|
|
On September 18 2011 00:26 Cel.erity wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 00:01 DerNebel wrote:
The Day[9] quote is taken out of context, because he was actually mostly ridiculing his young self for being pissed off about this sort of thing. He might have said 'bitch' that time, but he has done that several times as obvious parody. One time he called his mother a bitch for crying out loud!
I'm not going to read the article in full, sue me. If the author gets paid per hit, which is likely, due to the sensationalist nature of the article, then I won't pay him off. Also, the two incidents quoted have obvious flaws insofar as they are used to argue for gamer sexism. As someone who knows Geordie and has written for Star City Games, I feel I have to defend him here. First of all, SCG writers are not paid per hit, in fact they are paid practically nothing. He's not writing this article for hits, he's writing it because it's what he genuinely believes. He is not demonizing Day9 in this article. He did not accuse Day9 of sexism or anything like that. He used one quote (a misquote, apparently) to make his point about how we use sexist words in everyday conversation without thinking about it. Other people he quoted similarly in this article are Garry Kasparov, and himself, and those quotes are much more sexist. He is obviously not choosing Day9's quote for sensationalism because there are thousands of other examples of sexist quotes from gamers that he could have chosen, that one just stuck out in his mind from recent memory, and he probably misremembered it. I'd just like to remind everyone that this is a very long article which has very little to do with Day9, and a lot to do with our gaming culture in general, and you can't invalidate the entire piece of work just based on one example of sloppy journalism. Guaranteed that if one person e-mailed the editor of SCG, that quote would get removed and Geordie would apologize for it, so stop making such a fuss.
You have to verify your quotes. It's the absolute MINIMUM for journalistic standards. It took a good 30 seconds for people here to realize the mistake (from memory), and only a couple minutes to find the exact quote. There is no excuse. If the writer can't manage that, we shouldn't take the rest of the article (which no one here can verify from memory) at face value.
If you can't trust someone's direct quotes, how are you supposed to trust his generalizations and unchecked assertions?
|
On September 18 2011 00:33 whatthefat wrote:
That's some quality journalism. I mean, how do you get that quote wrong? Where are you possibly taking it from? Your imagination? Totally undermines any other point the article was trying to make.
Don't you understand man? If someone can legitimately take Day9 down, they take all of us down. He's the biggest fish in the E-Sports pond. He is the vital Jenga piece. He is one of the cornerstones of SC2. You find a valid way to discredit him, you DESTROY E-SPORTS!
|
I find these "xyz is wrong in gaming" things rather funny. Do people not live in the real world? Do you not see people using "gender insults" all the time to each other in context? Do people not swear at each other in real live?
If you want to talk about these things talk about society as a whole. Isolating it to "gaming" and saying this is why xyz doesn't happen is sad.
|
On September 18 2011 00:31 HoldenR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 00:12 Grumbels wrote:On September 18 2011 00:01 DerNebel wrote:
Saying the community overreacted out of sexism to the Gizmodo article about Jon Finkel is just plain dumb. He is the Jordan of MtG, beloved player and overall nice guy, and he was being humiliated by some girl who could not see past that he was good at some card-game. The community would have reacted the same if Jon Finkel was gay and the Gizmodo writer had been a dude.
The Day[9] quote is taken out of context, because he was actually mostly ridiculing his young self for being pissed off about this sort of thing. He might have said 'bitch' that time, but he has done that several times as obvious parody. One time he called his mother a bitch for crying out loud!
I'm not going to read the article in full, sue me. If the author gets paid per hit, which is likely, due to the sensationalist nature of the article, then I won't pay him off. Also, the two incidents quoted have obvious flaws insofar as they are used to argue for gamer sexism. A woman is allowed to find MtG off-putting in a man. She is also allowed to post about how off-putting she finds this on a blog, and while I agree the tone of her article was utterly obnoxious it is not a valid excuse for the hordes of "dumb bitch, how dare she dislike Jon Finkel" posts all on the internet. That's sexism in action and if you say anything like "well she deserved it" then you're just victim-blaming. What next, "well she deserved to be raped with that shirt and saying those mean things" ? Not only is it a valid excuse, it's a valid reason. You see, if someone acts like a shallow cunt, you validate everyone who calls her a shallow cunt. Is she ALLOWED to dislike someone for playing magic? Yeah, she is. Is she allowed to tell the world? Absolutely. Is it hideously shallow and a disgusting character trait? You know it is. Are people absolutely correct in calling it like they see it? Yes. If someone behaves like a total tool, you're justified in telling them they're behaving like a total tool. And you are behaving like a total tool, especially with that final sentence. Talk about a ludicrous hyperbole.
