|
On May 03 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:59 dUTtrOACh wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:
[quote]
So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. Talking to them about your lifestyle preferences is different from telling them that their lifestyle preferences are wrong. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem. When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others. it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it. You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect. I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code. I'm saying that it's wrong to hate someone for having different beliefs than yourself. I might disagree with their beliefs--but I don't hate them. I do hate that they force their beliefs on others because that is attempting to dominate someone else's lifestyle and choices--which is not allowed. Is that really such a hard concept? So, zero tolerance for intolerance, no conviction and no particularly strong emotions one way or another. It sounds very indifferent to me. That's the problem with the "playing the good guy side". If you're unwilling to hate any side for any reason, you're basically saying you don't give a shit, which is basically what the other person is saying. I think deep down, you both agree with one another. EDIT: As long as sexism, racism, and other isms exist, people will react to them differently when or if they encounter them. Not everyone has the same hands off approach to insults. For some people they mean fisticuffs, and for others they mean hurt feelings  , and for others, they mean nothing - water off a duck's back. Disagreeing with someone is not an excuse to police them. You can hate and dislike anything you want but it is not an excuse to actively attack them. I don't like it when WBC attacks people--it's not their right. I will not attack WBC--it's not my right. If I was an athiest--that does not give me the right to attack a catholic. If I was a catholic--that does not give me the right to attack an athiest.
You can use all the freedom-robbing words you want to describe action over inaction. A sexist joke or an inappropriate comment in an online chat isn't the same as burning someone at a stake or crucifying them. People need to stop acting like it is. If sexist jokes or misogynistic remarks are an attack, then she should defend herself.
I honestly don't care what consequences the lack of proper moderation had in her chat. If she doesn't like the things her viewers are saying, she can ignore or ban them. So many streamers don't have the luxury of having a bunch of viewers to "annoy" and "attack" them. During the time you're streaming, you have to be prepared for anything to come up. You just need to smack it down.
By the way, not too long ago, being an atheist was a reason to be attacked - potentially put to death.
Being a catholic in the wrong place can get you attacked, even today.
People find reasons to disagree with one another all the time, and that's something people just have to live with. Disagreements and differences of opinion or perspective are just something that's out there. Once you put yourself out there, they touch your life. But don't come crying to me about how you put yourself out there and got hurt. Not when there's a safety net to catch you or the ability to just walk away from it all, which a streamer always has.
|
Northern Ireland23746 Posts
The last few posts have been awesome, interesting points.
I especially enjoyed the idea of scourging the philistines and the hacks out of journalism, would be lovely wouldn't it?
|
On May 03 2013 04:18 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:06 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:59 dUTtrOACh wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Talking to them about your lifestyle preferences is different from telling them that their lifestyle preferences are wrong.
I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem. When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others. it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it. You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect. I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code. I'm saying that it's wrong to hate someone for having different beliefs than yourself. I might disagree with their beliefs--but I don't hate them. I do hate that they force their beliefs on others because that is attempting to dominate someone else's lifestyle and choices--which is not allowed. Is that really such a hard concept? So, zero tolerance for intolerance, no conviction and no particularly strong emotions one way or another. It sounds very indifferent to me. That's the problem with the "playing the good guy side". If you're unwilling to hate any side for any reason, you're basically saying you don't give a shit, which is basically what the other person is saying. I think deep down, you both agree with one another. EDIT: As long as sexism, racism, and other isms exist, people will react to them differently when or if they encounter them. Not everyone has the same hands off approach to insults. For some people they mean fisticuffs, and for others they mean hurt feelings , and for others, they mean nothing - water off a duck's back. Disagreeing with someone is not an excuse to police them. You can hate and dislike anything you want but it is not an excuse to actively attack them. I don't like it when WBC attacks people--it's not their right. I will not attack WBC--it's not my right. If I was an athiest--that does not give me the right to attack a catholic. If I was a catholic--that does not give me the right to attack an athiest. So do you think I should be allowed to say that, irrespective of their actions, the beliefs held by the WBC are not conducive to moral behaviour? Can I further say that I detest their hateful credo? Even if the WBC didn't hurt anyone, I'd like to think that I could say their beliefs are nonsense just by reading one of their pamphlets. You could definitely hate everything they do. But you would not be in the right to walk up to one of them and start yelling and screaming at them saying that their lifestyle is wrong for much the same reason that they are not in the right to walk up to you and yell at you about how your lifestyle is wrong. But you personally hating and disagreeing with a viewpoint is natural and human. Its not an excuse to be dicks about it. The WBC are being dicks about it going around yelling and protesting against lifestyles they disagree with--do you really want to be like them and do the same? I don't go up to random women and inquire about their sexual history, but if one voluntarily tells me about it I have absolutely no qualms saying that I think they may have behaved in a way that objectifies sexuality and is hence immoral. Similarly, if a woman does something in a public forum with a sexual motive, I'm well within my rights to voice my opinion on the matter on that public forum. Now, there's no need to be a dick about it, and generally speaking I try to be as polite as possible, but there's really no reason to be a dick ever toward anyone. For example, if a streamer becomes popular by knowingly dressing provocatively, showing her boobs, and flirting with her viewers with the obvious aim of marketing these things I can definitely say, if ever there is a public discussion about said streamer, that I find her behaviour repulsive because of the way it portrays female sexuality (i.e. as something that is an object to be sold without respect for the person behind it). Now, let me make it clear that I'm not basing this example on any actual streamer mentioned in this thread or on TL or anything like that. It's just an example.
