|
On May 03 2013 06:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:47 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:41 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:31 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Morken wrote:[quote] Why is a woman's desire to take her clothe off ok, while his desire to put her clothe back on is crap? Not taking any sides, just curious.  Because he does not decide when her clothes come on or off. This is a typical answer in such a debate. You don't even try to understand what other people mean. In your mind, everyone who doesnt agree with you, is an evil man who only desires to control women, strip them off their rights and keep them as sandwich slaves in their kitchen. You, just as any other person who starts with this gender equality crap, doesnt care the slightest about actual equality and freedom. Of course it is a woman's right (everyones right infact) to run around in a skimpy dress or strip infront of a camera, but so is it everyone's right to not like this behavior and deem it immoral. You dont want men and women to be equal, you just want men to shut the fuck up, if they dont agree with women. Not liking something is different from attacking. You can always disagree--but policing people who act differently than you is wrong. Men are attacked by misogyny as much as women are--and no, I don't mean "sexism" I mean misogynous ideals. Its not about "shutting up" if you don't agree with a woman--it's not having the right to decide things for a woman. Who is talking about deciding things for women? Being that you equate not telling women what to do with "you just want men to shut the fuck up" apparently that's you. Haha, this is so funny. First of all: "not telling" = "shutting up" but that was just for fun. Second: No one ever said something about telling other people, what they should do or should not do. It's about telling them if they like it or not. If I say to a woman in a dress: "Your dress is ugly." I dont tell her to take it off, I tell her that I find it ugly. That's voicing an opinion, and the freedom to do is hugely important. Being unable to tell women what to do doesn't mean you can't still talk to them. You can still talk to them, you can still have discussions, heated ones in fact. But if you tell her that she's wrong for wearing that dress that she made a moral mistake for choosing to dress the way she did--that's no different than christians saying you'll go to hell for kissing the wrong people. Exaclty, but that's still freedom of speech and not wrong and should not be forbidden. First off--freedom of speech means the government can't touch you for saying what you want. 2nd off--attacking someones lifestyle and calling it morally wrong is an attack on that person and is not a part of free speech. Freedom of speech does not protect bullies it protects opinions. If you bully someone you are attacking them and are hence in the wrong.
So is saying that someone sucks at starcraft, but I don't see anyone writing an article about that.
|
On May 03 2013 06:51 Morken wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:45 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:36 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:26 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Woman taking her clothes off =/= being a prostitute
Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes. Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist. you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. You mean like those millions of christians who go around telling people what they should believe in? ?? I don't know how this is relevant. Any group or person trying to police how another group or person should act is wrong. Period. Yet this whole debate is about telling people how to act infront of women. lol Absolutely not. This whole debate is not telling women how to act. How you act in front of them is your call--but don't police how they act themselves. You can do what you want -- but don't do.... lol, you made my day Is the only possible thing you imagine doing in front of women be telling them how to act? If I started talking about the pudding I am currently eating, would you also understand that as a sign, that I want to tell women what to do? Really, how on earth does my post imply that I want to do that? Don't you see the irony in what you wrote there, by saying everyone can do what he/she wants, immediately followed by something everyone should not do?
There is no irony.
You control your actions, you don't control theirs.
There is no contradiction there--the only way there could be contradiction is if the only actions you see happening between men and women is men telling women what to do.
So, don't tell them how to dress for the same reason they shouldn't tell you how you should dress.
|
On May 03 2013 06:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:50 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 06:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:42 Jojo131 wrote:On May 03 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:36 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:26 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes. Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist. you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. You mean like those millions of christians who go around telling people what they should believe in? ?? I don't know how this is relevant. Any group or person trying to police how another group or person should act is wrong. Period. Yet this whole debate is about telling people how to act infront of women. lol Absolutely not. This whole debate is not telling women how to act. How you act in front of them is your call--but don't police how they act themselves. "Its your call how you want to behave in front of girls" "By the way, dont tell girls how to behave, thats not your call"...? Fuck it, I'm getting something to eat. Yes... girls behave how they want boys behave how they want that's how it works. then doesnt this make your argument kind of moot? My argument is that you don't tell women how to act. You don't tell them to take off their shirt You don't tell them to have babies with you You don't tell them how to act or be You don't tell them how they act is immoral just because its not something you agree with Why? because they should be allowed to do the things they want to do without being attacked for it.
