|
On May 03 2013 00:34 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 18:58 bonse wrote:
There should be a filter to block out trolls. While the sexist ones are the most offensive, all trolls only do damage to our community. In any stream it's impossible to hold some serious discussion on the game being played because it's drown out in a sea of trolling not related to anything. Freedom of speech? Important? Guess not
Completely different thing. Freedom of Speech means that you are allowed to say things, not that i am forced to listen to them. I choose not to listen to a lot of things on a daily basis, and that does not infringe in those peoples freedom of speech in any way.
|
Okay, although the rape debate is interesting in its own right, it doesn't really have much to do with the OP. The main problem I have with the OP is not that she is hurt by the comments. I think they are quite hurtful (and intended to hurt). However, it is not a problem of SEXISM, it is a problem of INTERNET, as many people here have pointed out.
She, however, paints the debate in terms of sexism, whereas her sex just happens to be what the internet trolls grabbed onto as a way of hurting her, just as they hurt fat kids with their obesity or people in general with their race. If she had described her problem in those terms, I would very much agree with her. I dislike youtube commentaries, stream chats and 4chan for their stupid vulgarity. But the problem here is not sexism, it is teenage dickheads being teenage dickheads.
|
United States41936 Posts
On May 03 2013 00:57 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 00:53 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 00:48 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:34 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 00:26 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:23 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 00:20 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:16 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 00:12 Acrofales wrote:On May 03 2013 00:02 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
It isn't consensual if the person cannot consent. This does not have to mean that the victim is unconscious. The victim can be otherwise mentally impaired such as being quite drunk.
On the other hand, if two people were planning on consensual sex prior to drinking or doing something else that mentally impairs them, then I don't think it's a big deal. So basically you're arguing that a large part of sex that happens between young single people in western countries is actually rape, because often enough one of the parties involved (and even more often both) are drunk enough that they are impaired in their judgement (as evidenced by the morning-after effect of waking up next to someone you would "never in your right mind" go to bed with: both male and female). This seems a far too inclusive definition of rape. I am of the opinion that the free choice to lower your inhibitions with alcohol makes you accountable for the drunken choices you make following that and therefore a drunken decision to have sex still counts as consent. But if someone drunkenly refuses to have sex and is then raped because of their inability to escape the situation or if they pass out and are raped then obviously that is rape. Unfortunately, a lot of people (mainly guys) seek out 'drunk chicks' and try to take the advantage of the fact that they are drunk. While the girl was seemingly willing to have sex due to the alcohol in her, the guy was very possibly taking advantage of her. This is actually a very tricky issue, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with the court room scenarios it can lead to. Having drunken sex that you wouldn't have sober is, in my opinion, no different to committing drunken crimes that you wouldn't commit sober in terms of accountability. You still made the decision and even though you were influenced by drugs you chose to take the drugs knowing what they did. Obviously tricking someone into getting drunk, drugging them and cases in which they don't give drunken consent (such as when they're passed out) are completely different and count as rape. There is still the problem of guys trying to seduce 'already-drunk chicks', though. I don't know if there is anything that can be done about it legally but I think it is very immoral. In fact, it almost seems like you are blaming the girl for allowing herself to get drunk enough that she enabled getting seduced by someone and lead into a sexual encounter. On the contrary I think you sir are treating girls having sex as a thing to be avoided. If girls want to get drunk so they'll have drunken sex (which is, for better or for worse, a large part of teenage courtship in our culture) then they can. Blame implies a negativity which I don't understand, I think girls who choose to get drunk and then drunkenly choose to have drunken sex are responsible for that decision but I don't think I'd blame them for it anymore than I'd blame someone for choosing to do anything else. Well I am glad you aren't blaming them! What do you say to the following scenario though? I'm sure this happens fairly often: Girl A is out at a bar getting drunk and having fun. Guy B, possibly also drunk, encounters Girl A. Observer C sees Guy B escort Girl A to another location where apparently they have sex. The next