|
On May 03 2013 00:20 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 00:17 B.I.G. wrote:On May 02 2013 19:05 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:02 ShiroKaisen wrote:On May 02 2013 18:59 MasterOfPuppets wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Before I record the videos I create for various different companies I change my shirt from the loosely fitting singlet I usually wear during the day, to a high-collared t-shirt that will minimise my chances of being objectified. It’s less comfortable, it’s not what I would generally choose to wear, but I do it in attempt to avoid comments about my breasts, my chest, and my physique in general – I try to negate any harassment I possibly can.
So you purposefully make yourself physically uncomfortable and repress a little of your sexuality because you're bothered by random internet users? Seriously? Are you new to the internet? Do you not understand how this thing works? That's like IdrA not playing StarCraft anymore because someone told him he's not a good player. lmao
Obviously, it doesn’t work. Instead of having people disregard gender entirely as it really shouldn’t be relevant to a video about game news, there are streams of responses from men complaining that a woman hasn’t revealed herself to them, as though it’s expected or it’s their right to ask for that. Not only is this incredibly discouraging – these videos take hours and hours of effort to create – it’s easy to feel like you simply can’t win. You can only ignore the comments, but that would make responding to the pleasant viewers or the ones who ask genuine questions impossible.
Nope. It's not impossible. Many people manage to ignore trolls and uneducated children, even on Twitch whose chat is a cancerous cesspool, or YouTube comments ffs.
If jerks on the internet are given a free-pass and allowed to hide behind anonymity when they’re being sexist to someone, then there’s absolutely no reason you can’t use that same anonymity to criticise or educate them. Honestly, just seeing one down-vote or having one person stick up for me is a part of the reason I’m still here and I’m not going to stop fighting. Every single person has the power to fight sexism.
Is this woman stupid? People on the internet are given a free-pass to do and say far more than just being sexist to some uptight, sensitive and easily-offended woman like her who apparently doesn't understand how the internet works or that you can't censor it. I mean lmao, I'm not a big deal, but in my many years of competitive gaming I've had hundreds if not thousands of people call me a no-life, a basement dweller, a loser (all of which baseless assumptions ofc) and wishing things like death and cancer and rape on me and my family, JUST BECAUSE I BEAT THEM AT VIDEO GAMES. Do you think that affected me in any way, shape or form? No lol. I just laugh and brush it off, and it even makes me feel better about myself that these people are so easily irritated. Protip to her: stop being butthurt, either get off the Internet or learn to deal with. Seriously. Re-assess your life: does it really mean that much to you that some kiddies on the other side of the world purposefully post mean or "sexist" things about you just to get you riled up? Because you're kinda getting trolled here hun, getting trolled big time if you acknowledge their presence. So because it sucks, we shouldn't complain about it and try to change it? That's a shitty attitude. If you complain about it, the trolls have won. Trying to change it on any wide scale is futile, it's simply not going to happen. You can have a well-moderated community like TL, of course, where these people are banned without a second thought, but you will never exterminate this from the Internet, you simply can't. Wow I just have to say that that's a terrible attitude to have. This might be a relatively innocent example, but people with an attitude like this are the reason terrible things can happen on a grand scale. If everyone had this attitude of "just let it slide" black people would still be slaves, there would be no more jews, and unruly women would still be burnt at the stake. I realise very well that none of these issues have been resolved completely, but at least we're working on it. Again, I realise that the current matter is far less severe but I just think that this is a dangerous kind of attitude to have in general. No. Internet trolls have literally *zero* effect on anything, so long as you don't give them any attention. Stop pretending like there's an equation between internet and real life.
I guess you never heard of korea.
|
On May 03 2013 07:45 FrankWalls wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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
Devices? What devices?
It is wrong to tell people what to do--that does not mean we need a gestapo checking on every conversation arresting you for saying the wrong thing. It simply is an understanding that when you spend time telling people what to do you're in the wrong.
And you telling her she shouldn't complain and just ignore comments is telling her to shut up. You literally disagree and wished she didn't say that all these people are misogynists.
|
On May 03 2013 00:20 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 00:17 B.I.G. wrote:On May 02 2013 19:05 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:02 ShiroKaisen wrote:On May 02 2013 18:59 MasterOfPuppets wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Before I record the videos I create for various different companies I change my shirt from the loosely fitting singlet I usually wear during the day, to a high-collared t-shirt that will minimise my chances of being objectified. It’s less comfortable, it’s not what I would generally choose to wear, but I do it in attempt to avoid comments about my breasts, my chest, and my physique in general – I try to negate any harassment I possibly can.