"boys behave how they want"
what if they want to tell them to take their shirt off? or is that the exception because well, uhhh, you say so
|
On May 03 2013 06:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:50 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 06:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:42 Jojo131 wrote:On May 03 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:36 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:26 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes. Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist. you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. You mean like those millions of christians who go around telling people what they should believe in? ?? I don't know how this is relevant. Any group or person trying to police how another group or person should act is wrong. Period. Yet this whole debate is about telling people how to act infront of women. lol Absolutely not. This whole debate is not telling women how to act. How you act in front of them is your call--but don't police how they act themselves. "Its your call how you want to behave in front of girls" "By the way, dont tell girls how to behave, thats not your call"...? Fuck it, I'm getting something to eat. Yes... girls behave how they want boys behave how they want that's how it works. then doesnt this make your argument kind of moot? My argument is that you don't tell women how to act. You don't tell them to take off their shirt You don't tell them to have babies with you You don't tell them how to act or be You don't tell them how they act is immoral just because its not something you agree with Why? because they should be allowed to do the things they want to do without being attacked for it.
So again: You tell us that one doesn't tell another one what to do?
Again for the record, I dont care at all for this gender crap, I just want you to tell your argument is highly paradox.
|
On May 03 2013 06:53 Morken wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:47 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:41 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:31 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Because he does not decide when her clothes come on or off. This is a typical answer in such a debate. You don't even try to understand what other people mean. In your mind, everyone who doesnt agree with you, is an evil man who only desires to control women, strip them off their rights and keep them as sandwich slaves in their kitchen. You, just as any other person who starts with this gender equality crap, doesnt care the slightest about actual equality and freedom. Of course it is a woman's right (everyones right infact) to run around in a skimpy dress or strip infront of a camera, but so is it everyone's right to not like this behavior and deem it immoral. You dont want men and women to be equal, you just want men to shut the fuck up, if they dont agree with women. Not liking something is different from attacking. You can always disagree--but policing people who act differently than you is wrong. Men are attacked by misogyny as much as women are--and no, I don't mean "sexism" I mean misogynous ideals. Its not about "shutting up" if you don't agree with a woman--it's not having the right to decide things for a woman. Who is talking about deciding things for women? Being that you equate not telling women what to do with "you just want men to shut the fuck up" apparently that's you. Haha, this is so funny. First of all: "not telling" = "shutting up" but that was just for fun. Second: No one ever said something about telling other people, what they should do or should not do. It's about telling them if they like it or not. If I say to a woman in a dress: "Your dress is ugly." I dont tell her to take it off, I tell her that I find it ugly. That's voicing an opinion, and the freedom to do is hugely important. Being unable to tell women what to do doesn't mean you can't still talk to them. You can still talk to them, you can still have discussions, heated ones in fact. But if you tell her that she's wrong for wearing that dress that she made a moral mistake for choosing to dress the way she did--that's no different than christians saying you'll go to hell for kissing the wrong people. Exaclty, but that's still freedom of speech and not wrong and should not be forbidden. First off--freedom of speech means the government can't touch you for saying what you want. 2nd off--attacking someones lifestyle and calling it morally wrong is an attack on that person and is not a part of free speech. Freedom of speech does not protect bullies it protects opinions. If you bully someone you are attacking them and are hence in the wrong. So is saying that someone sucks at starcraft, but I don't see anyone writing an article about that.
You're welcome to do it.