day, Girl A presses legal charges against Guy B for taking advantage of her while she was drunk (in a non-violent way). This seems, to me, like an incredibly tricky issue. One might say if there is no evidence of physical force or intentionally drugging then the guy should just be acquitted. Another might say the guy took advantage of her (and as I mentioned earlier this does actually happen). With perfect information how do you decide if the guy should be in trouble? With only limited information from a witness and testimony from the victim/defendant, how should courts approach this scenario? Your hypothetical says I have perfect information and yet you haven't actually said whether or not she consented to the sex. If she did, no rape took place. If she did not then a rape took place. Taken advantage of is a loaded term which again makes the assumption that a girl should be actively trying to avoid having sex, if you mean rape then say rape because taken advantage doesn't mean anything and sucks as a euphemism. In this case two drunk people (assuming Guy B is also drunk) fucked and nobody took advantage of anyone or a girl was raped depending upon whether or not she consented to the sex which is the one important bit of information which you didn't include. I purposefully left some details out because that's probably what these court cases are actually like. How do you deal with these situations? It seems like you believe, the presence of unlimited information, that if the girl appears to have been consenting (regardless of if she technically can while inebriated or not) despite being drunk, then the guy gets acquitted since he didn't force the girl to do anything, and didn't actively put her into her inebriated state. On the other hand I think guys who (let's assume he's not drunk) find drunk women and try to get them to have sex with him could be considered behaving criminally (although difficult to prove and becomes a he said she said).
You left out the detail of whether or not she says she consented to it and whether or not he said she consented to it. In a court case that's the kind of detail they would include.
If it's simply he said she said with no outside evidence then acquit due to insufficient evidence.
|
On May 03 2013 01:10 Acrofales wrote:
Okay, although the rape debate is interesting in its own right, it doesn't really have much to do with the OP. The main problem I have with the OP is not that she is hurt by the comments. I think they are quite hurtful (and intended to hurt). However, it is not a problem of SEXISM, it is a problem of INTERNET, as many people here have pointed out.
She, however, paints the debate in terms of sexism, whereas her sex just happens to be what the internet trolls grabbed onto as a way of hurting her, just as they hurt fat kids with their obesity or people in general with their race. If she had described her problem in those terms, I would very much agree with her. I dislike youtube commentaries, stream chats and 4chan for their stupid vulgarity. But the problem here is not sexism, it is teenage dickheads being teenage dickheads.
To put it simply, if I had kids I would not want them freely surfing the web. Anonymity brings out the worst in people if they don't have to worry about societal norms. The shit people say on the internet is rarely stuff they'd say in real life to someone's face.
|
On May 03 2013 01:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 00:57 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:53 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 00:48 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:34 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 00:26 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:23 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 00:20 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:16 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 00:12 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
So basically you're arguing that a large part of sex that happens between young single people in western countries is actually rape, because often enough one of the parties involved (and even more often both) are drunk enough that they are impaired in their judgement (as evidenced by the morning-after effect of waking up next to someone you would "never in your right mind" go to bed with: both male and female).
This seems a far too inclusive definition of rape. I am of the opinion that the free choice to lower your inhibitions with alcohol makes you accountable for the drunken choices you make following that and therefore a drunken decision to have sex still counts as consent. But if someone drunkenly refuses to have sex and is then raped because of their inability to escape the situation or if they pass out and are raped then obviously that is rape. Unfortunately, a lot of people (mainly guys) seek out 'drunk chicks' and try to take the advantage of the fact that they are drunk. While the girl was seemingly willing to have sex due to the alcohol in her, the guy was very possibly taking advantage of her. This is actually a very tricky issue, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with the court room scenarios it can lead to. Having drunken sex that you wouldn't have sober is, in my opinion, no different to committing drunken crimes that you wouldn't commit sober in terms of accountability. You still made