If that were the case then you're disagreeing with her marketing practices and should focus the discussion on proper allocation of product funds to hit target audiences within assumed target demographics--because none of what you said is really about her being dressed the way she is.
You telling her she's being slutty does not actually target what you think your targeting. You are simply attacking her lifestyle and person hood. You asking her why she thinks her marketing plan hits the right demographics and having a discussion on screen hits and Search Engine presence based on customer marketing practices is something very much different.
|
11589 Posts
On May 03 2013 04:20 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:59 dUTtrOACh wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person.
If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it.
If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it.
People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act.
People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act.
Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. Talking to them about your lifestyle preferences is different from telling them that their lifestyle preferences are wrong. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem. When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others. it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it. You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect. I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code. I'm saying that it's wrong to hate someone for having different beliefs than yourself. I might disagree with their beliefs--but I don't hate them. I do hate that they force their beliefs on others because that is attempting to dominate someone else's lifestyle and choices--which is not allowed. Is that really such a hard concept? So, zero tolerance for intolerance, no conviction and no particularly strong emotions one way or another. It sounds very indifferent to me. That's the problem with the "playing the good guy side". If you're unwilling to hate any side for any reason, you're basically saying you don't give a shit, which is basically what the other person is saying. I think deep down, you both agree with one another. EDIT: As long as sexism, racism, and other isms exist, people will react to them differently when or if they encounter them. Not everyone has the same hands off approach to insults. For some people they mean fisticuffs, and for others they mean hurt feelings , and for others, they mean nothing - water off a duck's back. Disagreeing with someone is not an excuse to police them. You can hate and dislike anything you want but it is not an excuse to actively attack them. I don't like it when WBC attacks people--it's not their right. I will not attack WBC--it's not my right. If I was an athiest--that does not give me the right to attack a catholic. If I was a catholic--that does not give me the right to attack an athiest. You can use all the freedom-robbing words you want to describe action over inaction. A sexist joke or an inappropriate comment in an online chat isn't the same as burning someone at a stake or crucifying them. People need to stop acting like it is. If sexist jokes or misogynistic remarks are an attack, then she should defend herself. I honestly don't care what consequences the lack of proper moderation had in her chat. If she doesn't like the things her viewers are saying, she can ignore or ban them. So many streamers don't have the luxury of having a bunch of viewers to "annoy" and "attack" them. During the time you're streaming, you have to be prepared for anything to come up. You just need to smack it down. By the way, not too long ago, being an atheist was a reason to be attacked - potentially put to death. Being a catholic in the wrong place can get you attacked, even today. People find reasons to disagree with one another all the time, and that's something people just have to live with. Disagreements and differences of opinion or perspective are just something that's out there. Once you put yourself out there, they touch your life. But don't come crying to me about how you put yourself out there and got hurt. Not when there's a safety net to catch you or the ability to just walk away from it all, which a streamer always has.
But this isn't even a religious bias (which is also wrong), it's one based on gender. ~50% of the world is discriminated against and is the subject of sexist remarks for something they have ZERO control over.
It's not a matter of just "ignoring it". That's a trivialization of the issue.
|
On May 03 2013 04:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:15 Morken wrote:
All those so called gaming "journalists" (be it male or female) who just spew forth whatever bullshit they think gets them the most views, blatantly lie or make up stuff about games in reviews, have absolutely no clue about art, music, game design and literature, and lack any kind of objectivity, should be purged from the face of the earth anyway.
Every big gaming journalism site there is turned into (or is about to turn into) a piece of trash populated by philistines, and only consists of sensationalism, bought reviews, and a firework of buzzwords whose every single use just proves how utterly clueless those "journalists" are in every regard.
They lie their asses of on a daily base just for money. Yes, they deserve to get flamed. And if the flames the OP got was "your writing sucks" instead of "Show us tits!" then you'd have a case. But the attacks are rarely on the content but are instead on their gender.
I don't really care about the sexism-aspect of this discussion. I was just venting about this article, because it proves my point about the fact that those sites are only about sensationalism, nothing else.
People on the internet often behave like idiots, everybode on this god damn planet with internet access knows this, but if you slap a sexism, racism or antisemitism sticker on this fact, it suddenly becomes 1000% more important and outrageous. Tell me why "show us tits" as a reaction deserves a published article on some site, but every other insult aimed at a person's characteristics does not.
