the community when there's not. There's no such thing. There's no systematic discrimination, nor is there a vast amount of abuse towards them. They may get targeted more often simply because they stand out more, but that's not unusual in any circumstance. If you stick out, you're going to get increased attention. You both agreed that the issue isn't just related to females, and that it is an internet behavior issue. People are assholes on the internet, and that's all there is to it. Good luck attempting to fix it without invading someone's privacy, because the only way you can fix it is to basically remove their anonymity and put their real name and actual picture attached to their online alias. On August 01 2013 02:04 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 01 2013 01:49 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point.
what no he has been reiterating that there are lots of problems for like 2 pages now are you serious? Main point is that you're bitching about people being jackasses rather than about a specific problem about 'women being systematically discriminated against.' That's not a female only issue, it's a lots of people are an assholes on the internet issue. On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point.
I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem. I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic. And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds. Whoa now, so when you get caught with your pants down in your argument, all of a sudden I'm getting personally attacked. Good job. It's not the same thing. While I agree that using epithets does not necessarily reflect a discriminatory intent, it is that girls attract more attention online, positively and negatively if their handles are 'feminine' Yeah, I get called a faggot on ladder, or BMed after a game. I don't get messages 'oh you're a girl tits or gtfo' Plenty of women posting here and elsewhere say they get a real disproportionate amount of attention while playing games if it's known they're a chick. Regardless of treatment being good or bad, it's tempered by sexism So if I show up to a Justin Beiber concert and a ton of teenage girls call me a faggot, I can claim discrimination now? Or better yet, if all the girls think I'm cool because I like Justin Beiber because I'm a guy, I can still claim discrimination/sexism, because they are treating me differently because I'm a guy? Lmao. We called you sexists and misogynistic, because that is what you are. You don't want people to discuss the issue and actively want the discussion stopped because you don't believe its a problem. Just because you believe something doesn't mean you have the right to tell other people not to talk about it. Furthermore, if we apply your argument to all other forms of abuse online, you could claim racism isn't a problem either. But I don't think you would get very far with that argument, because racism is always a problem and should always be discussed. 'Waagh he blew up my argument now I must call him a sexist and a misogynistic because that's all I can say.' Like I said, the issue is people are dicks. Not that there's a distinct discrimination against women online. You can accuse me of being a sexist/misogynistic all you want. Fact of the matter is, people don't specifically target women. They only target them because they simply standout in a community of mostly men; other people get equal levels of abuse, it's just they aren't as vocal about it. I just had to chime in and say, that you are completely wrong in this matter, and the fact that you can't seem to/want to accept that sexism is a serious issue that affects this community are whole lot is a pretty obvious testament to the problem and it's existence. People being dicks on the internet in general is true, but you have to understand that using sexist slur, jokes and harmful expressions, is sexism, no matter the intent, place or who says it. Just in this thread alone, we have had people like you, saying it's not a problem and it doesn't exist, we have had people pull the "in the kitchen" jokes, we have seen people complaining about some "magic" advantage female gamers/people somehow have, because they are women (which is exactly what sexism is), we have seen people saying it's a normal part of the internet and our community. And you tell me that any girl should, and would feel welcome here? "the game is mostly of interest to men" - well no, it's a sexist stereo-type that it is so. Girls and women have every possibility to like it just as much as you, but unfortunately some people make the community look like a misogynist shit hole and they stay away (for good reason). Those who endure it and stay regardless, have to be faced with people who de-emphasize the problem, and telling people/women the problem doesn't even matter. And instead of discussing the issue itself, or the other issues you mention (dicks on the internet in general) you do the exact opposite, trying to legitimize your own views on hate-jokes. There is nothing to win from what you are trying to do. And people will not stop discussing it just cause you want them to. And some of us will not stop fighting discrimination in this community, after all the whole purpose for us is to educate and hopefully change the views of people to create a better community for everyone - so that they might feel more inclined to join in on all this wonderful fun we are having. 1) I already proved that SC2's competitive nature is a turn off to girls; whether this is a society issue or not is up for debate. Read the studies I linked. Competitive atmosphere = turnoff for women. 2) It's a proven fact that females have an advantage when it comes to obtaining jobs in SC2. Flo, Aphrodite, and various other female players are given chances of a lifetime that far higher quality male players simply do not get (some male GM players will never get the chances that these women do). Not to mention the 'all girl teams' in games like CS/DotA 2 where clearly inferior players are given chances that they do not deserve. 3) I never legitimized the 'hate speech.' All I said was that the 'hate speech' really isn't hate speech, and more of immature dickish behavior from 15-25ish year old males. 4) Again, you keep thinking that there's a distinct discrimination issue against women in SC2 and E-Sports in general, and yet none of you have proven it. And no, bringing up a few posts doesn't prove anything, because I can easily turn it around and find plenty of evidence around the internet that 'supports women in E-Sports.' Are you talking about the Articles that Planxis and I pointed out proved your conclusion wrong? All 4 of them revealed that the ability for women to perform tasks were the same as mens, and their performance was the same when competing against each other. The only time there was a difference was that men improved when they were pitted against women. Planxis then pasted the conclusions of one or two of the articles pointing out that they believed that it was a social problem that women didn't try harder in competition. You literally posted 4 articles that proved your point wrong. And no, Aphrodite having a job does not erase misogyny for the same reason that Barack Obama becoming president has not erased racism.
Holy fuck. You really don't read.
You realize that in every article, that the males actually scored on average better than women in virtually every type of test right? Read, the, graphs. And that the whole point of posting said articles was to demonstrate that women for whatever reason do not like entering competitive environments.
|
On August 01 2013 03:03 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:01 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 03:00 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 02:52 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:52 Sevre wrote:On August 01 2013 01:47 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:
When you verbally attack a gay person, its homophobia.
and if you did not know that that someone is gay does that still count as homophobia ? if you learn after the fact, does that change retro-actively your state of mind at the time and make you an homophobe ? What I hope you meant is 'verbally attacking someone _for being gay_ is homophobia' Yes yes it is. For example, calling someone a "faggot" (even if it is a straight person) a) assumes that they are gay, b) says that this is something to be ashamed of and signifies that you think less of them as a human being as a result. You cannot use homophobic language without being a homophobe, it doesn't matter if you lack a particular intention to be homophobic, I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. It's like saying I can insult Jews when they're not around me and not be anti-semitic as a result, it's absurd reasoning. c) assumes that the person being called 'gay' would be offented, hence _he_ would be a homophobe for taking such offence ? When I was very little in pre-scholl or a little later, some other children started to make pun with my first-name (which was/is a very common one where I was)... It was getting me mad a lot... then in a glimpse of wisdom, my parent taught me that me reacting so much to it was the reason of its effectiveness... I started to ignore the attemtped offense and, guess what... the power of the pun dissipated and soon enough something else was attempted to be occasionally mean... Note that _nothing_ I could have done, not even successfully banned the offensive name-calling, would have eliminated the underlying motivation to be mean. My point is that words do not have intrinsic power... and it takes 2 to tango. My alternate point is well summarized in this old nursery rhyme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones_(nursery_rhyme)Sticks and stones will break my bones But words will never harm me. are you asking the victim to stop being offended by people using slurs? No, he's saying that even if you are offended, the problem will only persist if you keep reacting to it. As long as the troll gets attention from you, he's going to keep trolling you relentlessly because he knows he's getting a reaction out of you. That's how he gets his entertainment. what direction would you recommend for eliminating unjust negative prejudice? My idea? No one would like it. If you really want to get rid of, or curb most dickish behavior online it is pretty simple. Remove complete anonymity on the internet. You are tied to your real name, a picture of yourself, and the location where you live. It's pretty simple. Of course, people will cry foul about that. That being said, studies have shown when you do something that drastic, all of a sudden people aren't such jackasses to each other.
Its an old idea, Puritans brought that with them when they first came to the US.
When people do not get punished, their bigotry reveals itself. Its only when they get flack from authority/peers that they eventually stop. Culpability.
You know the worse way to provide culpability? Ignoring the problem.
|
On August 01 2013 03:03 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:01 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 03:00 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 02:52 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:52 Sevre wrote:On August 01 2013 01:47 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:
When you verbally attack a gay person, its homophobia.
and if you did not know that that someone is gay does that still count as homophobia ? if you learn after the fact, does that change retro-actively your state of mind at the time and make you an homophobe ? What I hope you meant is 'verbally attacking someone _for being gay_ is homophobia' Yes yes it is. For example, calling someone a "faggot" (even if it is a straight person) a) assumes that they are gay, b) says that this is something to be ashamed of and signifies that you think less of them as a human being as a result. You cannot use homophobic language without being a homophobe, it doesn't matter if you lack a particular intention to be homophobic, I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. It's like saying I can insult Jews when they're not around me and not be anti-semitic as a result, it's absurd reasoning. c) assumes that the person being called 'gay' would be offented, hence _he_ would be a homophobe for taking such offence ? When I was very little in pre-scholl or a little later, some other children started to make pun with my first-name (which was/is a very common one where I was)... It was getting me mad a lot... then in a glimpse of wisdom, my parent taught me that me reacting so much to it was the reason of its effectiveness... I started to ignore the attemtped offense and, guess what... the power of the pun dissipated and soon enough something else was attempted to be occasionally mean... Note that _nothing_ I could have done, not even successfully banned the offensive name-calling, would have eliminated the underlying motivation to be mean. My point is that words do not have intrinsic power... and it takes 2 to tango. My alternate point is well summarized in this old nursery rhyme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones_(nursery_rhyme)Sticks and stones will break my bones But words will never harm me. are you asking the victim to stop being offended by people using slurs? No, he's saying that even if you are offended, the problem will only persist if you keep reacting to it. As long as the troll gets attention from you, he's going to keep trolling you relentlessly because he knows he's getting a reaction out of you. That's how he gets his entertainment. what direction would you recommend for eliminating unjust negative prejudice? My idea? No one would like it. If you really want to get rid of, or curb most dickish behavior online it is pretty simple. Remove complete anonymity on the internet. You are tied to your real name, a picture of yourself, and the location where you live. It's pretty simple. Of course, people will cry foul about that. That being said, studies have shown when you do something that drastic, all of a sudden people aren't such jackasses to each other.
