|
On May 03 2013 04:36 Thieving Magpie 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. 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.
When someone flames incontrol for being fat it's obvious they only care about his body size.
No. They only care about HURTING him. Is that a good thing? No, of course not. But it's not discriminatory to obese people just as little as calling "tits or gtfo" in youtube comments is inherently sexist (not saying there aren't sexist people saying that).
|
On May 03 2013 04:38 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:35 Acrofales wrote: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.
There was nothing to read. There was a girl playing videogames on the internet. To know that there weren't tits in view, the people yelling "tits or gtfo" clearly viewed the content 
|
11589 Posts
On May 03 2013 04:36 Acrofales wrote:
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.
It most definitely is sexism, Acro. The line between troll and real is a fabricated one, because all human behavior is an expression of something. Whether they intend to be sexist or not, comments like that ARE sexist. The crime does not require premeditation.
|
On May 03 2013 04:30 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:27 Morken 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. 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.
I thought this was a good post to show how evil this behavior is.
And here is one which catalogs abuse received by various female bloggers.
|
On May 03 2013 04:36 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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. What you said about search hits and whatever has nothing to do with the reason her marketing practices are inherently wrong.
Being beautiful is not "inherently wrong" as you seem to think. Being a woman who is okay being beautiful =/= objectification. Her being treated as an object by the viewers is sexist. Some women retract away from the attention, others accept it as part of the deal. Attacking them for being beautiful is not however something that is ever warranted.
Talking to them about whether or not they like the type of people showing up to their streams (target demographics) and asking them if they liked the online image they were presenting (search engine presence) and having there be dialogue between you two is the only way to actually discuss it. But calling them immoral for being pretty? Really?
|
On May 03 2013 04:38 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:36 Thieving Magpie 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. 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. When someone flames incontrol for being fat it's obvious they only care about his body size. No. They only care about HURTING him. Is that a good thing? No, of course not. But it's not discriminatory to obese people just as little as calling "tits or gtfo" in youtube comments is inherently sexist (not saying there aren't sexist people saying that).
It actually is discriminating to obese people... they are able to say "fat" as derogatory remark because we as a society see fat people bad.
|
On May 03 2013 04:25 yamato77 wrote:
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.
Why only 50%? Surely sexism goes in all directions, especially if your definition is broad enough to include the random nonsense people say on the internet?
|
Her article showed that most of the examples of sexism were reported as spam or downvoted to oblivion. In most avenues on the internet people have shown that sexism isn't acceptable.
On the flip side, most of her popularity on youtube can be attributed to the fact that she is an attractive female. The swarms of subscribers and viewers making her money far outweigh the minority of voices making throwaway comments on her youtube videos. If you can't stand the limelight and the stuff that comes with it, stop publicizing yourself on the internet. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
|
Northern Ireland25283 Posts
I am in agreement with Acrofales in some respects for sure.
Too often, sexist/misogynist language used towards people is equated to 'they hate me because I am a woman'. There are of course genuine misogynistic assholes, but also many people who are just being pricks, and KNOW that that belittling someone can be easiest done if you insult a big part of their visible online identity.
It's just the most effective weapon in the troll's arsenal to use on that particular person. They will use any part of your identity against you, be it nationality, sexuality, what race you play etc etc.
|
On May 03 2013 04:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:36 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:[quote] 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. What you said about search hits and whatever has nothing to do with the reason her marketing practices are inherently wrong. Being beautiful is not "inherently wrong" as you seem to think. Being a woman who is okay being beautiful =/= objectification. Her being treated as an object by the viewers is sexist. Some women retract away from the attention, others accept it as part of the deal. Attacking them for being beautiful is not however something that is ever warranted. Talking to them about whether or not they like the type of people showing up to their streams (target demographics) and asking them if they liked the online image they were presenting (search engine presence) and having there be dialogue between you two is the only way to actually discuss it. But calling them immoral for being pretty? Really?
I'm convinced you don't actually read my posts. Nowhere does "calling them immoral for being pretty" feature in my posts. Nowhere.
I'm not attacking women for being beautiful. No idea where you've gotten this idea. I'm attacking anyone who deliberately uses sexuality as a bargaining chip. Someone who, for example, strips on cam for money, is objectifying themselves in my books. That isn't something I respect. I don't believe that people should treat themselves or anyone else as means to an end. Selling sexuality is essentially doing this, as far as I'm concerned. Now, the streamer from the OP is not guilty of this, hence why I'm completely in agreement that she's not done anything wrong.
|
11589 Posts
On May 03 2013 04:40 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:30 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 04:27 Morken 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. 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. I thought this was a good post to show how evil this behavior is. And here is one which catalogs abuse received by various female bloggers.
Both excellent articles that support my viewpoint on the matter. Thank you.
|
11589 Posts
On May 03 2013 04:43 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:25 yamato77 wrote:
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. Why only 50%? Surely sexism goes in all directions, especially if your definition is broad enough to include the random nonsense people say on the internet?
I was talking specifically about sexism directed at women, but yes, men are sometimes the subjects of such things in a sexist context, although far less often.
|
|
|
On May 03 2013 04:43 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:25 yamato77 wrote:
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. Why only 50%? Surely sexism goes in all directions, especially if your definition is broad enough to include the random nonsense people say on the internet?
Sexist comments are usually sexist because its framed in the logic of masculine being superior and feminine being subjugated.
