|
|
I'm only seeing one very vocal person here insisting that they be allowed to use whatever language they wish and it's everyone else's problem if they don't like it. You could say they are a vocal minority. You could say that they are who this article is referencing. They're of course free to do as they please, but yes, they are the problem and their attitude and words are a big part of why females don't get as involved. It's also why when females do try to play, they create spaces where they don't have to be exposed to that kind of vitriol.
The conversation going on has gotten so statistically tangental that it seems like the original issue is forgotten.
|
She didn't find him attractive, and they had *nothing* in common. Yeah, she thought it was a "bad thing."
There's nothing wrong with that, and to imply that she should have kept dating with him merely because he's successful is silly.
There's a difference between not being attracted to someone and making a public post about how being the best magic magic player in the world is a bad thing, insulting him and implying he lied in his profile.
A pretty pretty clear difference.
|
I don't understand why we need to have this discussion 10 times every year. Whether it's true or not, I don't really see it here on tl disregarding a select few soon to be banned exceptions in the heat of LR. I don't think discussing this over and over again makes our community seem a whole lot more compelling to females.
|
On September 19 2011 05:29 ChiffonAngel wrote:
I'm only seeing one very vocal person here insisting that they be allowed to use whatever language they wish and it's everyone else's problem if they don't like it. You could say they are a vocal minority. You could say that they are who this article is referencing. They're of course free to do as they please, but yes, they are the problem and their attitude and words are a big part of why females don't get as involved. It's also why when females do try to play, they create spaces where they don't have to be exposed to that kind of vitriol.
The conversation going on has gotten so statistically tangental that it seems like the original issue is forgotten.
Hey, at least you didn't call me an idiot this time! 
Don't worry, I'm not going to change a bit. I've actually probably gotten more females into gaming than chased off for the record.
If you really want to get back, "on-topic" though, on-topic is referencing the article, which is garbage.
On September 19 2011 05:33 Protosnake wrote:Show nested quote +She didn't find him attractive, and they had *nothing* in common. Yeah, she thought it was a "bad thing."
There's nothing wrong with that, and to imply that she should have kept dating with him merely because he's successful is silly. There's a difference between not being attracted to someone and making a public post about how being the best magic magic player in the world is a bad thing, insulting him and implying he lied in his profile. A pretty pretty clear difference.
I could not agree with this anymore!
|
On September 19 2011 05:33 Protosnake wrote:Show nested quote +She didn't find him attractive, and they had *nothing* in common. Yeah, she thought it was a "bad thing."
There's nothing wrong with that, and to imply that she should have kept dating with him merely because he's successful is silly. There's a difference between not being attracted to someone and making a public post about how being the best magic magic player in the world is a bad thing, insulting him and implying he lied in his profile. A pretty pretty clear difference.
I've ranted about that article plenty. Naming the guy in a public article was a shitty thing to do.
My point was that people got offended that she turned him down, and immediately began projecting their own insecurities onto the situation.
|
I'm not going to be civil towards someone who shoves words into not only my mouth, but others and also is arrogant enough to not only assume they know how I think but how I lived and currently live. Compare our posting history not just in this thread, but other ones and you'll see I at least attempt to debate, stay on topic and use factual evidence as the basis for this. Where he posts rage pics, talks smack and goes the equivalent of, "lolwut" in quite a few threads.
That being said I still apologize if you felt less inclined to post.
If you don't like it that I quote you and others, I apologize. I didn't know you disliked having your words repeated towards you.
I didn't assume to know you. You act privileged. You attempted to defend yourself by saying you grew up poor as if that removes the privilege you're projecting. You act exactly like all the men who show up in a lot of feminists blogs to attack a feminist posting on her blog to tell her her opinions are wrong. Both your mannerisms, aggression and defensive behavior. It's very very common in feminists forums for men to show up and act exactly like you're acting. If you feel you growing up poor counteracts that privilege, I'm sorry to say that you're not the only person with a poor upbringing.
As for posting history. I'm glad you had to look for what I say outside this discussion in order to debate instead of actually talking to me directly. Although, in your defense, you did set up your argument with the statement that you didn't care what other people said, so I guess you not talking to me directly is not only expected, but I was actually already warned by you that you would do it.
But, since my posting history seems to be relevant as to whether or not women need to be more respected, let's deal with it then.
I post pictures and laugh and joke a lot on a videogame forum. I know, I know, pictures and laughter is not allowed in videogame forums. I'm sorry about that. Next time I'll make sure I only quote doctrates for their opinions. I mean, this is a videogame forum, it has standards and doesn't allow laughing and pictures.
My stance has not changed once in this thread. Women need to be treated as people and not as female objects. The Esport scene is misogynistic. There are worse places out there--but why hold ourselves back from being better? People on this thread are actually trying to suggest that it's okay to use derogatory terms because--they don't actually have a reason just that women should get a thicker skin about it.
My suggestion and the suggestions made by several in this thread is that maybe we should be more self aware about what we say to be more respectful in general. This viewpoint is of course attacked because apparently it's an impossible goal to achieve.
The main counter argument so far is several posters asking me to shut up because I'm obviously wrong. How I'm wrong they actually haven't said, simply stating that I am. Mostly they quote what I say and tell me that I'm looking too deeply into it without actually showing how what I said is wrong--but no matter.