So you purposefully make yourself physically uncomfortable and repress a little of your sexuality because you're bothered by random internet users? Seriously? Are you new to the internet? Do you not understand how this thing works? That's like IdrA not playing StarCraft anymore because someone told him he's not a good player. lmao
Obviously, it doesn’t work. Instead of having people disregard gender entirely as it really shouldn’t be relevant to a video about game news, there are streams of responses from men complaining that a woman hasn’t revealed herself to them, as though it’s expected or it’s their right to ask for that. Not only is this incredibly discouraging – these videos take hours and hours of effort to create – it’s easy to feel like you simply can’t win. You can only ignore the comments, but that would make responding to the pleasant viewers or the ones who ask genuine questions impossible.
Nope. It's not impossible. Many people manage to ignore trolls and uneducated children, even on Twitch whose chat is a cancerous cesspool, or YouTube comments ffs.
If jerks on the internet are given a free-pass and allowed to hide behind anonymity when they’re being sexist to someone, then there’s absolutely no reason you can’t use that same anonymity to criticise or educate them. Honestly, just seeing one down-vote or having one person stick up for me is a part of the reason I’m still here and I’m not going to stop fighting. Every single person has the power to fight sexism.
Is this woman stupid? People on the internet are given a free-pass to do and say far more than just being sexist to some uptight, sensitive and easily-offended woman like her who apparently doesn't understand how the internet works or that you can't censor it. I mean lmao, I'm not a big deal, but in my many years of competitive gaming I've had hundreds if not thousands of people call me a no-life, a basement dweller, a loser (all of which baseless assumptions ofc) and wishing things like death and cancer and rape on me and my family, JUST BECAUSE I BEAT THEM AT VIDEO GAMES. Do you think that affected me in any way, shape or form? No lol. I just laugh and brush it off, and it even makes me feel better about myself that these people are so easily irritated. Protip to her: stop being butthurt, either get off the Internet or learn to deal with. Seriously. Re-assess your life: does it really mean that much to you that some kiddies on the other side of the world purposefully post mean or "sexist" things about you just to get you riled up? Because you're kinda getting trolled here hun, getting trolled big time if you acknowledge their presence. So because it sucks, we shouldn't complain about it and try to change it? That's a shitty attitude. If you complain about it, the trolls have won. Trying to change it on any wide scale is futile, it's simply not going to happen. You can have a well-moderated community like TL, of course, where these people are banned without a second thought, but you will never exterminate this from the Internet, you simply can't. Wow I just have to say that that's a terrible attitude to have. This might be a relatively innocent example, but people with an attitude like this are the reason terrible things can happen on a grand scale. If everyone had this attitude of "just let it slide" black people would still be slaves, there would be no more jews, and unruly women would still be burnt at the stake. I realise very well that none of these issues have been resolved completely, but at least we're working on it. Again, I realise that the current matter is far less severe but I just think that this is a dangerous kind of attitude to have in general. No. Internet trolls have literally *zero* effect on anything, so long as you don't give them any attention. Stop pretending like there's an equation between internet and real life.
the internet is based on equations rooted in physical laws. communication through internet is the same in principle as communication through air. there is no difference between the internet and real life, the problem is that people don't acknowledge it.
|
Zurich15310 Posts
On May 03 2013 06:32 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +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:On May 02 2013 20:03 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
[quote]
But do you disagree that women on the internet naturally get a lot more attention for a disproportionately lesser amount of effort put into whatever? Not relevant. Can you not see that he just rationalised sexist abuse because this girl asked for it by doing something other than going "please send me sexist abuse"? If so, how can you not see that? People like him are literally the problem. 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.
Well, you are wrong.
I don't need 800 articles. One dated 2010 or later would suffice.
|
On May 03 2013 07:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:28 rezoacken wrote: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.
Nevermind then. Still you failed to respond how is she stopped...