So when you say to a dude "stop being so gay" you are saying to him to stop being so feminine. Which is an attack on the female even though it was directed at a dude.
Fuck you -> Rape
Up yours! -> Anal Rape
Bitch! -> female
You're such a dick -> The person dominating the speaker is defined as a penis
Jerk -> being selfish is equated with masturbation
etc...
Most curse words and derogatory statements usually lead to sexual descriptions of the male/phallus overpowering the weaker female. This is not a woman problem, this is a human problem that is directed at men as often as its directed at women.
|
On May 03 2013 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:43 oBlade wrote:On May 03 2013 04:25 yamato77 wrote:
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. Why only 50%? Surely sexism goes in all directions, especially if your definition is broad enough to include the random nonsense people say on the internet? Fuck you -> Rape Up yours! -> Anal Rape Bitch! -> female You're such a dick -> The person dominating the speaker is defined as a penis Jerk -> being selfish is equated with masturbation
Quoting this for posterity. Aside from (possibly) bitch, none of these have anything to do with sexism. "Fuck you," in particular, is a bizarre inclusion.
|
Sexism is present in any field or community that has an overrepresentation of a certain gender. It dispizes me that people actually think that it can be forgiven because '14 year olds' write it or because there are also racist and other insults.
If people wait for the lowest common denominator to catch up to them before changing opinions, then we're in for a long long wait until anything gets better.
|
On May 03 2013 04:45 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:36 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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. What you said about search hits and whatever has nothing to do with the reason her marketing practices are inherently wrong. Being beautiful is not "inherently wrong" as you seem to think. Being a woman who is okay being beautiful =/= objectification. Her being treated as an object by the viewers is sexist. Some women retract away from the attention, others accept it as part of the deal. Attacking them for being beautiful is not however something that is ever warranted. Talking to them about whether or not they like the type of people showing up to their streams (target demographics) and asking them if they liked the online image they were presenting (search engine presence) and having there be dialogue between you two is the only way to actually discuss it. But calling them immoral for being pretty? Really? I'm convinced you don't actually read my posts. Nowhere does "calling them immoral for being pretty" feature in my posts. Nowhere. I'm not attacking women for being beautiful. No idea where you've gotten this idea. I'm attacking anyone who deliberately uses sexuality as a bargaining chip. Someone who, for example, strips on cam for money, is objectifying themselves in my books. That isn't something I respect. I don't believe that people should treat themselves or anyone else as means to an end. Selling sexuality is essentially doing this, as far as I'm concerned. Now, the streamer from the OP is not guilty of this, hence why I'm completely in agreement that she's not done anything wrong.
Sigh...
If a person wants to strip on camera--there is nothing wrong with it and they are in the right. You disagreeing with their choices does not give you place to judge them.
As you literally said 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. you are willing to judge people as being morally wrong for being sexual. That is policing, that is attacking their beauty.
If you feel it is a dishonest way to bring in viewers--then talk to her about her marketing practices. If you're not talking to her, but out loud in the hypothetical, then talk about the problems that marketing practices such as that is so successful. But attacking them for being sexual is absurd. Thinking they are morally wrong is absurd.
|
On May 03 2013 04:50 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:43 oBlade wrote:On May 03 2013 04:25 yamato77 wrote:
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. Why only 50%? Surely sexism goes in all directions, especially if your definition is broad enough to include the random nonsense people say on the internet? Fuck you -> Rape Up yours! -> Anal Rape Bitch! -> female You're such a dick -> The person dominating the speaker is defined as a penis Jerk -> being selfish is equated with masturbation Quoting this for posterity. Aside from (possibly) bitch, none of these have anything to do with sexism. "Fuck you," in particular, is a bizarre inclusion.
Showcasing that the english speaking zeitgeist associates masculine terms and actions as superior to feminine terms is not associated with sexism? How bizarre of you.
|
Northern Ireland25283 Posts
Fucking hell Magpie I never wish to leave in your world, where nobody can be judged, or criticised for doing anything, ever.
|
On May 03 2013 04:45 Wombat_NI wrote:
I am in agreement with Acrofales in some respects for sure.
Too often, sexist/misogynist language used towards people is equated to 'they hate me because I am a woman'. There are of course genuine misogynistic assholes, but also many people who are just being pricks, and KNOW that that belittling someone can be easiest done if you insult a big part of their visible online identity.
It's just the most effective weapon in the troll's arsenal to use on that particular person. They will use any part of your identity against you, be it nationality, sexuality, what race you play etc etc.
There is a lot of truth here, I believe the vast majority of trolls are not actually trying to be sexist, but rather trying to push someone's buttons to make them upset. The sexist comments are just a byproduct of that because they are using whatever is visually obvious to piss that person off and get under their skin.
I'm sure some of it has to do with the demographics of the internet being horny males or whatever, so they will tend to lash out at females that they are attracted to. Its a natural reaction for every male that wants to be dominant but realizes that they have 0 chance of ever getting with one of their internet personalities. So the lashing out actually comes from resentment or jealousy. Many males think that females owe them something, or that when they dress sexy they are doing it to sell their sexuality in some way.
I would tell the females to "man-up" (ironic statement) and ignore the haters, since the problem lies with those haters and not the female that is the target of their misbehavior. However, it must be really hard to do this when there is such an overwhelming torrent of this crap happening. Sucks. If I were a female gamer I would choose a masculine name and avoid webcams and microphones at all costs because it would quickly become intolerable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
