|
|
I only read the first 5 lines of the article, which is reason enough for me not to read anymore of that huge bs article.
Sure there are areas in our culture where women might have a rough time but in other areas they get a free ride. People just tend to ignore that.
How many people in prison are women? How many drug addicts are women? How many homeless people are women. How many unemployed people are women?
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
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.
From what I know about intelligence and genetics, there is a lot more evidence of it being a cultural phenomenon. Things like poor people doing consistently less well in intelligence tests point to it being more cultural. There is also the fact that brains are so plastic that even a year after birth your brain is structured completely differently to its original state. That's not to say it can't have a genetic component, just that the evidence seems to be points to that not being the case.
|
On September 19 2011 06:02 feathertoken wrote: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 louldy 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 to 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.
How do you know that to be true? If it were true, why bother arguing. That's why I say to "derp troll" comments, what does that even mean??
Trolling is something that 4chan members do to other people online. Or that 12 year olds do poorly in stream chat. And then other 12 year olds get proud calling them out.
I don't think lorkac is trolling. In any case it's irrelevant because the argumentation about gender-studies isn't that bad.
|
On September 19 2011 06:04 DaCruise wrote:
I only read the first 5 lines of the article, which is reason enough for me not to read anymore of that huge bs article.
Sure there are areas in our culture where women might have a rough time but in other areas they get a free ride. People just tend to ignore that.
How many people in prison are women? How many drug addicts are women? How many homeless people are women. How many unemployed people are women?
So men are allowed to think of women as inferior as long as they open doors for them and buy them dinner? I think it is this kind of post that his article was railing against. I can see why you didn't want to read it.
Women are less likely to commit crimes, and I don't know how it is in Denmark, but the fastest growing homeless group in the U.S. is single mothers.
|
On September 19 2011 06:03 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 05:56 frogrubdown wrote: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.
I do too. I'm actually a lot more sympathetic to that point of view than you've gathered from my posts. It's certainly closer to my opinion than the other end of the spectrum found in this thread. The problem is that the point of view in question was being put forth in the wrong way. I can't imagine the types of responses he gave convincing anyone who hasn't already studied these issues. I also don't think that this type of persuasion is impossible. There'd be a much better chance of giving the views a fair airing, though, if he would responsibly answer his interlocutors and express his points in a more clear fashion.
One frequent source of unclarity can be seen in the frequent shifting between discussing sexism as the unequal treatment of the sexes and discussing sexism as the unequal treatment of the genders, as the gender-studies people would say. These two issues differ monumentally and you'll never get a clear argument across unless you make sure you're clear on which one you are talking about and why the currently discussed scenario is problematic regarding that issue.
|
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.
I don't know where this argument is starting from.. I just read the spoiler tags.
However, I think to say that anyone wanted her to date him would actually just be completely inaccurate. People are offended because of their insecurities, sure, but nobody would have been offended at all if she hadn't've written an article that puts gamers on a lower tier than her. Here we see and know this well mannered and intelligent guy, and she thinks she's at liberty to publicly denounce him because of something she's not attracted to.
I'm not sure how this relates to the original post at all though, lol.
I think as gaming becomes more mainstream, so will girls become more mainstream to gaming. Girls are really into having high status in a social structure. Before, when gamers were all awkward, antisocial guys who couldn't get into real sports, being a gamer was very low on the social ladder. When that changes, I think girls will too.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On September 19 2011 05:58 HereticSaint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 05:45 Falling wrote: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. 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.
Ok, so I think we might have some common ground here? There is a little room for adjustment for gamer lingo? That is the current state, is not necessarily the best state? But as to fairness, how about turning it around a little bit. Is it fair for girls coming into the gamer scene that is rife with words that although not intentionally so are directed against them and very demeaning? (At least according to the primary discourses' shared meaning.)
And I don't think the argument is against all swear words, persay. Just ones that demean a person for simply being/ existing, before they do anything. Attacking women for being women, various ethnic groups for being that ethnic group.
As for owned- I believe it's origin was out of hacker culture? As in, by hacking your computer, I own it? But in any case, the concept of owning another person is not inherently ethnic as slavery is not strictly divided along racial lines (although in American history it was.)
|
Oh god this is over the top. We all get it; and it goes both ways, you know?
|
I think there are a lot of legitimate points in that article. The part about day9 is a little out of context, as in the actual joke he's kind of using that word to emphasize how seriously he took it - like "look at my ridiculous younger self" kind of thing.
However I would hate to think that people are disregarding such a thought provoking article just because day9 is used as an example in one section.