No I dont want to get rid of people being dickish i just want to get rid of people being racist sexist and homophobic (willing ot add to the list tho). how can we do that?
|
On August 01 2013 03:03 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:01 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 03:00 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 02:52 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:52 Sevre wrote:On August 01 2013 01:47 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:
When you verbally attack a gay person, its homophobia.
and if you did not know that that someone is gay does that still count as homophobia ? if you learn after the fact, does that change retro-actively your state of mind at the time and make you an homophobe ? What I hope you meant is 'verbally attacking someone _for being gay_ is homophobia' Yes yes it is. For example, calling someone a "faggot" (even if it is a straight person) a) assumes that they are gay, b) says that this is something to be ashamed of and signifies that you think less of them as a human being as a result. You cannot use homophobic language without being a homophobe, it doesn't matter if you lack a particular intention to be homophobic, I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. It's like saying I can insult Jews when they're not around me and not be anti-semitic as a result, it's absurd reasoning. c) assumes that the person being called 'gay' would be offented, hence _he_ would be a homophobe for taking such offence ? When I was very little in pre-scholl or a little later, some other children started to make pun with my first-name (which was/is a very common one where I was)... It was getting me mad a lot... then in a glimpse of wisdom, my parent taught me that me reacting so much to it was the reason of its effectiveness... I started to ignore the attemtped offense and, guess what... the power of the pun dissipated and soon enough something else was attempted to be occasionally mean... Note that _nothing_ I could have done, not even successfully banned the offensive name-calling, would have eliminated the underlying motivation to be mean. My point is that words do not have intrinsic power... and it takes 2 to tango. My alternate point is well summarized in this old nursery rhyme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones_(nursery_rhyme)Sticks and stones will break my bones But words will never harm me. are you asking the victim to stop being offended by people using slurs? No, he's saying that even if you are offended, the problem will only persist if you keep reacting to it. As long as the troll gets attention from you, he's going to keep trolling you relentlessly because he knows he's getting a reaction out of you. That's how he gets his entertainment. what direction would you recommend for eliminating unjust negative prejudice? My idea? No one would like it. If you really want to get rid of, or curb most dickish behavior online it is pretty simple. Remove complete anonymity on the internet. You are tied to your real name, a picture of yourself, and the location where you live. It's pretty simple. Of course, people will cry foul about that. That being said, studies have shown when you do something that drastic, all of a sudden people aren't such jackasses to each other.
You know what my chat rules say for my twitch stream?
"There are no mods, I don't give a fuck what you say."
Is that not a better solution to your extreme proposal?
|
On August 01 2013 02:48 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:43 Sevre wrote:On August 01 2013 02:38 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:19 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:16 Sevre wrote:On August 01 2013 02:09 Vorenius wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
If the community attacks women, then there is a problem in the community.
If the community attacks gays, then there is a problem in the community.
The problems do not disappear just because many social groups are being attacked, it just means the community is more fucked up than you believe.
So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point. I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem. I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic. And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds. I think were I would disagree is that people aren't necessarily sexist or homophobic, they are simply dicks in general. If someone on the internet is a different race, they use a racial slur. If it's a different gender they use a sexist one. If it's a different sexual orientation they'll say something homophobic. Failing all that they'll wish you some cancer. They are saying it to hurt someone, not because they believe women are inferior. I'm not defending those kinds of people, or saying it's okay, but if you want to change it, you have to attack the right causes. you can't just stop people from being dicks to women, you have to stop them from being dicks. I agree that we have to stop people from being dicks but you have to understand that using sexist/homophobic/racist language is what qualifies you as being sexist/homophobic/racist, not a particular malicious intent behind it. What we're saying in this thread is that women suffer quite a bit in particular and I don't think that's in dispute, many women are attacked just for being women as opposed to annoying someone in particular i.e. "tits or gtfo". We've already covered this, there is a novelty still of women playing mostly 'male' games. As such, they get increased attention, which thus also causes them to become the main targets of most jackasses on the internet. It's not fair, but that's just how it is. That being said, I have seen very few women complain about the positives of the 'increased attention novelty factor.' On August 01 2013 02:18 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:04 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:58 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 01:49 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
what no he has been reiterating that there are lots of problems for like 2 pages now are you serious? Main point is that you're bitching about people being jackasses rather than about a specific problem about 'women being systematically discriminated against.' That's not a female only issue, it's a lots of people are an assholes on the internet issue. On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed.
I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed.
I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem.
I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic.
And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds.
Whoa now, so when you get caught with your pants down in your argument, all of a sudden I'm getting personally attacked. Good job. Says the man who calls everyone in this thread a White Knight. Its not like people here are making some ground breaking argument. Sexism is still a problem in the world and its likely a problem in gaming. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. There are other problems too, but we can deal with those on a case by case basis. I mean, you don't have to read this thread, so why do so? If you don't think its an issue and you aren't sexist, what is the problem with the discussion? Actually I've only called you and Thieving Magpie white knights because you are exactly that. You're trying to make it like there's a distinct problem against females in the community when there's not. There's no such thing. There's no systematic discrimination, nor is there a vast amount of abuse towards them. They may get targeted more often simply because they stand out more, but that's not unusual in any circumstance. If you stick out, you're going to get increased attention. You both agreed that the issue isn't just related to females, and that it is an internet behavior issue. People are assholes on the internet, and that's all there is to it. Good luck attempting to fix it without invading someone's privacy, because the only way you can fix it is to basically remove their anonymity and put their real name and actual picture attached to their online alias. On August 01 2013 02:04 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 01 2013 01:49 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
what no he has been reiterating that there are lots of problems for like 2 pages now are you serious? Main point is that you're bitching about people being jackasses rather than about a specific problem about 'women being systematically discriminated against.' That's not a female only issue, it's a lots of people are an assholes on the internet issue. On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed.
I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed.
I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem.
I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic.
And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds.
Whoa now, so when you get caught with your pants down in your argument, all of a sudden I'm getting personally attacked. Good job. It's not the same thing. While I agree that using epithets does not necessarily reflect a discriminatory intent, it is that girls attract more attention online, positively and negatively if their handles are 'feminine' Yeah, I get called a faggot on ladder, or BMed after a game. I don't get messages 'oh you're a girl tits or gtfo' Plenty of women posting here and elsewhere say they get a real disproportionate amount of attention while playing games if it's known they're a chick. Regardless of treatment being good or bad, it's tempered by sexism So if I show up to a Justin Beiber concert and a ton of teenage girls call me a faggot, I can claim discrimination now? Or better yet, if all the girls think I'm cool because I like Justin Beiber because I'm a guy, I can still claim discrimination/sexism, because they are treating me differently because I'm a guy? Lmao. We called you sexists and misogynistic, because that is what you are. You don't want people to discuss the issue and actively want the discussion stopped because you don't believe its a problem. Just because you believe something doesn't mean you have the right to tell other people not to talk about it. Furthermore, if we apply your argument to all other forms of abuse online, you could claim racism isn't a problem either. But I don't think you would get very far with that argument, because racism is always a problem and should always be discussed. 'Waagh he blew up my argument now I must call him a sexist and a misogynistic because that's all I can say.' Like I said, the issue is people are dicks. Not that there's a distinct discrimination against women online. You can accuse me of being a sexist/misogynistic all you want. Fact of the matter is, people don't specifically target women. They only target them because they simply standout in a community of mostly men; other people get equal levels of abuse, it's just they aren't as vocal about it. So what is your point again? You want people to stop talking about sexism because you think everyone else is being mean too? Why even discuss the matter if you don't think its a problem? Point is that you talking about it does nothing, because you're not addressing the underlying issue. The problem is not people being 'sexist.' The problem is people are dicks online. Period. If you somehow managed to stop the verbal abuse against women online, the same people would just shift to another demographic to target and you have the same problem all over again. Then we'll deal with that problem too. I seriously don't get why it's so unbelievable that we think people shouldn't be dicks online and want to deal with that problem. All societal adjustments start from small communities banding together, and influencing greater society as a whole, exactly! Hello btw fellow Emerald Isle dweller! It's the same as people who reframe race arguments to downplay them 'oh well black people can say nigger and we can't' when it's largely an irrelevance to the issue. I'm not a 'white knight' for wanting to have a game in which I'd have an expectation that my partner could go and play online without getting told to get her tits out all the time once it becomes apparent she is a woman.
I saw your country displayed and thought I'd show mine in solidarity :p
It's foolish to think words have no intrinsic power, you experienced their intrinsic power when people abused you and saying that you were at fault for being offended is not a healthy attitude to harbour. It legitimises their abuse by saying "it's not abuse if you're not offended, and if you are offended it's your fault."
|
On August 01 2013 03:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:03 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 03:01 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 03:00 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 02:52 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:52 Sevre wrote:On August 01 2013 01:47 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:
When you verbally attack a gay person, its homophobia.
and if you did not know that that someone is gay does that still count as homophobia ? if you learn after the fact, does that change retro-actively your state of mind at the time and make you an homophobe ? What I hope you meant is 'verbally attacking someone _for being gay_ is homophobia' Yes yes it is. For example, calling someone a "faggot" (even if it is a straight person) a) assumes that they are gay, b) says that this is something to be ashamed of and signifies that you think less of them as a human being as a result. You cannot use homophobic language without being a homophobe, it doesn't matter if you lack a particular intention to be homophobic, I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. It's like saying I can insult Jews when they're not around me and not be anti-semitic as a result, it's absurd reasoning. c) assumes that the person being called 'gay' would be offented, hence _he_ would be a homophobe for taking such offence ? When I was very little in pre-scholl or a little later, some other children started to make pun with my first-name (which was/is a very common one where I was)... It was getting me mad a lot... then in a glimpse of wisdom, my parent taught me that me reacting so much to it was the reason of its effectiveness... I started to ignore the attemtped offense and, guess what... the power of the pun dissipated and soon enough something else was attempted to be occasionally mean... Note that _nothing_ I could have done, not even successfully banned the offensive name-calling, would have eliminated the underlying motivation to be mean. My point is that words do not have intrinsic power... and it takes 2 to tango. My alternate point is well summarized in this old nursery rhyme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones_(nursery_rhyme)Sticks and stones will break my bones But words will never harm me. are you asking the victim to stop being offended by people using slurs? No, he's saying that even if you are offended, the problem will only persist if you keep reacting to it. As long as the troll gets attention from you, he's going to keep trolling you relentlessly because he knows he's getting a reaction out of you. That's how he gets his entertainment. what direction would you recommend for eliminating unjust negative prejudice? My idea? No one would like it. If you really want to get rid of, or curb most dickish behavior online it is pretty simple. Remove complete anonymity on the internet. You are tied to your real name, a picture of yourself, and the location where you live. It's pretty simple. Of course, people will cry foul about that. That being said, studies have shown when you do something that drastic, all of a sudden people aren't such jackasses to each other. Its an old idea, Puritans brought that with them when they first came to the US. When people do not get punished, their bigotry reveals itself. Its only when they get flack from authority/peers that they eventually stop. Culpability. You know the worse way to provide culpability? Ignoring the problem.
That's funny because you want to go band aid every issue rather than actually fixing the main issue itself.
