|
United States5162 Posts
On May 03 2013 07:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:21 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:14 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:10 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:06 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:58 FrankWalls wrote:
[quote]
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 If all they say over and over again is show me your tits--then the interaction doesn't progress without her showing tits. She is being socially coerced into it and hates to be put in that position. but that's still not forcing her to do it, and they're just expressing their desire to "behave how they want" No, they're telling her to behave how they want her to behave much like a torturer is merely asking questions. hahahahahahaha what the fuck, and you still havent really explained why these boys can't behave how they want (which goes against your doctrine, according to you), since they arent forcing anyone to do anything Boys can still behave how they want. They just can't dictate how girls should behave. You can't spend your time telling people what to do and be surprised when someone tells you that you can't tell them what to do. oh so they can only behave how they want as long as they align with your own morals. and i wouldnt really call it "dictating" cause that implies that these youtube trolls have some sort of authoritative power over her. which, really, is entirely up to her They can still want to see tits. That moral goal is still allowed. They could even talk to the girl about how much they love seeing tits. But telling her to show tits is different.
Is there a difference between telling and asking, or even just stating? Or are "Show your tits", "I want you to show your tits", and "I'd love to her tits" in youtube comments all the same to you?
|
On May 03 2013 07:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Actually, we are talking about torture. From the OP itself, we have someone trying to become a journalist for a passion she loves and all people do is tell her to strip ignoring both content and issues and simply telling her they want to fuck her, jizz on her, make babies, etc...
She is being stopped from being able to do what she wants because the gaming community is dictating to her how she should be acting instead.
All people ?
How is that not an exaggeration ?
If her content has some substance she certainly has some normal viewers.
And in the end, how is she being stopped ? They don't control her internet as far as I know.
|
On May 03 2013 07:25 FrankWalls wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:21 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:14 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:10 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:06 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
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 If all they say over and over again is show me your tits--then the interaction doesn't progress without her showing tits. She is being socially coerced into it and hates to be put in that position. but that's still not forcing her to do it, and they're just expressing their desire to "behave how they want" No, they're telling her to behave how they want her to behave much like a torturer is merely asking questions. hahahahahahaha what the fuck, and you still havent really explained why these boys can't behave how they want (which goes against your doctrine, according to you), since they arent forcing anyone to do anything Boys can still behave how they want. They just can't dictate how girls should behave. You can't spend your time telling people what to do and be surprised when someone tells you that you can't tell them what to do. oh so they can only behave how they want as long as they align with your own morals. and i wouldnt really call it "dictating" cause that implies that these youtube trolls have some sort of authoritative power over her. which, really, is entirely up to her They can still want to see tits. That moral goal is still allowed. They could even talk to the girl about how much they love seeing tits. But telling her to show tits is different. in what way?
In that you are now dictating to a person how he/she should properly act. When you spend time telling people to do something you are no longer exercising your personal freedoms but infringing on the freedoms of others.
If you honestly love tits. Then talk to her about tits. Talk to her about how you love seeing them, touching them, how they taste, have at it. If you honestly love seeing tits tell her how you can't wait for the next time you get to see them. Tell her about the movies you love watching because you get to see tits. You can be passionate about tits all you want. But you can't go around making people show you their tits.
There's a difference between practicing your own freedoms, and infringing on the freedoms of others.
|
On May 03 2013 07:26 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:21 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:14 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:10 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:06 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
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 If all they say over and over again is show me your tits--then the interaction doesn't progress without her showing tits. She is being socially coerced into it and hates to be put in that position. but that's still not forcing her to do it, and they're just expressing their desire to "behave how they want" No, they're telling her to behave how they want her to behave much like a torturer is merely asking questions. hahahahahahaha what the fuck, and you still havent really explained why these boys can't behave how they want (which goes against your doctrine, according to you), since they arent forcing anyone to do anything Boys can still behave how they want. They just can't dictate how girls should behave. You can't spend your time telling people what to do and be surprised when someone tells you that you can't tell them what to do. oh so they can only behave how they want as long as they align with your own morals. and i wouldnt really call it "dictating" cause that implies that these youtube trolls have some sort of authoritative power over her. which, really, is entirely up to her They can still want to see tits. That moral goal is still allowed. They could even talk to the girl about how much they love seeing tits. But telling her to show tits is different. Is there a difference between telling and asking, or even just stating? Or are "Show your tits", "I want you to show your tits", and "I'd love to her tits" in youtube comments all the same to you?