BTW I dont have a problem with the article. Im okay with it, I just don't think its news nor it is avoidable.
|
On May 03 2013 07:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:45 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Devices? What devices? It is wrong to tell people what to do--that does not mean we need a gestapo checking on every conversation arresting you for saying the wrong thing. It simply is an understanding that when you spend time telling people what to do you're in the wrong. And you telling her she shouldn't complain and just ignore comments is telling her to shut up. You literally disagree and wished she didn't say that all these people are misogynists.
i have never once told her she shouldnt complain. i think it's silly to complain, but she has every right to.
and by devices i mean, if it were up to you, you would rather they never speak their minds. i just dont understand how you cant see how blatantly hypocritical it is of you to say that on one hand people should do what they want, but on the other hand it's ok for you to tell them not to post "show us your tits" on a youtube video because, well, that's just how you feel
|
On May 03 2013 07:47 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:41 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: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:
[quote]
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 
Yes, and if a person consents, you are treating them as an end because there is the recognition of their autonomy. That is what it means to be an end as a human, to be a rational, autonomous person.
As for your latter statement, you would be incorrect because socialism avoids questions of morality and consent. Marx, specifically, would see debates over proper morality and proper consent as red herrings, since those very frameworks of evaluation presume a particular system of values constructed by the bourgeoisie. Rather, Marx is concerned with the natural progression of humanity through history, and how dialectical materialism will manifest itself in human society.
|
On May 03 2013 07:56 FrankWalls wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:45 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Devices? What devices? It is wrong to tell people what to do--that does not mean we need a gestapo checking on every conversation arresting you for saying the wrong thing. It simply is an understanding that when you spend time telling people what to do you're in the wrong. And you telling her she shouldn't complain and just ignore comments is telling her to shut up. You literally disagree and wished she didn't say that all these people are misogynists. i have never once told her she shouldnt complain. i think it's silly to complain, but she has every right to. and by devices i mean, if it were up to you, you would rather they never speak their minds. i just dont understand how you cant see how blatantly hypocritical it is of you to say that on one hand people should do what they want, but on the other hand it's ok for you to tell them not to post "show us your tits" on a youtube video because, well, that's just how you feel
If I had it my way people would only talk about their loves and interests instead of wanting to tell people what to do. I'd rather have some kid awkwardly talking about how much he loves tits than have that same kid asking every girl he meets to show him tits at the hope of getting to see tits.
If I had it my way people would only be interested in the things that interest them and only do the things that they enjoy instead of trying to make people follow their lead.
|
On May 03 2013 07:53 zatic 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. Well, you are wrong. I don't need 800 articles. One dated 2010 or later would suffice.
I think he's talking about a certain group of feminists who are mostly bloggers. Whose influence is greatly exaggerated. Places like Feministing.
|
On May 03 2013 08:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:53 zatic 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. Well, you are wrong. I don't need 800 articles. One dated 2010 or later would suffice. I think he's talking about a certain group of feminists who are mostly bloggers. Whose influence is greatly exaggerated. Places like Feministing.
I find most MRA people really just hate bloggers more than anything.
|
On May 03 2013 07:57 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:47 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 07:41 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Yes, and if a person consents, you are treating them as an end because there is the recognition of their autonomy. That is what it means to be an end as a human, to be a rational, autonomous person. As for your latter statement, you would be incorrect because socialism avoids questions of morality and consent. Marx, specifically, would see debates over proper morality and proper consent as red herrings, since those very frameworks of evaluation presume a particular system of values constructed by the bourgeoisie. Rather, Marx is concerned with the natural progression of humanity through history, and how dialectical materialism will manifest itself in human society.
And yet Kant himself forbade prostitution because he thought it was like offering oneself up as a steak/object and because it demeans/does not respect one's humanity.
|
On May 03 2013 08:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:56 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:45 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Devices? What devices? It is wrong to tell people what to do--that does not mean we need a gestapo checking on every conversation arresting you for saying the wrong thing. It simply is an understanding that when you spend time telling people what to do you're in the wrong. And you telling her she shouldn't complain and just ignore comments is telling her to shut up. You literally disagree and wished she didn't say that all these people are misogynists. i have never once told her she shouldnt complain. i think it's silly to complain, but she has every right to. and by devices i mean, if it were up to you, you would rather they never speak their minds. i just dont understand how you cant see how blatantly hypocritical it is of you to say that on one hand people should do what they want, but on the other hand it's ok for you to tell them not to post "show us your tits" on a youtube video because, well, that's just how you feel If I had it my way people would only talk about their loves and interests instead of wanting to tell people what to do. I'd rather have some kid awkwardly talking about how much he loves tits than have that same kid asking every girl he meets to show him tits at the hope of getting to see tits. If I had it my way people would only be interested in the things that interest them and only do the things that they enjoy instead of trying to make people follow their lead.