On August 01 2013 03:06 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:03 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 03:01 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 03:00 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 02:52 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:52 Sevre wrote:On August 01 2013 01:47 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:
When you verbally attack a gay person, its homophobia.
and if you did not know that that someone is gay does that still count as homophobia ? if you learn after the fact, does that change retro-actively your state of mind at the time and make you an homophobe ? What I hope you meant is 'verbally attacking someone _for being gay_ is homophobia' Yes yes it is. For example, calling someone a "faggot" (even if it is a straight person) a) assumes that they are gay, b) says that this is something to be ashamed of and signifies that you think less of them as a human being as a result. You cannot use homophobic language without being a homophobe, it doesn't matter if you lack a particular intention to be homophobic, I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. It's like saying I can insult Jews when they're not around me and not be anti-semitic as a result, it's absurd reasoning. c) assumes that the person being called 'gay' would be offented, hence _he_ would be a homophobe for taking such offence ? When I was very little in pre-scholl or a little later, some other children started to make pun with my first-name (which was/is a very common one where I was)... It was getting me mad a lot... then in a glimpse of wisdom, my parent taught me that me reacting so much to it was the reason of its effectiveness... I started to ignore the attemtped offense and, guess what... the power of the pun dissipated and soon enough something else was attempted to be occasionally mean... Note that _nothing_ I could have done, not even successfully banned the offensive name-calling, would have eliminated the underlying motivation to be mean. My point is that words do not have intrinsic power... and it takes 2 to tango. My alternate point is well summarized in this old nursery rhyme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones_(nursery_rhyme)Sticks and stones will break my bones But words will never harm me. are you asking the victim to stop being offended by people using slurs? No, he's saying that even if you are offended, the problem will only persist if you keep reacting to it. As long as the troll gets attention from you, he's going to keep trolling you relentlessly because he knows he's getting a reaction out of you. That's how he gets his entertainment. what direction would you recommend for eliminating unjust negative prejudice? My idea? No one would like it. If you really want to get rid of, or curb most dickish behavior online it is pretty simple. Remove complete anonymity on the internet. You are tied to your real name, a picture of yourself, and the location where you live. It's pretty simple. Of course, people will cry foul about that. That being said, studies have shown when you do something that drastic, all of a sudden people aren't such jackasses to each other. No I dont want to get rid of people being dickish i just want to get rid of people being racist sexist and homophobic (willing ot add to the list tho). how can we do that?
My idea removes all of it, or curbs it to an extent where it is almost non-existent. As a plus, it also removes pretty much all potential for any future dickish behavior in any way possible. Good luck convincing the internet to do that.
|
Northern Ireland23821 Posts
On August 01 2013 03:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:03 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 03:01 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 03:00 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 02:52 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:52 Sevre wrote:On August 01 2013 01:47 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:
When you verbally attack a gay person, its homophobia.
and if you did not know that that someone is gay does that still count as homophobia ? if you learn after the fact, does that change retro-actively your state of mind at the time and make you an homophobe ? What I hope you meant is 'verbally attacking someone _for being gay_ is homophobia' Yes yes it is. For example, calling someone a "faggot" (even if it is a straight person) a) assumes that they are gay, b) says that this is something to be ashamed of and signifies that you think less of them as a human being as a result. You cannot use homophobic language without being a homophobe, it doesn't matter if you lack a particular intention to be homophobic, I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. It's like saying I can insult Jews when they're not around me and not be anti-semitic as a result, it's absurd reasoning. c) assumes that the person being called 'gay' would be offented, hence _he_ would be a homophobe for taking such offence ? When I was very little in pre-scholl or a little later, some other children started to make pun with my first-name (which was/is a very common one where I was)... It was getting me mad a lot... then in a glimpse of wisdom, my parent taught me that me reacting so much to it was the reason of its effectiveness... I started to ignore the attemtped offense and, guess what... the power of the pun dissipated and soon enough something else was attempted to be occasionally mean... Note that _nothing_ I could have done, not even successfully banned the offensive name-calling, would have eliminated the underlying motivation to be mean. My point is that words do not have intrinsic power... and it takes 2 to tango. My alternate point is well summarized in this old nursery rhyme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones_(nursery_rhyme)Sticks and stones will break my bones But words will never harm me. are you asking the victim to stop being offended by people using slurs? No, he's saying that even if you are offended, the problem will only persist if you keep reacting to it. As long as the troll gets attention from you, he's going to keep trolling you relentlessly because he knows he's getting a reaction out of you. That's how he gets his entertainment. what direction would you recommend for eliminating unjust negative prejudice? My idea? No one would like it. If you really want to get rid of, or curb most dickish behavior online it is pretty simple. Remove complete anonymity on the internet. You are tied to your real name, a picture of yourself, and the location where you live. It's pretty simple. Of course, people will cry foul about that. That being said, studies have shown when you do something that drastic, all of a sudden people aren't such jackasses to each other. Its an old idea, Puritans brought that with them when they first came to the US. When people do not get punished, their bigotry reveals itself. Its only when they get flack from authority/peers that they eventually stop. Culpability. You know the worse way to provide culpability? Ignoring the problem.
I'm all for it. I can be what others consider being a 'dick' under my real name and identity. If you don't have the courage to tie your spoutings in with your personal identity, don't be an idiot online.
|
On August 01 2013 02:54 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:48 TWIX_Heaven wrote:On August 01 2013 02:19 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:16 Sevre wrote:On August 01 2013 02:09 Vorenius wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 01:40 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
They are two separate problems that should be fixed... The existence of one should not diminish the existence of the other. Both groups being attacked simply means that the community is *both* sexists and misogynistic.
Are we really supposed to stop trying to make things better for one social group because another social group also has problems? There is no systematic abuse of females in competitive gaming. At all. Until you can prove there is, you don't have to preach 'oh we need to stop this abuse against females!' Like I said, the problem isn't 'female only.' The problem is lots of people on the internet are assholes. If the community attacks women, then there is a problem in the community. If the community attacks gays, then there is a problem in the community. The problems do not disappear just because many social groups are being attacked, it just means the community is more fucked up than you believe. So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point. I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem. I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic. And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds. I think were I would disagree is that people aren't necessarily sexist or homophobic, they are simply dicks in general. If someone on the internet is a different race, they use a racial slur. If it's a different gender they use a sexist one. If it's a different sexual orientation they'll say something homophobic. Failing all that they'll wish you some cancer. They are saying it to hurt someone, not because they believe women are inferior. I'm not defending those kinds of people, or saying it's okay, but if you want to change it, you have to attack the right causes. you can't just stop people from being dicks to women, you have to stop them from being dicks. I agree that we have to stop people from being dicks but you have to understand that using sexist/homophobic/racist language is what qualifies you as being sexist/homophobic/racist, not a particular malicious intent behind it. What we're saying in this thread is that women suffer quite a bit in particular and I don't think that's in dispute, many women are attacked just for being women as opposed to annoying someone in particular i.e. "tits or gtfo". We've already covered this, there is a novelty still of women playing mostly 'male' games. As such, they get increased attention, which thus also causes them to become the main targets of most jackasses on the internet. It's not fair, but that's just how it is. That being said, I have seen very few women complain about the positives of the 'increased attention novelty factor.' On August 01 2013 02:18 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:04 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:58 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 01:49 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
If the community attacks women, then there is a problem in the community.
If the community attacks gays, then there is a problem in the community.
The problems do not disappear just because many social groups are being attacked, it just means the community is more fucked up than you believe.
So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point. what no he has been reiterating that there are lots of problems for like 2 pages now are you serious? Main point is that you're bitching about people being jackasses rather than about a specific problem about 'women being systematically discriminated against.' That's not a female only issue, it's a lots of people are an assholes on the internet issue. On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
If the community attacks women, then there is a problem in the community.
If the community attacks gays, then there is a problem in the community.
The problems do not disappear just because many social groups are being attacked, it just means the community is more fucked up than you believe.
So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point. I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem. I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic. And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds. Whoa now, so when you get caught with your pants down in your argument, all of a sudden I'm getting personally attacked. Good job. Says the man who calls everyone in this thread a White Knight. Its not like people here are making some ground breaking argument. Sexism is still a problem in the world and its likely a problem in gaming. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. There are other problems too, but we can deal with those on a case by case basis. I mean, you don't have to read this thread, so why do so? If you don't think its an issue and you aren't sexist, what is the problem with the discussion? Actually I've only called you and Thieving Magpie white knights because you are exactly that. You're trying to make it like there's a distinct problem against females in the community when there's not. There's no such thing. There's no systematic discrimination, nor is there a vast amount of abuse towards them. They may get targeted more often simply because they stand out more, but that's not unusual in any circumstance. If you stick out, you're going to get increased attention. You both agreed that the issue isn't just related to females, and that it is an internet behavior issue. People are assholes on the internet, and that's all there is to it. Good luck attempting to fix it without invading someone's privacy, because the only way you can fix it is to basically remove their anonymity and put their real name and actual picture attached to their online alias. On August 01 2013 02:04 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 01 2013 01:49 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
If the community attacks women, then there is a problem in the community.
If the community attacks gays, then there is a problem in the community.
The problems do not disappear just because many social groups are being attacked, it just means the community is more fucked up than you believe.
So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point. what no he has been reiterating that there are lots of problems for like 2 pages now are you serious? Main point is that you're bitching about people being jackasses rather than about a specific problem about 'women being systematically discriminated against.' That's not a female only issue, it's a lots of people are an assholes on the internet issue. On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
If the community attacks women, then there is a problem in the community.
If the community attacks gays, then there is a problem in the community.
The problems do not disappear just because many social groups are being attacked, it just means the community is more fucked up than you believe.
So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point. I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem. I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic. And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds. Whoa now, so when you get caught with your pants down in your argument, all of a sudden I'm getting personally attacked. Good job. It's not the same thing. While I agree that using epithets does not necessarily reflect a discriminatory intent, it is that girls attract more attention online, positively and negatively if their handles are 'feminine' Yeah, I get called a faggot on ladder, or BMed after a game. I don't get messages 'oh you're a girl tits or gtfo' Plenty of women posting here and elsewhere say they get a real disproportionate amount of attention while playing games if it's known they're a chick. Regardless of treatment being good or bad, it's tempered by sexism So if I show up to a Justin Beiber concert and a ton of teenage girls call me a faggot, I can claim discrimination now? Or better yet, if all the girls think I'm cool because I like Justin Beiber because I'm a guy, I can still claim discrimination/sexism, because they are treating me differently because I'm a guy? Lmao. We called you sexists and misogynistic, because that is what you are. You don't want people to discuss the issue and actively want the discussion stopped because you don't believe its a problem. Just because you believe something doesn't mean you have the right to tell other people not to talk about it. Furthermore, if we apply your argument to all other forms of abuse online, you could claim racism isn't a problem either. But I don't think you would get very far with that argument, because racism is always a problem and should always be discussed. 'Waagh he blew up my argument now I must call him a sexist and a misogynistic because that's all I can say.' Like I said, the issue is people are dicks. Not that there's a distinct discrimination against women online. You can accuse me of being a sexist/misogynistic all you want. Fact of the matter is, people don't specifically target women. They only target them because they simply standout in a community of mostly men; other people get equal levels of abuse, it's just they aren't as vocal about it. I just had to chime in and say, that you are completely wrong in this matter, and the fact that you can't seem to/want to accept that sexism is a serious issue that affects this community are whole lot is a pretty obvious testament to the problem and it's existence. People being dicks on the internet in general is true, but you have to understand that using sexist slur, jokes and harmful expressions, is sexism, no matter the intent, place or who says it. Just in this thread alone, we have had people like you, saying it's not a problem and it doesn't exist, we have had people pull the "in the kitchen" jokes, we have seen people complaining about some "magic" advantage female gamers/people somehow have, because they are women (which is exactly what sexism is), we have seen people saying it's a normal part of the internet and our community. And you tell me that any girl should, and would feel welcome here? "the game is mostly of interest to men" - well no, it's a sexist stereo-type that it is so. Girls and women have every possibility to like it just as much as you, but unfortunately some people make the community look like a misogynist shit hole and they stay away (for good reason). Those who endure it and stay regardless, have to be faced with people who de-emphasize the problem, and telling people/women the problem doesn't even matter. And instead of discussing the issue itself, or the other issues you mention (dicks on the internet in general) you do the exact opposite, trying to legitimize your own views on hate-jokes. There is nothing to win from what you are trying to do. And people will not stop discussing it just cause you want them to. And some of us will not stop fighting discrimination in this community, after all the whole purpose for us is to educate and hopefully change the views of people to create a better community for everyone - so that they might feel more inclined to join in on all this wonderful fun we are having. 1) I already proved that SC2's competitive nature is a turn off to girls; whether this is a society issue or not is up for debate. Read the studies I linked. Competitive atmosphere = turnoff for women. 2) It's a proven fact that females have an advantage when it comes to obtaining jobs in SC2. Flo, Aphrodite, and various other female players are given chances of a lifetime that far higher quality male players simply do not get (some male GM players will never get the chances that these women do). Not to mention the 'all girl teams' in games like CS/DotA 2 where clearly inferior players are given chances that they do not deserve. 3) I never legitimized the 'hate speech.' All I said was that the 'hate speech' really isn't hate speech, and more of immature dickish behavior from 15-25ish year old males. 4) Again, you keep thinking that there's a distinct discrimination issue against women in SC2 and E-Sports in general, and yet none of you have proven it. And no, bringing up a few posts doesn't prove anything, because I can easily turn it around and find plenty of evidence around the internet that 'supports women in E-Sports.'