Its about translatable message. If the person is telling her to show her tits--then it is literally telling someone to act the way you want them to act. If the person is just talking about how much they love tits--then that's fine, albeit creepy. Each person has the right to act the way they please--being told by others how to act infringes on that.
|
On May 03 2013 07:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:25 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:21 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:14 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:10 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:06 FrankWalls wrote:
[quote]
but they arent forcing her to. they're just telling her to If all they say over and over again is show me your tits--then the interaction doesn't progress without her showing tits. She is being socially coerced into it and hates to be put in that position. but that's still not forcing her to do it, and they're just expressing their desire to "behave how they want" No, they're telling her to behave how they want her to behave much like a torturer is merely asking questions. hahahahahahaha what the fuck, and you still havent really explained why these boys can't behave how they want (which goes against your doctrine, according to you), since they arent forcing anyone to do anything Boys can still behave how they want. They just can't dictate how girls should behave. You can't spend your time telling people what to do and be surprised when someone tells you that you can't tell them what to do. oh so they can only behave how they want as long as they align with your own morals. and i wouldnt really call it "dictating" cause that implies that these youtube trolls have some sort of authoritative power over her. which, really, is entirely up to her They can still want to see tits. That moral goal is still allowed. They could even talk to the girl about how much they love seeing tits. But telling her to show tits is different. in what way? In that you are now dictating to a person how he/she should properly act. When you spend time telling people to do something you are no longer exercising your personal freedoms but infringing on the freedoms of others. If you honestly love tits. Then talk to her about tits. Talk to her about how you love seeing them, touching them, how they taste, have at it. If you honestly love seeing tits tell her how you can't wait for the next time you get to see them. Tell her about the movies you love watching because you get to see tits. You can be passionate about tits all you want. But you can't go around making people show you their tits. There's a difference between practicing your own freedoms, and infringing on the freedoms of others.
"In that you are now dictating to a person how he/she should properly act." why is this objectively wrong to the point where they shouldnt be allowed to do it, in your opinion.
"infringing on the freedoms of others." but again, it's not, because you're not forcing them to do anything. she has the freedom to not show her tits, and she has the freedom to not see these comments by not looking at them
|
On May 03 2013 07:28 rezoacken wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Actually, we are talking about torture. From the OP itself, we have someone trying to become a journalist for a passion she loves and all people do is tell her to strip ignoring both content and issues and simply telling her they want to fuck her, jizz on her, make babies, etc...
She is being stopped from being able to do what she wants because the gaming community is dictating to her how she should be acting instead. All people ? How is that not an exaggeration ? If her content has some substance she certainly has some normal viewers. And in the end, how is she being stopped ? They don't control her internet as far as I know.
the phrase
"all people do is" links the word "all" with the word "do"
All they do is
All he does is
All we do is
All people do is
So no, I didn't say "all people" as you are attempting to show.