Specifically naming the guy in that article was a shitty move. Rejecting him for playing MtG, (and basing his entire life around it) is NOT shallow. She wasn't attracted to him, and they had nothing in common. That is PLENTY reason to reject anyone, regardless of gender.
Naming him personally in the article was wrong, but let's be honest, that's not at all what the majority of the outrage was about.
|
On September 18 2011 00:35 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 00:31 HoldenR wrote:On September 18 2011 00:12 Grumbels wrote:On September 18 2011 00:01 DerNebel wrote:
Saying the community overreacted out of sexism to the Gizmodo article about Jon Finkel is just plain dumb. He is the Jordan of MtG, beloved player and overall nice guy, and he was being humiliated by some girl who could not see past that he was good at some card-game. The community would have reacted the same if Jon Finkel was gay and the Gizmodo writer had been a dude.
The Day[9] quote is taken out of context, because he was actually mostly ridiculing his young self for being pissed off about this sort of thing. He might have said 'bitch' that time, but he has done that several times as obvious parody. One time he called his mother a bitch for crying out loud!
I'm not going to read the article in full, sue me. If the author gets paid per hit, which is likely, due to the sensationalist nature of the article, then I won't pay him off. Also, the two incidents quoted have obvious flaws insofar as they are used to argue for gamer sexism. A woman is allowed to find MtG off-putting in a man. She is also allowed to post about how off-putting she finds this on a blog, and while I agree the tone of her article was utterly obnoxious it is not a valid excuse for the hordes of "dumb bitch, how dare she dislike Jon Finkel" posts all on the internet. That's sexism in action and if you say anything like "well she deserved it" then you're just victim-blaming. What next, "well she deserved to be raped with that shirt and saying those mean things" ? Not only is it a valid excuse, it's a valid reason. You see, if someone acts like a shallow cunt, you validate everyone who calls her a shallow cunt. Is she ALLOWED to dislike someone for playing magic? Yeah, she is. Is she allowed to tell the world? Absolutely. Is it hideously shallow and a disgusting character trait? You know it is. Are people absolutely correct in calling it like they see it? Yes. If someone behaves like a total tool, you're justified in telling them they're behaving like a total tool. And you are behaving like a total tool, especially with that final sentence. Talk about a ludicrous hyperbole. Specifically naming the guy in that article was a shitty move. Rejecting him for playing MtG, (and basing his entire life around it) is NOT shallow. She wasn't attracted to him, and they had nothing in common. That is PLENTY reason to reject anyone, regardless of gender. Naming him personally in the article was wrong, but let's be honest, that's not at all what the majority of the outrage was about.
Let me highlight this for you. There is a difference between
Rejecting him for playing MtG
and
She wasn't attracted to him, and they had nothing in common.
Now, do you see the difference? Because if you do, I hope you realize why I'm going to go watch dreamhack Valencia now instead of bothering to reply to this thread.
|
On September 18 2011 00:32 lurked wrote:
Damn, 2-3gamers threw some "sexist" remarks, so sexism is everywhere in gaming culture!
You know what else gamers generally are? Beast of muscles. Because you know, we have 2-3 beasts of muscles in the gaming community, we probably all are.
That being said : Seriously? Quoting someone, totally out of context, transforming what he said to strengthen your point, and then if people argue that you're wrong, you point out that it isn't the main point of the article?