|
its funny how one troll can pop up a thread this big... so dumb
|
On September 19 2011 05:40 OscarN wrote:
its funny how one troll can pop up a thread this big... so dumb
The way you're using the word troll... what does that even mean? I hesitate to even bring that up.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On September 19 2011 05:20 HereticSaint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 05:02 Falling wrote:On September 19 2011 04:38 HereticSaint wrote:Not only that, but ignoring unreported stats which are hard to deal with because they are unreported, but which is sex is most cautious about when and where a person walks for fear of being sexually assaulted? And before someone jumps in mugging issues in bad parts of town. Yes of course there's areas you want to avoid male/ or female. But females most often are concerned about the possibility of sexual assault in areas males would generally not even dream of thinking about. Even the small uni I went to we had several creeps either groping or exposing themselves in some of the poorly lit areas on or around campus. All male to female. Most girls continued to walk, some were quite unconcerned, but it is an extra calculation that females are more likely to make then males. The stats ARE hard to deal with and those stats are the only thing which would be in your favor! Did you even read the studies? Go research it yourself if you think I'm full of ****. Men are much, much less likely to report rape especially by a female than a woman would be by a man. Explain to me how that doesn't make the stats if anything slide into my favor, especially in regard to how damaging it is to males. Yes stats are in my favour, rape is under-reported in general and I'm confident men are much less likely to report rape then women. But as far as primary discourse is concerned, when the word rape is mentioned, rape against men is not immediately associated. Only if you're part of a secondary discourse- have been, know someone, or know about rape against male would the word immediately rape immediately be associated with men. That could be something to work on. Bring more awareness to the issue because that secondary discourse is valid. However, if you're talking about the primary discourse, when the word rape is mentioned, two things can come to mind male to female rape and possibly beating someone in a video game. I would actually argue that male to female rape is the primary discourse that is immediately associated with the word and dominating someone in a game is also a secondary discourse that has developed amongst gamers and that is slowly working it's way into the primary discourse. All that to say, the word 'rape' carries a couple different meanings at the same time and you cannot pick and choose which ones other people think of because the word currently carries sexual violence against women as the automatic association with most people. It's the issue of shared social meaning when we think of different words. ex) dog- there's all sorts of mental images and values that are tied into the one word: Man's best friend, loyalty, determined (dogged). Pretty much any word is going to carry a weight of shared meaning behind it, good or bad. My point about ignoring stats though. You are arguing hard that rape effects males and females without discrimination. I would say based on societal behaviour, this is demonstrably not true. Who is most concerned about poorly lit paths on uni campus? Who is most concerned with "Take Back the Night?" etc, etc. Your prison examples are horrific, but limited to prisons and quite possibly to the unique situation of the US's prison system (at least the rampant issues.) Rape in total society play a far larger part on women's calculations of when and where they will go and with whom, and from whom they will accept a drink at a bar (date rape), etc. I am arguing that if rape is gendered then so is murder.(As I think that these statistics are at least in the same realm of "lopsidedness") If you don't want me to use that as an example then I could always try another word. I've never been raped nor has anyone I known (I was almost raped, but I wouldn't count that) at the same time I still believe when I say the word, "rape" in game I am primarily speaking of, "owning" someone (Could be considered racist), or defeating them (don't know if you could put a sexual context on that one, but I'm sure you know who will if you can) and then secondarily I think of someone (not a gender) who is forcibly made to have sexual intercourse of some form.
Ok, yes. I agree. Gamers are part of a secondary discourse where rape has come to mean primarily owning someone. And so, when you use that word, that is exactly what you are meaning. However, the primary discourse remains in effect. Now as more people, particularly women, come join gamers pursuits, which has traditionally been a male domain for whatever reasons, they can be uncomfortable how the words are being used. And that's because outside of the gamer subculture, it's the other way around.
The shared meaning of rape in the dominant discourse, male to female rape is the most common perception, owning comes second. So the question becomes when females say they are uncomfortable about how females are being discussed- do we fight for our right and tell them to suck it up or gtfo. Or do we want to accommodate, be welcoming because we know that our words carry far different meanings in the wider culture and are actually viewed as highly demeaning. Because even if you only think of actual rape second, you (from what you wrote) still secondarily associate it with sexual violence. That is, the meaning is still tied up in the word for you even if only partly. And that's the crux of the issue. As long as these words continue to mean gamer lingo AND demeaning towards women they will be perceived as both and therefore seen as demeaning even if unintentional.
That is, we end up telling women how they should think and feel about words that from their perspective is demeaning against them. (These jokes are directed at my gender, and yet you're telling me to not to get offended when you, from the opposite gender and in the dominant position in gamer culture, are telling these jokes/ smack talk.)
But I would argue at minimum, that the bottom half of these quotes are intentionally trying to be demeaning.
On September 19 2011 02:17 Haemonculus wrote:
Phrases I've heard in vent during some LoL playing just in the last 15 minutes:
"He's coming mid to rape you"
"gonna rape the shit out of..."
"smack a bitch, smack smack smack a bitch"
"fuck this pussy bitch up"
zzzzz
Still trying to formulate why I disagree with the murder analogy. Very roughly, it's not really one dominant group targeting another for being the other. (Although after reading Haem's linked article, most (though not all) cases are by perpetuated by known assailants.) Violence against men would only be gendered if they were being targeted for being men. An ethnic group gang warfare killing each other would not be racist as they are killing each as part of gang warfare and not for being an ethnic group. However, if one ethnic group targets another ethnic group, that would be racist or ethnic violence.
I
|
Is there something wrong with the writer? That remark was obviously hyperbole for comedic effect; he wouldn't actually get that mad at someone for misusing starcraft acronyms; if the person in the joke was a man he would have called them a bastard or something.
|
On September 19 2011 05:46 SetStndbySmn wrote:
Is there something wrong with the writer? That remark was obviously hyperbole for comedic effect; he wouldn't actually get that mad at someone for misusing starcraft acronyms; if the person in the joke was a man he would have called them a bastard or something.
It wasn't even hyperbole. It was hypocritical humor. He says "it is a sign of resignation and respect... you young bitch."
It's like if I said "I think animals should have all the rights that people do... excuse me as I go eat this cat."
|
On September 19 2011 05:46 SetStndbySmn wrote:
Is there something wrong with the writer? That remark was obviously hyperbole for comedic effect; he wouldn't actually get that mad at someone for misusing starcraft acronyms; if the person in the joke was a man he would have called them a bastard or something.
The writer was simply pointing that even nice people slip into it. That's all.
The article actually likes Day[9]
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On September 19 2011 05:46 SetStndbySmn wrote:
Is there something wrong with the writer? That remark was obviously hyperbole for comedic effect; he wouldn't actually get that mad at someone for misusing starcraft acronyms; if the person in the joke was a man he would have called them a bastard or something.
The writer knows its a joke he's just saying it's quite likely to offend someone, especially women who are wanting to join the community.
|
On September 19 2011 05:37 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 05:33 Protosnake wrote:She didn't find him attractive, and they had *nothing* in common. Yeah, she thought it was a "bad thing."