|
On May 03 2013 07:32 FrankWalls wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:25 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:21 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:14 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:10 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
If all they say over and over again is show me your tits--then the interaction doesn't progress without her showing tits. She is being socially coerced into it and hates to be put in that position. but that's still not forcing her to do it, and they're just expressing their desire to "behave how they want" No, they're telling her to behave how they want her to behave much like a torturer is merely asking questions. hahahahahahaha what the fuck, and you still havent really explained why these boys can't behave how they want (which goes against your doctrine, according to you), since they arent forcing anyone to do anything Boys can still behave how they want. They just can't dictate how girls should behave. You can't spend your time telling people what to do and be surprised when someone tells you that you can't tell them what to do. oh so they can only behave how they want as long as they align with your own morals. and i wouldnt really call it "dictating" cause that implies that these youtube trolls have some sort of authoritative power over her. which, really, is entirely up to her They can still want to see tits. That moral goal is still allowed. They could even talk to the girl about how much they love seeing tits. But telling her to show tits is different. in what way? In that you are now dictating to a person how he/she should properly act. When you spend time telling people to do something you are no longer exercising your personal freedoms but infringing on the freedoms of others. If you honestly love tits. Then talk to her about tits. Talk to her about how you love seeing them, touching them, how they taste, have at it. If you honestly love seeing tits tell her how you can't wait for the next time you get to see them. Tell her about the movies you love watching because you get to see tits. You can be passionate about tits all you want. But you can't go around making people show you their tits. There's a difference between practicing your own freedoms, and infringing on the freedoms of others. "In that you are now dictating to a person how he/she should properly act." why is this objectively wrong to the point where they shouldnt be allowed to do it, in your opinion. "infringing on the freedoms of others." but again, it's not, because you're not forcing them to do anything. she has the freedom to not show her tits, and she has the freedom to not see these comments by not looking at them
Because harassment does not require physical harm to be harassment?
Because coercion does not require threats to be coercion?
Because the world would be better if we stopped attacking each other?
Because telling woman who has concerns about a community she's part of to shut up and not look at the comments does not help resolve that she still gets harassed?
Because living in a world where people are attacked and harassed for being who they are is a bad world to be in?
|
On May 03 2013 07:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:19 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 07:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:11 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:08 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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. We're not talking about coins we're talking about people's rights. Are you freaking kidding me? You are talking about coins on a table being picked up. I am talking about how people interact with each other. You equate talking to girls with grabbing coins. Since you obviously didn't bother to read what I wrote: again, for the third time: I just wanted to point out that the sentence you used to make your argument is contradictory. The sentence with the coins was an example for a contradiction. Do I have to explain what an example is? No? Good. "Don't tell others what to do." This is a contradiction, since you yourself tell someone what to do. This is all I wanted to say the whole time. Read this post and put it out of context with this sexism stuff (if your able to do so that is). It is only about this sentence, nothing more. "Don't tell others what to do" is not a contradiction, it is a setting of rules and boundaries. It is stated to inform the group of the freedoms inherent within each person and the protection of those freedoms within the context of human interaction. If you are unable to understand english--then maybe you should try a different mode of discussion.
Someone pulling the learn-english-card. Cute.
But that is not a matter of language. No matter what language I use to say this, it is always paradox. Because if it sets the rule that you should not tell others what to do, it violates it's own rule in the first place, since it tells people, what they should do.
I see now that you dont really read or try to understand what I say, since you are just mad at me, because in your mind I seem to constantly try to state that women have no rights.
What I actually mean is that it is unwise to tell people that they must not tell others what to do. You can say that what those people said is bad, is stupid, is immature, is disgusting, but once you can forbid people to say certain things, this is crossing a line and should never happen. Because then they can argue, that you calling them sexist is an attack and it goes on and on, until nobody is allowed to say anything anymore.