It sounded like bad journalism to me before reading to thread, but now it sounds like f.ing bull sentionalist crap, again... -_-
i gotta say though: its kinda valid. sexism does exist in gaming culture. you will never be treated equally regardless of gender. aside from mmo's you can see it here on tl aswell. having to take a guess, i would say that most of the slayers_eve-fanclub-members are in that very fanclub because she is female - not because of her results (i'd be gladly corrected if im wrong on this one).
|
On September 18 2011 00:33 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 00:26 Cel.erity wrote:On September 18 2011 00:01 DerNebel wrote:
The Day[9] quote is taken out of context, because he was actually mostly ridiculing his young self for being pissed off about this sort of thing. He might have said 'bitch' that time, but he has done that several times as obvious parody. One time he called his mother a bitch for crying out loud!
I'm not going to read the article in full, sue me. If the author gets paid per hit, which is likely, due to the sensationalist nature of the article, then I won't pay him off. Also, the two incidents quoted have obvious flaws insofar as they are used to argue for gamer sexism. As someone who knows Geordie and has written for Star City Games, I feel I have to defend him here. First of all, SCG writers are not paid per hit, in fact they are paid practically nothing. He's not writing this article for hits, he's writing it because it's what he genuinely believes. He is not demonizing Day9 in this article. He did not accuse Day9 of sexism or anything like that. He used one quote (a misquote, apparently) to make his point about how we use sexist words in everyday conversation without thinking about it. Other people he quoted similarly in this article are Garry Kasparov, and himself, and those quotes are much more sexist. He is obviously not choosing Day9's quote for sensationalism because there are thousands of other examples of sexist quotes from gamers that he could have chosen, that one just stuck out in his mind from recent memory, and he probably misremembered it. I'd just like to remind everyone that this is a very long article which has very little to do with Day9, and a lot to do with our gaming culture in general, and you can't invalidate the entire piece of work just based on one example of sloppy journalism. Guaranteed that if one person e-mailed the editor of SCG, that quote would get removed and Geordie would apologize for it, so stop making such a fuss. You have to verify your quotes. It's the absolute MINIMUM for journalistic standards. It took a good 30 seconds for people here to realize the mistake (from memory), and only a couple minutes to find the exact quote. There is no excuse. If the writer can't manage that, we shouldn't take the rest of the article (which no one here can verify from memory) at face value. If you can't trust someone's direct quotes, how are you supposed to trust his generalizations and unchecked assertions?
Sure sure, I'm not defending that in particular, but I'm just trying to say that this is an opinion piece with an extremely brief mention of Day9, and Geordie wasn't trying to make him out to be any kind of villain. He went and recommended Day9's dailies in the very same paragraph as an example of following your dreams. He probably worked his ass off on this article and got paid $50 or less for it, all these trolls talking about him being money-hungry and not clicking links to deny traffic to such a tiny site like SCG is just ridiculous. In contrast, the Gizmodo girl certainly got a nice 4-figure payday for putting Jon Finkel on full blast. The two are not comparable.
|
I have read a bit of it but it seems like an article of very little merrit. I absolutely resent this masochistic mentality that is prevalent in so many of these types of discussion. It's the hipster I'm such a moral prodigy I can see how bad I am. Or actually how bad everyone is that shares characterisitcs / interrests with me but not counting myself. Seriously, you're not Ghandi, if women would rule the world everyting would not be better and farts still wouldn't smell like rainbows and puppies.
Small, rough analysis of the introduction into his argument.
I'm sorry that despite being 50% of the world's population, females own 1% of the world's property.
Due to the heterogeneity of cultures that exist on this planet this statistic doesn't say much. There are quite a few countries where women are not allowed to own property and are even seen as property themselves. I do not see why we as the west (where this author is most likely a part of) should have to take responsibility for those cultures.
I'm sorry that only 28% of businesses in the United States are owned by women,
And who's fault is that? The main thing women always complaign about holding them back in the corporate world is the glass ceiling. Starting your own business is THE way to circumvent that problem. If women want more businesses being owned by women, show some initiative and take responsibility.
and I'm sorry that if (god forbid) you have to walk up to a police officer and report that you've been sexually assaulted, you're very likely to be treated with skepticism and contempt.
Now I don't know how it is in your part of the world, but here such cases are taken very serious. In fact, if a man was ever to become the subject of such an accusation you will basicly have been found guilty befoe the case is even admitted to a court. Cases where women afterwards admitted they lied about the rape accusation are numerous. If you want skepticism and contempt from police try going up to a police officer as a man to say you have been attacked or sexualy abused by a women.