There's nothing wrong with that, and to imply that she should have kept dating with him merely because he's successful is silly. There's a difference between not being attracted to someone and making a public post about how being the best magic magic player in the world is a bad thing, insulting him and implying he lied in his profile. A pretty pretty clear difference. I've ranted about that article plenty. Naming the guy in a public article was a shitty thing to do. My point was that people got offended that she turned him down, and immediately began projecting their own insecurities onto the situation.
Well i dont remember felt offended and "immediatly projecting my own insecurities" in my post, so you probably quoted the wrong person.
|
On September 19 2011 05:11 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 05:04 frogrubdown wrote:On September 19 2011 04:53 EatThePath wrote:On September 19 2011 04:14 feathertoken wrote:For the first 20 pages of this thread, I was amazed. This is a very intelligent, rational message board. I love the fact that the moderators actually enforce civilized behavior. Then the incessant need for some people to be "correct" reared its ugly head. I know I am brand new, but I would like a few people here to think about this... If you have posted more than 30 times in the same thread, you are being obnoxious and ruining the discussion for everyone else. Please control yourself. No one ever wins an debate on a message board. Ever. + Show Spoiler [the rest of the post] +
As for the article, it was embarassing. The only way I can come to grips with it is to see it as a loud bout of name-dropping performance art that is meant to brag about a newfound politics that he can talk about with his girlfriend.
The issues of aggression in gaming are much better addressed by one of the comments posted on the Star City site immediately following the article. And I quote:
"As a female that only began playing MTG about five months ago, I’ve seen and heard less-than-desirable things uttered and written about women emanating from what has presented itself as one of the most sportsmanlike casual gaming communities around. Having been friends with gamers for years as well as a videogame enthusiast, I’d come to accept it as something that one was simply expected to “grin and bear” as a woman, as the gaming community has always seemed to be a kind of impenetrable boys’ club in which intellectualism, no matter how prevalent within the strategy-building and gameplay, is always secondary to a kind of brutish, systematic desire for the title of alpha-dog within the pack.
While some of my gaming friends through the years have been the sweetest, most intelligent men I’ve known, I have noted that gaming is often the only way for these men to express their aggression, especially as a generation that will never see the ugly face of war unless it volunteers itself to.For the majority of men and women alike, the spectrum for potential greatness is, in many ways, more limited than it has ever been before. This is a point in history in which technology has made nearly anything and everything possible, but in such a way that the majority of us cannot potentially contribute to that evolution, as we do not possess what is essentially a somewhat elitist skillset. Unfortunately, this realization is colliding with (and, arguably, causing) a catastrophic economic downturn, causing individuals that may already feel somewhat emasculated by the inability to express physical domination to feel even moreso, adding shades of isolation and shame. So, when one is given the opportunity to express discontentment through the vehicle of another individual’s “trollish” statements through the most passive-aggressive safety blanket we as a people have ever invented (i.e.: the Internet), one leaps at the opportunity to become the king of commentators/trolls/whistle-blowers/generally outraged citizens by expressing some kind of personal greatness in calling out someone else for something silly that has been said."
[edit] Italicized the part of the quote I was referring to. That may be true, but it doesn't mean that an extended rally of posts between two people can't be informative. It started off pretty rocky but I give lorkac and HereticSaint a lot of credit for continuing the dialogue with a certain amount of rhetorical respect, despite coming from different sides of a huge divide, and what could be construed as personal attacks. Lorkac (in my opinion) is a rather unbiased source of gender-studies knowledge and opinions, and he's doing a good job fielding the arguments across a broad spectrum, much of which was focused on a sophomoric linguistic debate at first. HereticSaint is the model forum fighter, providing myriad documented evidence to support his arguments while he's fighting uphill against an ideology that by definition tries to supercede the world view he's operating with. That's brave, and hard work to keep a level head. When you're trying to combat prejudice, in this case agitate for altered community-wide behavior to limit perceived sexism, it's very difficult not to be inherently attacking the community you're trying to reform. Of course people will get defensive. Most of them aren't really defending themselves rationally, they're just saying "I"m not wrong you're dumb". In this case, if you want to take the time to read dozens of pages, you can see the alternative to that unfold, wherein an actual discussion of various points takes place while a object of the reform tries to hold the reformer accountable. Please understand that I'm not making a judgement on either of these people (both of whom are awesome intellectual competitors in their own way, in a way we can all benefit from, if you ask me). For the record, I'm strongly in favor of a shift in gamer culture-- to lead the way in society as a whole--to curb implicit sexism (as well as racism, homophobia, and other forms of prejudice). I'm not sure how I feel about the actual Geordie Tait article. The choice to take a "daddy's sorry" tone shows a lack of acuity for the subject, using style to make up for shortcomings in substance. I think you can detect the "beyond the comfort zone" feeling of an author trying to do something more than they're used to... which is write articles about MTG. Earlier I wrote an angry post trying to clarify this side of things more. The intersection of the sc2 community with this MTG article community is pretty much a giant unknown more the vast majority of the people who were posting and it was irritating that (as usual) there were outcries about off topic shit from people who had no clue what they were talking about. As it turns out, most of the thread was moot argument because the day9 quote is in fact real and true. My broader point then, which I wasn't clear about, and which I will try to get noticed as much as possible in the future, is that as esports garners more and more attention from outside, even from "nearby" outside like another segment of gaming culture, there will continue to be things we find that may misrepresent us. There's nothing you can do about the fact that it will happen, because it will, repeatedly. The best possible thing you can do is not be insulted by blatantly wrong tripe. Instead, be reasonable and try to get it corrected so people who nothing about us don't see misinformation. Raging about it just reflects poorly and reinforces the perception that we are culturally unacceptable and inept at interacting like a normal segment of society. In this case, however, there is a serious problem of sexism. (Obviously this is not limited to just our community. That doesn't make it okay to ignore it here.) If you don't understand why people are saying something that seems stupid to you, maybe you should read up on it, hell, even read the thread and the linked articles first, and then share your opinions. Better yet, ask a question instead. Try assuming that you're wrong, so you can learn something in the process of showing someone else why you're right. If you're not interested in what I just said, why are you sharing your opinion? I was also masochistic enough to read the entire thread. It left me with a very different impression. I think that the tone, civility, honesty, and level of argumentation exhibited by both lorkac and HereticSaint has been so low as to add nothing to my understanding of the debate. I think that it has been so low as to also actively discourage more level-headed, intelligent, honest people from contributing to the discussion for fear of being shut out of the discussion with an onslaught of misrepresentative hyperbole and superficial points. Having read this entire thread, you probably know that I tried to contribute earlier and hopefully interact with people who were willing to have an intelligent discussion about these important issues. The horrendous, misleading responses I received from lorkac convinced me that this was a lost cause. I can only imagine, or hope, that if posters like these had been absent from the thread, a more enlightening dialogue could have taken place. In order to respond to you I'm rereading that stuff. I'll edit.