im sure most of these trolls genuinely are interested in telling people to show them their tits online, or else they wouldnt do it
"trying to make people follow their lead" what is there some sort of troll moses or something?
|
On May 03 2013 08:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:56 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:45 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Devices? What devices? It is wrong to tell people what to do--that does not mean we need a gestapo checking on every conversation arresting you for saying the wrong thing. It simply is an understanding that when you spend time telling people what to do you're in the wrong. And you telling her she shouldn't complain and just ignore comments is telling her to shut up. You literally disagree and wished she didn't say that all these people are misogynists. i have never once told her she shouldnt complain. i think it's silly to complain, but she has every right to. and by devices i mean, if it were up to you, you would rather they never speak their minds. i just dont understand how you cant see how blatantly hypocritical it is of you to say that on one hand people should do what they want, but on the other hand it's ok for you to tell them not to post "show us your tits" on a youtube video because, well, that's just how you feel If I had it my way people would only talk about their loves and interests instead of wanting to tell people what to do. I'd rather have some kid awkwardly talking about how much he loves tits than have that same kid asking every girl he meets to show him tits at the hope of getting to see tits. If I had it my way people would only be interested in the things that interest them and only do the things that they enjoy instead of trying to make people follow their lead.
If getting people to follow their lead is the love and interest of certain people, why should that be any different?
|
On May 03 2013 08:03 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 07:57 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On May 03 2013 07:47 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 07:41 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: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:
[quote]
Um... you actually said that you think its immoral.
[quote] 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 Yes, and if a person consents, you are treating them as an end because there is the recognition of their autonomy. That is what it means to be an end as a human, to be a rational, autonomous person. As for your latter statement, you would be incorrect because socialism avoids questions of morality and consent. Marx, specifically, would see debates over proper morality and proper consent as red herrings, since those very frameworks of evaluation presume a particular system of values constructed by the bourgeoisie. Rather, Marx is concerned with the natural progression of humanity through history, and how dialectical materialism will manifest itself in human society. And yet Kant himself forbade prostitution because he thought it was like offering oneself up as a steak/object and because it demeans/does not respect one's humanity.
If you're talking about
"allow one’s person for profit to be used by another for the satisfaction of sexual desire, to make of oneself an Object of demand, is to dispose over oneself as over a thing and to make of oneself a thing on which another satisfies his appetite, just as he satisfies his hunger upon a steak. But since the inclination is directed towards one’s sex and not towards one’s humanity, it is clear that one thus partially sacrifices one’s humanity and thereby runs a moral risk. Human beings are, therefore, not entitled to offer themselves, for profit, as things for the use of others in the satisfaction of their sexual propensities"
Then you're kind of missing his point...
His problem with prostitution is not the selling of the person but how that person is then received/consumed. he is upset that purchasers of prostitutes satisfies themselves "just as he satisfies his hunger upon a steak" and only in that context does he have a standing against prostitution.
If women were more respected and not simply consumed like steak--he wouldn't have such an opposition against it. The moral risk comes from societies actions and perceptions of the prostitute.
|
On May 03 2013 08:08 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 08:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:56 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 07:45 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Devices? What devices? It is wrong to tell people what to do--that does not mean we need a gestapo checking on every conversation arresting you for saying the wrong thing. It simply is an understanding that when you spend time telling people what to do you're in the wrong. And you telling her she shouldn't complain and just ignore comments is telling her to shut up. You literally disagree and wished she didn't say that all these people are misogynists. i have never once told her she shouldnt complain. i think it's silly to complain, but she has every right to. and by devices i mean, if it were up to you, you would rather they never speak their minds. i just dont understand how you cant see how blatantly hypocritical it is of you to say that on one hand people should do what they want, but on the other hand it's ok for you to tell them not to post "show us your tits" on a youtube video because, well, that's just how you feel If I had it my way people would only talk about their loves and interests instead of wanting to tell people what to do. I'd rather have some kid awkwardly talking about how much he loves tits than have that same kid asking every girl he meets to show him tits at the hope of getting to see tits. If I had it my way people would only be interested in the things that interest them and only do the things that they enjoy instead of trying to make people follow their lead. If getting people to follow their lead is the love and interest of certain people, why should that be any different?