She wrote about her experiences--why don't you write about yours?
|
On May 03 2013 06:55 FrankWalls wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:50 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 06:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:42 Jojo131 wrote:On May 03 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:36 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:26 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist.
you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. You mean like those millions of christians who go around telling people what they should believe in? ?? I don't know how this is relevant. Any group or person trying to police how another group or person should act is wrong. Period. Yet this whole debate is about telling people how to act infront of women. lol Absolutely not. This whole debate is not telling women how to act. How you act in front of them is your call--but don't police how they act themselves. "Its your call how you want to behave in front of girls" "By the way, dont tell girls how to behave, thats not your call"...? Fuck it, I'm getting something to eat. Yes... girls behave how they want boys behave how they want that's how it works. then doesnt this make your argument kind of moot? My argument is that you don't tell women how to act. You don't tell them to take off their shirt You don't tell them to have babies with you You don't tell them how to act or be You don't tell them how they act is immoral just because its not something you agree with Why? because they should be allowed to do the things they want to do without being attacked for it. "boys behave how they want" what if they want to tell them to take their shirt off? or is that the exception because well, uhhh, you say so
Telling her to take her shirt off is telling her what to do. If she wants to take her shirt off--she will. It's not your call.
|
On May 03 2013 06:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:53 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:47 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:41 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:31 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Morken wrote:
[quote]
This is a typical answer in such a debate. You don't even try to understand what other people mean. In your mind, everyone who doesnt agree with you, is an evil man who only desires to control women, strip them off their rights and keep them as sandwich slaves in their kitchen.
You, just as any other person who starts with this gender equality crap, doesnt care the slightest about actual equality and freedom.
Of course it is a woman's right (everyones right infact) to run around in a skimpy dress or strip infront of a camera, but so is it everyone's right to not like this behavior and deem it immoral.
You dont want men and women to be equal, you just want men to shut the fuck up, if they dont agree with women.
Not liking something is different from attacking. You can always disagree--but policing people who act differently than you is wrong. Men are attacked by misogyny as much as women are--and no, I don't mean "sexism" I mean misogynous ideals. Its not about "shutting up" if you don't agree with a woman--it's not having the right to decide things for a woman. Who is talking about deciding things for women? Being that you equate not telling women what to do with "you just want men to shut the fuck up" apparently that's you. Haha, this is so funny. First of all: "not telling" = "shutting up" but that was just for fun. Second: No one ever said something about telling other people, what they should do or should not do. It's about telling them if they like it or not. If I say to a woman in a dress: "Your dress is ugly." I dont tell her to take it off, I tell her that I find it ugly. That's voicing an opinion, and the freedom to do is hugely important. Being unable to tell women what to do doesn't mean you can't still talk to them. You can still talk to them, you can still have discussions, heated ones in fact. But if you tell her that she's wrong for wearing that dress that she made a moral mistake for choosing to dress the way she did--that's no different than christians saying you'll go to hell for kissing the wrong people. Exaclty, but that's still freedom of speech and not wrong and should not be forbidden. First off--freedom of speech means the government can't touch you for saying what you want. 2nd off--attacking someones lifestyle and calling it morally wrong is an attack on that person and is not a part of free speech. Freedom of speech does not protect bullies it protects opinions. If you bully someone you are attacking them and are hence in the wrong. So is saying that someone sucks at starcraft, but I don't see anyone writing an article about that. You're welcome to do it. She wrote about her experiences--why don't you write about yours?
You just dont get it *sigh*
|
On May 03 2013 06:55 Morken wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:50 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 06:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:42 Jojo131 wrote:On May 03 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:36 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:26 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist.
you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. You mean like those millions of christians who go around telling people what they should believe in? ?? I don't know how this is relevant. Any group or person trying to police how another group or person should act is wrong. Period. Yet this whole debate is about telling people how to act infront of women. lol Absolutely not. This whole debate is not telling women how to act. How you act in front of them is your call--but don't police how they act themselves. "Its your call how you want to behave in front of girls" "By the way, dont tell girls how to behave, thats not your call"...? Fuck it, I'm getting something to eat. Yes... girls behave how they want boys behave how they want that's how it works. then doesnt this make your argument kind of moot? My argument is that you don't tell women how to act. You don't tell them to take off their shirt You don't tell them to have babies with you You don't tell them how to act or be You don't tell them how they act is immoral just because its not something you agree with Why? because they should be allowed to do the things they want to do without being attacked for it. So again: You tell us that one doesn't tell another one what to do? Again for the record, I dont care at all for this gender crap, I just want you to tell your argument is highly paradox.
