|
On May 03 2013 04:56 Wombat_NI wrote:
Fucking hell Magpie I never wish to leave in your world, where nobody can be judged, or criticised for doing anything, ever.
In my world it is wrong to attack people just because you disagree with them and only do so if it is a physical danger to their well being or the well being of others.
If I dislike someone, I don't have a right to attack them.
It's a very simply system, it's not very hard.
|
On May 03 2013 04:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:45 Shiori wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Show nested quote +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.
Why is thinking that sexuality is a moral decision somehow absurd? You're against equivocating between sexuality and beauty. The two are not in any sense the same. I am willing to judge people who sell themselves as committing a moral disservice to themselves, yes. I am willing to judge people who destroy their bodies with drugs as committing a moral disservice to themselves. That is not policing. That's judging someone against my ethical code, which is perfectly acceptable.
There is nothing wrong with stripping on camera. There is in my opinion something wrong with doing so in order that other people will pay you for it because what you are doing is essentially asking people to objectify you in exchange for cash; ergo you are fine with perception of yourself as an object ergo you agree with it. I would never dream of stopping a person from doing this. But I will certainly judge the action because I feel that it isn't particularly dignified.
|
Northern Ireland25283 Posts
What do you mean by 'attack'. Make a comment, harass, threaten, what constitutes 'attacking'?
|
On May 03 2013 04:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:50 Shiori wrote: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.
What's bizarre is your absolute failure to even research anything you wrote. For instance, jerk-off (i.e. masturbation) came after "jerk" which simply referred to a fool who acts quickly, as "to jerk" is to move quickly.
Stop trying to invent meaning where there is none.
|
On May 03 2013 05:01 Wombat_NI wrote:
What do you mean by 'attack'. Make a comment, harass, threaten, what constitutes 'attacking'?
Apparently even believing that something is wrong constitutes an attack.
|
Sexism exists for both men and women.
It's not going away, ever.
If you don't like sexist comments, disable them, ban them, report them, file a lawsuit, turn your mic off(games), etc.
This chick is just trying to drum up page hits and make a name for herself whilst being a martyr.
EDIT: I bet over half of the sexist comments are from teenage boys; puberty is rough.
|
There is nothing wrong with stripping on camera. There is in my opinion something wrong with doing so in order that other people will pay you for it because what you are doing is essentially asking people to objectify you in exchange for cash; ergo you are fine with perception of yourself as an object ergo you agree with it. I would never dream of stopping a person from doing this. But I will certainly judge the action because I feel that it isn't particularly dignified.
Its perfectly fine for you to disagree--as I have said many times already.
If you aren't going to say anything and do anything about her stripping--then we are in agreement. As I said, it's okay to disagree. But to go around calling her morally wrong for her actions is absurd. Women are allowed to be sexual, to be beautiful. Women are allowed to do what they want even if you disagree with it. Because she's not doing it for you, she's doing it because she wants to do it. If someone was making her do it--then that's a problem, as much a problem as someone telling her to stop doing it.
We don't decide a woman's actions they decide their own actions.
|
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.
This thread gets funnier every second.
To adress this anwer quickly: "your writing sucks" is useless as feedback and no single person in the history of mankind ever fixed their content and product, because some random person said: "Your stuff sucks!"
This whole dibate about sexism (not only here but in general on this world right now) is not about making actual arguments. It's mainly just about two sides who try to force their opinion on the other one.
Face it: the debate (note: in general, not here) about sexism, racism, antisemitism, whatever is mainly alway started by sexists, racists and antisemitists themselves. Women are exactly as sexist as men, only men are sexist by saying mentioned sexist stuff, while women are sexist by thinking all men are sexist -- and this is why this whole topic is utterly pointless.
I mean come on! I'm from austria (we speak german) and the feminists in our country complained about our language being sexist. Why? Because in german, every noun has a gender and therefore the german word for "the" must respond to this and can be male or female (or neutral). There are male and female versions for some words, but other are just male or female and this is actually quite random. A few examples: freedom is female, sun is female, salt shaker is male, triumph is male, love is female, floor is male, week is female and so on. Now feminists in austria really claimed this is sexist. Wtf? They actually used the example with the salt shaker and claimed it to be sexist that there is no female word for salt shaker. They tried to change our language because of such nonsense, so please forgive me if I can't take sexism debates serious anymore.
|
On May 03 2013 02:55 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 02:53 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 02:52 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 02:50 Zaqwert wrote:
I'm pretty sure all the chronic complaining and constantly playing the victim is helping these gals overcome sexist stereotypes about women.... I'm pretty sure all the chronic complaining and constantly playing the victim is helping these men excuse their objectification of women....... why does it need excused if its the way they really feel about it? Because women are people, not objects, and to treat another human as a thing requires some degree of mental gymnastics.
regardless of whether that's true or not, that doesn't answer my question.
i just dont understand what we're supposed to do about this or why she's making it a big deal about youtube comments in particular. is she like hoping to get users banned on youtube for making mean comments? i mean she could just disable comments altogether if she really wanted to, but idk. i'm pretty against censorship no matter what the context of the discussion is so that's what kind of irks me about it
|
On May 03 2013 05:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +
There is nothing wrong with stripping on camera. There is in my opinion something wrong with doing so in order that other people will pay you for it because what you are doing is essentially asking people to objectify you in exchange for cash; ergo you are fine with perception of yourself as an object ergo you agree with it. I would never dream of stopping a person from doing this. But I will certainly judge the action because I feel that it isn't particularly dignified.