the decision and even though you were influenced by drugs you chose to take the drugs knowing what they did. Obviously tricking someone into getting drunk, drugging them and cases in which they don't give drunken consent (such as when they're passed out) are completely different and count as rape. There is still the problem of guys trying to seduce 'already-drunk chicks', though. I don't know if there is anything that can be done about it legally but I think it is very immoral. In fact, it almost seems like you are blaming the girl for allowing herself to get drunk enough that she enabled getting seduced by someone and lead into a sexual encounter. On the contrary I think you sir are treating girls having sex as a thing to be avoided. If girls want to get drunk so they'll have drunken sex (which is, for better or for worse, a large part of teenage courtship in our culture) then they can. Blame implies a negativity which I don't understand, I think girls who choose to get drunk and then drunkenly choose to have drunken sex are responsible for that decision but I don't think I'd blame them for it anymore than I'd blame someone for choosing to do anything else. Well I am glad you aren't blaming them! What do you say to the following scenario though? I'm sure this happens fairly often: Girl A is out at a bar getting drunk and having fun. Guy B, possibly also drunk, encounters Girl A. Observer C sees Guy B escort Girl A to another location where apparently they have sex. The next day, Girl A presses legal charges against Guy B for taking advantage of her while she was drunk (in a non-violent way). This seems, to me, like an incredibly tricky issue. One might say if there is no evidence of physical force or intentionally drugging then the guy should just be acquitted. Another might say the guy took advantage of her (and as I mentioned earlier this does actually happen). With perfect information how do you decide if the guy should be in trouble? With only limited information from a witness and testimony from the victim/defendant, how should courts approach this scenario? Your hypothetical says I have perfect information and yet you haven't actually said whether or not she consented to the sex. If she did, no rape took place. If she did not then a rape took place. Taken advantage of is a loaded term which again makes the assumption that a girl should be actively trying to avoid having sex, if you mean rape then say rape because taken advantage doesn't mean anything and sucks as a euphemism. In this case two drunk people (assuming Guy B is also drunk) fucked and nobody took advantage of anyone or a girl was raped depending upon whether or not she consented to the sex which is the one important bit of information which you didn't include. I purposefully left some details out because that's probably what these court cases are actually like. How do you deal with these situations? It seems like you believe, the presence of unlimited information, that if the girl appears to have been consenting (regardless of if she technically can while inebriated or not) despite being drunk, then the guy gets acquitted since he didn't force the girl to do anything, and didn't actively put her into her inebriated state. On the other hand I think guys who (let's assume he's not drunk) find drunk women and try to get them to have sex with him could be considered behaving criminally (although difficult to prove and becomes a he said she said). You left out the detail of whether or not she says she consented to it and whether or not he said she consented to it. In a court case that's the kind of detail they would include. If it's simply he said she said with no outside evidence then acquit due to insufficient evidence.
Now I may be wrong here, but I think a large problem with rape cases is that a man acquitted "due to insufficient evidence" in this manner is socially branded as a rapist, regardless of whether anybody would actually consider it rape if they had all the details.
|
I think the issue of sexism is just one part of a much broader problem. In elementary and high school, those are the years in which kids are particularly nasty to each other, so much so that bullying can cause suicide, and you can clearly see widespread homophobic sentiments (i.e. anything bad is labelled as gay) and heavy objectification of women, probably in large part due to the large hormonal imbalances at that age. Those are also the years when kids are just starting to learn to think critically and develop the concept of respecting others.
So I think we might partially need to accept that there is going to be an immaturity phase, during which many teenagers and kids will go through moments where they say things they shouldn't be saying. And part of that will include sexist comments. Although people can certainly try to change things...I just feel like its not going to work.
All that said I think we need to make a pretty big distinction between objectification of women and sexism. I think some objectification is natural and an irrevocable part of human nature, that we should say is natural and right. When it gets to the point where a woman is completely objectified then it is wrong. Maybe I am misusing terms, but basically I am saying we shouldn't go to the extreme by saying that any comment about how a female or male is attractive should be considered objectification and thus unethical.