|
On May 03 2013 04:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:18 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 04:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:06 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:59 dUTtrOACh wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem. When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others. it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it. You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect. I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code. I'm saying that it's wrong to hate someone for having different beliefs than yourself. I might disagree with their beliefs--but I don't hate them. I do hate that they force their beliefs on others because that is attempting to dominate someone else's lifestyle and choices--which is not allowed. Is that really such a hard concept? So, zero tolerance for intolerance, no conviction and no particularly strong emotions one way or another. It sounds very indifferent to me. That's the problem with the "playing the good guy side". If you're unwilling to hate any side for any reason, you're basically saying you don't give a shit, which is basically what the other person is saying. I think deep down, you both agree with one another. EDIT: As long as sexism, racism, and other isms exist, people will react to them differently when or if they encounter them. Not everyone has the same hands off approach to insults. For some people they mean fisticuffs, and for others they mean hurt feelings , and for others, they mean nothing - water off a duck's back. Disagreeing with someone is not an excuse to police them. You can hate and dislike anything you want but it is not an excuse to actively attack them. I don't like it when WBC attacks people--it's not their right. I will not attack WBC--it's not my right. If I was an athiest--that does not give me the right to attack a catholic. If I was a catholic--that does not give me the right to attack an athiest. So do you think I should be allowed to say that, irrespective of their actions, the beliefs held by the WBC are not conducive to moral behaviour? Can I further say that I detest their hateful credo? Even if the WBC didn't hurt anyone, I'd like to think that I could say their beliefs are nonsense just by reading one of their pamphlets. You could definitely hate everything they do. But you would not be in the right to walk up to one of them and start yelling and screaming at them saying that their lifestyle is wrong for much the same reason that they are not in the right to walk up to you and yell at you about how your lifestyle is wrong. But you personally hating and disagreeing with a viewpoint is natural and human. Its not an excuse to be dicks about it. The WBC are being dicks about it going around yelling and protesting against lifestyles they disagree with--do you really want to be like them and do the same? I don't go up to random women and inquire about their sexual history, but if one voluntarily tells me about it I have absolutely no qualms saying that I think they may have behaved in a way that objectifies sexuality and is hence immoral. Similarly, if a woman does something in a public forum with a sexual motive, I'm well within my rights to voice my opinion on the matter on that public forum. Now, there's no need to be a dick about it, and generally speaking I try to be as polite as possible, but there's really no reason to be a dick ever toward anyone. For example, if a streamer becomes popular by knowingly dressing provocatively, showing her boobs, and flirting with her viewers with the obvious aim of marketing these things I can definitely say, if ever there is a public discussion about said streamer, that I find her behaviour repulsive because of the way it portrays female sexuality (i.e. as something that is an object to be sold without respect for the person behind it). Now, let me make it clear that I'm not basing this example on any actual streamer mentioned in this thread or on TL or anything like that. It's just an example. If that were the case then you're disagreeing with her marketing practices and should focus the discussion on proper allocation of product funds to hit target audiences within assumed target demographics--because none of what you said is really about her being dressed the way she is. You telling her she's being slutty does not actually target what you think your targeting. You are simply attacking her lifestyle and person hood. You asking her why she thinks her marketing plan hits the right demographics and having a discussion on screen hits and Search Engine presence based on customer marketing practices is something very much different.
...What?
First off, I'm not saying she's slutty. I'm saying that I think her objectification of female sexuality is bad. I'm definitely saying that her lifestyle, in this respect at least, is bad. I'm attacking its moral legitimacy. I am not attacking her personhood; she is entitled to respect and fair treatment as a person. Furthermore, I am not telling her that she shouldn't be allowed to do what she does, but merely that I disagree with it and think that it's an immoral practice. In a similar fashion, I think people who willingly destroy their bodies with drugs are doing something wrong, despite my sympathy/empathy for their addiction. I'm not attacking their person, but instead saying that I believe their choice to have been the wrong one.
|
On May 03 2013 04:20 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:59 dUTtrOACh wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person.
If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it.
If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it.
People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act.
People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act.
Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. Talking to them about your lifestyle preferences is different from telling them that their lifestyle preferences are wrong. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem. When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others. it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it. You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect. I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code. I'm saying that it's wrong to hate someone for having different beliefs than yourself. I might disagree with their beliefs--but I don't hate them. I do hate that they force their beliefs on others because that is attempting to dominate someone else's lifestyle and choices--which is not allowed. Is that really such a hard concept? So, zero tolerance for intolerance, no conviction and no particularly strong emotions one way or another. It sounds very indifferent to me. That's the problem with the "playing the good guy side". If you're unwilling to hate any side for any reason, you're basically saying you don't give a shit, which is basically what the other person is saying. I think deep down, you both agree with one another. EDIT: As long as sexism, racism, and other isms exist, people will react to them differently when or if they encounter them. Not everyone has the same hands off approach to insults. For some people they mean fisticuffs, and for others they mean hurt feelings , and for others, they mean nothing - water off a duck's back. Disagreeing with someone is not an excuse to police them. You can hate and dislike anything you want but it is not an excuse to actively attack them. I don't like it when WBC attacks people--it's not their right. I will not attack WBC--it's not my right. If I was an athiest--that does not give me the right to attack a catholic. If I was a catholic--that does not give me the right to attack an athiest. You can use all the freedom-robbing words you want to describe action over inaction. A sexist joke or an inappropriate comment in an online chat isn't the same as burning someone at a stake or crucifying them. People need to stop acting like it is. If sexist jokes or misogynistic remarks are an attack, then she should defend herself. I honestly don't care what consequences the lack of proper moderation had in her chat. If she doesn't like the things her viewers are saying, she can ignore or ban them. So many streamers don't have the luxury of having a bunch of viewers to "annoy" and "attack" them. During the time you're streaming, you have to be prepared for anything to come up. You just need to smack it down. By the way, not too long ago, being an atheist was a reason to be attacked - potentially put to death. Being a catholic in the wrong place can get you attacked, even today. People find reasons to disagree with one another all the time, and that's something people just have to live with. Disagreements and differences of opinion or perspective are just something that's out there. Once you put yourself out there, they touch your life. But don't come crying to me about how you put yourself out there and got hurt. Not when there's a safety net to catch you or the ability to just walk away from it all, which a streamer always has.
It is not okay to be attacked for being catholic
It is not okay to be attacked for being atheist
And it is not okay to be attacked for being a woman.
We as a society should do what we can to prevent that from happening. We as a society should do what we can to make sure that each person's lifestyle is allowed to be practiced.
You say she should defend herself? She is! Its the reason she posted what she did! She is calling them out on their BS and publicizing it. And when it gets linked to TL a bunch of people showed up saying she should shut up--which is causing this discussion.
|
11589 Posts
On May 03 2013 04:27 Morken wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:15 Morken wrote:
All those so called gaming "journalists" (be it male or female) who just spew forth whatever bullshit they think gets them the most views, blatantly lie or make up stuff about games in reviews, have absolutely no clue about art, music, game design and literature, and lack any kind of objectivity, should be purged from the face of the earth anyway.