If you want help finding the most relevant posts, go to page 25. Here I make the offhand (true) point that there is currently not enough science concerning the origins of the IQ variance discrepancy to conclude that it is completely irrational to believe that genetic factors play at least some role in addition to cultural ones. Lokrac responded with rhetorical questions implying that I felt that the very idea that cultural factors have anything to do with the datum is completely absurd.
I don't think that people this dishonest can add to the debate we're trying to have.
|
On September 19 2011 05:45 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 05:20 HereticSaint wrote:On September 19 2011 05:02 Falling wrote:On September 19 2011 04:38 HereticSaint wrote:Not only that, but ignoring unreported stats which are hard to deal with because they are unreported, but which is sex is most cautious about when and where a person walks for fear of being sexually assaulted? And before someone jumps in mugging issues in bad parts of town. Yes of course there's areas you want to avoid male/ or female. But females most often are concerned about the possibility of sexual assault in areas males would generally not even dream of thinking about. Even the small uni I went to we had several creeps either groping or exposing themselves in some of the poorly lit areas on or around campus. All male to female. Most girls continued to walk, some were quite unconcerned, but it is an extra calculation that females are more likely to make then males. The stats ARE hard to deal with and those stats are the only thing which would be in your favor! Did you even read the studies? Go research it yourself if you think I'm full of ****. Men are much, much less likely to report rape especially by a female than a woman would be by a man. Explain to me how that doesn't make the stats if anything slide into my favor, especially in regard to how damaging it is to males. Yes stats are in my favour, rape is under-reported in general and I'm confident men are much less likely to report rape then women. But as far as primary discourse is concerned, when the word rape is mentioned, rape against men is not immediately associated. Only if you're part of a secondary discourse- have been, know someone, or know about rape against male would the word immediately rape immediately be associated with men. That could be something to work on. Bring more awareness to the issue because that secondary discourse is valid. However, if you're talking about the primary discourse, when the word rape is mentioned, two things can come to mind male to female rape and possibly beating someone in a video game. I would actually argue that male to female rape is the primary discourse that is immediately associated with the word and dominating someone in a game is also a secondary discourse that has developed amongst gamers and that is slowly working it's way into the primary discourse. All that to say, the word 'rape' carries a couple different meanings at the same time and you cannot pick and choose which ones other people think of because the word currently carries sexual violence against women as the automatic association with most people. It's the issue of shared social meaning when we think of different words. ex) dog- there's all sorts of mental images and values that are tied into the one word: Man's best friend, loyalty, determined (dogged). Pretty much any word is going to carry a weight of shared meaning behind it, good or bad. My point about ignoring stats though. You are arguing hard that rape effects males and females without discrimination. I would say based on societal behaviour, this is demonstrably not true. Who is most concerned about poorly lit paths on uni campus? Who is most concerned with "Take Back the Night?" etc, etc. Your prison examples are horrific, but limited to prisons and quite possibly to the unique situation of the US's prison system (at least the rampant issues.) Rape in total society play a far larger part on women's calculations of when and where they will go and with whom, and from whom they will accept a drink at a bar (date rape), etc. I am arguing that if rape is gendered then so is murder.(As I think that these statistics are at least in the same realm of "lopsidedness") If you don't want me to use that as an example then I could always try another word. I've never been raped nor has anyone I known (I was almost raped, but I wouldn't count that) at the same time I still believe when I say the word, "rape" in game I am primarily speaking of, "owning" someone (Could be considered racist), or defeating them (don't know if you could put a sexual context on that one, but I'm sure you know who will if you can) and then secondarily I think of someone (not a gender) who is forcibly made to have sexual intercourse of some form. Ok, yes. I agree. Gamers are part of a secondary discourse where rape has come to mean primarily owning someone. And so, when you use that word, that is exactly what you are meaning. However, the primary discourse remains in effect. Now as more people, particularly women, come join gamers pursuits, which has traditionally been a male domain for whatever reasons, they can be uncomfortable how the words are being used. And that's because outside of the gamer subculture, it's the other way around. The shared meaning of rape in the dominant discourse, male to female rape is the most common perception, owning comes second. So the question becomes when females say they are uncomfortable about how females are being discussed- do we fight for our right and tell them to suck it up or gtfo. Or do we want to accommodate, be welcoming because we know that our words carry far different meanings in the wider culture and are actually viewed as highly demeaning. Because even if you only think of actual rape second, you (from what you wrote) still secondarily associate it with sexual violence. That is, the meaning is still tied up in the word for you even if only partly. And that's the crux of the issue. As long as these words continue to mean gamer lingo AND demeaning towards women they will be perceived as both and therefore seen as demeaning even if unintentional. But I would argue at minimum, that the bottom half of these quotes are intentionally trying to be demeaning. Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 02:17 Haemonculus wrote:
Phrases I've heard in vent during some LoL playing just in the last 15 minutes:
"He's coming mid to rape you"
"gonna rape the shit out of..."
"smack a bitch, smack smack smack a bitch"
"fuck this pussy bitch up"
zzzzz Still trying to formulate why I disagree with the murder analogy. Very roughly, it's not really one dominant group targeting another for being the other. (Although after reading Haem's linked article, most (though not all) cases are by perpetuated by known assailants.) Violence against men would only be gendered if they were being targeted for being men. An ethnic group gang warfare killing each other would not be racist as they are killing each as part of gang warfare and not for being an ethnic group. However, if one ethnic group targets another ethnic group, that would be racist or ethnic violence. I
I'm not saying we should tell the females to adapt or GTFO necessarily, but at the same time a lot of gamers mean nothing by these words and use them to mean, "dominating" as we've been discussing, to that extent is it fair to completely change how a lot of gamers view swearing (Keep in mind that the most fervent of posters for females in here have basically included all swears, including "dick", "cock", "balls", "bitch" among them) to the point where we are not allowed to swear anymore? What about the word, "owning", that could be pointed out as racist by the same people who think, "dick" is sexist against women (Really, wtf...), so we drop all swearing, drop the words, own, owning, owned, p00n (basically evolved from own), etc. Then what? We develop some socially acceptable words only used by the gaming community to denote domination (assuming you don't consider that racist or sexist, I know at least one person in this thread who does) or defeating another individual?