One thing I am struggling to understand is why it is so much more prevalent for guys than it is for girls. Obviously in the case of the gaming community, you have to take into consideration that there is an overwhelming number of guys to very few girls. So naturally you will see more negative comments from guys than girls. But it seems to be generally true (although I don't know for certain, no one is really citing studies here, they're just saying "that's the way it is based on my experience") that guys objectify women more flagrantly than women do men. Is it due to the different hormones between the sexes? Is it just based on gender roles or social norms? Are guys more interested in sex than women, leading to more objectification?
|
On May 02 2013 19:10 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 19:03 ven wrote:
People on the internet being assholes is news to anyone? Give me a break. This is diffrent... this kind of "assholeism" is called "sexism" and for some reason is seen as worse. /yawn.
assholes should be equally asshole-y to everyone regardless of gender!
|
On May 03 2013 01:13 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 01:10 Acrofales wrote:
Okay, although the rape debate is interesting in its own right, it doesn't really have much to do with the OP. The main problem I have with the OP is not that she is hurt by the comments. I think they are quite hurtful (and intended to hurt). However, it is not a problem of SEXISM, it is a problem of INTERNET, as many people here have pointed out.
She, however, paints the debate in terms of sexism, whereas her sex just happens to be what the internet trolls grabbed onto as a way of hurting her, just as they hurt fat kids with their obesity or people in general with their race. If she had described her problem in those terms, I would very much agree with her. I dislike youtube commentaries, stream chats and 4chan for their stupid vulgarity. But the problem here is not sexism, it is teenage dickheads being teenage dickheads. To put it simply, if I had kids I would not want them freely surfing the web. Anonymity brings out the worst in people if they don't have to worry about societal norms. The shit people say on the internet is rarely stuff they'd say in real life to someone's face.
So people say what they actually think rather than what they want other people to think they think. If they're assholes on the internet, they're assholes as a person. In real life they are just better at hiding it. Maybe being like that on the internet reinforces such thought in real life, or it may be a cathartic process. Either way, no one is at liberty to judge the merit of speech and that is why speech should be free on the internet no matter what is said.
|
edit: totally misinterpreted the post and my response reflected that
|
On May 03 2013 00:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 00:48 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:34 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 00:26 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:23 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 00:20 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:16 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 00:12 Acrofales wrote:On May 03 2013 00:02 micronesia wrote:On May 02 2013 23:58 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
I'm confused, are you implying that unconsciousness is a prerequisite for it to be nonconsensual? As long as they can physically say yes then their consent is genuine, no matter their state of mind? It isn't consensual if the person cannot consent. This does not have to mean that the victim is unconscious. The victim can be otherwise mentally impaired such as being quite drunk. On the other hand, if two people were planning on consensual sex prior to drinking or doing something else that mentally impairs them, then I don't think it's a big deal. So basically you're arguing that a large part of sex that happens between young single people in western countries is actually rape, because often enough one of the parties involved (and even more often both) are drunk enough that they are impaired in their judgement (as evidenced by the morning-after effect of waking up next to someone you would "never in your right mind" go to bed with: both male and female). This seems a far too inclusive definition of rape. I am of the opinion that the free choice to lower your inhibitions with alcohol makes you accountable for the drunken choices you make following that and therefore a drunken decision to have sex still counts as consent. But if someone drunkenly refuses to have sex and is then raped because of their inability to escape the situation or if they pass out and are raped then obviously that is rape. Unfortunately, a lot of people (mainly guys) seek out 'drunk chicks' and try to take the advantage of the fact that they are drunk. While the girl was seemingly willing to have sex due to the alcohol in her, the guy was very possibly taking advantage of her. This is actually a very tricky issue, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with the court room scenarios it can lead to. Having drunken sex that you wouldn't have sober is, in my opinion, no different to committing drunken crimes that you wouldn't commit sober in terms of accountability. You still made the decision and even though you were influenced by drugs you chose to take the drugs knowing what they did. Obviously tricking someone into getting drunk, drugging them and cases in which they don't give drunken consent (such as when they're passed out) are completely different and count as rape. There is still the problem of guys trying to seduce 'already-drunk chicks', though. I don't know if there is anything that can be done about it legally but I think it is very immoral. In fact, it almost seems like you are blaming the girl for allowing herself to get drunk enough that she enabled getting seduced by someone and lead into