1) He provided a single study that showed that women in general are uncomforatable in competative settings. The study also stated that this is likely caused by social issues and that with support and efforts to address the confidence issues, the women well in competitive settings.
2) He proved that some female players were given undue advantage due to being women. However, the existence of the does not preclude sexism or prove that it is not a problem, only that separate problem may exist.
3) Hate speak, like threats of violence, is not defined by the intent of the speaker, but the perception of the person being threatened/insulted.
4) We are not required to prove that sexism exists, because it is given fact. It is a problem in all social groups. It is a larger problem in social groups that are dominated by males, which SC2 community is. Unless other factors exist, we can safely assume that sexism is a problem in the community on some level. From accounts of women attempting to interact with the community, the problem seems to be universal.
|
Ah, hi guys, i didn't see this topic until just now, a little late to the party :x I'm from BaseTradeTV and I've cast with quite a few women at this point, so just looking to add my 2 cents. I'm not sure if it's been discussed, but one of the main problems regarding most women when it comes to casting is their voice.
Unless you sound like this (an over exaggeration ofc) it's hard for most peoples to actually listen to you, and as a caster/commentator the reality is that you just end up sounding like a young boy. In TV you have Bart Simpson, or Ash Ketchum voiced by adult women because their 'natural' voice tones sound a lot similar to a teenage boy than any guys'. The problem doesn't just apply to women of course, if I'm casting and my voice is squeeky & randomly cracks and I have a lisp, nobody is going to enjoy listening to that cast, so why would they watch it?
Sc2 Commentating/Casting is often more about listening than watching, so the focus has to be on what pleases your ears. Sadly, especially when filtered through a cheap headset mic, most women don't end up sounding that pleasing when yelling about crazy games  Unless you have an incredibly sexy Australian accent to pair with it, of course. ![[image loading]](http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSETeyKUPU3khOWS2PZ7gqPUSDO5V69dgrgOsDUjpVTjJhnEe82Mg)
|
On August 01 2013 03:07 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 03:01 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 03:00 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 02:52 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:52 Sevre wrote:On August 01 2013 01:47 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:
When you verbally attack a gay person, its homophobia.
and if you did not know that that someone is gay does that still count as homophobia ? if you learn after the fact, does that change retro-actively your state of mind at the time and make you an homophobe ? What I hope you meant is 'verbally attacking someone _for being gay_ is homophobia' Yes yes it is. For example, calling someone a "faggot" (even if it is a straight person) a) assumes that they are gay, b) says that this is something to be ashamed of and signifies that you think less of them as a human being as a result. You cannot use homophobic language without being a homophobe, it doesn't matter if you lack a particular intention to be homophobic, I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. It's like saying I can insult Jews when they're not around me and not be anti-semitic as a result, it's absurd reasoning. c) assumes that the person being called 'gay' would be offented, hence _he_ would be a homophobe for taking such offence ? When I was very little in pre-scholl or a little later, some other children started to make pun with my first-name (which was/is a very common one where I was)... It was getting me mad a lot... then in a glimpse of wisdom, my parent taught me that me reacting so much to it was the reason of its effectiveness... I started to ignore the attemtped offense and, guess what... the power of the pun dissipated and soon enough something else was attempted to be occasionally mean... Note that _nothing_ I could have done, not even successfully banned the offensive name-calling, would have eliminated the underlying motivation to be mean. My point is that words do not have intrinsic power... and it takes 2 to tango. My alternate point is well summarized in this old nursery rhyme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones_(nursery_rhyme)Sticks and stones will break my bones But words will never harm me. are you asking the victim to stop being offended by people using slurs? No, he's saying that even if you are offended, the problem will only persist if you keep reacting to it. As long as the troll gets attention from you, he's going to keep trolling you relentlessly because he knows he's getting a reaction out of you. That's how he gets his entertainment. what direction would you recommend for eliminating unjust negative prejudice? My idea? No one would like it. If you really want to get rid of, or curb most dickish behavior online it is pretty simple. Remove complete anonymity on the internet. You are tied to your real name, a picture of yourself, and the location where you live. It's pretty simple. Of course, people will cry foul about that. That being said, studies have shown when you do something that drastic, all of a sudden people aren't such jackasses to each other. Its an old idea, Puritans brought that with them when they first came to the US. When people do not get punished, their bigotry reveals itself. Its only when they get flack from authority/peers that they eventually stop. Culpability. You know the worse way to provide culpability? Ignoring the problem. That's funny because you want to go band aid every issue rather than actually fixing the main issue itself.
Telling people to stop being derogatory is not band-aiding an issue.
Thinking that social problems can be easily fix with just 1-2 policy changes is stupid. Each problem comes with its own intricacies. You fix them on a case by case basis and the complexities change over time requiring new tactics to resolve each one. It is a continual process that doesn't simply "end" like some final boss in a video game.
|
On August 01 2013 03:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:54 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:48 TWIX_Heaven wrote:On August 01 2013 02:19 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:16 Sevre wrote:On August 01 2013 02:09 Vorenius wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 01:40 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
There is no systematic abuse of females in competitive gaming. At all. Until you can prove there is, you don't have to preach 'oh we need to stop this abuse against females!'
Like I said, the problem isn't 'female only.' The problem is lots of people on the internet are assholes.
If the community attacks women, then there is a problem in the community. If the community attacks gays, then there is a problem in the community. The problems do not disappear just because many social groups are being attacked, it just means the community is more fucked up than you believe. So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point. I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem. I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic. And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds. I think were I would disagree is that people aren't necessarily sexist or homophobic, they are simply dicks in general. If someone on the internet is a different race, they use a racial slur. If it's a different gender they use a sexist one. If it's a different sexual orientation they'll say something homophobic. Failing all that they'll wish you some cancer. They are saying it to hurt someone, not because they believe women are inferior. I'm not defending those kinds of people, or saying it's okay, but if you want to change it, you have to attack the right causes. you can't just stop people from being dicks to women, you have to stop them from being dicks. I agree that we have to stop people from being dicks but you have to understand that using sexist/homophobic/racist language is what qualifies you as being sexist/homophobic/racist, not a particular malicious intent behind it. What we're saying in this thread is that women suffer quite a bit in particular and I don't think that's in dispute, many women are attacked just for being women as opposed to annoying someone in particular i.e. "tits or gtfo". We've already covered this, there is a novelty still of women playing mostly 'male' games. As such, they get increased attention, which thus also causes them to become the main targets of most jackasses on the internet. It's not fair, but that's just how it is. That being said, I have seen very few women complain about the positives of the 'increased attention novelty factor.' On August 01 2013 02:18 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:04 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:58 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 01:49 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point.
what no he has been reiterating that there are lots of problems for like 2 pages now are you serious? Main point is that you're bitching about people being jackasses rather than about a specific problem about 'women being systematically discriminated against.' That's not a female only issue, it's a lots of people are an assholes on the internet issue. On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point.
I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem. I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic. And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds. Whoa now, so when you get caught with your pants down in your argument, all of a sudden I'm getting personally attacked. Good job. Says the man who calls everyone in this thread a White Knight. Its not like people here are making some ground breaking argument. Sexism is still a problem in the world and its likely a problem in gaming. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. There are other problems too, but we can deal with those on a case by case basis. I mean, you don't have to read this thread, so why do so? If you don't think its an issue and you aren't sexist, what is the problem with the discussion? Actually I've only called you and Thieving Magpie white knights because you are exactly that. You're trying to make it like there's a distinct problem against females in the community when there's not. There's no such thing. There's no systematic discrimination, nor is there a vast amount of abuse towards them. They may get targeted more often simply because they stand out more, but that's not unusual in any circumstance. If you stick out, you're going to get increased attention. You both agreed that the issue isn't just related to females, and that it is an internet behavior issue. People are assholes on the internet, and that's all there is to it. Good luck attempting to fix it without invading someone's privacy, because the only way you can fix it is to basically remove their anonymity and put their real name and actual picture attached to their online alias. On August 01 2013 02:04 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 01 2013 01:49 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point.
what no he has been reiterating that there are lots of problems for like 2 pages now are you serious? Main point is that you're bitching about people being jackasses rather than about a specific problem about 'women being systematically discriminated against.' That's not a female only issue, it's a lots of people are an assholes on the internet issue. On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point.