It's definitely worth thinking about... Lorkac nailed it in the above comment:
On September 18 2011 00:01 lorkac wrote:
The gaming culture is centralized in already highly misogynistic societies, the US and Europe. How can't there be sexism in gaming? Add to that the hypermasculine sports aura wherein we enjoy feminizing weakness such as calling the opposing players "our bitch" as well as determining cowardice as being "pussies" we end up with a culture that glorifies the masculine and attacks what we conceive to be feminine ideals.
Esports is very very misogynistic.
It's true. Imo we need to move past this kind of thing...
|
On September 19 2011 06:04 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 05:56 frogrubdown wrote: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. From what I know about intelligence and genetics, there is a lot more evidence of it being a cultural phenomenon. Things like poor people doing consistently less well in intelligence tests point to it being more cultural. There is also the fact that brains are so plastic that even a year after birth your brain is structured completely differently to its original state. That's not to say it can't have a genetic component, just that the evidence seems to be points to that not being the case.
There isn't that much disagreement between us. I would disagree that it is plausible that genetics in general has nothing to do with intelligence (though it certainly is nowhere near the whole story), and on this point I'm on the side of the psychological community. But I don't actually think that the different IQ phenomena concerning the sexes has a genetic origin. I just don't think that that a partial genetic influence on the discrepancy has been sufficiently ruled out yet to lambaste those who think otherwise. My only problem in this area was with being mischaracterized as having a different view.
|
On September 19 2011 06:15 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 05:58 HereticSaint wrote:On September 19 2011 05:45 Falling wrote: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. 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. Ok, so I think we might have some common ground here? There is a little room for adjustment for gamer lingo? That is the current state, is not necessarily the best state? But as to fairness, how about turning it around a little bit. Is it fair for girls coming into the gamer scene that is rife with words that although not intentionally so are directed against them and very demeaning? (At least according to the primary discourses' shared meaning.) And I don't think the argument is against all swear words, persay. Just ones that demean a person for simply being/ existing, before they do anything. Attacking women for being women, various ethnic groups for being that ethnic group. As for owned- I believe it's origin was out of hacker culture? As in, by hacking your computer, I own it? But in any case, the concept of owning another person is not inherently ethnic as slavery is not strictly divided along racial lines (although in American history it was.)
I do think we've found common ground. I admit, maybe I was being just as, "extremist" as another individual was the other way in this thread, at least initially merely in an attempt to counteract them. That obviously was going nowhere positive, readjusting the focus what you say obviously matters to some extent and what you mean I think matters even more, but since everyone doesn't know you personally then you definitely wont hurt anything if you moderate what you say to some extent. I again was merely trying to wrap my head around how a guy saying, "dick" to another guy is sexist towards a female (You can obviously lead it in that direction if you use ridiculous logic) and to an extent some words such as, "bitch" yes, it may mean female dog, but a female dog isn't a female human, unless you all of a sudden humans and dogs are the same thing. But yes, there are some words and phrases which should be toned down if we want the number of female gamers to increase.
Kind of tired at the moment so excuse me if I am reiterating things to much, but I have no problem whatsoever with a give and take situation, but for example a female gamer to pop onto Skype or Vent with me and my group of friends and expect us to completely remove every profanity from our lingo is asking too much I believe. As for, "owning" I was merely commenting on how someone who is extremist enough to turn the word, "dick" or, "cock" into something degrading towards females how that could be turned into something degrading towards a group of people just as easily.
On September 19 2011 06:20 phrase wrote:
I think there are a lot of legitimate points in that article. The part about day9 is a little out of context, as in the actual joke he's kind of using that word to emphasize how seriously he took it - like "look at my ridiculous younger self" kind of thing.
However I would hate to think that people are disregarding such a thought provoking article just because day9 is used as an example in one section..
Thought provoking in how it compares a person who is successful at gaming to a male who puts on clown make-up and chucks bottles at peoples heads? Okay, I don't see it.
|
On September 19 2011 06:21 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 06:04 imallinson wrote:On September 19 2011 05:56 frogrubdown wrote: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. From what I know about intelligence and genetics, there is a lot more evidence of it being a cultural phenomenon. Things like poor people doing consistently less well in intelligence tests point to it being more cultural. There is also the fact that brains are so plastic that even a year after birth your brain is structured completely differently to its original state. That's not to say it can't have a genetic component, just that the evidence seems to be points to that not being the case. There isn't that much disagreement between us. I would disagree that it is plausible that genetics in general has nothing to do with intelligence (though it certainly is nowhere near the whole story), and on this point I'm on the side of the psychological community. But I don't actually think that the different IQ phenomena concerning the sexes has a genetic origin. I just don't think that that a partial genetic influence on the discrepancy has been sufficiently ruled out yet to lambaste those who think otherwise. My only problem in this area was with being mischaracterized as having a different view.