a sexual encounter. On the contrary I think you sir are treating girls having sex as a thing to be avoided. If girls want to get drunk so they'll have drunken sex (which is, for better or for worse, a large part of teenage courtship in our culture) then they can. Blame implies a negativity which I don't understand, I think girls who choose to get drunk and then drunkenly choose to have drunken sex are responsible for that decision but I don't think I'd blame them for it anymore than I'd blame someone for choosing to do anything else. Well I am glad you aren't blaming them! What do you say to the following scenario though? I'm sure this happens fairly often: Girl A is out at a bar getting drunk and having fun. Guy B, possibly also drunk, encounters Girl A. Observer C sees Guy B escort Girl A to another location where apparently they have sex. The next day, Girl A presses legal charges against Guy B for taking advantage of her while she was drunk (in a non-violent way). This seems, to me, like an incredibly tricky issue. One might say if there is no evidence of physical force or intentionally drugging then the guy should just be acquitted. Another might say the guy took advantage of her (and as I mentioned earlier this does actually happen). With perfect information how do you decide if the guy should be in trouble? With only limited information from a witness and testimony from the victim/defendant, how should courts approach this scenario? Your hypothetical says I have perfect information and yet you haven't actually said whether or not she consented to the sex. If she did, no rape took place. If she did not then a rape took place. Taken advantage of is a loaded term which again makes the assumption that a girl should be actively trying to avoid having sex, if you mean rape then say rape because taken advantage doesn't mean anything and sucks as a euphemism. In this case two drunk people (assuming Guy B is also drunk) fucked and nobody took advantage of anyone or a girl was raped depending upon whether or not she consented to the sex which is the one important bit of information which you didn't include.
This is to this post and the reply by micro:
Legally she didn't say no unless person c heard it (or there is some other record of non consent). Because, if he says she consented and she says she didn't, then the trial cannot proceed. Their testimony should be of equal value. At that point it boils down to a tree falls in the forest type situation. This is why rape trials are largely ineffective, and subsequently why rape is so heavily under-reported. That is why the reality is that women have to be much more careful than men.
|
On May 03 2013 01:02 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 00:59 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 00:51 yamato77 wrote:
The fact that this thread has devolved to the point that people are placing blame on the woman who "puts herself out there" is quite discouraging for my opinion on the intelligence of the average TL forum goer. It's not a question of her conforming to the norms that internet society has created, it is a question of those norms at their base. There is no denying that females are regularly objectified on the internet. This practice is wrong, and it should be stopped.
Why?
Let me explain it as a series of questions.
Do you think women enjoy video games? If not, you're out of touch with reality. This is obvious.
Why do you think women enjoy video games? Do you think it's for the same reasons as men? Again, obviously. Not only are video games entertainment, but they have developed into being community facilitators. People develop games not only technologically now, but socially. Denying this is to ignore the immense popularity of games that create interaction. Any multiplayer game is inherently social.
So why should video game culture be exclusive to men? If women enjoy video games, why are they excluded from being a part of the social communities we create, whether that be YouTube contributors, Twitch streamers, TL writers, or even professional players? If you don't think they are excluded, read her article. It's not an isolated incident. If she can be driven to the point of nearly giving up on attempting to be a part of this gaming community by the comments and messages she is sent, it's painfully obvious that many other women feel the same way, and either haven't said anything or are being ignored.
Do you know what keeps the professional players, the casters, and the content creators going in their pursuit of achieving in a career in gaming? It's the fans. It's all of us, who are a de facto support system for those pioneers of gaming culture who provide the content we enjoy. People like Sean Plott keep making content for StarCraft not because there's money in it, whether there is or not, they keep making it because of their passion for the game, and for us, the fans. Our positive feedback keeps them motivated.
If all you're ever receiving is negative or degrading feedback, such as the comments of those articles, you will quit. If you don't, you'll be driven insane. Understand the lengths to which this woman went to NOT get objectified by this community. And it didn't work. Do you feel like this is acceptable? We at TL pride ourselves for being better than the average gaming community, and for the large part, we are. But reading this thread has made me realize that there are some biases that we still hold, and sexism is obviously one of them.
You all rationalize the wrongs she experiences on a day-to-day basis with "That's just the internet, of course people are going to say those things! She should ignore them, or accept them, because that's how the internet is." Why? Why should the internet be sexist? These comments reveal an ugly truth, that sexism is still pervasive in our society, but it's taken a new form. Just as it was legislated against and not tolerated in the physical world, we must not tolerate it in this digital one.