|
On May 03 2013 06:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:32 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:41 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 20:35 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:31 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 20:28 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:12 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 20:10 Prevolved wrote:On May 02 2013 20:07 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 20:05 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Not relevant. Can you not see that he just rationalised sexist abuse because this girl asked for it by doing something other than going "please send me sexist abuse"? If so, how can you not see that? People like him are literally the problem. Stop responding to him, he is just acting like this because he is a stupid male. Male are always like that : they want to be right even if it means denying the fundamentals of what constitute reality. + Show Spoiler +How does it feel being disqualified on your gender? Yeah man, because two wrongs make a right. ... Did you even read what I wrote previously? There, let me help you. Wrong. Entirely wrong. Feminism is all about making people conscious of the prejudice associated with each gender (and men are also subjected to it, the proof being the existence of words such as "man up" or "get some balls" : men are always expected to act strong, tough...) in order for individuals to be more free of doing what they really want to do and being what they really want to be, independently of what the society would like them to be given their gender.What people do not also realize is that feminism is not about THREATENING MEN. It's about asking for gender not being a valid basis for prejudice, may it be for men and women. Feminism is also realizing men do not have to "man up" all the time, and have the right to display interest in things that are not "manly". Do you feel comfortable being around jocks constantly reminding you that you are not a real man because you do not watch sports, or workout, or that videogames are for sissies? Then congratulation, you are in some way a feminist. Stop pretending these things do not exist. That's actually historically untrue. Women were going to be given suffrage in the United States for example well before the 1900s, but they absolutely refused to even contemplate the possibility of having to participate in things such as the military draft and other historically 'male' obligations. Not only that, the feminists of the early 1900s didn't give a flying fuck that men below the age of 21 were dying in World War I in the hundreds of thousands, they just wanted their own right to vote and didn't care. Any notion that feminism ever was about equality is just an illusion that most feminists like to utilize in their arguments, when in reality it isn't at all. Where do you see a past tense in my post? I said "Feminist IS", not "Feminist WAS, HAS BEEN, or HAS ALWAYS BEEN". When you debate a democrat or a republican, do you debate what people of his or her party said 100 years ago? You do understand that even today that generally most feminists (I don't have an exact number, but I'm willing to bet 90%+) believe that a man should pay for child support, that he should do this, that, etc. and that the woman actually has all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. etc. Not to mention, that feminists even today will fight tooth and nail to prevent women from ever being a part of the draft, despite the fact that they like men have the right to vote. Feminism in general today is a load of bullshit, and it gets exposed big time when you start looking at their positions on child custody, child support, divorce, etc. etc. Alright this is simply completely wrong. Feminism is by definition about gender equality. Feminists oppose all of the things you just listed. You seem to mix up the terms "women" and "feminists" a lot I believe. No, they don't. Don't even fucking lie. Extreme feminists feel that women should have all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. so don't say that I am wrong. You're the one that is wrong, because I can easily list like 800 articles of feminists opposing more equality on that front. For example, various FEMINIST groups protest and do all sorts of illegal crap to prevent MRA presentations at Universities, but no one ever says anything about. Then again, don't we all just love double standards. Oh, and about women being able to join the Navy? What? http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG051-099/dg068.wcoc/dg068.wcochistory.htmRemember, this is the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT that major feminists groups opposed. Women also historically opposed the military draft during the 1940s because they didn't want to fight in WW2. So all this whole 'feminist wanting equality' is a load of bullshit. Feminists in general have always done what they feel has benefited them, and only benefited them. They could care less about equality among all people. As a feminist I disagree. It's not a homogenous movement.
And you are in the minority. A vast majority of feminists agree that women should have more rights when it comes to things like child alimony, custody, divorce, leaving for labor, etc.
|
On May 03 2013 07:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:19 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 07:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:11 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:08 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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. We're not talking about coins we're talking about people's rights. Are you freaking kidding me? You are talking about coins on a table being picked up. I am talking about how people interact with each other. You equate talking to girls with grabbing coins. Since you obviously didn't bother to read what I wrote: again, for the third time: I just wanted to point out that the sentence you used to make your argument is contradictory. The sentence with the coins was an example for a contradiction. Do I have to explain what an example is? No? Good. "Don't tell others what to do." This is a contradiction, since you yourself tell someone what to do. This is all I wanted to say the whole time. Read this post and put it out of context with this sexism stuff (if your able to do so that is). It is only about this sentence, nothing more. "Don't tell others what to do" is not a contradiction, it is a setting of rules and boundaries. It is stated to inform the group of the freedoms inherent within each person and the protection of those freedoms within the context of human interaction. If you are unable to understand english--then maybe you should try a different mode of discussion.
"Don't tell others what to do" IS a contradiction. Just because you say it isn't doesn't mean it's true...
"You can do whatever you want, just dont tell others what to do"
You're trying to make an all-encompassing rule to cover all scenarios, and it wont work.