I apologize in advance for the way people will treat you when you accomplish things. When you succeed, ignore those who say you did so not because you're worthwhile or talented, but because you're a woman.
You can blame policy makers (as requested by feminist lobbies) for this one. In this country we have special scholarships for women only. On job-ads it is now also totaly normal to put up in case of equal qualifications we will prefer a women.
And don't listen to what mean old Garry Kasparov says—it's not like he's well-respected by gamers or anything.
It is possible to find quotes from people to support any stance. Also might there be some quote mining at work?
I know you [...] you for it.
Paragraph appears to try and set the author as the nice guy, the family man that wants the best for his daughter.
This letter is [...] By the end of it, some will be mad at me, perturbed and energy-sapped because I've made them feel guilty and asked them to question things that seem natural to them. Some will dismiss me, too entrenched in the perceived righteousness of their ways.
Beware! Author is a moral prodigy. You are commiting crimes you don't even know exist! In fact even if I told you you wouldn't understand it! (This is also a good way out for the author in case his argument is found to be fallacious, you just didn't understand it!)
They will tell themselves that I am expressing a progressive viewpoint for the express purpose of ruining their fun. (This is known as “Krounering,” shown below):
Just in case you disagree and claim to actually understand the argument, that means you actually agree anyway but dont want to admit it, because you are apparently having fun discriminating women. Apparently people who disagree with the author are sexists. Also note how the author has already labeled his viewpoint as progressive, just in case anyone was still doubting whether he was right or how much of a moral prodigy the author really is.
By inviting my friends to read, I might burn a few bridges—but it's for the greater good. I'll teach you when you're older that bridges can damage you. Sometimes, they're little more than the rotting scaffolding that supports a worse version of yourself. Put another way, if one's only religion is progression, bridges, with their connection to old ideals and lessons better forgotten, can be heretics. So light 'em up. Become free. Become explosive material.
Playing the world's smallest violin here. It also appears the author does not understand how the bridges expression work. If his daughter would take his advice by burning all bridges and be 'free' she would also end up having to break of communication with her father (the author), she wouldn't be able to go to school, have relationships in general, get a job etc.
If at age 30 you are little more than the currency that fools have paid you, spend yourself.
What the hell does that even mean?
B. I'm tired of gamers and their terrible attitudes towards you, my daughter, my flesh and blood. The girl who will one day look up at me and say “I want to do what daddy does!” and then watch as I screw my face up into a flesh vortex and think really hard about what that choice means for you.
Let me tell you about “B,” kiddo. B for “boys club.” B for “Bereznak.” And B for a word that the first so gleefully applies to the second.
Wait what? Didn't he just make a general claim? So is he now going to try and support it by a specific rather than general case, i.e. an example. Logical fallacies at work. The rest of the article is now invalid.
|
On September 17 2011 23:44 KwarK wrote:Pretty sure he didn't say "you young bitch". I'm checking now but I watched it pretty recently and I don't recall that. I expect it's standard bullshit journalism. Exact quote (36 mins in) Show nested quote +It really pissed me off, this one girl I dated, I explained to her gg, that you say good game, and she would type it to me on AIM but she would do lower case g, period, lower case g, period. I'm like "that's not how you abbreviate it, it's gg, it's this thing" and she would like do it to poke fun at me. Urghh! So glad that ended. Clearly she does not respect the important things in life.
Can the quote be taken out then if its incorrect please.
|
On September 18 2011 00:33 PooLarX wrote:
Pathetic attempt at calling out a very note worthy figure in our community for nothing more than more traffic for their website.
DO NOT EVEN CLICK THOSE LINKS, DO NOT READ THE ARTICLE, DO NOT GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT.
Best advice in this thread ↑↑
|
On September 18 2011 00:43 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 00:33 PooLarX wrote:
Pathetic attempt at calling out a very note worthy figure in our community for nothing more than more traffic for their website.