I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem. I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic. And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds. Whoa now, so when you get caught with your pants down in your argument, all of a sudden I'm getting personally attacked. Good job. It's not the same thing. While I agree that using epithets does not necessarily reflect a discriminatory intent, it is that girls attract more attention online, positively and negatively if their handles are 'feminine' Yeah, I get called a faggot on ladder, or BMed after a game. I don't get messages 'oh you're a girl tits or gtfo' Plenty of women posting here and elsewhere say they get a real disproportionate amount of attention while playing games if it's known they're a chick. Regardless of treatment being good or bad, it's tempered by sexism So if I show up to a Justin Beiber concert and a ton of teenage girls call me a faggot, I can claim discrimination now? Or better yet, if all the girls think I'm cool because I like Justin Beiber because I'm a guy, I can still claim discrimination/sexism, because they are treating me differently because I'm a guy? Lmao. We called you sexists and misogynistic, because that is what you are. You don't want people to discuss the issue and actively want the discussion stopped because you don't believe its a problem. Just because you believe something doesn't mean you have the right to tell other people not to talk about it. Furthermore, if we apply your argument to all other forms of abuse online, you could claim racism isn't a problem either. But I don't think you would get very far with that argument, because racism is always a problem and should always be discussed. 'Waagh he blew up my argument now I must call him a sexist and a misogynistic because that's all I can say.' Like I said, the issue is people are dicks. Not that there's a distinct discrimination against women online. You can accuse me of being a sexist/misogynistic all you want. Fact of the matter is, people don't specifically target women. They only target them because they simply standout in a community of mostly men; other people get equal levels of abuse, it's just they aren't as vocal about it. I just had to chime in and say, that you are completely wrong in this matter, and the fact that you can't seem to/want to accept that sexism is a serious issue that affects this community are whole lot is a pretty obvious testament to the problem and it's existence. People being dicks on the internet in general is true, but you have to understand that using sexist slur, jokes and harmful expressions, is sexism, no matter the intent, place or who says it. Just in this thread alone, we have had people like you, saying it's not a problem and it doesn't exist, we have had people pull the "in the kitchen" jokes, we have seen people complaining about some "magic" advantage female gamers/people somehow have, because they are women (which is exactly what sexism is), we have seen people saying it's a normal part of the internet and our community. And you tell me that any girl should, and would feel welcome here? "the game is mostly of interest to men" - well no, it's a sexist stereo-type that it is so. Girls and women have every possibility to like it just as much as you, but unfortunately some people make the community look like a misogynist shit hole and they stay away (for good reason). Those who endure it and stay regardless, have to be faced with people who de-emphasize the problem, and telling people/women the problem doesn't even matter. And instead of discussing the issue itself, or the other issues you mention (dicks on the internet in general) you do the exact opposite, trying to legitimize your own views on hate-jokes. There is nothing to win from what you are trying to do. And people will not stop discussing it just cause you want them to. And some of us will not stop fighting discrimination in this community, after all the whole purpose for us is to educate and hopefully change the views of people to create a better community for everyone - so that they might feel more inclined to join in on all this wonderful fun we are having. 1) I already proved that SC2's competitive nature is a turn off to girls; whether this is a society issue or not is up for debate. Read the studies I linked. Competitive atmosphere = turnoff for women. 2) It's a proven fact that females have an advantage when it comes to obtaining jobs in SC2. Flo, Aphrodite, and various other female players are given chances of a lifetime that far higher quality male players simply do not get (some male GM players will never get the chances that these women do). Not to mention the 'all girl teams' in games like CS/DotA 2 where clearly inferior players are given chances that they do not deserve. 3) I never legitimized the 'hate speech.' All I said was that the 'hate speech' really isn't hate speech, and more of immature dickish behavior from 15-25ish year old males. 4) Again, you keep thinking that there's a distinct discrimination issue against women in SC2 and E-Sports in general, and yet none of you have proven it. And no, bringing up a few posts doesn't prove anything, because I can easily turn it around and find plenty of evidence around the internet that 'supports women in E-Sports.' 1) He provided a single study that showed that women in general are uncomforatable in competative settings. The study also stated that this is likely caused by social issues and that with support and efforts to address the confidence issues, the women well in competitive settings. 2) He proved that some female players were given undue advantage due to being women. However, the existence of the does not preclude sexism or prove that it is not a problem, only that separate problem may exist.3) Hate speak, like threats of violence, is not defined by the intent of the speaker, but the perception of the person being threatened/insulted. 4) We are not required to prove that sexism exists, because it is given fact. It is a problem in all social groups. It is a larger problem in social groups that are dominated by males, which SC2 community is. Unless other factors exist, we can safely assume that sexism is a problem in the community on some level. From accounts of women attempting to interact with the community, the problem seems to be universal.
So you're saying women are ok with taking advantage of the fact that they are women, but not ok when people criticize them for doing so?
On August 01 2013 03:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:07 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 03:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 03:01 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 03:00 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 02:52 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:52 Sevre wrote:On August 01 2013 01:47 shmget wrote:
[quote]
and if you did not know that that someone is gay does that still count as homophobia ?
if you learn after the fact, does that change retro-actively your state of mind at the time and make you an homophobe ?
What I hope you meant is 'verbally attacking someone _for being gay_ is homophobia'
Yes yes it is. For example, calling someone a "faggot" (even if it is a straight person) a) assumes that they are gay, b) says that this is something to be ashamed of and signifies that you think less of them as a human being as a result. You cannot use homophobic language without being a homophobe, it doesn't matter if you lack a particular intention to be homophobic, I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. It's like saying I can insult Jews when they're not around me and not be anti-semitic as a result, it's absurd reasoning. c) assumes that the person being called 'gay' would be offented, hence _he_ would be a homophobe for taking such offence ? When I was very little in pre-scholl or a little later, some other children started to make pun with my first-name (which was/is a very common one where I was)... It was getting me mad a lot... then in a glimpse of wisdom, my parent taught me that me reacting so much to it was the reason of its effectiveness... I started to ignore the attemtped offense and, guess what... the power of the pun dissipated and soon enough something else was attempted to be occasionally mean... Note that _nothing_ I could have done, not even successfully banned the offensive name-calling, would have eliminated the underlying motivation to be mean. My point is that words do not have intrinsic power... and it takes 2 to tango. My alternate point is well summarized in this old nursery rhyme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones_(nursery_rhyme)Sticks and stones will break my bones But words will never harm me. are you asking the victim to stop being offended by people using slurs? No, he's saying that even if you are offended, the problem will only persist if you keep reacting to it. As long as the troll gets attention from you, he's going to keep trolling you relentlessly because he knows he's getting a reaction out of you. That's how he gets his entertainment. what direction would you recommend for eliminating unjust negative prejudice? My idea? No one would like it. If you really want to get rid of, or curb most dickish behavior online it is pretty simple. Remove complete anonymity on the internet. You are tied to your real name, a picture of yourself, and the location where you live. It's pretty simple. Of course, people will cry foul about that. That being said, studies have shown when you do something that drastic, all of a sudden people aren't such jackasses to each other. Its an old idea, Puritans brought that with them when they first came to the US. When people do not get punished, their bigotry reveals itself. Its only when they get flack from authority/peers that they eventually stop. Culpability. You know the worse way to provide culpability? Ignoring the problem. That's funny because you want to go band aid every issue rather than actually fixing the main issue itself. Telling people to stop being derogatory is not band-aiding an issue. Thinking that social problems can be easily fix with just 1-2 policy changes is stupid. Each problem comes with its own intricacies. You fix them on a case by case basis and the complexities change over time requiring new tactics to resolve each one. It is a continual process that doesn't simply "end" like some final boss in a video game.
You'll be on a never ending quest then. Only real way to fix the issue is to make people take responsibility for their actions. The only way to do that is to remove the veil of anonymity on the internet. Until you remove said veil of anonymity, people will continue to be jackasses, pirate (essentially the essence of stealing), and do all other sorts of nonsense on the internet.
|
Northern Ireland23821 Posts
On August 01 2013 03:09 Rif_king wrote:Ah, hi guys, i didn't see this topic until just now, a little late to the party :x I'm from BaseTradeTV and I've cast with quite a few women at this point, so just looking to add my 2 cents. I'm not sure if it's been discussed, but one of the main problems regarding most women when it comes to casting is their voice. Unless you sound like this (an over exaggeration ofc) it's hard for most peoples to actually listen to you, and as a caster/commentator the reality is that you just end up sounding like a young boy. In TV you have Bart Simpson, or Ash Ketchum voiced by adult women because their 'natural' voice tones sound a lot similar to a teenage boy than any guys'. The problem doesn't just apply to women of course, if I'm casting and my voice is squeeky & randomly cracks and I have a lisp, nobody is going to enjoy listening to that cast, so why would they watch it? Sc2 Commentating/Casting is often more about listening than watching, so the focus has to be on what pleases your ears. Sadly, especially when filtered through a cheap headset mic, most women don't end up sounding that pleasing when yelling about crazy games Unless you have an incredibly sexy Australian accent to pair with it, of course.
Solution to the voice issue?
We have to teach Joan Rivers the intricacies of Starcraft.
|
On August 01 2013 03:11 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:08 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:54 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:48 TWIX_Heaven wrote:On August 01 2013 02:19 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:16 Sevre wrote:On August 01 2013 02:09 Vorenius wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
If the community attacks women, then there is a problem in the community.
If the community attacks gays, then there is a problem in the community.
The problems do not disappear just because many social groups are being attacked, it just means the community is more fucked up than you believe.
So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point. I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem. I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic. And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds. I think were I would disagree is that people aren't necessarily sexist or homophobic, they are simply dicks in general. If someone on the internet is a different race, they use a racial slur. If it's a different gender they use a sexist one. If it's a different sexual orientation they'll say something homophobic. Failing all that they'll wish you some cancer. They are saying it to hurt someone, not because they believe women are inferior. I'm not defending those kinds of people, or saying it's okay, but if you want to change it, you have to attack the right causes. you can't just stop people from being dicks to women, you have to stop them from being dicks. I agree that we have to stop people from being dicks but you have to understand that using sexist/homophobic/racist language is what qualifies you as being sexist/homophobic/racist, not a particular malicious intent behind it. What we're saying in this thread is that women suffer quite a bit in particular and I don't think that's in dispute, many women are attacked just for being women as opposed to annoying someone in particular i.e. "tits or gtfo". We've already covered this, there is a novelty still of women playing mostly 'male' games. As such, they get increased attention, which thus also causes them to become the main targets of most jackasses on the internet. It's not fair, but that's just how it is. That being said, I have seen very few women complain about the positives of the 'increased attention novelty factor.' On August 01 2013 02:18 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:04 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:58 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 01:49 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
what no he has been reiterating that there are lots of problems for like 2 pages now are you serious? Main point is that you're bitching about people being jackasses rather than about a specific problem about 'women being systematically discriminated against.' That's not a female only issue, it's a lots of people are an assholes on the internet issue. On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed.
I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed.
I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem.
I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic.
And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds.
Whoa now, so when you get caught with your pants down in your argument, all of a sudden I'm getting personally attacked. Good job. Says the man who calls everyone in this thread a White Knight. Its not like people here are making some ground breaking argument. Sexism is still a problem in the world and its likely a problem in gaming. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. There are other problems too, but we can deal with those on a case by case basis. I mean, you don't have to read this thread, so why do so? If you don't think its an issue and you aren't sexist, what is the problem with the discussion? Actually I've only called you and Thieving Magpie white knights because you are exactly that. You're trying to make it like there's a distinct problem against females in the community when there's not. There's no such thing. There's no systematic discrimination, nor is there a vast amount of abuse towards them. They may get targeted more often simply because they stand out more, but that's not unusual in any circumstance. If you stick out, you're going to get increased attention. You both agreed that the issue isn't just related to females, and that it is an internet behavior issue. People are assholes on the internet, and that's all there is to it. Good luck attempting to fix it without invading someone's privacy, because the only way you can fix it is to basically remove their anonymity and put their real name and actual picture attached to their online alias. On August 01 2013 02:04 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 01 2013 01:49 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
what no he has been reiterating that there are lots of problems for like 2 pages now are you serious? Main point is that you're bitching about people being jackasses rather than about a specific problem about 'women being systematically discriminated against.' That's not a female only issue, it's a lots of people are an assholes on the internet issue. On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed.