Every big gaming journalism site there is turned into (or is about to turn into) a piece of trash populated by philistines, and only consists of sensationalism, bought reviews, and a firework of buzzwords whose every single use just proves how utterly clueless those "journalists" are in every regard.
They lie their asses of on a daily base just for money. Yes, they deserve to get flamed. And if the flames the OP got was "your writing sucks" instead of "Show us tits!" then you'd have a case. But the attacks are rarely on the content but are instead on their gender. I don't really care about the sexism-aspect of this discussion. I was just venting about this article, because it proves my point about the fact that those sites are only about sensationalism, nothing else. People on the internet often behave like idiots, everybode on this god damn planet with internet access knows this, but if you slap a sexism, racism or antisemitism sticker on this fact, it suddenly becomes 1000% more important and outrageous. Tell me why "show us tits" as a reaction deserves a published article on some site, but every other insult aimed at a person's characteristics does not.
Because it's absurdly pervasive on the internet and is despicable.
It's not a matter of this sort of prejudice being special, it's simply one of the most obvious in a gaming context.
EDIT: I actually APPLAUD kotaku for publishing this article, because I didn't think they would.
|
On May 03 2013 04:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:15 Morken wrote:
All those so called gaming "journalists" (be it male or female) who just spew forth whatever bullshit they think gets them the most views, blatantly lie or make up stuff about games in reviews, have absolutely no clue about art, music, game design and literature, and lack any kind of objectivity, should be purged from the face of the earth anyway.
Every big gaming journalism site there is turned into (or is about to turn into) a piece of trash populated by philistines, and only consists of sensationalism, bought reviews, and a firework of buzzwords whose every single use just proves how utterly clueless those "journalists" are in every regard.
They lie their asses of on a daily base just for money. Yes, they deserve to get flamed. And if the flames the OP got was "your writing sucks" instead of "Show us tits!" then you'd have a case. But the attacks are rarely on the content but are instead on their gender.
Well, maybe the intent behind saying "show us your tits" is because the content was so deplorable that they saw it as constructive criticism for improving the youtube channel: was watching her channel the right place to see boobs? Apparently not, but it was what they wanted to see, and expected to see (and not completely unsurprisingly so given the ginormous number of youtube channels that are promoted as "gaming" channels, but are actually all about models prancing around in their underwear).
And no, I don't agree with them voicing this criticism in that way (personally I never leave a youtube comment), but trying to say that "your writing sucks" is in any way a better comment than "tits or gtfo" is just plain wrong. It's not even sexist. It's just something hurtful someone posted when he stumbled upon the channel, didn't like it (or maybe did, but trolled for the sake of it), and acted like an asshole.
|
11589 Posts
On May 03 2013 04:31 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:15 Morken wrote:
All those so called gaming "journalists" (be it male or female) who just spew forth whatever bullshit they think gets them the most views, blatantly lie or make up stuff about games in reviews, have absolutely no clue about art, music, game design and literature, and lack any kind of objectivity, should be purged from the face of the earth anyway.
Every big gaming journalism site there is turned into (or is about to turn into) a piece of trash populated by philistines, and only consists of sensationalism, bought reviews, and a firework of buzzwords whose every single use just proves how utterly clueless those "journalists" are in every regard.
They lie their asses of on a daily base just for money. Yes, they deserve to get flamed. And if the flames the OP got was "your writing sucks" instead of "Show us tits!" then you'd have a case. But the attacks are rarely on the content but are instead on their gender. Well, maybe the intent behind saying "show us your tits" is because the content was so deplorable that they saw it as constructive criticism for improving the youtube channel: was watching her channel the right place to see boobs? Apparently not, but it was what they wanted to see, and expected to see (and not completely unsurprisingly so given the ginormous number of youtube channels that are promoted as "gaming" channels, but are actually all about models prancing around in their underwear). And no, I don't agree with them voicing this criticism in that way (personally I never leave a youtube comment), but trying to say that "your writing sucks" is in any way a better comment than "tits or gtfo" is just plain wrong. It's not even sexist. It's just something hurtful someone posted when he stumbled upon the channel, didn't like it (or maybe did, but trolled for the sake of it), and acted like an asshole.
Acro, I love you, and you're great at mafia and all, but you're wrong here.
|
On May 02 2013 20:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 20:13 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 20:05 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 20:03 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 20:02 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 20:01 edlover420 wrote:On May 02 2013 19:57 DR.Ham wrote:On May 02 2013 19:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:36 nttea wrote:
Oh my god you guys are unbearable... Seriously a girl gets upset over trolls and you all get a stick up your ass over it, for every girl complaining about sexism there's like 20 dudes complaining about girls complaining over sexism. How about man up? Why is girls complaining about sexism so incredibly important an issue to you that you constantly have to point out how ridiculous you think they are? The replies to this topic so far have been pretty demoralising. Whenever a topic like this comes along I like teamliquid a little less. It's impressive to me that she has the passion for games and such that she is willing to put up with all the bullshit and still produce content. I actually watched few of her videos, since I'm totally bored right now and they are quite awful content wise, I'm pretty sure that if she were a man she wouldn't get 1/10 of the views she has now. Therefore she made her entire carrier based on her gender but don't want to deal with gender difference. That's so so hypocritical... This post is literally "yes she got a load of sexist abuse and harassment but she was asking for it by doing X which encouraged male attention". But do you disagree that women on the internet naturally get a lot more attention for a disproportionately lesser amount of effort put into whatever? Not relevant. Can you not see that he just rationalised sexist abuse because this girl asked for it by doing something other than going "please send me sexist abuse"? If so, how can you not see that? People like him are literally the problem. Just because you say it's not relevant, does not in fact mean it's not relevant. If she gets far more attention and exposure than a male counterpart while doing the same thing, in this case producing web content, it's only mathematically accurate that she will get more negative attention as well, because no matter the viewerbase there will be trolls and haters. Higher viewerbase, more of those. So she's thrown off the deep end in this sense, which is good because either she learns to deal with it more quickly than others would, or she reaches the point of "this is hurting me, I can't continue to do this" sooner. He didn't say putting herself in the public eye made her a target. He said as a woman who did things which men could find attractive she asked for harassment by men. Literally rape culture.