DO NOT EVEN CLICK THOSE LINKS, DO NOT READ THE ARTICLE, DO NOT GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT. Best advice in this thread ↑↑
Yea mods please put it on the top of the discussion.
|
United States12607 Posts
On September 18 2011 00:41 101.blubb wrote:
most of the slayers_eve-fanclub-members are in that very fanclub because she is female - not because of her results
Liking or being interested in someone because of his/her sex is not sexism.
|
On September 18 2011 00:44 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 00:41 101.blubb wrote:
most of the slayers_eve-fanclub-members are in that very fanclub because she is female - not because of her results Liking or being interested in someone because of his/her sex is not sexism.
Incredibly true. Sometimes a rake is just a rake.
|
On September 18 2011 00:39 HoldenR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 00:35 Haemonculus wrote:On September 18 2011 00:31 HoldenR wrote:On September 18 2011 00:12 Grumbels wrote:On September 18 2011 00:01 DerNebel wrote:
Saying the community overreacted out of sexism to the Gizmodo article about Jon Finkel is just plain dumb. He is the Jordan of MtG, beloved player and overall nice guy, and he was being humiliated by some girl who could not see past that he was good at some card-game. The community would have reacted the same if Jon Finkel was gay and the Gizmodo writer had been a dude.
The Day[9] quote is taken out of context, because he was actually mostly ridiculing his young self for being pissed off about this sort of thing. He might have said 'bitch' that time, but he has done that several times as obvious parody. One time he called his mother a bitch for crying out loud!
I'm not going to read the article in full, sue me. If the author gets paid per hit, which is likely, due to the sensationalist nature of the article, then I won't pay him off. Also, the two incidents quoted have obvious flaws insofar as they are used to argue for gamer sexism. A woman is allowed to find MtG off-putting in a man. She is also allowed to post about how off-putting she finds this on a blog, and while I agree the tone of her article was utterly obnoxious it is not a valid excuse for the hordes of "dumb bitch, how dare she dislike Jon Finkel" posts all on the internet. That's sexism in action and if you say anything like "well she deserved it" then you're just victim-blaming. What next, "well she deserved to be raped with that shirt and saying those mean things" ? Not only is it a valid excuse, it's a valid reason. You see, if someone acts like a shallow cunt, you validate everyone who calls her a shallow cunt. Is she ALLOWED to dislike someone for playing magic? Yeah, she is. Is she allowed to tell the world? Absolutely. Is it hideously shallow and a disgusting character trait? You know it is. Are people absolutely correct in calling it like they see it? Yes. If someone behaves like a total tool, you're justified in telling them they're behaving like a total tool. And you are behaving like a total tool, especially with that final sentence. Talk about a ludicrous hyperbole. Specifically naming the guy in that article was a shitty move. Rejecting him for playing MtG, (and basing his entire life around it) is NOT shallow. She wasn't attracted to him, and they had nothing in common. That is PLENTY reason to reject anyone, regardless of gender. Naming him personally in the article was wrong, but let's be honest, that's not at all what the majority of the outrage was about. Let me highlight this for you. There is a difference between and Now, do you see the difference? Because if you do, I hope you realize why I'm going to go watch dreamhack Valencia now instead of bothering to reply to this thread.
Really? You're coming off as a total ass by the way.
Let's say you meet a girl on a dating site. Her profile seems nice. You meet her for a date, and find out that her entire life revolves around something she made no mention of in her profile. Pick any activity you don't enjoy. I dunno, Church group or something. She goes to said group for 4-5 hours *every* day, and all her friends are from said group. When she goes out, it's with people from said group. And again, this group can be anything, but for our purposes, something you have absolutely zero interest in. Would you be shallow for not wanting to date her because of that?
|
On September 18 2011 00:27 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 00:24 Djzapz wrote:The funniest part is that bitches are female dogs, if you directly make the link to human females, that's kind of sexist  That's the silliest reasoning ever, and I'm pretty sure you realize it, lol
...No it's not silly, I think it's pretty much true - at least partially. People get called "sexist" over the dumbest things, and sometimes those who accuse others appear to be sexist themselves - even though they might not be (just like the person they accused). It's about appearances.
I think the same thing with so-called "feminists" who basically deny women's sexuality (and their own, by extension). That's what I'm seeing in that article to a lesser extent.