For that I am sorry. I'll reread your post again when I have time to understand it with a clearer head.
|
Uhhh I can't agree with this article. Sure people call other people bitches, but we also call other people dicks.
Theirs definitely a problem with sexism both in and out of the gaming community but I don't think it's propagated by swears like bitch.
I also feel like theirs also a lot of women who are relevant in esports ONLY because of their gender. Don't get me wrong I love the content flow, but I feel like right now if you want to be a reporter/interviewer/whatever in esports you have an advantage if you're a girl. Similarly, if you're streaming and you can put a little box with a webcam of your face in the lower right corner and your a girl that will work to your advantage.
Anyway, maybe I'm just being an apathetic male here, but I think a) a lot of the problems with sexism in our community are exaggerated and b) theirs also a fair amount of counter sexism.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On September 19 2011 06:21 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 06:04 imallinson wrote:On September 19 2011 05:56 frogrubdown wrote: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. From what I know about intelligence and genetics, there is a lot more evidence of it being a cultural phenomenon. Things like poor people doing consistently less well in intelligence tests point to it being more cultural. There is also the fact that brains are so plastic that even a year after birth your brain is structured completely differently to its original state. That's not to say it can't have a genetic component, just that the evidence seems to be points to that not being the case. There isn't that much disagreement between us. I would disagree that it is plausible that genetics in general has nothing to do with intelligence (though it certainly is nowhere near the whole story), and on this point I'm on the side of the psychological community. But I don't actually think that the different IQ phenomena concerning the sexes has a genetic origin. I just don't think that that a partial genetic influence on the discrepancy has been sufficiently ruled out yet to lambaste those who think otherwise. My only problem in this area was with being mischaracterized as having a different view.
I'm coming from this from a neuroscience point of view (my girlfriend is the neuroscientist not me) which is probably where that little disagreement comes in. I'd agree that the genetic element hasn't been completely ruled out but from my perspective it's been ruled out enough to disregard it unless some major evidence comes that fits with that explanation. Not that that means lambasting someone for suggesting it as a possibility makes any sense.
Also I agree that Lokrac's response to that was pretty stupid, it was an overly hyperbolic straw man.
|
OK first of all let me say I agree that the treatment of women both the ones portrayed in games and the ones playing them still needs to be improved. We do (in general) need to accept them more and some people need to stop either stereotyping them or putting them on a pedestal (that shit makes me feel awkward never mind women).
I also agree that some people do take their hobbies far far too seriously. If you are ALWAYS playing a card game or raiding for example, instead of spending time with your friends/partner/family then you have a problem and yes you do not deserve the girl and they would be right to avoid you.
However this guy seems to say that everyone who plays magic is like that
“More than that, they don't represent shallowness but a preemptive strike against being treated like a mere accessory. A gamer might promise to treat his partner better than “some alpha male,” but what he really wants is a partner who will pop out of a Pokéball when A WILD LONELINESS APPEARS, use the FORNICATION ability, and then retreat mutely back into his collection, dormant until needed again.”
If you play games you automatically become anti-social and only want women for sex. Errrr…what? He feels that playing a card game automatically justifies someone to say ‘I’m not dating you because you MIGHT not pay me attention’.
There can be no justifying stereotypes. In the article the author talks about his pain of seeing women in games when playing with his gf/wife. He then goes on to have no problem not only stereotyping all magic players but all ‘gamers.’