I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed.
I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem.
I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic.
And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds.
Whoa now, so when you get caught with your pants down in your argument, all of a sudden I'm getting personally attacked. Good job. It's not the same thing. While I agree that using epithets does not necessarily reflect a discriminatory intent, it is that girls attract more attention online, positively and negatively if their handles are 'feminine' Yeah, I get called a faggot on ladder, or BMed after a game. I don't get messages 'oh you're a girl tits or gtfo' Plenty of women posting here and elsewhere say they get a real disproportionate amount of attention while playing games if it's known they're a chick. Regardless of treatment being good or bad, it's tempered by sexism So if I show up to a Justin Beiber concert and a ton of teenage girls call me a faggot, I can claim discrimination now? Or better yet, if all the girls think I'm cool because I like Justin Beiber because I'm a guy, I can still claim discrimination/sexism, because they are treating me differently because I'm a guy? Lmao. We called you sexists and misogynistic, because that is what you are. You don't want people to discuss the issue and actively want the discussion stopped because you don't believe its a problem. Just because you believe something doesn't mean you have the right to tell other people not to talk about it. Furthermore, if we apply your argument to all other forms of abuse online, you could claim racism isn't a problem either. But I don't think you would get very far with that argument, because racism is always a problem and should always be discussed. 'Waagh he blew up my argument now I must call him a sexist and a misogynistic because that's all I can say.' Like I said, the issue is people are dicks. Not that there's a distinct discrimination against women online. You can accuse me of being a sexist/misogynistic all you want. Fact of the matter is, people don't specifically target women. They only target them because they simply standout in a community of mostly men; other people get equal levels of abuse, it's just they aren't as vocal about it. I just had to chime in and say, that you are completely wrong in this matter, and the fact that you can't seem to/want to accept that sexism is a serious issue that affects this community are whole lot is a pretty obvious testament to the problem and it's existence. People being dicks on the internet in general is true, but you have to understand that using sexist slur, jokes and harmful expressions, is sexism, no matter the intent, place or who says it. Just in this thread alone, we have had people like you, saying it's not a problem and it doesn't exist, we have had people pull the "in the kitchen" jokes, we have seen people complaining about some "magic" advantage female gamers/people somehow have, because they are women (which is exactly what sexism is), we have seen people saying it's a normal part of the internet and our community. And you tell me that any girl should, and would feel welcome here? "the game is mostly of interest to men" - well no, it's a sexist stereo-type that it is so. Girls and women have every possibility to like it just as much as you, but unfortunately some people make the community look like a misogynist shit hole and they stay away (for good reason). Those who endure it and stay regardless, have to be faced with people who de-emphasize the problem, and telling people/women the problem doesn't even matter. And instead of discussing the issue itself, or the other issues you mention (dicks on the internet in general) you do the exact opposite, trying to legitimize your own views on hate-jokes. There is nothing to win from what you are trying to do. And people will not stop discussing it just cause you want them to. And some of us will not stop fighting discrimination in this community, after all the whole purpose for us is to educate and hopefully change the views of people to create a better community for everyone - so that they might feel more inclined to join in on all this wonderful fun we are having. 1) I already proved that SC2's competitive nature is a turn off to girls; whether this is a society issue or not is up for debate. Read the studies I linked. Competitive atmosphere = turnoff for women. 2) It's a proven fact that females have an advantage when it comes to obtaining jobs in SC2. Flo, Aphrodite, and various other female players are given chances of a lifetime that far higher quality male players simply do not get (some male GM players will never get the chances that these women do). Not to mention the 'all girl teams' in games like CS/DotA 2 where clearly inferior players are given chances that they do not deserve. 3) I never legitimized the 'hate speech.' All I said was that the 'hate speech' really isn't hate speech, and more of immature dickish behavior from 15-25ish year old males. 4) Again, you keep thinking that there's a distinct discrimination issue against women in SC2 and E-Sports in general, and yet none of you have proven it. And no, bringing up a few posts doesn't prove anything, because I can easily turn it around and find plenty of evidence around the internet that 'supports women in E-Sports.' 1) He provided a single study that showed that women in general are uncomforatable in competative settings. The study also stated that this is likely caused by social issues and that with support and efforts to address the confidence issues, the women well in competitive settings. 2) He proved that some female players were given undue advantage due to being women. However, the existence of the does not preclude sexism or prove that it is not a problem, only that separate problem may exist.3) Hate speak, like threats of violence, is not defined by the intent of the speaker, but the perception of the person being threatened/insulted. 4) We are not required to prove that sexism exists, because it is given fact. It is a problem in all social groups. It is a larger problem in social groups that are dominated by males, which SC2 community is. Unless other factors exist, we can safely assume that sexism is a problem in the community on some level. From accounts of women attempting to interact with the community, the problem seems to be universal. So you're saying women are ok with taking advantage of the fact that they are women, but not ok when people criticize them for doing so?
I read you saying that like "I hate all Muslims because of extremists"
|
Northern Ireland23821 Posts
On August 01 2013 03:11 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:08 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:54 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:48 TWIX_Heaven wrote:On August 01 2013 02:19 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:16 Sevre wrote:On August 01 2013 02:09 Vorenius wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
If the community attacks women, then there is a problem in the community.
If the community attacks gays, then there is a problem in the community.
The problems do not disappear just because many social groups are being attacked, it just means the community is more fucked up than you believe.
So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point. I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem. I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic. And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds. I think were I would disagree is that people aren't necessarily sexist or homophobic, they are simply dicks in general. If someone on the internet is a different race, they use a racial slur. If it's a different gender they use a sexist one. If it's a different sexual orientation they'll say something homophobic. Failing all that they'll wish you some cancer. They are saying it to hurt someone, not because they believe women are inferior. I'm not defending those kinds of people, or saying it's okay, but if you want to change it, you have to attack the right causes. you can't just stop people from being dicks to women, you have to stop them from being dicks. I agree that we have to stop people from being dicks but you have to understand that using sexist/homophobic/racist language is what qualifies you as being sexist/homophobic/racist, not a particular malicious intent behind it. What we're saying in this thread is that women suffer quite a bit in particular and I don't think that's in dispute, many women are attacked just for being women as opposed to annoying someone in particular i.e. "tits or gtfo". We've already covered this, there is a novelty still of women playing mostly 'male' games. As such, they get increased attention, which thus also causes them to become the main targets of most jackasses on the internet. It's not fair, but that's just how it is. That being said, I have seen very few women complain about the positives of the 'increased attention novelty factor.' On August 01 2013 02:18 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:04 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:58 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 01:49 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
what no he has been reiterating that there are lots of problems for like 2 pages now are you serious? Main point is that you're bitching about people being jackasses rather than about a specific problem about 'women being systematically discriminated against.' That's not a female only issue, it's a lots of people are an assholes on the internet issue. On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed.
I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed.
I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem.
I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic.
And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds.
Whoa now, so when you get caught with your pants down in your argument, all of a sudden I'm getting personally attacked. Good job. Says the man who calls everyone in this thread a White Knight. Its not like people here are making some ground breaking argument. Sexism is still a problem in the world and its likely a problem in gaming. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. There are other problems too, but we can deal with those on a case by case basis. I mean, you don't have to read this thread, so why do so? If you don't think its an issue and you aren't sexist, what is the problem with the discussion? Actually I've only called you and Thieving Magpie white knights because you are exactly that. You're trying to make it like there's a distinct problem against females in the community when there's not. There's no such thing. There's no systematic discrimination, nor is there a vast amount of abuse towards them. They may get targeted more often simply because they stand out more, but that's not unusual in any circumstance. If you stick out, you're going to get increased attention. You both agreed that the issue isn't just related to females, and that it is an internet behavior issue. People are assholes on the internet, and that's all there is to it. Good luck attempting to fix it without invading someone's privacy, because the only way you can fix it is to basically remove their anonymity and put their real name and actual picture attached to their online alias. On August 01 2013 02:04 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 01 2013 01:49 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
what no he has been reiterating that there are lots of problems for like 2 pages now are you serious? Main point is that you're bitching about people being jackasses rather than about a specific problem about 'women being systematically discriminated against.' That's not a female only issue, it's a lots of people are an assholes on the internet issue. On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed.
I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed.
I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem.
I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic.
And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds.
Whoa now, so when you get caught with your pants down in your argument, all of a sudden I'm getting personally attacked. Good job. It's not the same thing. While I agree that using epithets does not necessarily reflect a discriminatory intent, it is that girls attract more attention online, positively and negatively if their handles are 'feminine' Yeah, I get called a faggot on ladder, or BMed after a game. I don't get messages 'oh you're a girl tits or gtfo' Plenty of women posting here and elsewhere say they get a real disproportionate amount of attention while playing games if it's known they're a chick. Regardless of treatment being good or bad, it's tempered by sexism So if I show up to a Justin Beiber concert and a ton of teenage girls call me a faggot, I can claim discrimination now? Or better yet, if all the girls think I'm cool because I like Justin Beiber because I'm a guy, I can still claim discrimination/sexism, because they are treating me differently because I'm a guy? Lmao. We called you sexists and misogynistic, because that is what you are. You don't want people to discuss the issue and actively want the discussion stopped because you don't believe its a problem. Just because you believe something doesn't mean you have the right to tell other people not to talk about it. Furthermore, if we apply your argument to all other forms of abuse online, you could claim racism isn't a problem either. But I don't think you would get very far with that argument, because racism is always a problem and should always be discussed. 'Waagh he blew up my argument now I must call him a sexist and a misogynistic because that's all I can say.' Like I said, the issue is people are dicks. Not that there's a distinct discrimination against women online. You can accuse me of being a sexist/misogynistic all you want. Fact of the matter is, people don't specifically target women. They only target them because they simply standout in a community of mostly men; other people get equal levels of abuse, it's just they aren't as vocal about it. I just had to chime in and say, that you are completely wrong in this matter, and the fact that you can't seem to/want to accept that sexism is a serious issue that affects this community are whole lot is a pretty obvious testament to the problem and it's existence. People being dicks on the internet in general is true, but you have to understand that using sexist slur, jokes and harmful expressions, is sexism, no matter the intent, place or who says it. Just in this thread alone, we have had people like you, saying it's not a problem and it doesn't exist, we have had people pull the "in the kitchen" jokes, we have seen people complaining about some "magic" advantage female gamers/people somehow have, because they are women (which is exactly what sexism is), we have seen people saying it's a normal part of the internet and our community. And you tell me that any girl should, and would feel welcome here? "the game is mostly of interest to men" - well no, it's a sexist stereo-type that it is so. Girls and women have every possibility to like it just as much as you, but unfortunately some people make the community look like a misogynist shit hole and they stay away (for good reason). Those who endure it and stay regardless, have to be faced with people who de-emphasize the problem, and telling people/women the problem doesn't even matter. And instead of discussing the issue itself, or the other issues you mention (dicks on the internet in general) you do the exact opposite, trying to legitimize your own views on hate-jokes. There is nothing to win from what you are trying to do. And people will not stop discussing it just cause you want them to. And some of us will not stop fighting discrimination in this community, after all the whole purpose for us is to educate and hopefully change the views of people to create a better community for everyone - so that they might feel more inclined to join in on all this wonderful fun we are having. 1) I already proved that SC2's competitive nature is a turn off to girls; whether this is a society issue or not is up for debate. Read the studies I linked. Competitive atmosphere = turnoff for women. 2) It's a proven fact that females have an advantage when it comes to obtaining jobs in SC2. Flo, Aphrodite, and various other female players are given chances of a lifetime that far higher quality male players simply do not get (some male GM players will never get the chances that these women do). Not to mention the 'all girl teams' in games like CS/DotA 2 where clearly inferior players are given chances that they do not deserve. 3) I never legitimized the 'hate speech.' All I said was that the 'hate speech' really isn't hate speech, and more of immature dickish behavior from 15-25ish year old males. 4) Again, you keep thinking that there's a distinct discrimination issue against women in SC2 and E-Sports in general, and yet none of you have proven it. And no, bringing up a few posts doesn't prove anything, because I can easily turn it around and find plenty of evidence around the internet that 'supports women in E-Sports.' 1) He provided a single study that showed that women in general are uncomforatable in competative settings. The study also stated that this is likely caused by social issues and that with support and efforts to address the confidence issues, the women well in competitive settings. 2) He proved that some female players were given undue advantage due to being women. However, the existence of the does not preclude sexism or prove that it is not a problem, only that separate problem may exist.3) Hate speak, like threats of violence, is not defined by the intent of the speaker, but the perception of the person being threatened/insulted. 4) We are not required to prove that sexism exists, because it is given fact. It is a problem in all social groups. It is a larger problem in social groups that are dominated by males, which SC2 community is. Unless other factors exist, we can safely assume that sexism is a problem in the community on some level. From accounts of women attempting to interact with the community, the problem seems to be universal. So you're saying women are ok with taking advantage of the fact that they are women, but not ok when people criticize them for doing so?