I had to log on to call you a dummy. Go back to SRS. Everything you read is molested and distorted until you further proves your point, and without even address it you start shaming. I understand that this is the norm where you usually chat about topics like this, but for the love of GOD... I don't even.
|
On May 03 2013 04:28 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:18 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 04:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:06 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:59 dUTtrOACh wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem.
When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint.
For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others.
it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it. You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect. I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code. I'm saying that it's wrong to hate someone for having different beliefs than yourself. I might disagree with their beliefs--but I don't hate them. I do hate that they force their beliefs on others because that is attempting to dominate someone else's lifestyle and choices--which is not allowed. Is that really such a hard concept? So, zero tolerance for intolerance, no conviction and no particularly strong emotions one way or another. It sounds very indifferent to me. That's the problem with the "playing the good guy side". If you're unwilling to hate any side for any reason, you're basically saying you don't give a shit, which is basically what the other person is saying. I think deep down, you both agree with one another. EDIT: As long as sexism, racism, and other isms exist, people will react to them differently when or if they encounter them. Not everyone has the same hands off approach to insults. For some people they mean fisticuffs, and for others they mean hurt feelings , and for others, they mean nothing - water off a duck's back. Disagreeing with someone is not an excuse to police them. You can hate and dislike anything you want but it is not an excuse to actively attack them. I don't like it when WBC attacks people--it's not their right. I will not attack WBC--it's not my right. If I was an athiest--that does not give me the right to attack a catholic. If I was a catholic--that does not give me the right to attack an athiest. So do you think I should be allowed to say that, irrespective of their actions, the beliefs held by the WBC are not conducive to moral behaviour? Can I further say that I detest their hateful credo? Even if the WBC didn't hurt anyone, I'd like to think that I could say their beliefs are nonsense just by reading one of their pamphlets. You could definitely hate everything they do. But you would not be in the right to walk up to one of them and start yelling and screaming at them saying that their lifestyle is wrong for much the same reason that they are not in the right to walk up to you and yell at you about how your lifestyle is wrong. But you personally hating and disagreeing with a viewpoint is natural and human. Its not an excuse to be dicks about it. The WBC are being dicks about it going around yelling and protesting against lifestyles they disagree with--do you really want to be like them and do the same? I don't go up to random women and inquire about their sexual history, but if one voluntarily tells me about it I have absolutely no qualms saying that I think they may have behaved in a way that objectifies sexuality and is hence immoral. Similarly, if a woman does something in a public forum with a sexual motive, I'm well within my rights to voice my opinion on the matter on that public forum. Now, there's no need to be a dick about it, and generally speaking I try to be as polite as possible, but there's really no reason to be a dick ever toward anyone. For example, if a streamer becomes popular by knowingly dressing provocatively, showing her boobs, and flirting with her viewers with the obvious aim of marketing these things I can definitely say, if ever there is a public discussion about said streamer, that I find her behaviour repulsive because of the way it portrays female sexuality (i.e. as something that is an object to be sold without respect for the person behind it). Now, let me make it clear that I'm not basing this example on any actual streamer mentioned in this thread or on TL or anything like that. It's just an example. If that were the case then you're disagreeing with her marketing practices and should focus the discussion on proper allocation of product funds to hit target audiences within assumed target demographics--because none of what you said is really about her being dressed the way she is. You telling her she's being slutty does not actually target what you think your targeting. You are simply attacking her lifestyle and person hood. You asking her why she thinks her marketing plan hits the right demographics and having a discussion on screen hits and Search Engine presence based on customer marketing practices is something very much different. ...What? First off, I'm not saying she's slutty. I'm saying that I think her objectification of female sexuality is bad. I'm definitely saying that her lifestyle, in this respect at least, is bad. I'm attacking its moral legitimacy. I am not attacking her personhood; she is entitled to respect and fair treatment as a person. Furthermore, I am not telling her that she shouldn't be allowed to do what she does, but merely that I disagree with it and think that it's an immoral practice. In a similar fashion, I think people who willingly destroy their bodies with drugs are doing something wrong, despite my sympathy/empathy for their addiction. I'm not attacking their person, but instead saying that I believe their choice to have been the wrong one.
Showing cleavage =/= objectification
Objectification is associating a person with an object as two equal things.
Her being sexy is not objectification. People only staring at her boobs is objectification. A woman walking naked is not objectification. Women being represented as prizes that a protagonist wins--is an objectification. Princess Peach is an objectification, Lara Croft is not. Lara Croft being talked about only for her boobs and ass is objectification, Chun-Li being talked about for her combos is not.