There is no paradox. You have control of your actions, you don't have control of theirs. You don't tell them how they act, because they have control of their actions much as you have control of yours.
|
On May 03 2013 06:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:55 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 06:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:50 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 06:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:42 Jojo131 wrote:On May 03 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:36 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:26 Morken wrote:
[quote]
You mean like those millions of christians who go around telling people what they should believe in?
?? I don't know how this is relevant. Any group or person trying to police how another group or person should act is wrong. Period. Yet this whole debate is about telling people how to act infront of women. lol Absolutely not. This whole debate is not telling women how to act. How you act in front of them is your call--but don't police how they act themselves. "Its your call how you want to behave in front of girls" "By the way, dont tell girls how to behave, thats not your call"...? Fuck it, I'm getting something to eat. Yes... girls behave how they want boys behave how they want that's how it works. then doesnt this make your argument kind of moot? My argument is that you don't tell women how to act. You don't tell them to take off their shirt You don't tell them to have babies with you You don't tell them how to act or be You don't tell them how they act is immoral just because its not something you agree with Why? because they should be allowed to do the things they want to do without being attacked for it. "boys behave how they want" what if they want to tell them to take their shirt off? or is that the exception because well, uhhh, you say so Telling her to take her shirt off is telling her what to do. If she wants to take her shirt off--she will. It's not your call.
that still contradicts what you said though. cause that's obviously what all these people want to do is to tell her to take her shirt off. doesnt this go against you're assertion that boys should behave how they want?
|
On May 03 2013 06:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:51 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:45 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:36 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:26 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes. Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist. you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. You mean like those millions of christians who go around telling people what they should believe in? ?? I don't know how this is relevant. Any group or person trying to police how another group or person should act is wrong. Period. Yet this whole debate is about telling people how to act infront of women. lol Absolutely not. This whole debate is not telling women how to act. How you act in front of them is your call--but don't police how they act themselves. You can do what you want -- but don't do.... lol, you made my day Is the only possible thing you imagine doing in front of women be telling them how to act? If I started talking about the pudding I am currently eating, would you also understand that as a sign, that I want to tell women what to do? Really, how on earth does my post imply that I want to do that? Don't you see the irony in what you wrote there, by saying everyone can do what he/she wants, immediately followed by something everyone should not do? There is no irony. You control your actions, you don't control theirs. There is no contradiction there--the only way there could be contradiction is if the only actions you see happening between men and women is men telling women what to do. So, don't tell them how to dress for the same reason they shouldn't tell you how you should dress.
But telling someone how to dress isn't the same as actually making them dress differently. Its just words that nobody has to abide to. Its a request perpetuated by an opinion, which is both protected by free speech and something that that recipient has all the power to reject.
|
The internet just bring the worst out of some people.
Sexism, Racism, Religious hatred, Homophobia... Sexism is not really a special case. Then, add trolling on top of it (they don't really think the comment but make it just for the lolz).
Sure that's sad, but it's also only words.
And in the end, I'm more worried about facebook comments saying how america should nuke the middle east or slaughter muslims on sight (comments probably due in all seriousness by grown men and women), than a few "boobs please" made by forever alone guys.
|
On May 03 2013 06:59 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:51 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:45 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:36 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:26 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist.