Because there's a difference between talking about your passion and telling people they should feel the same way.
|
On May 03 2013 08:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 08:03 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 07:57 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On May 03 2013 07:47 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 07:41 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Yes, and if a person consents, you are treating them as an end because there is the recognition of their autonomy. That is what it means to be an end as a human, to be a rational, autonomous person. As for your latter statement, you would be incorrect because socialism avoids questions of morality and consent. Marx, specifically, would see debates over proper morality and proper consent as red herrings, since those very frameworks of evaluation presume a particular system of values constructed by the bourgeoisie. Rather, Marx is concerned with the natural progression of humanity through history, and how dialectical materialism will manifest itself in human society. And yet Kant himself forbade prostitution because he thought it was like offering oneself up as a steak/object and because it demeans/does not respect one's humanity. If you're talking about "allow one’s person for profit to be used by another for the satisfaction of sexual desire, to make of oneself an Object of demand, is to dispose over oneself as over a thing and to make of oneself a thing on which another satisfies his appetite, just as he satisfies his hunger upon a steak. But since the inclination is directed towards one’s sex and not towards one’s humanity, it is clear that one thus partially sacrifices one’s humanity and thereby runs a moral risk. Human beings are, therefore, not entitled to offer themselves, for profit, as things for the use of others in the satisfaction of their sexual propensities" Then you're kind of missing his point... His problem with prostitution is not the selling of the person but how that person is then received/consumed. he is upset that purchasers of prostitutes satisfies themselves "just as he satisfies his hunger upon a steak" and only in that context does he have a standing against prostitution. If women were more respected and not simply consumed like steak--he wouldn't have such an opposition against it. The moral risk comes from societies actions and perceptions of the prostitute.
Please don't tell me I'm missing the point when you haven't even read the entire article from which you've quoted that. Kant's critique of prostitution is adaptable to modernity in spirit provided one preserves the notion that certain forms of sex only show concern for a part of a person rather than for their entirety. Kant believed that extra-marital sex necessarily resulted in conception of people as things (actually, he believed marital sex did too but that it was okay because marriage permits ownership) which is false; that said, many forms of sex (particularly prostitution and pornography) nearly always (perhaps even necessarily, I'm not sure) do not respect the full humanity of the participating parties, even if legal consent exists. Prostitution is almost certainly one of these kinds.
I would be willing to accept certain kinds of polyamory as morally acceptable, at least on the grounds of sexuality. Prostitution is damned by its monetary element, though. The transactional nature pretty much precludes (at least in practice) any consideration of the dignity of the person per se.
|
Canada11262 Posts
I don't understand why these sorts of articles generate so much push back and so many troll defenders. Ok, so maybe they aren't intentionally defending the trolls, but they are vehemently arguing that defeat is inevitable and to just 'deal with it.' Perhaps defeat is inevitable, but defeatism is hardly a point that needs further endorsement.
And yet these threads invariably have very strenously argued against these sorts of articles therein creating part of the unintentional bulwark behind which the 'trolls' continue to operate. "Trolls" I feel has largely been over-applied to the general internet population. What if many of these 'trolls' are not trolling at all, but simply hold very repugnant ideas about women. Do they require our implicit passionate endorsement by strenously arguing that others need to simply 'deal with it.'
While personal defeatism is certainly acceptable in the face of such rampant bad behaviour on the internet, why attack or get in the way of those who would inform in the hopes reform. If defeat is inevitable, let it be defeated inevitably. It certainly will not require your help.
|
On May 03 2013 07:48 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 00:20 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 03 2013 00:17 B.I.G. wrote:On May 02 2013 19:05 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:02 ShiroKaisen wrote:On May 02 2013 18:59 MasterOfPuppets wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Before I record the videos I create for various different companies I change my shirt from the loosely fitting singlet I usually wear during the day, to a high-collared t-shirt that will minimise my chances of being objectified. It’s less comfortable, it’s not what I would generally choose to wear, but I do it in attempt to avoid comments about my breasts, my chest, and my physique in general – I try to negate any harassment I possibly can.