Objectification is equating someone as an object instead of a person. Someone dressing up sexy is not objectification.
|
On May 02 2013 19:02 ShiroKaisen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 18:59 MasterOfPuppets wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Before I record the videos I create for various different companies I change my shirt from the loosely fitting singlet I usually wear during the day, to a high-collared t-shirt that will minimise my chances of being objectified. It’s less comfortable, it’s not what I would generally choose to wear, but I do it in attempt to avoid comments about my breasts, my chest, and my physique in general – I try to negate any harassment I possibly can.
So you purposefully make yourself physically uncomfortable and repress a little of your sexuality because you're bothered by random internet users? Seriously? Are you new to the internet? Do you not understand how this thing works? That's like IdrA not playing StarCraft anymore because someone told him he's not a good player. lmao
Obviously, it doesn’t work. Instead of having people disregard gender entirely as it really shouldn’t be relevant to a video about game news, there are streams of responses from men complaining that a woman hasn’t revealed herself to them, as though it’s expected or it’s their right to ask for that. Not only is this incredibly discouraging – these videos take hours and hours of effort to create – it’s easy to feel like you simply can’t win. You can only ignore the comments, but that would make responding to the pleasant viewers or the ones who ask genuine questions impossible.
Nope. It's not impossible. Many people manage to ignore trolls and uneducated children, even on Twitch whose chat is a cancerous cesspool, or YouTube comments ffs.
If jerks on the internet are given a free-pass and allowed to hide behind anonymity when they’re being sexist to someone, then there’s absolutely no reason you can’t use that same anonymity to criticise or educate them. Honestly, just seeing one down-vote or having one person stick up for me is a part of the reason I’m still here and I’m not going to stop fighting. Every single person has the power to fight sexism.
Is this woman stupid? People on the internet are given a free-pass to do and say far more than just being sexist to some uptight, sensitive and easily-offended woman like her who apparently doesn't understand how the internet works or that you can't censor it. I mean lmao, I'm not a big deal, but in my many years of competitive gaming I've had hundreds if not thousands of people call me a no-life, a basement dweller, a loser (all of which baseless assumptions ofc) and wishing things like death and cancer and rape on me and my family, JUST BECAUSE I BEAT THEM AT VIDEO GAMES. Do you think that affected me in any way, shape or form? No lol. I just laugh and brush it off, and it even makes me feel better about myself that these people are so easily irritated. Protip to her: stop being butthurt, either get off the Internet or learn to deal with. Seriously. Re-assess your life: does it really mean that much to you that some kiddies on the other side of the world purposefully post mean or "sexist" things about you just to get you riled up? Because you're kinda getting trolled here hun, getting trolled big time if you acknowledge their presence. So because it sucks, we shouldn't complain about it and try to change it? That's a shitty attitude.
Yes pretty much this, just allow it all to come up. The twitch chat does not bother me, because what they say are not real, its just nothing, it simply does not stick. If you are offended by something, its because you already believed that about yourself in the first place. So yes, I think that women who feel they are objectified, have objectified them self (I mean they do read about their body in magazines etc since what, age of 8?). A fat person can be offended or not about twitch chat, its all what he think of himself that dictates this.
|
On May 03 2013 04:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:20 dUTtrOACh wrote:On May 03 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:59 dUTtrOACh wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:
[quote]
Wrong.
It is her right to act like that. Certainly.
It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech.
What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees.
Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. Talking to them about your lifestyle preferences is different from telling them that their lifestyle preferences are wrong. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem. When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others. it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it. You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect. I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code. I'm saying that it's wrong to hate someone for having different beliefs than yourself. I might disagree with their beliefs--but I don't hate them. I do hate that they force their beliefs on others because that is attempting to dominate someone else's lifestyle and choices--which is not allowed. Is that really such a hard concept? So, zero tolerance for intolerance, no conviction and no particularly strong emotions one way or another. It sounds very indifferent to me. That's the problem with the "playing the good guy side". If you're unwilling to hate any side for any reason, you're basically saying you don't give a shit, which is basically what the other person is saying. I think deep down, you both agree with one another. EDIT: As long as sexism, racism, and other isms exist, people will react to them differently when or if they encounter them. Not everyone has the same hands off approach to insults. For some people they mean fisticuffs, and for others they mean hurt feelings , and for others, they mean nothing - water off a duck's back. Disagreeing with someone is not an excuse to police them. You can hate and dislike anything you want but it is not an excuse to actively attack them. I don't like it when WBC attacks people--it's not their right. I will not attack WBC--it's not my right. If I was an athiest--that does not give me the right to attack a catholic. If I was a catholic--that does not give me the right to attack an athiest. You can use all the freedom-robbing words you want to describe action over inaction. A sexist joke or an inappropriate comment in an online chat isn't the same as burning someone at a stake or crucifying them. People need to stop acting like it is. If sexist jokes or misogynistic remarks are an attack, then she should defend herself. I honestly don't care what consequences the lack of proper moderation had in her chat. If she doesn't like the things her viewers are saying, she can ignore or ban them. So many streamers don't have the luxury of having a bunch of viewers to "annoy" and "attack" them. During the time you're streaming, you have to be prepared for anything to come up. You just need to smack it down. By the way, not too long ago, being an atheist was a reason to be attacked - potentially put to death. Being a catholic in the wrong place can get you attacked, even today. People find reasons to disagree with one another all the time, and that's something people just have to live with. Disagreements and differences of opinion or perspective are just something that's out there. Once you put yourself out there, they touch your life. But don't come crying to me about how you put yourself out there and got hurt. Not when there's a safety net to catch you or the ability to just walk away from it all, which a streamer always has. It is not okay to be attacked for being catholic It is not okay to be attacked for being atheist And it is not okay to be attacked for being a woman. We as a society should do what we can to prevent that from happening. We as a society should do what we can to make sure that each person's lifestyle is allowed to be practiced. You say she should defend herself? She is! Its the reason she posted what she did! She is calling them out on their BS and publicizing it. And when it gets linked to TL a bunch of people showed up saying she should shut up--which is causing this discussion.