If there's an advantage to be had by simply BEING a woman, it's a rather clear indication that sexism exists as a factor, that's all.
|
On August 01 2013 01:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 01:57 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Gay jokes are homophobic, female jokes are sexist, race jokes are racist. They're all bad, and they're all part of the community we are in both online and offline.
It being the internet doesn't make it okay to do any of it.
Any kind of joke is <something>-phobic by this standard and therefore are bad... Jokes must be banned.... example: Belgian joke: "why is there no lighting on French Autoroute (Interstate Highway in the US)... because they all think they are so bright!" French Joke: "why do Belgian do not practice water-skying.... because they can't find a lake steep enough" Off color human is always acceptable in the right company. However, it is also always "use at your own risk of offending someone". Context is key and you know this because you yelled at someone for context on the last page.
I yelled ? did I accidentally used all-caps ? If I did, sorry... I rarely resort to that kind of gimick to make a point.
now: "use at your own risk of offending someone"
That is not a risk, that is a certainty. no matter what you say or how you say it, someone somewhere will be offended.
And beside that was not the arguments here... the poster claimed that 'female jokes are sexist' which I assume really meant 'joke making fun of female are sexist'... he did not allow for any exception or context... it was a plain absolute statement.
by that standard my 'Belgian joke (making fun of French)' is 'french-ist' full stop.
And yes, I do agree that context matter, and that a 'joke' can be a mean-spririted attack in disguise... but that is not an equivalence... In any case I fail to see why some joke topic need topic a preferential treatment... should we add 'male joke are mysandric' to the list ?
|
On August 01 2013 03:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:07 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 03:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 03:01 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 03:00 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 02:52 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:52 Sevre wrote:On August 01 2013 01:47 shmget wrote:
[quote]
and if you did not know that that someone is gay does that still count as homophobia ?
if you learn after the fact, does that change retro-actively your state of mind at the time and make you an homophobe ?
What I hope you meant is 'verbally attacking someone _for being gay_ is homophobia'
Yes yes it is. For example, calling someone a "faggot" (even if it is a straight person) a) assumes that they are gay, b) says that this is something to be ashamed of and signifies that you think less of them as a human being as a result. You cannot use homophobic language without being a homophobe, it doesn't matter if you lack a particular intention to be homophobic, I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. It's like saying I can insult Jews when they're not around me and not be anti-semitic as a result, it's absurd reasoning. c) assumes that the person being called 'gay' would be offented, hence _he_ would be a homophobe for taking such offence ? When I was very little in pre-scholl or a little later, some other children started to make pun with my first-name (which was/is a very common one where I was)... It was getting me mad a lot... then in a glimpse of wisdom, my parent taught me that me reacting so much to it was the reason of its effectiveness... I started to ignore the attemtped offense and, guess what... the power of the pun dissipated and soon enough something else was attempted to be occasionally mean... Note that _nothing_ I could have done, not even successfully banned the offensive name-calling, would have eliminated the underlying motivation to be mean. My point is that words do not have intrinsic power... and it takes 2 to tango. My alternate point is well summarized in this old nursery rhyme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones_(nursery_rhyme)Sticks and stones will break my bones But words will never harm me. are you asking the victim to stop being offended by people using slurs? No, he's saying that even if you are offended, the problem will only persist if you keep reacting to it. As long as the troll gets attention from you, he's going to keep trolling you relentlessly because he knows he's getting a reaction out of you. That's how he gets his entertainment. what direction would you recommend for eliminating unjust negative prejudice? My idea? No one would like it. If you really want to get rid of, or curb most dickish behavior online it is pretty simple. Remove complete anonymity on the internet. You are tied to your real name, a picture of yourself, and the location where you live. It's pretty simple. Of course, people will cry foul about that. That being said, studies have shown when you do something that drastic, all of a sudden people aren't such jackasses to each other. Its an old idea, Puritans brought that with them when they first came to the US. When people do not get punished, their bigotry reveals itself. Its only when they get flack from authority/peers that they eventually stop. Culpability. You know the worse way to provide culpability? Ignoring the problem. That's funny because you want to go band aid every issue rather than actually fixing the main issue itself. Telling people to stop being derogatory is not band-aiding an issue. Thinking that social problems can be easily fix with just 1-2 policy changes is stupid. Each problem comes with its own intricacies. You fix them on a case by case basis and the complexities change over time requiring new tactics to resolve each one. It is a continual process that doesn't simply "end" like some final boss in a video game.
How is it even an issue? Last time I checked "nice tits" or "back to the kitchen" doesn't break any laws...
|
On August 01 2013 03:12 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:11 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 03:08 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:54 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:48 TWIX_Heaven wrote:On August 01 2013 02:19 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:16 Sevre wrote:On August 01 2013 02:09 Vorenius wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 01:43 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
So you're agreeing that it's not just females being attacked, and that they aren't the only ones who get 'verbally attacked' on the internet? Because now you're just proving my point.
I'm agreeing that women get attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I'm also agreeing that homosexuals are attacked, and that needs to be fixed. I think the community is very misogynistic, and that its a problem. I also think a large section of the community is also homophobic. And I believe people like you wish to suppress critiques on the community because you feel threatened that you are being accused of misogyny, homophobia, and racism. And I believe that if you are okay with the community making those types of attacks that you are supportive of those deeds. I think were I would disagree is that people aren't necessarily sexist or homophobic, they are simply dicks in general. If someone on the internet is a different race, they use a racial slur. If it's a different gender they use a sexist one. If it's a different sexual orientation they'll say something homophobic. Failing all that they'll wish you some cancer. They are saying it to hurt someone, not because they believe women are inferior. I'm not defending those kinds of people, or saying it's okay, but if you want to change it, you have to attack the right causes. you can't just stop people from being dicks to women, you have to stop them from being dicks. I agree that we have to stop people from being dicks but you have to understand that using sexist/homophobic/racist language is what qualifies you as being sexist/homophobic/racist, not a particular malicious intent behind it. What we're saying in this thread is that women suffer quite a bit in particular and I don't think that's in dispute, many women are attacked just for being women as opposed to annoying someone in particular i.e. "tits or gtfo". We've already covered this, there is a novelty still of women playing mostly 'male' games. As such, they get increased attention, which thus also causes them to become the main targets of most jackasses on the internet. It's not fair, but that's just how it is. That being said, I have seen very few women complain about the positives of the 'increased attention novelty factor.' On August 01 2013 02:18 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:04 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 01:58 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 01:49 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
Main point is that you're bitching about people being jackasses rather than about a specific problem about 'women being systematically discriminated against.' That's not a female only issue, it's a lots of people are an assholes on the internet issue.
[quote]
Whoa now, so when you get caught with your pants down in your argument, all of a sudden I'm getting personally attacked. Good job. Says the man who calls everyone in this thread a White Knight. Its not like people here are making some ground breaking argument. Sexism is still a problem in the world and its likely a problem in gaming. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. There are other problems too, but we can deal with those on a case by case basis. I mean, you don't have to read this thread, so why do so? If you don't think its an issue and you aren't sexist, what is the problem with the discussion? Actually I've only called you and Thieving Magpie white knights because you are exactly that. You're trying to make it like there's a distinct problem against females in the community when there's not. There's no such thing. There's no systematic discrimination, nor is there a vast amount of abuse towards them. They may get targeted more often simply because they stand out more, but that's not unusual in any circumstance. If you stick out, you're going to get increased attention. You both agreed that the issue isn't just related to females, and that it is an internet behavior issue. People are assholes on the internet, and that's all there is to it. Good luck attempting to fix it without invading someone's privacy, because the only way you can fix it is to basically remove their anonymity and put their real name and actual picture attached to their online alias. On August 01 2013 02:04 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 01 2013 01:49 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
Main point is that you're bitching about people being jackasses rather than about a specific problem about 'women being systematically discriminated against.' That's not a female only issue, it's a lots of people are an assholes on the internet issue.