So you purposefully make yourself physically uncomfortable and repress a little of your sexuality because you're bothered by random internet users? Seriously? Are you new to the internet? Do you not understand how this thing works? That's like IdrA not playing StarCraft anymore because someone told him he's not a good player. lmao
Obviously, it doesn’t work. Instead of having people disregard gender entirely as it really shouldn’t be relevant to a video about game news, there are streams of responses from men complaining that a woman hasn’t revealed herself to them, as though it’s expected or it’s their right to ask for that. Not only is this incredibly discouraging – these videos take hours and hours of effort to create – it’s easy to feel like you simply can’t win. You can only ignore the comments, but that would make responding to the pleasant viewers or the ones who ask genuine questions impossible.
Nope. It's not impossible. Many people manage to ignore trolls and uneducated children, even on Twitch whose chat is a cancerous cesspool, or YouTube comments ffs.
If jerks on the internet are given a free-pass and allowed to hide behind anonymity when they’re being sexist to someone, then there’s absolutely no reason you can’t use that same anonymity to criticise or educate them. Honestly, just seeing one down-vote or having one person stick up for me is a part of the reason I’m still here and I’m not going to stop fighting. Every single person has the power to fight sexism.
Is this woman stupid? People on the internet are given a free-pass to do and say far more than just being sexist to some uptight, sensitive and easily-offended woman like her who apparently doesn't understand how the internet works or that you can't censor it. I mean lmao, I'm not a big deal, but in my many years of competitive gaming I've had hundreds if not thousands of people call me a no-life, a basement dweller, a loser (all of which baseless assumptions ofc) and wishing things like death and cancer and rape on me and my family, JUST BECAUSE I BEAT THEM AT VIDEO GAMES. Do you think that affected me in any way, shape or form? No lol. I just laugh and brush it off, and it even makes me feel better about myself that these people are so easily irritated. Protip to her: stop being butthurt, either get off the Internet or learn to deal with. Seriously. Re-assess your life: does it really mean that much to you that some kiddies on the other side of the world purposefully post mean or "sexist" things about you just to get you riled up? Because you're kinda getting trolled here hun, getting trolled big time if you acknowledge their presence. So because it sucks, we shouldn't complain about it and try to change it? That's a shitty attitude. If you complain about it, the trolls have won. Trying to change it on any wide scale is futile, it's simply not going to happen. You can have a well-moderated community like TL, of course, where these people are banned without a second thought, but you will never exterminate this from the Internet, you simply can't. Wow I just have to say that that's a terrible attitude to have. This might be a relatively innocent example, but people with an attitude like this are the reason terrible things can happen on a grand scale. If everyone had this attitude of "just let it slide" black people would still be slaves, there would be no more jews, and unruly women would still be burnt at the stake. I realise very well that none of these issues have been resolved completely, but at least we're working on it. Again, I realise that the current matter is far less severe but I just think that this is a dangerous kind of attitude to have in general. No. Internet trolls have literally *zero* effect on anything, so long as you don't give them any attention. Stop pretending like there's an equation between internet and real life. I guess you never heard of korea.
and korea has never heard of the rest of the world? i dont see your point.
|
On May 03 2013 08:25 Falling wrote:
I don't understand why these sorts of articles generate so much push back and so many troll defenders. Ok, so maybe they aren't intentionally defending the trolls, but they are vehemently arguing that defeat is inevitable and to just 'deal with it.' Perhaps defeat is inevitable, but defeatism is hardly a point that needs further endorsement.
And yet these threads invariably have very strenously argued against these sorts of articles therein creating part of the unintentional bulwark behind which the 'trolls' continue to operate. "Trolls" I feel has largely been over-applied to the general internet population. What if many of these 'trolls' are not trolling at all, but simply hold very repugnant ideas about women. Do they require our implicit passionate endorsement by strenously arguing that others need to simply 'deal with it.'
While personal defeatism is certainly acceptable in the face of such rampant bad behaviour on the internet, why attack or get in the way of those who would inform in the hopes reform. If defeat is inevitable, let it be defeated inevitably. It certainly will not require your help.
I suppose that if you believe that defeat is inevitable, then the tension caused by opposing the inevitable is therefore unnecessary. To put into perspective, if we all accepted that people are just going to be bad on the internet no matter what, then writing articles and creating social movement groups only causes unnecessary tension wherein nobody benefits because (again) defeat is inevitable.
|
I wonder if it's a difference in culture? I can't imagine progamers like Boxer or Flash asking Korean girl gamers to take off their clothes lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