However the question is whether she is being attacked for being a woman, or because people dislike the content of her youtube channel. She says the former, people here argue that it is the latter.
And yes, people are allowed to say that the content of a youtube channel sucks. I disagree with their way of doing so, but I disagree with the way of doing so on about 99.999999% of the youtube channels I visit, and the majority of those are NOT hosted by women.
|
This article really bothers me because it is addressing an issue and labelling it as sexism. Sexism is not the problem here. try making a video being black or fat or skinny or with a big nose or young or old or female or human, the same issue arises, trolls will be trolls. I'm not saying there aren't issues here but the bottom line is that this is what the internet is like, trolls feel safe sitting behind their computer screens and want attention, so they say whatever it is that they think will get them attention, free from recourse. Because this is the internet...
|
On May 03 2013 04:33 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:31 Acrofales wrote:On May 03 2013 04:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:15 Morken wrote:
All those so called gaming "journalists" (be it male or female) who just spew forth whatever bullshit they think gets them the most views, blatantly lie or make up stuff about games in reviews, have absolutely no clue about art, music, game design and literature, and lack any kind of objectivity, should be purged from the face of the earth anyway.
Every big gaming journalism site there is turned into (or is about to turn into) a piece of trash populated by philistines, and only consists of sensationalism, bought reviews, and a firework of buzzwords whose every single use just proves how utterly clueless those "journalists" are in every regard.
They lie their asses of on a daily base just for money. Yes, they deserve to get flamed. And if the flames the OP got was "your writing sucks" instead of "Show us tits!" then you'd have a case. But the attacks are rarely on the content but are instead on their gender. Well, maybe the intent behind saying "show us your tits" is because the content was so deplorable that they saw it as constructive criticism for improving the youtube channel: was watching her channel the right place to see boobs? Apparently not, but it was what they wanted to see, and expected to see (and not completely unsurprisingly so given the ginormous number of youtube channels that are promoted as "gaming" channels, but are actually all about models prancing around in their underwear). And no, I don't agree with them voicing this criticism in that way (personally I never leave a youtube comment), but trying to say that "your writing sucks" is in any way a better comment than "tits or gtfo" is just plain wrong. It's not even sexist. It's just something hurtful someone posted when he stumbled upon the channel, didn't like it (or maybe did, but trolled for the sake of it), and acted like an asshole. Acro, I love you, and you're great at mafia and all, but you're wrong here.
Tits or gtfo!
|
On May 03 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:28 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 04:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:18 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 04:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:06 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:59 dUTtrOACh wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs?
Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect.
I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code. I'm saying that it's wrong to hate someone for having different beliefs than yourself. I might disagree with their beliefs--but I don't hate them. I do hate that they force their beliefs on others because that is attempting to dominate someone else's lifestyle and choices--which is not allowed. Is that really such a hard concept? So, zero tolerance for intolerance, no conviction and no particularly strong emotions one way or another. It sounds very indifferent to me. That's the problem with the "playing the good guy side". If you're unwilling to hate any side for any reason, you're basically saying you don't give a shit, which is basically what the other person is saying. I think deep down, you both agree with one another. EDIT: As long as sexism, racism, and other isms exist, people will react to them differently when or if they encounter them. Not everyone has the same hands off approach to insults. For some people they mean fisticuffs, and for others they mean hurt feelings , and for others, they mean nothing - water off a duck's back. Disagreeing with someone is not an excuse to police them. You can hate and dislike anything you want but it is not an excuse to actively attack them. I don't like it when WBC attacks people--it's not their right. I will not attack WBC--it's not my right. If I was an athiest--that does not give me the right to attack a catholic. If I was a catholic--that does not give me the right to attack an athiest. So do you think I should be allowed to say that, irrespective of their actions, the beliefs held by the WBC are not conducive to moral behaviour? Can I further say that I detest their hateful credo? Even if the WBC didn't hurt anyone, I'd like to think that I could say their beliefs are nonsense just by reading one of their pamphlets. You could definitely hate everything they do. But you would not be in the right to walk up to one of them and start yelling and screaming at them saying that their lifestyle is wrong for much the same reason that they are not in the right to walk up to you and yell at you about how your lifestyle is wrong. But you personally hating and disagreeing with a viewpoint is natural and human. Its not an excuse to be dicks about it. The WBC are being dicks about it going around yelling and protesting against lifestyles they disagree with--do you really want to be like them and do the same? I don't go up to random women and inquire about their sexual history, but if one voluntarily tells me about it I have absolutely no qualms saying that I think they may have behaved in a way that objectifies sexuality and is hence immoral. Similarly, if a woman does something in a public forum with a sexual motive, I'm well within my rights to voice my opinion on the matter on that public forum. Now, there's no need to be a dick about it, and generally speaking I try to be as polite as possible, but there's really no reason to be a dick ever toward anyone. For example, if a streamer becomes popular by knowingly dressing provocatively, showing her boobs, and flirting with her viewers with the obvious aim of marketing these things I can definitely say, if ever there is a public discussion about said streamer, that I find her behaviour repulsive because of the way it portrays female sexuality (i.e. as something that is an object to be sold without respect for the person behind it). Now, let me make it clear that I'm not basing this example on any actual streamer mentioned in this thread or on TL or anything like that. It's just an example. If that were the case then you're disagreeing with her marketing practices and should focus the discussion on proper allocation of product funds to hit target audiences within assumed target demographics--because none of what you said is really about her being dressed the way she is. You telling her she's being slutty does not actually target what you think your targeting. You are simply attacking her lifestyle and person hood. You asking her why she thinks her marketing plan hits the right demographics and having a discussion on screen hits and Search Engine presence based on customer marketing practices is something very much different. ...What? First off, I'm not saying she's slutty. I'm saying that I think her objectification of female sexuality is bad. I'm definitely saying that her lifestyle, in this respect at least, is bad. I'm attacking its moral legitimacy. I am not attacking her personhood; she is entitled to respect and fair treatment as a person. Furthermore, I am not telling her that she shouldn't be allowed to do what she does, but merely that I disagree with it and think that it's an immoral practice. In a similar fashion, I think people who willingly destroy their bodies with drugs are doing something wrong, despite my sympathy/empathy for their addiction. I'm not attacking their person, but instead saying that I believe their choice to have been the wrong one. Showing cleavage =/= objectification Objectification is associating a person with an object as two equal things. Her being sexy is not objectification. People only staring at her boobs is objectification. A woman walking naked is not objectification. Women being represented as prizes that a protagonist wins--is an objectification. Princess Peach is an objectification, Lara Croft is not. Lara Croft being talked about only for her boobs and ass is objectification, Chun-Li being talked about for her combos is not. Objectification is equating someone as an object instead of a person. Someone dressing up sexy is not objectification.