The problem is not people lashing out at articles or females ‘lack of dating ethics’. Nor is it ‘all gamers are losers,’ or any other nonsense. The problem lies on both sides. You have men/boys who do play too much who need to chill out and spend time with others and you have people who need to be more accepting of ‘geek’ hobbies without sterotypes.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On September 19 2011 06:27 HereticSaint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 06:15 Falling wrote:On September 19 2011 05:58 HereticSaint wrote:On September 19 2011 05:45 Falling wrote: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. 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. Ok, so I think we might have some common ground here? There is a little room for adjustment for gamer lingo? That is the current state, is not necessarily the best state? But as to fairness, how about turning it around a little bit. Is it fair for girls coming into the gamer scene that is rife with words that although not intentionally so are directed against them and very demeaning? (At least according to the primary discourses' shared meaning.) And I don't think the argument is against all swear words, persay. Just ones that demean a person for simply being/ existing, before they do anything. Attacking women for being women, various ethnic groups for being that ethnic group. As for owned- I believe it's origin was out of hacker culture? As in, by hacking your computer, I own it? But in any case, the concept of owning another person is not inherently ethnic as slavery is not strictly divided along racial lines (although in American history it was.) I do think we've found common ground. I admit, maybe I was being just as, "extremist" as another individual was the other way in this thread, at least initially merely in an attempt to counteract them. That obviously was going nowhere positive, readjusting the focus what you say obviously matters to some extent and what you mean I think matters even more, but since everyone doesn't know you personally then you definitely wont hurt anything if you moderate what you say to some extent. I again was merely trying to wrap my head around how a guy saying, "dick" to another guy is sexist towards a female (You can obviously lead it in that direction if you use ridiculous logic) and to an extent some words such as, "bitch" yes, it may mean female dog, but a female dog isn't a female human, unless you all of a sudden humans and dogs are the same thing. But yes, there are some words and phrases which should be toned down if we want the number of female gamers to increase. Kind of tired at the moment so excuse me if I am reiterating things to much, but I have no problem whatsoever with a give and take situation, but for example a female gamer to pop onto Skype or Vent with me and my group of friends and expect us to completely remove every profanity from our lingo is asking too much I believe. As for, "owning" I was merely commenting on how someone who is extremist enough to turn the word, "dick" or, "cock" into something degrading towards females how that could be turned into something degrading towards a group of people just as easily.
I do appreciate conciliatory efforts. I love to debate, but at some point it's nice to find at least a couple things to agree on.
Well I'm not entirely sure how dick would be sexist against women myself. You're basically calling the person jerk. The ones that make sense to me are in contrast to how women are referred to. Cocky is a little grey, but the phrase 'that was ballsey or had the balls to..." are all associating a male body part to a positive attribute: brave, gutsy, courageous. In contrast, the phrase, he/she is such a pussy is associating a female body part to a negative attribute: scared, coward. Or else: "you c**t* is quite clearly designed to be demeaning. Now again many people will simply take them at face value as simply being insulting word and nothing more is meant by it. But it still interesting that a fairly common pattern is these words about females become insults while male equivalents imply positive attributes. It's not across the board as there are outliers (dick for instance- although it would be fun to theorize there was some fellow called Richard that was a real jerk and ruined it for all the other Richards  ). But it's interesting nonetheless.
Bitch is harder to explain, but I would argue that its meaning while associated with female dogs has an implied critique on women. (The two associations attributed to females are either she's a bitch- cold, mean, overbearing and unavailable or she's bitching aka the tiresome and hassling? (I can't remember the word, nattering?) housewife.) Even when it's applied to a man, it's implicit meaning is assigning those meanings to him while retaining the original critique on the women.
As for a girl hopping on skype and vent, well on one hand it'd be nice if the culture changed entirely so we eliminated those demeaning words and it wouldn't be necessary for things to be toned down. I think I agree that given the current culture it would be too much. Sort of house rules, you come into someone's house on their terms (particularly if they came uninvited?). But I would mostly be concerned about about the public discourse on forums and tournaments and whenever gamers go off on their crusade (like what the original article is complaining about.) I think these public venues could use some adjustments. But it's a chicken and egg problem- do you enact it top down on public venues, or is there a shift in attitude/ mentality in the private venues that bleeds into the public?
|
On September 19 2011 06:04 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 05:56 frogrubdown wrote: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. From what I know about intelligence and genetics, there is a lot more evidence of it being a cultural phenomenon. Things like poor people doing consistently less well in intelligence tests point to it being more cultural. There is also the fact that brains are so plastic that even a year after birth your brain is structured completely differently to its original state. That's not to say it can't have a genetic component, just that the evidence seems to be points to that not being the case.
Just one thing:
Can you find it possible that poor pepole do less on IQ tests than rich pepole, because the pepole who were more intelligent on the first place got richer, due to their better abilities?
Which means:
It's not that income has an effect on IQ levels, but that IQ levels has an impact of income?
|
Thread starter here.
Wow, this blew up fast. I just skimmed the responses as I was curious to see how the discussion was going but one off topic thing that puzzled me. Why are people calling me NBC?
I'm also a bit disappointed people didn't give the secondary article by Anne Forsythe much of a look, I thought it was very good.
|
LMFAO.
This is such bullshit.
|
The article is just White Knighting at its finest. People get disproportionately flamed for relatively minor transgressions all the time. But when it's a woman, then all of the sudden people feel the need to to defend her from criticism, give her the benefit of the doubt as to her motivations, etc.
If a man were to write an article dismissing a date because she was a nerd, do you think anyone would care if he got flamed?
It's also worth mentioning that feminists are going out of their way to defend AB's right to "having a preference", but these are also the same people who flip out when men judge women for being ugly or overweight. Double standard much?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