So next time, instead of accepting this as the norm of internet society, reject that idea. You are just as much a part of the internet as that guy who said he'd cum on her forehead. And if you don't reject that behavior and accept females int gaming culture, and the internet as a whole, you might as well be that guy. Is that who you want to be? You are addressing the culture as a "thing" which can have intentions and be "good or bad". Only individuals can have those. The gaming culture of which you speak is simply an aggregate. As a player in this debate, it doesn't exist. This entire argument is the macro vs. mirco debate in economics. It's Keynesian's vs. Austrians. People are the culture. Without people, culture does not exist.
Wrong. People are people. The culture is the sum of those people's actions. Target their actions, not an intangible cognitive simplification which is nothing more than a symptom of their shitty actions.
I agree with your second statement.
For clarification on where I stand on all this, crying sexism is laughable. Saying, "People are being dicks, I'd appreciate it if they'd stop." is legitimate. People who blast this as sexism are equally at fault by extrapolation of the fact that they're targeting the gender of the troll's target, as opposed to simply telling off a snot-nosed little shit, or (even more beneficial) simply complimenting the lady and actively discussing her opinions while starving the trolls.
Crying sexism makes it an issue. Crying douchebag makes it solved.
|
On one hand it makes me really sad that so many people are like, "It's okay to be an asshole on the internet." On the other hand, what is the alternative? Censorship? Taking away the freedom that makes the internet so good in the first place?
What is our option to fight against this kind of assdickery? The only one I can think of, is cultural pressure.
If they want to be dicks, the community should publicly shame them for being dicks, rather than applaud their dickedness with "it's funny" or "the internet is always like this".
Of course even that has its problems. Again, part of what makes the internet so good is that generally people won't shout you down for breaking their cultural norms, and if they do, they probably would have trolled you anyway.
Is our last resort a general request? "Please be nice."
Or do we split ourselves into tiny internet subcultures, exclusive little groups that remove those who disagree with them?
It's a really interesting social problem.
However, I don't think people should be saying, "There is nothing to be done about this." or more commonly, and far worse, "Get used to it."
There is something to be done here, we just need to think together long and hard about what it is.
As for the sexist side of things, it is easy to argue that every single one of the people commenting to her is just a troll. However, it's just as easy to argue that most of them aren't trolls and genuinely believe what they say.
Are you a professional people reader? How about a shrink? A profiler? Maybe a psychic? It takes a lot of arrogance to say that someone sent someone a private message, completely hidden from the attention of other people, told them they only got their job because they were a woman, that they were desperately striving for attention by having hair in the color they prefer, simply to troll them. If it was a troll, wouldn't they have posted that in a public chat? Or are you changing your statement that the best way to deal with a troll is deny them attention and therefore trolls crave attention?
|
On May 03 2013 01:17 ddrddrddrddr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 01:13 AnomalySC2 wrote:On May 03 2013 01:10 Acrofales wrote:
Okay, although the rape debate is interesting in its own right, it doesn't really have much to do with the OP. The main problem I have with the OP is not that she is hurt by the comments. I think they are quite hurtful (and intended to hurt). However, it is not a problem of SEXISM, it is a problem of INTERNET, as many people here have pointed out.
She, however, paints the debate in terms of sexism, whereas her sex just happens to be what the internet trolls grabbed onto as a way of hurting her, just as they hurt fat kids with their obesity or people in general with their race. If she had described her problem in those terms, I would very much agree with her. I dislike youtube commentaries, stream chats and 4chan for their stupid vulgarity. But the problem here is not sexism, it is teenage dickheads being teenage dickheads. To put it simply, if I had kids I would not want them freely surfing the web. Anonymity brings out the worst in people if they don't have to worry about societal norms. The shit people say on the internet is rarely stuff they'd say in real life to someone's face. So people say what they actually think rather than what they want other people to think they think. If they're assholes on the internet, they're assholes as a person. In real life they are just better at hiding it. Maybe being like that on the internet reinforces such thought in real life, or it may be a cathartic process. Either way, no one is at liberty to judge the merit of speech and that is why speech should be free on the internet no matter what is said.