The ability for person A to tell person B to do something is just as much of a freedom as person B rejecting person A.
|
But anyway, enough for today. Good Night all.
|
The problem with simply saying, "Hey, these are trolls, so what?" is that that many trolls honestly believe the things they are typing. There are a LOT of racists, homophobes, and sexists out there! 100% of trolls are real people. What percent actually believe what they are typing? I don't know, but it is a lot.
Expose racists, trolls, and homophobes for what they are! Call them out on it. Good article.
|
i don't think blaming unacceptable behaviour on the internet will do us any good. being on the internet does not absolve of moral responsibility, this should go without saying (and probably does for most people on teamliquid).
the internet cavemen behind malicious comments are crude. she should consider migrating to tl.net, a more civilized society.
On May 02 2013 18:33 FrogOfWar wrote:
This is maybe a good occasion to say thank you to the TL.net mods for doing a great job in keeping this site civil.
hear, hear.
|
On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:23 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
People telling the latter to show her boobs is as bad as people calling the former immoral. Is that so difficult? This is complete nonsense. It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them? You actually haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about or, apparently, what anyone else is talking about. Literally nobody is arguing any of these things except you. Um... you actually said that you think its immoral. 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 It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. It is utterly detestable to assign an arbitrary price to one's sexuality or self-worth. I am against such behaviour for the same reason that I'd be against selling oneself into slavery. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes.
You do not understand Kant. Kant's categorical imperative is that one ought to never treat any person merely as a means. This means using them as a means without their consent. When you purchase something at the grocery store and have the clerk check it out for you, you are using his labor as a means to facilitate your purchase, but in no way is this immoral, as the clerk consents to his/her participation in this act. Your argument is flawed if it is based on this fundamental misunderstanding of the basic premise of Kantian ethics.
On May 03 2013 07:41 nunez wrote:i don't think blaming unacceptable behaviour on the internet will do us any good. being on the internet does not absolve of moral responsibility, this should go without saying (and probably does for most people on teamliquid). the internet cavemen behind malicious comments are crude. she should consider migrating to tl.net, a more civilized society. Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 18:33 FrogOfWar wrote:
This is maybe a good occasion to say thank you to the TL.net mods for doing a great job in keeping this site civil. hear, hear.
As "civil" as the discussion has been, a surprisingly high preponderance of posts express pretty disgusting attitudes that are the same attitudes that fuel the problematic comments that the original article is referring to. For example,
On May 02 2013 19:25 edlover420 wrote:
she should just ''deal with it''
it's true sexist comments are childish, but they aren't harmful and some of them are quite funny
it's not like the whole internet is gonna change because of her attention seeking blog all of the sudden.
or
On May 02 2013 18:59 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Protip to her: stop being butthurt, either get off the Internet or learn to deal with. Seriously. Re-assess your life: does it really mean that much to you that some kiddies on the other side of the world purposefully post mean or "sexist" things about you just to get you riled up? Because you're kinda getting trolled here hun, getting trolled big time if you acknowledge their presence.
|
United States5162 Posts
On May 03 2013 07:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:26 Myles wrote:On May 03 2013 07:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:21 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:14 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:10 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:06 FrankWalls wrote:
[quote]
but they arent forcing her to. they're just telling her to If all they say over and over again is show me your tits--then the interaction doesn't progress without her showing tits. She is being socially coerced into it and hates to be put in that position. but that's still not forcing her to do it, and they're just expressing their desire to "behave how they want" No, they're telling her to behave how they want her to behave much like a torturer is merely asking questions. hahahahahahaha what the fuck, and you still havent really explained why these boys can't behave how they want (which goes against your doctrine, according to you), since they arent forcing anyone to do anything Boys can still behave how they want. They just can't dictate how girls should behave. You can't spend your time telling people what to do and be surprised when someone tells you that you can't tell them what to do. oh so they can only behave how they want as long as they align with your own morals. and i wouldnt really call it "dictating" cause that implies that these youtube trolls have some sort of authoritative power over her. which, really, is entirely up to her They can still want to see tits. That moral goal is still allowed. They could even talk to the girl about how much they love seeing tits. But telling her to show tits is different. Is there a difference between telling and asking, or even just stating? Or are "Show your tits", "I want you to show your tits", and "I'd love to her tits" in youtube comments all the same to you? Its about translatable message. If the person is telling her to show her tits--then it is literally telling someone to act the way you want them to act. If the person is just talking about how much they love tits--then that's fine, albeit creepy. Each person has the right to act the way they please--being told by others how to act infringes on that.