you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. You mean like those millions of christians who go around telling people what they should believe in? ?? I don't know how this is relevant. Any group or person trying to police how another group or person should act is wrong. Period. Yet this whole debate is about telling people how to act infront of women. lol Absolutely not. This whole debate is not telling women how to act. How you act in front of them is your call--but don't police how they act themselves. You can do what you want -- but don't do.... lol, you made my day Is the only possible thing you imagine doing in front of women be telling them how to act? If I started talking about the pudding I am currently eating, would you also understand that as a sign, that I want to tell women what to do? Really, how on earth does my post imply that I want to do that? Don't you see the irony in what you wrote there, by saying everyone can do what he/she wants, immediately followed by something everyone should not do? There is no irony. You control your actions, you don't control theirs. There is no contradiction there--the only way there could be contradiction is if the only actions you see happening between men and women is men telling women what to do. So, don't tell them how to dress for the same reason they shouldn't tell you how you should dress. But telling someone how to dress isn't the same as actually making them dress differently. Its just words that nobody has to abide to. Its a request perpetuated by an opinion, which is both protected by free speech and something that that recipient has all the power to reject.
Which is why most sane people think the author of the article is nuts. Who fucking cares. People tell me to do things all the time in video games (such as die in a fire, go slit my throat, shoot myself in the head, etc.) and yet I don't care. That is their prerogative to say that, and it is my prerogative to not abide by it.
|
On May 03 2013 06:58 Morken wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:53 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:47 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:41 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:31 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Not liking something is different from attacking. You can always disagree--but policing people who act differently than you is wrong. Men are attacked by misogyny as much as women are--and no, I don't mean "sexism" I mean misogynous ideals.
Its not about "shutting up" if you don't agree with a woman--it's not having the right to decide things for a woman.
Who is talking about deciding things for women? Being that you equate not telling women what to do with "you just want men to shut the fuck up" apparently that's you. Haha, this is so funny. First of all: "not telling" = "shutting up" but that was just for fun. Second: No one ever said something about telling other people, what they should do or should not do. It's about telling them if they like it or not. If I say to a woman in a dress: "Your dress is ugly." I dont tell her to take it off, I tell her that I find it ugly. That's voicing an opinion, and the freedom to do is hugely important. Being unable to tell women what to do doesn't mean you can't still talk to them. You can still talk to them, you can still have discussions, heated ones in fact. But if you tell her that she's wrong for wearing that dress that she made a moral mistake for choosing to dress the way she did--that's no different than christians saying you'll go to hell for kissing the wrong people. Exaclty, but that's still freedom of speech and not wrong and should not be forbidden. First off--freedom of speech means the government can't touch you for saying what you want. 2nd off--attacking someones lifestyle and calling it morally wrong is an attack on that person and is not a part of free speech. Freedom of speech does not protect bullies it protects opinions. If you bully someone you are attacking them and are hence in the wrong. So is saying that someone sucks at starcraft, but I don't see anyone writing an article about that. You're welcome to do it. She wrote about her experiences--why don't you write about yours? You just dont get it *sigh*
No, you don't get it.
She wrote something she cared about. No one is writing about sucking at Starcraft because they don't care about it. People write about what they care about. She gets attacked often enough that she cares. You don't have a say on whether or not she cares about something.
Now, if you believe that its a marketing conspiracy to rake in big cash--then I can see why you wouldn't believe that a girl trying to make in in the gaming industry would have a tough time with its misogyny. But I don't see how you think its paradoxical that people are responsible for their own actions and have no rights to dictate the actions of others.
|
On May 03 2013 06:58 FrankWalls wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:55 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 06:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:50 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 06:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:42 Jojo131 wrote:On May 03 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:36 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
??
I don't know how this is relevant.
Any group or person trying to police how another group or person should act is wrong. Period. Yet this whole debate is about telling people how to act infront of women. lol Absolutely not. This whole debate is not telling women how to act. How you act in front of them is your call--but don't police how they act themselves. "Its your call how you want to behave in front of girls" "By the way, dont tell girls how to behave, thats not your call"...? Fuck it, I'm getting something to eat. Yes... girls behave how they want boys behave how they want that's how it works. then doesnt this make your argument kind of moot? My argument is that you don't tell women how to act. You don't tell them to take off their shirt You don't tell them to have babies with you You don't tell them how to act or be You don't tell them how they act is immoral just because its not something you agree with Why? because they should be allowed to do the things they want to do without being attacked for it. "boys behave how they want" what if they want to tell them to take their shirt off? or is that the exception because well, uhhh, you say so Telling her to take her shirt off is telling her what to do. If she wants to take her shirt off--she will. It's not your call. that still contradicts what you said though. cause that's obviously what all these people want to do is to tell her to take her shirt off. doesnt this go against you're assertion that boys should behave how they want?