[quote]
Whoa now, so when you get caught with your pants down in your argument, all of a sudden I'm getting personally attacked. Good job. It's not the same thing. While I agree that using epithets does not necessarily reflect a discriminatory intent, it is that girls attract more attention online, positively and negatively if their handles are 'feminine' Yeah, I get called a faggot on ladder, or BMed after a game. I don't get messages 'oh you're a girl tits or gtfo' Plenty of women posting here and elsewhere say they get a real disproportionate amount of attention while playing games if it's known they're a chick. Regardless of treatment being good or bad, it's tempered by sexism So if I show up to a Justin Beiber concert and a ton of teenage girls call me a faggot, I can claim discrimination now? Or better yet, if all the girls think I'm cool because I like Justin Beiber because I'm a guy, I can still claim discrimination/sexism, because they are treating me differently because I'm a guy? Lmao. We called you sexists and misogynistic, because that is what you are. You don't want people to discuss the issue and actively want the discussion stopped because you don't believe its a problem. Just because you believe something doesn't mean you have the right to tell other people not to talk about it. Furthermore, if we apply your argument to all other forms of abuse online, you could claim racism isn't a problem either. But I don't think you would get very far with that argument, because racism is always a problem and should always be discussed. 'Waagh he blew up my argument now I must call him a sexist and a misogynistic because that's all I can say.' Like I said, the issue is people are dicks. Not that there's a distinct discrimination against women online. You can accuse me of being a sexist/misogynistic all you want. Fact of the matter is, people don't specifically target women. They only target them because they simply standout in a community of mostly men; other people get equal levels of abuse, it's just they aren't as vocal about it. I just had to chime in and say, that you are completely wrong in this matter, and the fact that you can't seem to/want to accept that sexism is a serious issue that affects this community are whole lot is a pretty obvious testament to the problem and it's existence. People being dicks on the internet in general is true, but you have to understand that using sexist slur, jokes and harmful expressions, is sexism, no matter the intent, place or who says it. Just in this thread alone, we have had people like you, saying it's not a problem and it doesn't exist, we have had people pull the "in the kitchen" jokes, we have seen people complaining about some "magic" advantage female gamers/people somehow have, because they are women (which is exactly what sexism is), we have seen people saying it's a normal part of the internet and our community. And you tell me that any girl should, and would feel welcome here? "the game is mostly of interest to men" - well no, it's a sexist stereo-type that it is so. Girls and women have every possibility to like it just as much as you, but unfortunately some people make the community look like a misogynist shit hole and they stay away (for good reason). Those who endure it and stay regardless, have to be faced with people who de-emphasize the problem, and telling people/women the problem doesn't even matter. And instead of discussing the issue itself, or the other issues you mention (dicks on the internet in general) you do the exact opposite, trying to legitimize your own views on hate-jokes. There is nothing to win from what you are trying to do. And people will not stop discussing it just cause you want them to. And some of us will not stop fighting discrimination in this community, after all the whole purpose for us is to educate and hopefully change the views of people to create a better community for everyone - so that they might feel more inclined to join in on all this wonderful fun we are having. 1) I already proved that SC2's competitive nature is a turn off to girls; whether this is a society issue or not is up for debate. Read the studies I linked. Competitive atmosphere = turnoff for women. 2) It's a proven fact that females have an advantage when it comes to obtaining jobs in SC2. Flo, Aphrodite, and various other female players are given chances of a lifetime that far higher quality male players simply do not get (some male GM players will never get the chances that these women do). Not to mention the 'all girl teams' in games like CS/DotA 2 where clearly inferior players are given chances that they do not deserve. 3) I never legitimized the 'hate speech.' All I said was that the 'hate speech' really isn't hate speech, and more of immature dickish behavior from 15-25ish year old males. 4) Again, you keep thinking that there's a distinct discrimination issue against women in SC2 and E-Sports in general, and yet none of you have proven it. And no, bringing up a few posts doesn't prove anything, because I can easily turn it around and find plenty of evidence around the internet that 'supports women in E-Sports.' 1) He provided a single study that showed that women in general are uncomforatable in competative settings. The study also stated that this is likely caused by social issues and that with support and efforts to address the confidence issues, the women well in competitive settings. 2) He proved that some female players were given undue advantage due to being women. However, the existence of the does not preclude sexism or prove that it is not a problem, only that separate problem may exist.3) Hate speak, like threats of violence, is not defined by the intent of the speaker, but the perception of the person being threatened/insulted. 4) We are not required to prove that sexism exists, because it is given fact. It is a problem in all social groups. It is a larger problem in social groups that are dominated by males, which SC2 community is. Unless other factors exist, we can safely assume that sexism is a problem in the community on some level. From accounts of women attempting to interact with the community, the problem seems to be universal. So you're saying women are ok with taking advantage of the fact that they are women, but not ok when people criticize them for doing so? If there's an advantage to be had by simply BEING a woman, it's a rather clear indication that sexism exists as a factor, that's all.
That's hilarious, because I don't see very many women complain about getting advantages in the field of e-sports at all, only vocally complaining about some assholes that are sending in hate mail, flaming them on forums, etc.
In fact, most female gamers that I know actually like the idea of 'all female' progamer teams, or female gamers being propped up by an organization despite the fact that they clearly are not skilled enough to compete against other players.
|
On August 01 2013 01:59 Plansix wrote:
Off color human is always acceptable in the right company.
btw: _that_ is an argument to encourage discrimination in a sub-group... by that standard, to maintain the ability to make such a joke, you have to maintain a 'good company', iow chase away people that would be offended....
Seems to me that such standard is actually working _against_ the desired goal.
|
Northern Ireland23821 Posts
On August 01 2013 03:16 Rhaegal wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 03:07 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 03:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 03:01 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 03:00 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 02:52 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:52 Sevre wrote:
[quote]
Yes yes it is. For example, calling someone a "faggot" (even if it is a straight person) a) assumes that they are gay, b) says that this is something to be ashamed of and signifies that you think less of them as a human being as a result. You cannot use homophobic language without being a homophobe, it doesn't matter if you lack a particular intention to be homophobic, I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. It's like saying I can insult Jews when they're not around me and not be anti-semitic as a result, it's absurd reasoning. c) assumes that the person being called 'gay' would be offented, hence _he_ would be a homophobe for taking such offence ? When I was very little in pre-scholl or a little later, some other children started to make pun with my first-name (which was/is a very common one where I was)... It was getting me mad a lot... then in a glimpse of wisdom, my parent taught me that me reacting so much to it was the reason of its effectiveness... I started to ignore the attemtped offense and, guess what... the power of the pun dissipated and soon enough something else was attempted to be occasionally mean... Note that _nothing_ I could have done, not even successfully banned the offensive name-calling, would have eliminated the underlying motivation to be mean. My point is that words do not have intrinsic power... and it takes 2 to tango. My alternate point is well summarized in this old nursery rhyme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones_(nursery_rhyme)Sticks and stones will break my bones But words will never harm me. are you asking the victim to stop being offended by people using slurs? No, he's saying that even if you are offended, the problem will only persist if you keep reacting to it. As long as the troll gets attention from you, he's going to keep trolling you relentlessly because he knows he's getting a reaction out of you. That's how he gets his entertainment. what direction would you recommend for eliminating unjust negative prejudice? My idea? No one would like it. If you really want to get rid of, or curb most dickish behavior online it is pretty simple. Remove complete anonymity on the internet. You are tied to your real name, a picture of yourself, and the location where you live. It's pretty simple. Of course, people will cry foul about that. That being said, studies have shown when you do something that drastic, all of a sudden people aren't such jackasses to each other. Its an old idea, Puritans brought that with them when they first came to the US. When people do not get punished, their bigotry reveals itself. Its only when they get flack from authority/peers that they eventually stop. Culpability. You know the worse way to provide culpability? Ignoring the problem. That's funny because you want to go band aid every issue rather than actually fixing the main issue itself. Telling people to stop being derogatory is not band-aiding an issue. Thinking that social problems can be easily fix with just 1-2 policy changes is stupid. Each problem comes with its own intricacies. You fix them on a case by case basis and the complexities change over time requiring new tactics to resolve each one. It is a continual process that doesn't simply "end" like some final boss in a video game. How is it even an issue? Last time I checked "nice tits" or "back to the kitchen" doesn't break any laws...
Offensiveness without wit is just verbal excrement.
Look at from the other side, the person making the comments. They should think 'hm, is my contribution adding anything, will saying 'tits' enliven this stirring internet discourse?'. If no, don't fucking do it.
People's mentality that their own shitty jokes and fucking asinine opinions HAVE to be expressed is the reason that Twitch chat, Youtube comments and other potentially interesting forums of discussion are COMPLETELY WORTHLESS.
|
On August 01 2013 03:16 Rhaegal wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 03:07 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 03:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 03:01 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 03:00 superstartran wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 ComaDose wrote:On August 01 2013 02:52 shmget wrote:On August 01 2013 01:52 Sevre wrote:
[quote]
Yes yes it is. For example, calling someone a "faggot" (even if it is a straight person) a) assumes that they are gay, b) says that this is something to be ashamed of and signifies that you think less of them as a human being as a result. You cannot use homophobic language without being a homophobe, it doesn't matter if you lack a particular intention to be homophobic, I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. It's like saying I can insult Jews when they're not around me and not be anti-semitic as a result, it's absurd reasoning. c) assumes that the person being called 'gay' would be offented, hence _he_ would be a homophobe for taking such offence ? When I was very little in pre-scholl or a little later, some other children started to make pun with my first-name (which was/is a very common one where I was)... It was getting me mad a lot... then in a glimpse of wisdom, my parent taught me that me reacting so much to it was the reason of its effectiveness... I started to ignore the attemtped offense and, guess what... the power of the pun dissipated and soon enough something else was attempted to be occasionally mean... Note that _nothing_ I could have done, not even successfully banned the offensive name-calling, would have eliminated the underlying motivation to be mean. My point is that words do not have intrinsic power... and it takes 2 to tango. My alternate point is well summarized in this old nursery rhyme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones_(nursery_rhyme)Sticks and stones will break my bones But words will never harm me. are you asking the victim to stop being offended by people using slurs? No, he's saying that even if you are offended, the problem will only persist if you keep reacting to it. As long as the troll gets attention from you, he's going to keep trolling you relentlessly because he knows he's getting a reaction out of you. That's how he gets his entertainment. what direction would you recommend for eliminating unjust negative prejudice? My idea? No one would like it. If you really want to get rid of, or curb most dickish behavior online it is pretty simple. Remove complete anonymity on the internet. You are tied to your real name, a picture of yourself, and the location where you live. It's pretty simple. Of course, people will cry foul about that. That being said, studies have shown when you do something that drastic, all of a sudden people aren't such jackasses to each other. Its an old idea, Puritans brought that with them when they first came to the US. When people do not get punished, their bigotry reveals itself. Its only when they get flack from authority/peers that they eventually stop. Culpability. You know the worse way to provide culpability? Ignoring the problem. That's funny because you want to go band aid every issue rather than actually fixing the main issue itself. Telling people to stop being derogatory is not band-aiding an issue. Thinking that social problems can be easily fix with just 1-2 policy changes is stupid. Each problem comes with its own intricacies. You fix them on a case by case basis and the complexities change over time requiring new tactics to resolve each one. It is a continual process that doesn't simply "end" like some final boss in a video game. How is it even an issue? Last time I checked "nice tits" or "back to the kitchen" doesn't break any laws...
He suggested that simply making personal information present on the web will stop bigotry even though real life bigotry already happens face to face in the offline world. He believes that the bigotry online does not come from the same bigotry that people have off-line.
His solution doesn't address the problem because it assumes that there is no real problem.
I am suggesting that the motivations for sexism is not the same motivations for anti-semitism or racial profiling. That different forms of social degradation have different histories and hence requires different tactics to resolve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