So definitely not silly reasoning IMO.
|
On September 18 2011 00:44 IveReturned wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 00:43 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 18 2011 00:33 PooLarX wrote:
Pathetic attempt at calling out a very note worthy figure in our community for nothing more than more traffic for their website.
DO NOT EVEN CLICK THOSE LINKS, DO NOT READ THE ARTICLE, DO NOT GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT. Best advice in this thread ↑↑ Yea mods please put it on the top of the discussion.
I'll go ahead and spell it out again for all you double-digit post count people who don't bother to read an entire thread before spewing your bullshit. Geordie Tait does not work for Star City Games, he did not write this article for profit (probably made <$50 off of it and could have written anything else for that same amount of money), and is in no way attacking Day9 if you bothered to read literally two sentences beyond that particular quote.
It was a misquote, it was a mistake, get over it.
User was warned for this post
|
You guys are just proving their point about gamer culture. I'm pretty sick of hearing this crap about "people shouldn't be offended by swear words," including Jinro's defensive response to the GOM incident. What happened to respecting others? That doesn't mean they should be shouting back with righteous fury, but you gotta accept limits to "being yourself" in the company of others. Some would say that if you can't "be yourself" without offending others, it's their problem. I say you're just revealing your lack of respect and unwillingness to acknowledge others' feelings.
And yeah, gamer culture is so accepting of women, as long as they're all freaking hot like Lindsey Sporrer (I'm a fan, no doubt). When was the last time you saw female armor in any video game, pretty much ever, that wasn't shaped like the female body, with breast outlines and all? That's right, the flat chest doesn't exist. "Avatar", like it or not, got some deserved praise for Neytiri not fitting the Lara Croft physique.
If you guys wanna get sidetracked over them misquoting Day9, fine. He's referred to his mom as a b**** on the daily too, fyi, even though all of the other times he talks about her are respectful and the aberration in question was "just joking" around. IMO, if you want ESPORTS to be taken seriously by the rest of the world and not feel like a closet obsession, it's going to have to rise above the standards of, for instance, the NFL (cheerleaders and all) to beat the stigma.
I'm pretty sure the word "bitch" loses it's offensiveness to many since women use it so freely, but I fail to see how that makes it okay for all women to hear, nor am I willing to accept that. It's natural to react defensively when your own behavior is under attack, so I'm not at all surprised by the responses.
|
On September 18 2011 00:41 DisneylandSC wrote:I have read a bit of it but it seems like an article of very little merrit. I absolutely resent this masochistic mentality that is prevalent in so many of these types of discussion. It's the hipster I'm such a moral prodigy I can see how bad I am. Or actually how bad everyone is that shares characterisitcs / interrests with me but not counting myself. Seriously, you're not Ghandi, if women would rule the world everyting would not be better and farts still wouldn't smell like rainbows and puppies. Small, rough analysis of the introduction into his argument. I'm sorry that despite being 50% of the world's population, females own 1% of the world's property.Due to the heterogeneity of cultures that exist on this planet this statistic doesn't say much. There are quite a few countries where women are not allowed to own property and are even seen as property themselves. I do not see why we as the west (where this author is most likely a part of) should have to take responsibility for those cultures. I'm sorry that only 28% of businesses in the United States are owned by women,And who's fault is that? The main thing women always complaign about holding them back in the corporate world is the glass ceiling. Starting your own business is THE way to circumvent that problem. If women want more businesses being owned by women, show some initiative and take responsibility. and I'm sorry that if (god forbid) you have to walk up to a police officer and report that you've been sexually assaulted, you're very likely to be treated with skepticism and contempt.Now I don't know how it is in your part of the world, but here such cases are taken very serious. In fact, if a man was ever to become the subject of such an accusation you will basicly have been found guilty befoe the case is even admitted to a court. Cases where women afterwards admitted they lied about the rape accusation are numerous. If you want skepticism and contempt from police try going up to a police officer as a man to say you have been attacked or sexualy abused by a women. I apologize in advance for the way people will treat you when you accomplish things. When you succeed, ignore those who say you did so not because you're worthwhile or talented, but because you're a woman.You can blame policy makers (as requested by feminist lobbies) for this one. In this country we have special