I don't think it should be the males 100% giving up swearing to appease people who misinterpret what we mean. Maybe we shouldn't say things like, "I raped that whore"... but I don't see myself not ever again saying, "I fucked that asshole up" and I really don't agree that we should completely stop, there should be some give and some take.
There is a ton of violence exclusively perpetrated towards other males, granted there aren't a whole lot of female on male murders but that doesn't mean any less males are murdered. But really, I think analogies and this topic got way out of hand either way, partially due to me I admit.
|
On September 19 2011 05:29 feathertoken wrote:Show nested quote +This is what happens in a normal discussion. There is a lot of back and forth between people. You don't see debates where people say their piece and leave. People argue their point with the aim of finding some common ground, although this isn't always achieved. That's apologetic crap to cover bad form. I will say it one more time. The first 20 pages or so were varied opinions from the community. Then the thread was monopolized by a "normal discussion" which actually reads like an attention grabbing temper tantrum by a few people who insist they are smarter than each other without being smart enough to know that neither will admit that they are ruining the thread for everyone else. If that's what these boards are like, they must be as boring as the rest. I was hoping, from the beginning of the thread, that this place was different. Oh well, have fun.
The point I was trying to make, feather, is that in my eyes it was worth going down a lot of side roads to argue over finer points, in this case. I'm sorry you're disappointed. I'm not sure what you expect to find on the internet, although I admit I have harbored similar hopes before, perhaps still do. I wish you would add your own thoughts, but I don't blame you for dropping some meta-judgement in some kind of effort to right a sinking ship.
Also @frog, in rereading that part in the middle where you dropped by, I'm not sure everyone would find it informative and useful. Well, clearly neither of you did. So, you're right. I hoped to point out that lorcak was doing the best job of everybody trying to explain all the extreme-progressive gender-studies worldview jargon and playbook, indicating he has taken time at some point to look into it formally or otherwise. (Have you done feminist studies in an academic setting, lorcak?)
@frog specifically, I think where you were trying to go is a much broader discussion than the focus in the thread where you started arguing. If I'm not mistaken, you want to talk about nature vs nurture, determinism vs free will (both actual and perceived), and how that factors into morality and ethics, and eventually what that means for the expectations of decorum when there is a question about sexist tendencies or norms in a community. That's a lot to chew on, obviously. I don't think you have to bail on a thread if you're not getting the feedback you want, but I don't blame you.
Personally, at the moment, for me it is far more germane to discuss at a widely familiar (if stereotyped) level of "political correctness" or "social studies" whether there is a sexism problem and what there is to be done. As I see it, the best thing is to give it exposure and minimize the "that's dumb rofl" posters because that will create the most traction among level-headed people who don't have a strong opinion or aren't looking at themselves as honestly as they could.
The most relevant part of that level of discussion, for me, is the prevalence of gender-biased language that implicitly connotes gender inequality, and how it normalizes behavior even if it doesn't consciously condone prejudice. This is the main hangup for a lot of people I think, because it's a lot to go in for. "You're trying to tell me that even when I'm not doing anything wrong, and I don't mean wrong, that I'm doing wrong?"
In fact, if I surmise correctly about your beliefs, we're of a similar mind about fundamental truths about things like consciousness. I think we might differ on what it means for contemporary human behavior. Namely, perhaps hypocritically, I don't see how there is a place for true morality in a worldview that relies on science.
|
On September 19 2011 05:06 HereticSaint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 04:59 imallinson wrote:On September 19 2011 04:38 HereticSaint wrote:On September 19 2011 04:35 imallinson wrote:On September 19 2011 04:31 HereticSaint wrote:On September 19 2011 04:29 imallinson wrote:On September 19 2011 04:20 HereticSaint wrote:On September 19 2011 04:12 imallinson wrote:On September 19 2011 04:04 HereticSaint wrote:On September 19 2011 04:01 imallinson wrote:
[quote]
The analogy about nations was just that, an analogy, there isn't any reason to attack it like it was my main point. I'm saying murder isn't gender oriented (i.e. people murder people because of circumstance not on their gender). In the general public rape is something that happens more to females by males (also because they are female not just circumstance) and prisons skew the data if included because they are gendered institutions. So males walking down the street will be much less worried about being raped than females walking down the street. A man is much more likely to murder another man over a small confrontation than a woman, that's a fact, I'd get you a study but you seem to not give a **** about them. So only the parts of society you want to matter do? So we are only allowed to address rape as per how it would work in your theoretical society? Male on male rape outside of prison as also far less reported and prisoners aren't in prison for ever, the damaging effects of rape maintain in effect when they are released. I do give a **** about your studies, that's why I responded to them. As far as the parts of society that matter I'm trying to use the section of society where it is possible for any gender to rape any gender because this gives the most balanced view. As far as rape in prisons goes, I'm sure a lot of men who have been in a prison where homosexual rapes are a big problem will be just as offended at another male saying they will rape them in a game as a woman would because for that specific group it was a big worry. That isn't the case for males who aren't in this group. Under reporting According to the American Medical Association (1995), sexual violence, and rape in particular, is considered the most under-reported violent crime.[4][5] The most common reasons given by victims for not reporting rapes are the belief that it is a personal or private matter, and that they fear reprisal from the assailant. A 2007 government report in England says "Estimates from research suggest that between 75 and 95 per cent of rape crimes are never reported to the police."[6] Statistics on rape and sexual assault are common in Western countries and are becoming more common throughout the world. Inconsistent definitions of rape, different rates of reporting, recording, prosecution and conviction for rape create controversial statistical disparities, and lead to accusations that many rape statistics are unreliable or misleading. According to USA Today reporter Kevin Johnson "no other major category of crime - not murder, assault or robbery - has generated a more serious challenge of the credibility of national crime statistics" than rape.[1] A United Nations statistical report compiled from government sources showed that more than 250,000 cases of male-female rape or attempted rape were recorded by police annually. The reported data covered 65 countries.[2] In some jurisdictions, male-female rape is the only form of rape counted in the statistics.