You really need to add the qualifier 'as long as you're not telling others how to act' to 'every person has the right to act the way they please'. And I disagree that being asked to change your ways is being infringed upon. Repeatedly being harassed about it is infringing on someones rights, but making it known that you disagree with their choices and you'd like them to change, and leaving it at that, isn't harassment imo.
|
On May 03 2013 07:25 FrankWalls wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:21 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:14 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:10 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:06 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
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 If all they say over and over again is show me your tits--then the interaction doesn't progress without her showing tits. She is being socially coerced into it and hates to be put in that position. but that's still not forcing her to do it, and they're just expressing their desire to "behave how they want" No, they're telling her to behave how they want her to behave much like a torturer is merely asking questions. hahahahahahaha what the fuck, and you still havent really explained why these boys can't behave how they want (which goes against your doctrine, according to you), since they arent forcing anyone to do anything Boys can still behave how they want. They just can't dictate how girls should behave. You can't spend your time telling people what to do and be surprised when someone tells you that you can't tell them what to do. oh so they can only behave how they want as long as they align with your own morals. and i wouldnt really call it "dictating" cause that implies that these youtube trolls have some sort of authoritative power over her. which, really, is entirely up to her They can still want to see tits. That moral goal is still allowed. They could even talk to the girl about how much they love seeing tits. But telling her to show tits is different. in what way?
if you tell someone to show them tits you're a torturer. thats wut im getting out of dis.
|
On May 03 2013 07:37 Morken wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:19 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 07:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:11 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:08 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:55 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
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. We're not talking about coins we're talking about people's rights. Are you freaking kidding me? You are talking about coins on a table being picked up. I am talking about how people interact with each other. You equate talking to girls with grabbing coins. Since you obviously didn't bother to read what I wrote: again, for the third time: I just wanted to point out that the sentence you used to make your argument is contradictory. The sentence with the coins was an example for a contradiction. Do I have to explain what an example is? No? Good. "Don't tell others what to do." This is a contradiction, since you yourself tell someone what to do. This is all I wanted to say the whole time. Read this post and put it out of context with this sexism stuff (if your able to do so that is). It is only about this sentence, nothing more. "Don't tell others what to do" is not a contradiction, it is a setting of rules and boundaries. It is stated to inform the group of the freedoms inherent within each person and the protection of those freedoms within the context of human interaction. If you are unable to understand english--then maybe you should try a different mode of discussion. Someone pulling the learn-english-card. Cute. But that is not a matter of language. No matter what language I use to say this, it is always paradox. Because if it sets the rule that you should not tell others what to do, it violates it's own rule in the first place, since it tells people, what they should do. I see now that you dont really read or try to understand what I say, since you are just mad at me, because in your mind I seem to constantly try to state that women have no rights. What I actually mean is that it is unwise to tell people that they must not tell others what to do. You can say that what those people said is bad, is stupid, is immature, is disgusting, but once you can forbid people to say certain things, this is crossing a line and should never happen. Because then they can argue, that you calling them sexist is an attack and it goes on and on, until nobody is allowed to say anything anymore.
Telling people that they can't dictate commands to others is not commanding them to not dictate. It is setting a limit of a person's right to infringe on the rights of others.
A contradiction would be something akin to "I am lying to you now." wherein the message both contorts and changes as you process the the message of the sentence.
marking the limit of freedom that a person have to only his own actions both protects his own freedoms from the infringement of others while also protecting the freedoms of others from his own infringement.