Marketing your sexuality as an object/something to be purchased/the primary draw is objectification. Nowhere did I say that dressing provocatively is objectification; in fact, I specifically underlined the word "marketing" so that you'd know I was referring to using one's sexuality for some purpose i.e. using it as an object. What you said about search hits and whatever has nothing to do with the reason her marketing practices are inherently wrong.
|
On May 03 2013 04:31 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:15 Morken wrote:
All those so called gaming "journalists" (be it male or female) who just spew forth whatever bullshit they think gets them the most views, blatantly lie or make up stuff about games in reviews, have absolutely no clue about art, music, game design and literature, and lack any kind of objectivity, should be purged from the face of the earth anyway.
Every big gaming journalism site there is turned into (or is about to turn into) a piece of trash populated by philistines, and only consists of sensationalism, bought reviews, and a firework of buzzwords whose every single use just proves how utterly clueless those "journalists" are in every regard.
They lie their asses of on a daily base just for money. Yes, they deserve to get flamed. And if the flames the OP got was "your writing sucks" instead of "Show us tits!" then you'd have a case. But the attacks are rarely on the content but are instead on their gender. Well, maybe the intent behind saying "show us your tits" is because the content was so deplorable that they saw it as constructive criticism for improving the youtube channel: was watching her channel the right place to see boobs? Apparently not, but it was what they wanted to see, and expected to see (and not completely unsurprisingly so given the ginormous number of youtube channels that are promoted as "gaming" channels, but are actually all about models prancing around in their underwear). And no, I don't agree with them voicing this criticism in that way (personally I never leave a youtube comment), but trying to say that "your writing sucks" is in any way a better comment than "tits or gtfo" is just plain wrong. It's not even sexist. It's just something hurtful someone posted when he stumbled upon the channel, didn't like it (or maybe did, but trolled for the sake of it), and acted like an asshole.
because when someone says "your writing sucks" then she can fix her content and her product.
when someone says "tits" it's obvious to her that they don't care about her content and only of her genitalia.
|
And @Yamato: I'm not saying sexism doesn't exist. It clearly does as quite a few intelligent people have pointed out here in this thread.
I'm saying that the problem the OP raises is not one of sexism. It is one of teenage dickheads being teenage dickheads.
|
11589 Posts
On May 03 2013 04:35 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:33 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 04:31 Acrofales wrote:On May 03 2013 04:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:15 Morken wrote:
All those so called gaming "journalists" (be it male or female) who just spew forth whatever bullshit they think gets them the most views, blatantly lie or make up stuff about games in reviews, have absolutely no clue about art, music, game design and literature, and lack any kind of objectivity, should be purged from the face of the earth anyway.
Every big gaming journalism site there is turned into (or is about to turn into) a piece of trash populated by philistines, and only consists of sensationalism, bought reviews, and a firework of buzzwords whose every single use just proves how utterly clueless those "journalists" are in every regard.
They lie their asses of on a daily base just for money. Yes, they deserve to get flamed. And if the flames the OP got was "your writing sucks" instead of "Show us tits!" then you'd have a case. But the attacks are rarely on the content but are instead on their gender. Well, maybe the intent behind saying "show us your tits" is because the content was so deplorable that they saw it as constructive criticism for improving the youtube channel: was watching her channel the right place to see boobs? Apparently not, but it was what they wanted to see, and expected to see (and not completely unsurprisingly so given the ginormous number of youtube channels that are promoted as "gaming" channels, but are actually all about models prancing around in their underwear). And no, I don't agree with them voicing this criticism in that way (personally I never leave a youtube comment), but trying to say that "your writing sucks" is in any way a better comment than "tits or gtfo" is just plain wrong. It's not even sexist. It's just something hurtful someone posted when he stumbled upon the channel, didn't like it (or maybe did, but trolled for the sake of it), and acted like an asshole. Acro, I love you, and you're great at mafia and all, but you're wrong here. Tits or gtfo!
At least telling someone that you don't like their writing means you actually read it. "Tits or gtfo" implies a prejudice, that she has to conform to the male of idea of how women should appear to be accepted before her work is even considered at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