[3] Traditional (male-female) focused rape-related advocacy groups have suggested several tactics to encourage the reporting of sexual assaults, most of which aim at lessening the psychological trauma, often suffered by female rape victims following their assault by male rapists. Many police departments now assign female police officers to deal with rape cases. Advocacy groups also argue for the preservation of the victim's privacy during the legal process; it is standard practice among mainstream American news media not to divulge the names of alleged rape victims in news reports but this practice is becoming increasingly controversial due to well publicized cases of false rape accusations. Traditional rape-related advocacy groups are also beginning to support male-male rape victims as well as male-female rape victims. Other advocacy groups that support male victims of female rape encourage recognition of female-male rape as rape rather than as a 'love affair', a 'relationship', or as a beneficial form of sex 'education'. However, female-male and female-female rape is rarely recognized as a statistically significant form of rape despite research indicating otherwise. Thus reporting rape by females remains difficult or impossible especially in jurisdictions where rape by a female is considered no crime or where the false perception persists that rape of a male by a female is impossible.[7] Basically what this says is, "Even when not counting prisons" rape of males, even by other males is generally not a statistic that is kept in any form and in fact males claiming rape in general and female on male rape especially are generally not only not accounted for but intentionally mocked and ignored. Rape as a whole is very under reported, but yes it is especially so with regards to females raping males. It is possible that there are more females raping males than vice versa, although I doubt that there are 250,000 + unreported male -> female rapes than unreported female -> male rapes, but there is no data on this so it's not really worth arguing it. However there is also the fact that the public perception is that almost all rapes occur male -> female which means that the majority of the female population will be much more worried about being raped than the majority of the male population even if most rapes were female -> male. Most people being uninformed doesn't all of a sudden change how things are. I'm not saying that there's that many unreported cases either, but I will say my 66% statistic regarding murder is a lot closer (if not higher, but who knows) than you give it credit to be. Keeping in mind, again that males are more likely to be victim to murder (regardless of why, that again, isn't the point). People being uninformed doesn't change how things are but seeing as this is about who will get offended by a certain term then how they view the situation surrounding that term is going to have a large effect on how they perceive that term And what of the people who are informed? **** them because they are the minority? I'm not saying you are saying that, but I mean... that's how it comes off. Main point being rape isn't anymore of a gendered insult than murder is, if the vast majority of the population who are uninformed disagree with me, then they can continue enjoying their Justin Beiber music and Farmville while I continue not catering to them just because they are the uninformed majority. I realize this goes back to me not caring, but really I think it points out that I'm not being completely unreasonable. Of course, I'm sure someone disagrees with me. I'm not saying you are being unreasonable. You do have a good point about rape not being as gendered as most people think. Bringing this back to the original article and it's points about sexist stuff happening in the community alienating potential female gamers. I think the public perception is an important thing to worry about, even if it is uninformed. There is a vocal minority of people who are very sexist and I think the vast majority of the community, while not sexist itself, doesn't care about the people who are so it continues (and also doesn't care about correcting people who aren't sexist but make a sexist remark because they don't know better). The only way to stop this is to actually call people out if they are being sexist (which TL is actually fairly decent at) which will let women feel like they belong in the community and join it which will make all but the worst trolls be more reasonable about it. I'm not saying you have to join in, if you don't care that's a perfectly reasonable stance but let people who do care spend their time doing it. What I'm saying is if more females joining the community brings along with it this expectation to not say things like, "bitch", "rape", and according to mister, "every swear word is only degrading to females", "dick' among others then no, I rather not have females as part of the community. Of course I think a majority of people are more reasonable than that but I was simply trying to address the vocal majority who act as if saying the word, "dick" is all of a sudden degrading to females. Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 05:04 frogrubdown wrote:On September 19 2011 04:53 EatThePath wrote:On September 19 2011 04:14 feathertoken wrote:For the first 20 pages of this thread, I was amazed. This is a very intelligent, rational message board. I love the fact that the moderators actually enforce civilized behavior. Then the incessant need for some people to be "correct" reared its ugly head. I know I am brand new, but I would like a few people here to think about this... If you have posted more than 30 times in the same thread, you are being obnoxious and ruining the discussion for everyone else. Please control yourself. No one ever wins an debate on a message board. Ever. + Show Spoiler [the rest of the post] +
As for the article, it was embarassing. The only way I can come to grips with it is to see it as a loud bout of name-dropping performance art that is meant to brag about a newfound politics that he can talk about with his girlfriend.
The issues of aggression in gaming are much better addressed by one of the comments posted on the Star City site immediately following the article. And I quote:
"As a female that only began playing MTG about five months ago, I’ve seen and heard less-than-desirable things uttered and written about women emanating from what has presented itself as one of the most sportsmanlike casual gaming communities around. Having been friends with gamers for years as well as a videogame enthusiast, I’d come to accept it as something that one was simply expected to “grin and bear” as a woman, as the gaming community has always seemed to be a kind of impenetrable boys’ club in which intellectualism, no matter how prevalent within the strategy-building and gameplay, is always secondary to a kind of brutish, systematic desire for the title of alpha-dog within the pack.
While some of my gaming friends through the years have been the sweetest, most intelligent men I’ve known, I have noted that gaming is often the only way for these men to express their aggression, especially as a generation that will never see the ugly face of war unless it volunteers itself to.For the majority of men and women alike, the spectrum for potential greatness is, in many ways, more limited than it has ever been before. This is a point in history in which technology has made nearly anything and everything possible, but in such a way that the majority of us cannot potentially contribute to that evolution, as we do not possess what is essentially a somewhat elitist skillset. Unfortunately, this realization is colliding with (and, arguably, causing) a catastrophic economic downturn, causing individuals that may already feel somewhat emasculated by the inability to express physical domination to feel even moreso, adding shades of isolation and shame. So, when one is given the opportunity to express discontentment through the vehicle of another individual’s “trollish” statements through the most passive-aggressive safety blanket we as a people have ever invented (i.e.: the Internet), one leaps at the opportunity to become the king of commentators/trolls/whistle-blowers/generally outraged citizens by expressing some kind of personal greatness in calling out someone else for something silly that has been said."