That is why there is no contradiction. The very nature of having personal freedoms is the inability to take the freedoms away from others.
|
On May 03 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:32 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:25 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:21 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:14 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:10 FrankWalls wrote:
[quote]
but that's still not forcing her to do it, and they're just expressing their desire to "behave how they want" No, they're telling her to behave how they want her to behave much like a torturer is merely asking questions. hahahahahahaha what the fuck, and you still havent really explained why these boys can't behave how they want (which goes against your doctrine, according to you), since they arent forcing anyone to do anything Boys can still behave how they want. They just can't dictate how girls should behave. You can't spend your time telling people what to do and be surprised when someone tells you that you can't tell them what to do. oh so they can only behave how they want as long as they align with your own morals. and i wouldnt really call it "dictating" cause that implies that these youtube trolls have some sort of authoritative power over her. which, really, is entirely up to her They can still want to see tits. That moral goal is still allowed. They could even talk to the girl about how much they love seeing tits. But telling her to show tits is different. in what way? In that you are now dictating to a person how he/she should properly act. When you spend time telling people to do something you are no longer exercising your personal freedoms but infringing on the freedoms of others. If you honestly love tits. Then talk to her about tits. Talk to her about how you love seeing them, touching them, how they taste, have at it. If you honestly love seeing tits tell her how you can't wait for the next time you get to see them. Tell her about the movies you love watching because you get to see tits. You can be passionate about tits all you want. But you can't go around making people show you their tits. There's a difference between practicing your own freedoms, and infringing on the freedoms of others. "In that you are now dictating to a person how he/she should properly act." why is this objectively wrong to the point where they shouldnt be allowed to do it, in your opinion. "infringing on the freedoms of others." but again, it's not, because you're not forcing them to do anything. she has the freedom to not show her tits, and she has the freedom to not see these comments by not looking at them Because harassment does not require physical harm to be harassment? what's your point Because coercion does not require threats to be coercion? Definition of COERCE 1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge> 2 : to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing> 3 : to achieve by force or threat definition 2 is not a negative connotation, because coercion in that instance can be anything. "i was coerced into buying vegetables because they help out my diet." by 1, and 3's standards, she is not being coerced, and by 2, if she does something because she deems it better for her, that is again, her choice Because the world would be better if we stopped attacking each other? in your opinion. in my opinion, nobody should be censored, because people being literally forced (by your devices) is worse to me Because telling woman who has concerns about a community she's part of to shut up and not look at the comments does not help resolve that she still gets harassed? i didnt tell her to shut up. you're constant strawmanning is news network worthy though. i'm just saying that it's up to her to not look at the comments if she so wishes. Because living in a world where people are attacked and harassed for being who they are is a bad world to be in? to you
"Because harassment does not require physical harm to be harassment?" what's your point
"Because coercion does not require threats to be coercion?"
Definition of COERCE
1
: to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge>
2
: to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>
3
: to achieve by force or threat
definition 2 is not a negative connotation, because coercion in that instance can be anything. "i was coerced into buying vegetables because they help out my diet." by 1, and 3's standards, she is not being coerced, and by 2, if she does something because she deems it better for her, that is again, her choice
"Because the world would be better if we stopped attacking each other?" in your opinion. in my opinion, nobody should be censored, because people being literally forced (by your devices) is worse to me
"Because telling woman who has concerns about a community she's part of to shut up and not look at the comments does not help resolve that she still gets harassed?" i didnt tell her to shut up. you're constant strawmanning is news network worthy though. i'm just saying that it's up to her to not look at the comments if she so wishes.