Its perfectly fine for you to disagree--as I have said many times already. If you aren't going to say anything and do anything about her stripping--then we are in agreement. As I said, it's okay to disagree. But to go around calling her morally wrong for her actions is absurd. Women are allowed to be sexual, to be beautiful. Women are allowed to do what they want even if you disagree with it. Because she's not doing it for you, she's doing it because she wants to do it. If someone was making her do it--then that's a problem, as much a problem as someone telling her to stop doing it. We don't decide a woman's actions they decide their own actions.
??????
How is calling something morally wrong absurd? Of course you're allowed to be sexual. Of course you're allowed to do things I disagree with. But that has literally nothing to do with the morality of an action.
I don't tell women to stop doing it. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral, but that they're free to do so if they wish. Similarly, I don't tell people who believe, say, that welfare is bad, that they're not allowed to think so, but merely that their position is immoral. I'm not about to go start a talk show devoted to convincing women that their behaviour is incorrect, but I'll certainly state my opinion on the subject in the proper arena (e.g. this thread).
|
|
|
On May 03 2013 05:06 guN-viCe wrote:
Sexism exists for both men and women.
It's not going away, ever.
If you don't like sexist comments, disable them, ban them, report them, file a lawsuit, turn your mic off(games), etc.
This chick is just trying to drum up page hits and make a name for herself whilst being a martyr.
EDIT: I bet over half of the sexist comments are from teenage boys; puberty is rough.
I doubt teenage boys these days are smart enough to make a conspiracy theory about Jews together with the Frankfurt School and critical theory trying to suppress us.
Point is, I doubt that a lot of these disgusting comments mostly come from teenage boys, especially when you see the same kind of quality from Al Jazeera and BBC posters on Facebook.
|
When did the internet become a friendly place?
Unfortunately for her, now her attackers know they are getting to her and will be even more relentless..
In an ideal world none of these isms would exist, but they do.
|
Northern Ireland25283 Posts
Or 'it conflicts with my own personal perceptions of moral/acceptable/sensible behaviour.
I don't really get why you seem so vehemently anti-sexist Magpie, but yet give women a pass for perpetuating the idea that women's worth is in their sexual attractiveness, so long as it's women doing it. Societally, the end impact on perceptions of women will be much the same.
|
On May 03 2013 05:15 Wombat_NI wrote:
Or 'it conflicts with my own personal perceptions of moral/acceptable/sensible behaviour.
I don't really get why you seem so vehemently anti-sexist Magpie, but yet give women a pass for perpetuating the idea that women's worth is in their sexual attractiveness, so long as it's women doing it. Societally, the end impact on perceptions of women will be much the same.
If a woman wants to be attractive--it's her call.
If a woman doesn't care about her looks--it's her call.
It's called respecting her choices.
|
Northern Ireland25283 Posts
You're creating this false dichotomy between 'wants to be attractive' and 'doesn't care about her looks' when we're clearly talking about something else.
|
On May 03 2013 05:13 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:06 guN-viCe wrote:
Sexism exists for both men and women.
It's not going away, ever.
If you don't like sexist comments, disable them, ban them, report them, file a lawsuit, turn your mic off(games), etc.
This chick is just trying to drum up page hits and make a name for herself whilst being a martyr.
EDIT: I bet over half of the sexist comments are from teenage boys; puberty is rough. I doubt teenage boys these days are smart enough to make a conspiracy theory about Jews together with the Frankfurt School and critical theory trying to suppress us. Point is, I doubt that a lot of these disgusting comments mostly come from teenage boys, especially when you see the same kind of quality from Al Jazeera and BBC posters on Facebook.
Not everyone grows up ;D
|
Whining will get her nowhere.
|
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? 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.
My first instinct is that if you tell someone to stop being so gay, or stop being a faggot, the pejorative aspect is that you're suggesting he's attracted to men. The case might be different if your example were calling someone a girl instead of calling him gay. Calling someone gay can fall anywhere between stating fact, shooting the shit with someone, saying random garbage on the internet, or emotionally abusing someone. But being gay is an orientation, not a sex.
Fuck you -> Rape
Up yours! -> Anal Rape
Bitch! -> female
You're such a dick -> The person dominating the speaker is defined as a penis
I don't think you can have it both ways? If you're insulting someone, you're in a very small way trying to socially dominate them, no matter whether you call them a dick, a prick, a bitch, an asshole, or any number of racial slurs which lack even a remote connection to sexuality.
Jerk -> being selfish is equated with masturbation
If your post was serious, I will say I don't think that's the etymology of jerk, you just confused the various definitions of the word. I could just as easily claim calling someone a jerk disparages him for being a Caribbean marinade.
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.
I'm a fan of the more colorful parts of our language, so it doesn't register to me that a curse word per se is a problem.
|
On May 03 2013 05:20 Wombat_NI wrote:
You're creating this false dichotomy between 'wants to be attractive' and 'doesn't care about her looks' when we're clearly talking about something else.
If a woman wants to strip on camera--she is free to do that.
If a woman is scared that people will objectify her and so puts on uncomfortable outfits that hides her boobs--she is free to do that.
People telling the latter to show her boobs is as bad as people calling the former immoral. Is that so difficult?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