Boys can want to see tits--but whether the shirt comes off or not is not their call.
They can still want to see her shirt come off--but forcing her to do it is awful.
|
I don't understand why this always gets so much attention. This whole thing is literally a random no body complaining about people being mean on the internet. But she has a vagina so this is 100x worse than normal.
Incontrol puts up with way more shit but he doesn't have white knights fawning over him. Where is his massive thread? He's a massive personality in eSports so where are the white knights campaigning for fat rights?
It's not like I haven't had death threats playing SC2 or people threatening to and I quote "rape your family with a cheese grater".
*Gasp* Maybe... People are just dicks on the internet because they are anonymous? What a ground breaking theory.
Clearly the SC2 community is super sexist even though Scarlett is vehemently defended and rightly so.
|
This sort of treatment didn't just happen to her once she started becoming a professional gaming journalist.
As one of her friends, I've seen her get treated pretty harshly by guys throughout her time on the internet just cause she has consistently shown an avid interest in video games and to a certain extent comics/star wars.
I think the point we should all take from this is not that "oh the internet will act how it will act", but instead, "why do we need to act that way?"
If you think about it in terms of efficiency or biological fitness, what does saying those sort of things accomplish for you? You just look like a douchebag to some, and to others a neckbeard forever alone nerd and to the rest just an internet troll. The comments are unnecessary and just perpetuate bad behavior and bad stereotypes.
I think that's all it really comes down to.
Also I'm shocked that her article went from tumblr to kotaku to reddit to here. Pretty cool. Must be a subject of interest if it's spreading as rapidly as it is.
|
On May 03 2013 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:58 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 06:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:55 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 06:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:50 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 06:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:42 Jojo131 wrote:On May 03 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:36 Morken wrote:
[quote]
Yet this whole debate is about telling people how to act infront of women. lol Absolutely not. This whole debate is not telling women how to act. How you act in front of them is your call--but don't police how they act themselves. "Its your call how you want to behave in front of girls" "By the way, dont tell girls how to behave, thats not your call"...? Fuck it, I'm getting something to eat. Yes... girls behave how they want boys behave how they want that's how it works. then doesnt this make your argument kind of moot? My argument is that you don't tell women how to act. You don't tell them to take off their shirt You don't tell them to have babies with you You don't tell them how to act or be You don't tell them how they act is immoral just because its not something you agree with Why? because they should be allowed to do the things they want to do without being attacked for it. "boys behave how they want" what if they want to tell them to take their shirt off? or is that the exception because well, uhhh, you say so Telling her to take her shirt off is telling her what to do. If she wants to take her shirt off--she will. It's not your call. that still contradicts what you said though. cause that's obviously what all these people want to do is to tell her to take her shirt off. doesnt this go against you're assertion that boys should behave how they want? Boys can want to see tits--but whether the shirt comes off or not is not their call. They can still want to see her shirt come off--but forcing her to do it is awful.
but they arent forcing her to. they're just telling her to
|
On May 03 2013 06:59 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:51 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:45 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:36 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:26 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist.
you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. You mean like those millions of christians who go around telling people what they should believe in? ?? I don't know how this is relevant. Any group or person trying to police how another group or person should act is wrong. Period. Yet this whole debate is about telling people how to act infront of women. lol Absolutely not. This whole debate is not telling women how to act. How you act in front of them is your call--but don't police how they act themselves. You can do what you want -- but don't do.... lol, you made my day Is the only possible thing you imagine doing in front of women be telling them how to act? If I started talking about the pudding I am currently eating, would you also understand that as a sign, that I want to tell women what to do? Really, how on earth does my post imply that I want to do that? Don't you see the irony in what you wrote there, by saying everyone can do what he/she wants, immediately followed by something everyone should not do? There is no irony. You control your actions, you don't control theirs. There is no contradiction there--the only way there could be contradiction is if the only actions you see happening between men and women is men telling women what to do. So, don't tell them how to dress for the same reason they shouldn't tell you how you should dress. But telling someone how to dress isn't the same as actually making them dress differently. Its just words that nobody has to abide to. Its a request perpetuated by an opinion, which is both protected by free speech and something that that recipient has all the power to reject.