"Because living in a world where people are attacked and harassed for being who they are is a bad world to be in?" to you
|
United States41936 Posts
On May 03 2013 07:39 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:42 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 06:32 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:41 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 20:35 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:31 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 20:28 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:12 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 20:10 Prevolved wrote:On May 02 2013 20:07 Ahelvin wrote:[quote] Stop responding to him, he is just acting like this because he is a stupid male. Male are always like that : they want to be right even if it means denying the fundamentals of what constitute reality. + Show Spoiler +How does it feel being disqualified on your gender? Yeah man, because two wrongs make a right. ... Did you even read what I wrote previously? There, let me help you. Wrong. Entirely wrong. Feminism is all about making people conscious of the prejudice associated with each gender (and men are also subjected to it, the proof being the existence of words such as "man up" or "get some balls" : men are always expected to act strong, tough...) in order for individuals to be more free of doing what they really want to do and being what they really want to be, independently of what the society would like them to be given their gender.What people do not also realize is that feminism is not about THREATENING MEN. It's about asking for gender not being a valid basis for prejudice, may it be for men and women. Feminism is also realizing men do not have to "man up" all the time, and have the right to display interest in things that are not "manly". Do you feel comfortable being around jocks constantly reminding you that you are not a real man because you do not watch sports, or workout, or that videogames are for sissies? Then congratulation, you are in some way a feminist. Stop pretending these things do not exist. That's actually historically untrue. Women were going to be given suffrage in the United States for example well before the 1900s, but they absolutely refused to even contemplate the possibility of having to participate in things such as the military draft and other historically 'male' obligations. Not only that, the feminists of the early 1900s didn't give a flying fuck that men below the age of 21 were dying in World War I in the hundreds of thousands, they just wanted their own right to vote and didn't care. Any notion that feminism ever was about equality is just an illusion that most feminists like to utilize in their arguments, when in reality it isn't at all. Where do you see a past tense in my post? I said "Feminist IS", not "Feminist WAS, HAS BEEN, or HAS ALWAYS BEEN". When you debate a democrat or a republican, do you debate what people of his or her party said 100 years ago? You do understand that even today that generally most feminists (I don't have an exact number, but I'm willing to bet 90%+) believe that a man should pay for child support, that he should do this, that, etc. and that the woman actually has all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. etc. Not to mention, that feminists even today will fight tooth and nail to prevent women from ever being a part of the draft, despite the fact that they like men have the right to vote. Feminism in general today is a load of bullshit, and it gets exposed big time when you start looking at their positions on child custody, child support, divorce, etc. etc. Alright this is simply completely wrong. Feminism is by definition about gender equality. Feminists oppose all of the things you just listed. You seem to mix up the terms "women" and "feminists" a lot I believe. No, they don't. Don't even fucking lie. Extreme feminists feel that women should have all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. so don't say that I am wrong. You're the one that is wrong, because I can easily list like 800 articles of feminists opposing more equality on that front. For example, various FEMINIST groups protest and do all sorts of illegal crap to prevent MRA presentations at Universities, but no one ever says anything about. Then again, don't we all just love double standards. Oh, and about women being able to join the Navy? What? http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG051-099/dg068.wcoc/dg068.wcochistory.htmRemember, this is the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT that major feminists groups opposed. Women also historically opposed the military draft during the 1940s because they didn't want to fight in WW2. So all this whole 'feminist wanting equality' is a load of bullshit. Feminists in general have always done what they feel has benefited them, and only benefited them. They could care less about equality among all people. As a feminist I disagree. It's not a homogenous movement. And you are in the minority. A vast majority of feminists agree that women should have more rights when it comes to things like child alimony, custody, divorce, leaving for labor, etc.
Citation needed.
|
On May 03 2013 07:41 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:23 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
This is complete nonsense. It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them? You actually haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about or, apparently, what anyone else is talking about. Literally nobody is arguing any of these things except you. Um... you actually said that you think its immoral. 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 It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. It is utterly detestable to assign an arbitrary price to one's sexuality or self-worth. I am against such behaviour for the same reason that I'd be against selling oneself into slavery. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes. You do not understand Kant. Kant's categorical imperative is that one ought to never treat any person merely as a means. This means using them as a means without their consent. When you purchase something at the grocery store and have the clerk check it out for you, you are using his labor as a means to facilitate your purchase, but in no way is this immoral. Your argument is flawed if it is based on this fundamental misunderstanding of the basic premise of Kantian ethics.
Thank you for the clarification; it doesn't really affect my argument though because Kant states that one must always treat another person as an end.
Interestingly, there are some socialist interpretations which actually turn your labor example into a condemnation of capitalism 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