scholarships for women only. On job-ads it is now also totaly normal to put up in case of equal qualifications we will prefer a women. And don't listen to what mean old Garry Kasparov says—it's not like he's well-respected by gamers or anything.It is possible to find quotes from people to support any stance. Also might there be some quote mining at work? I know you [...] you for it.Paragraph appears to try and set the author as the nice guy, the family man that wants the best for his daughter. This letter is [...] By the end of it, some will be mad at me, perturbed and energy-sapped because I've made them feel guilty and asked them to question things that seem natural to them. Some will dismiss me, too entrenched in the perceived righteousness of their ways. Beware! Author is a moral prodigy. You are commiting crimes you don't even know exist! In fact even if I told you you wouldn't understand it! (This is also a good way out for the author in case his argument is found to be fallacious, you just didn't understand it!) They will tell themselves that I am expressing a progressive viewpoint for the express purpose of ruining their fun. (This is known as “Krounering,” shown below):Just in case you disagree and claim to actually understand the argument, that means you actually agree anyway but dont want to admit it, because you are apparently having fun discriminating women. Apparently people who disagree with the author are sexists. Also note how the author has already labeled his viewpoint as progressive, just in case anyone was still doubting whether he was right or how much of a moral prodigy the author really is. By inviting my friends to read, I might burn a few bridges—but it's for the greater good. I'll teach you when you're older that bridges can damage you. Sometimes, they're little more than the rotting scaffolding that supports a worse version of yourself. Put another way, if one's only religion is progression, bridges, with their connection to old ideals and lessons better forgotten, can be heretics. So light 'em up. Become free. Become explosive material.Playing the world's smallest violin here. It also appears the author does not understand how the bridges expression work. If his daughter would take his advice by burning all bridges and be 'free' she would also end up having to break of communication with her father (the author), she wouldn't be able to go to school, have relationships in general, get a job etc. If at age 30 you are little more than the currency that fools have paid you, spend yourself.What the hell does that even mean? B. I'm tired of gamers and their terrible attitudes towards you, my daughter, my flesh and blood. The girl who will one day look up at me and say “I want to do what daddy does!” and then watch as I screw my face up into a flesh vortex and think really hard about what that choice means for you.
Let me tell you about “B,” kiddo. B for “boys club.” B for “Bereznak.” And B for a word that the first so gleefully applies to the second.Wait what? Didn't he just make a general claim? So is he now going to try and support it by a specific rather than general case, i.e. an example. Logical fallacies at work. The rest of the article is now invalid.
Well put, I'll "like" it if there is such a feature on tl.net. But I have to agree to some extent that sexism is still a big problem in many parts of the world, and in corporate America.
|
On September 18 2011 00:44 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 00:41 101.blubb wrote:
most of the slayers_eve-fanclub-members are in that very fanclub because she is female - not because of her results Liking or being interested in someone because of his/her sex is not sexism.
but she has yet to prove herself with at least something to deserve that kind of treatment imo. hell... think about that guy who surrendered 2 games to whitera after getting the walkover-win at mlg. compare taht to the amount of fanboyism she has got just because of being a female pro-gamer...
|
On September 18 2011 00:48 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 00:27 Haemonculus wrote:On September 18 2011 00:24 Djzapz wrote:The funniest part is that bitches are female dogs, if you directly make the link to human females, that's kind of sexist That's the silliest reasoning ever, and I'm pretty sure you realize it, lol ...No it's not silly, I think it's pretty much true - at least partially. People get called "sexist" over the dumbest things, and sometimes those who accuse others appear to be sexist themselves - even though they might not be (just like the person they accused). It's about appearances. I think the same thing with so-called "feminists" who basically deny women's sexuality (and their own, by extension). That's what I'm seeing in that article to a lesser extent. So definitely not silly reasoning IMO.
Feminism has nothing at all to do with denying female sexuality. If anything, quite the opposite.
And what I mean by your reasoning being silly is this: Bitch is used very very commonly as a term for women, human women. Just because the dictionary definition means something else does not mean it's sexist to recognize that the word carries a different meaning in day to day lfe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