[edit] Italicized the part of the quote I was referring to. That may be true, but it doesn't mean that an extended rally of posts between two people can't be informative. It started off pretty rocky but I give lorkac and HereticSaint a lot of credit for continuing the dialogue with a certain amount of rhetorical respect, despite coming from different sides of a huge divide, and what could be construed as personal attacks. Lorkac (in my opinion) is a rather unbiased source of gender-studies knowledge and opinions, and he's doing a good job fielding the arguments across a broad spectrum, much of which was focused on a sophomoric linguistic debate at first. HereticSaint is the model forum fighter, providing myriad documented evidence to support his arguments while he's fighting uphill against an ideology that by definition tries to supercede the world view he's operating with. That's brave, and hard work to keep a level head. When you're trying to combat prejudice, in this case agitate for altered community-wide behavior to limit perceived sexism, it's very difficult not to be inherently attacking the community you're trying to reform. Of course people will get defensive. Most of them aren't really defending themselves rationally, they're just saying "I"m not wrong you're dumb". In this case, if you want to take the time to read dozens of pages, you can see the alternative to that unfold, wherein an actual discussion of various points takes place while a object of the reform tries to hold the reformer accountable. Please understand that I'm not making a judgement on either of these people (both of whom are awesome intellectual competitors in their own way, in a way we can all benefit from, if you ask me). For the record, I'm strongly in favor of a shift in gamer culture-- to lead the way in society as a whole--to curb implicit sexism (as well as racism, homophobia, and other forms of prejudice). I'm not sure how I feel about the actual Geordie Tait article. The choice to take a "daddy's sorry" tone shows a lack of acuity for the subject, using style to make up for shortcomings in substance. I think you can detect the "beyond the comfort zone" feeling of an author trying to do something more than they're used to... which is write articles about MTG. Earlier I wrote an angry post trying to clarify this side of things more. The intersection of the sc2 community with this MTG article community is pretty much a giant unknown more the vast majority of the people who were posting and it was irritating that (as usual) there were outcries about off topic shit from people who had no clue what they were talking about. As it turns out, most of the thread was moot argument because the day9 quote is in fact real and true. My broader point then, which I wasn't clear about, and which I will try to get noticed as much as possible in the future, is that as esports garners more and more attention from outside, even from "nearby" outside like another segment of gaming culture, there will continue to be things we find that may misrepresent us. There's nothing you can do about the fact that it will happen, because it will, repeatedly. The best possible thing you can do is not be insulted by blatantly wrong tripe. Instead, be reasonable and try to get it corrected so people who nothing about us don't see misinformation. Raging about it just reflects poorly and reinforces the perception that we are culturally unacceptable and inept at interacting like a normal segment of society. In this case, however, there is a serious problem of sexism. (Obviously this is not limited to just our community. That doesn't make it okay to ignore it here.) If you don't understand why people are saying something that seems stupid to you, maybe you should read up on it, hell, even read the thread and the linked articles first, and then share your opinions. Better yet, ask a question instead. Try assuming that you're wrong, so you can learn something in the process of showing someone else why you're right. If you're not interested in what I just said, why are you sharing your opinion? I was also masochistic enough to read the entire thread. It left me with a very different impression. I think that the tone, civility, honesty, and level of argumentation exhibited by both lorkac and HereticSaint has been so low as to add nothing to my understanding of the debate. I think that it has been so low as to also actively discourage more level-headed, intelligent, honest people from contributing to the discussion for fear of being shut out of the discussion with an onslaught of misrepresentative hyperbole and superficial points. Having read this entire thread, you probably know that I tried to contribute earlier and hopefully interact with people who were willing to have an intelligent discussion about these important issues. The horrendous, misleading responses I received from lorkac convinced me that this was a lost cause. I can only imagine, or hope, that if posters like these had been absent from the thread, a more enlightening dialogue could have taken place. I'm not going to be civil towards someone who shoves words into not only my mouth, but others and also is arrogant enough to not only assume they know how I think but how I lived and currently live. Compare our posting history not just in this thread, but other ones and you'll see I at least attempt to debate, stay on topic and use factual evidence as the basis for this. Where he posts rage pics, talks smack and goes the equivalent of, "lolwut" in quite a few threads. That being said I still apologize if you felt less inclined to post due to me and will try to improve my posting henceforth.
I didn't mean to turn this into a civility contest between you two. Since I'd only directly interacted with lokrac in the thread, my primary problem was with him. I'm sure you can at least grant that the types of responses you were giving to him only fed into to his negative posting behavior. Thank you for this response.
|
The way you're using the word troll... what does that even mean?
It is a fishing term. Trolling is a method of pulling the bait behind the boat in order to get a big fish to bite it and get hooked.
In this case, it applies especially to lorkac. He loudly waves his opinions about women's rights, holding himself up as a knowledgable expert, hoping to engage people who disagree with him, so he can post endless replies. He is never satisfied, he will never agree to disagree, since his true aim is to continue the debate as long as possible.
That is a troll.
Why he wants to do this, beyond simple attention grabbing, I do not know.
|
On September 19 2011 05:56 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 05:11 EatThePath wrote:On September 19 2011 05:04 frogrubdown wrote:On September 19 2011 04:53 EatThePath wrote:On September 19 2011 04:14 feathertoken wrote:For the first 20 pages of this thread, I was amazed. This is a very intelligent, rational message board. I love the fact that the moderators actually enforce civilized behavior. Then the incessant need for some people to be "correct" reared its ugly head. I know I am brand new, but I would like a few people here to think about this... If you have posted more than 30 times in the same thread, you are being obnoxious and ruining the discussion for everyone else. Please control yourself. No one ever wins an debate on a message board. Ever. + Show Spoiler [the rest of the post] +
As for the article, it was embarassing. The only way I can come to grips with it is to see it as a loud bout of name-dropping performance art that is meant to brag about a newfound politics that he can talk about with his girlfriend.