I agree, actually. I still wouldn't want kids growing up in that environment, would you?
|
Read first page. See useless post.about an overly sensitive woman on the internet.
Go to last page to see where the discussion is.
People talking about rape.
Ok.
|
Sounds like she should be pissed at her fellow female gamers, not all the trolls that troll. If I had a dime for every time I saw a female streamer playing WoW or LoL looking like a stripper (and in a fair amount of cases, actually dancing in front of the camera), I'd own Tywin Lannister. You aren't going to change the trolls. Instead, teach some of the female streamers to have a shred of self-respect.
|
On May 03 2013 01:22 goldenwitch wrote:
On one hand it makes me really sad that so many people are like, "It's okay to be an asshole on the internet." On the other hand, what is the alternative? Censorship? Taking away the freedom that makes the internet so good in the first place?
What is our option to fight against this kind of assdickery? The only one I can think of, is cultural pressure.
If they want to be dicks, the community should publicly shame them for being dicks, rather than applaud their dickedness with "it's funny" or "the internet is always like this".
Of course even that has its problems. Again, part of what makes the internet so good is that generally people won't shout you down for breaking their cultural norms, and if they do, they probably would have trolled you anyway.
Is our last resort a general request? "Please be nice."
Or do we split ourselves into tiny internet subcultures, exclusive little groups that remove those who disagree with them?
It's a really interesting social problem.
However, I don't think people should be saying, "There is nothing to be done about this." or more commonly, and far worse, "Get used to it."
There is something to be done here, we just need to think together long and hard about what it is.
The solution is the same solution we have in real life--creating a mental zeitgeist of respect for each other. I wouldn't piss on your dinner table no matter how badly I needed to go to the restroom, I just excuse myself and piss in private. Why? Because I'm dealing with human beings. Now, if you weren't home, I still wouldn't piss on your table even if you'd never know it was me because I'm dealing with human beings and that would be wrong to do.
Anonymity is an excuse--it mostly reveals that there is a societal problem. That societal problem is sexism, in this case it's misogyny.
|
On May 03 2013 01:28 GGCalamity wrote:
Sounds like she should be pissed at her fellow female gamers, not all the trolls that troll. If I had a dime for every time I saw a female streamer playing WoW or LoL looking like a stripper (and in a fair amount of cases, actually dancing in front of the camera), I'd own Tywin Lannister. You aren't going to change the trolls. Instead, teach some of the female streamers to have a shred of self-respect.
Women are allowed to feel beautiful and celebrate their body. You thinking that they're sluts is you being sexist, not her.
|
So, since we're discussing larger issues of female identity, where does everyone stand on the virgin slut expectation?
I personally feel that we as a society need to let go of our puritanical ideas about sexuality. I personally think that our society goes too far trying to make sure that we don't ever see anybody naked. Then there is also the whole sex before marriage is bad crowd, which perpetuates the concept of the husband being in control of a woman's sexual identity. Then we have the popular portrayal of women, which showcases them as sexual objects, which is financially successful because real women are taught from a young age that showcasing your sexual identity is a bad thing. For instance, the prevalence of the words slut and whore as insults. Why should they be insults? Forgive me, because I apparently missed this part, but since when was having sex bad?
|
If you're a girl with a YouTube channel, you'll get shat on.
If you're a fat person with a YouTube channel, you'll get shat on.
If you're a black/asian/Pakistani/etc guy with a YouTube channel, you'll get shat on.
If you're a gay guy with a YouTube channel, you'll get shat on.
If you're just a regular guy with a YouTube channel, you'll STILL get shat on.
What I hate about this article is that it's suggesting that the world/internet needs to make some special exception for women because "sexism on the internet" is somehow worse or requires more action compared to all the other reasons someone could be shitting on you over the internet like racism, fat intolerance, homophobia etc.
Nobody gives a shit when people rip on Boogie2988 for being overweight, or for ZJemptv's sexual identity, so why do people care when it comes to people ripping on girl123 for being a girl?
The internet is literally the one place where "comments" made against you probably shouldn't be taken seriously. Most of the time people already know this, then other times... articles like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