Yes... and in this case she did. And then, in her own free speech, commented on how common in the gaming community it is for people to be sexist. She is then told by many people in this thread to shut up.
Much as people online are allowed to be sexist and ask for tits--she is also allowed by free speech to make a statement of the general misogyny she suffers regularly. She's not asking for them to shut up, she's asking for there to be less misogyny.
She said she was happy when someone was supportive--she is perfectly fine with comments. She just wished the community she was part of wasn't hateful towards women.
|
On May 03 2013 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:58 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 06:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:55 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 06:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:50 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 06:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:42 Jojo131 wrote:On May 03 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:36 Morken wrote:
[quote]
Yet this whole debate is about telling people how to act infront of women. lol Absolutely not. This whole debate is not telling women how to act. How you act in front of them is your call--but don't police how they act themselves. "Its your call how you want to behave in front of girls" "By the way, dont tell girls how to behave, thats not your call"...? Fuck it, I'm getting something to eat. Yes... girls behave how they want boys behave how they want that's how it works. then doesnt this make your argument kind of moot? My argument is that you don't tell women how to act. You don't tell them to take off their shirt You don't tell them to have babies with you You don't tell them how to act or be You don't tell them how they act is immoral just because its not something you agree with Why? because they should be allowed to do the things they want to do without being attacked for it. "boys behave how they want" what if they want to tell them to take their shirt off? or is that the exception because well, uhhh, you say so Telling her to take her shirt off is telling her what to do. If she wants to take her shirt off--she will. It's not your call. that still contradicts what you said though. cause that's obviously what all these people want to do is to tell her to take her shirt off. doesnt this go against you're assertion that boys should behave how they want? Boys can want to see tits--but whether the shirt comes off or not is not their call. They can still want to see her shirt come off--but forcing her to do it is awful.
It seems you don't distinguish between asking a girl if you can see her tits and raping her. I think that's why everyone has a hard time understanding your points.
|
On May 03 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:55 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:50 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 06:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:42 Jojo131 wrote:On May 03 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:36 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:26 Morken wrote:
[quote]
You mean like those millions of christians who go around telling people what they should believe in?
?? I don't know how this is relevant. Any group or person trying to police how another group or person should act is wrong. Period. Yet this whole debate is about telling people how to act infront of women. lol Absolutely not. This whole debate is not telling women how to act. How you act in front of them is your call--but don't police how they act themselves. "Its your call how you want to behave in front of girls" "By the way, dont tell girls how to behave, thats not your call"...? Fuck it, I'm getting something to eat. Yes... girls behave how they want boys behave how they want that's how it works. then doesnt this make your argument kind of moot? My argument is that you don't tell women how to act. You don't tell them to take off their shirt You don't tell them to have babies with you You don't tell them how to act or be You don't tell them how they act is immoral just because its not something you agree with Why? because they should be allowed to do the things they want to do without being attacked for it. So again: You tell us that one doesn't tell another one what to do? Again for the record, I dont care at all for this gender crap, I just want you to tell your argument is highly paradox. There is no paradox. You have control of your actions, you don't have control of theirs. You don't tell them how they act, because they have control of their actions much as you have control of yours.
Oh for the mother of...
If there are 5 coins on a table and I tell you that you can take anyone of them, but you can not take the 2 on the right, than this is a damn contradiction.
Again, again, again: I dont care about gender, I dont care about your telling women what to do or not, I dont care what women, they can wear green buckets in their heads, they can dance naked on the street, they can sell their bodies for money if they want -- I.... dont.... care!
I am a philologist (not english mind you) and all I care for, is that your statement is contradictory. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