The issues of aggression in gaming are much better addressed by one of the comments posted on the Star City site immediately following the article. And I quote:
"As a female that only began playing MTG about five months ago, I’ve seen and heard less-than-desirable things uttered and written about women emanating from what has presented itself as one of the most sportsmanlike casual gaming communities around. Having been friends with gamers for years as well as a videogame enthusiast, I’d come to accept it as something that one was simply expected to “grin and bear” as a woman, as the gaming community has always seemed to be a kind of impenetrable boys’ club in which intellectualism, no matter how prevalent within the strategy-building and gameplay, is always secondary to a kind of brutish, systematic desire for the title of alpha-dog within the pack.
While some of my gaming friends through the years have been the sweetest, most intelligent men I’ve known, I have noted that gaming is often the only way for these men to express their aggression, especially as a generation that will never see the ugly face of war unless it volunteers itself to.For the majority of men and women alike, the spectrum for potential greatness is, in many ways, more limited than it has ever been before. This is a point in history in which technology has made nearly anything and everything possible, but in such a way that the majority of us cannot potentially contribute to that evolution, as we do not possess what is essentially a somewhat elitist skillset. Unfortunately, this realization is colliding with (and, arguably, causing) a catastrophic economic downturn, causing individuals that may already feel somewhat emasculated by the inability to express physical domination to feel even moreso, adding shades of isolation and shame. So, when one is given the opportunity to express discontentment through the vehicle of another individual’s “trollish” statements through the most passive-aggressive safety blanket we as a people have ever invented (i.e.: the Internet), one leaps at the opportunity to become the king of commentators/trolls/whistle-blowers/generally outraged citizens by expressing some kind of personal greatness in calling out someone else for something silly that has been said."
[edit] Italicized the part of the quote I was referring to. That may be true, but it doesn't mean that an extended rally of posts between two people can't be informative. It started off pretty rocky but I give lorkac and HereticSaint a lot of credit for continuing the dialogue with a certain amount of rhetorical respect, despite coming from different sides of a huge divide, and what could be construed as personal attacks. Lorkac (in my opinion) is a rather unbiased source of gender-studies knowledge and opinions, and he's doing a good job fielding the arguments across a broad spectrum, much of which was focused on a sophomoric linguistic debate at first. HereticSaint is the model forum fighter, providing myriad documented evidence to support his arguments while he's fighting uphill against an ideology that by definition tries to supercede the world view he's operating with. That's brave, and hard work to keep a level head. When you're trying to combat prejudice, in this case agitate for altered community-wide behavior to limit perceived sexism, it's very difficult not to be inherently attacking the community you're trying to reform. Of course people will get defensive. Most of them aren't really defending themselves rationally, they're just saying "I"m not wrong you're dumb". In this case, if you want to take the time to read dozens of pages, you can see the alternative to that unfold, wherein an actual discussion of various points takes place while a object of the reform tries to hold the reformer accountable. Please understand that I'm not making a judgement on either of these people (both of whom are awesome intellectual competitors in their own way, in a way we can all benefit from, if you ask me). For the record, I'm strongly in favor of a shift in gamer culture-- to lead the way in society as a whole--to curb implicit sexism (as well as racism, homophobia, and other forms of prejudice). I'm not sure how I feel about the actual Geordie Tait article. The choice to take a "daddy's sorry" tone shows a lack of acuity for the subject, using style to make up for shortcomings in substance. I think you can detect the "beyond the comfort zone" feeling of an author trying to do something more than they're used to... which is write articles about MTG. Earlier I wrote an angry post trying to clarify this side of things more. The intersection of the sc2 community with this MTG article community is pretty much a giant unknown more the vast majority of the people who were posting and it was irritating that (as usual) there were outcries about off topic shit from people who had no clue what they were talking about. As it turns out, most of the thread was moot argument because the day9 quote is in fact real and true. My broader point then, which I wasn't clear about, and which I will try to get noticed as much as possible in the future, is that as esports garners more and more attention from outside, even from "nearby" outside like another segment of gaming culture, there will continue to be things we find that may misrepresent us. There's nothing you can do about the fact that it will happen, because it will, repeatedly. The best possible thing you can do is not be insulted by blatantly wrong tripe. Instead, be reasonable and try to get it corrected so people who nothing about us don't see misinformation. Raging about it just reflects poorly and reinforces the perception that we are culturally unacceptable and inept at interacting like a normal segment of society. In this case, however, there is a serious problem of sexism. (Obviously this is not limited to just our community. That doesn't make it okay to ignore it here.) If you don't understand why people are saying something that seems stupid to you, maybe you should read up on it, hell, even read the thread and the linked articles first, and then share your opinions. Better yet, ask a question instead. Try assuming that you're wrong, so you can learn something in the process of showing someone else why you're right. If you're not interested in what I just said, why are you sharing your opinion? I was also masochistic enough to read the entire thread. It left me with a very different impression. I think that the tone, civility, honesty, and level of argumentation exhibited by both lorkac and HereticSaint has been so low as to add nothing to my understanding of the debate. I think that it has been so low as to also actively discourage more level-headed, intelligent, honest people from contributing to the discussion for fear of being shut out of the discussion with an onslaught of misrepresentative hyperbole and superficial points. Having read this entire thread, you probably know that I tried to contribute earlier and hopefully interact with people who were willing to have an intelligent discussion about these important issues. The horrendous, misleading responses I received from lorkac convinced me that this was a lost cause. I can only imagine, or hope, that if posters like these had been absent from the thread, a more enlightening dialogue could have taken place. In order to respond to you I'm rereading that stuff. I'll edit. If you want help finding the most relevant posts, go to page 25. Here I make the offhand (true) point that there is currently not enough science concerning the origins of the IQ variance discrepancy to conclude that it is completely irrational to believe that genetic factors play at least some role in addition to cultural ones. Lokrac responded with rhetorical questions implying that I felt that the very idea that cultural factors have anything to do with the datum is completely absurd. I don't think that people this dishonest can add to the debate we're trying to have.
He was also in the midst of battling multiple vitriolic counterattacks and probably didn't respond to you as calmly as he could have. Personally I find him honest to his personal cause, not necessarily trying to win for the sake of putting down opponents. And a bit strident. Not that I want to defend or speak for Lorkac. Sorry Lorkac.
I find it useful to have a decent presentation of the gender-studies / feminist viewpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
