|
On March 18 2015 08:59 lastpuritan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 03:07 Slaughter wrote: Your a moron who knows a little and thinks he knows a lot. You are simply ignorant and you really aren't worth it. You have no actual idea about the nuances of human biology and its plasticity, nor do you have any clue what different growth and developmental curves for males and females actually say in the context of our species life history. You are taking the lowest common denominator and justifying your stupidity. This is why they say a little knowledge can be dangerous.
This right here is what is wrong with science + media. The media always latches on to whatever seems sexy and ignores if it is bad science or not. There has been almost limitless literature that touch on the Nature v Nurture in relation to differences between the sexes. Guess what ones get most of the play? The bad science that makes tantalizing claims.
We talk about harassment and there is this, i am not an old member, i dont know if insulting is allowed in this website and dont even know how to report, yet. We should not be allowed to insult anyone even if he / she talks completely wrong or just because we dont agree.Also, it is so nice to see that you have outstanding courage to use such words. Im hoping you would say exactly the same words when you see someone in your real-life, mister Slaughter my ass. first, it's totally okay to call someone out on TL, so long as it's done intelligently, and well versed.
secondly, what slaughter said is completely tame... rofl. if you think "ignorant" and "moron" are actual insults, you need to brush up on your urban dictionary.
On March 18 2015 09:00 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 03:47 Velr wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 00:40 Plansix wrote:On March 18 2015 00:31 Zocat wrote:http://i.imgur.com/B0F70Zc.pngThis image was linked in this thread. I read the rest of the study and noticed some other interesting things: Since we're talking (at least the topic was) about gaming: In gaming - men are more likely to be harassed. I thus don't really understand why everyone is always claiming that gamers are so bad. http://i.imgur.com/EJyVj9G.pngIs another interesting thing. Women respond stronger to harassment. It's unknown if they receive more serious harassment or if they just react stronger to it (possible leading to "get a thicker skin"). You didn't show the(but did link to) the part of that survey where women receive almost 50% more sexual harassment, over 50% more sustained harassment and stalking. Its quality over quantity and the harassment is over a longer period. They are more effected because the harassment they receive is straight up scarier. This has already been adressed : insults and harassment online is sexualize, which mean that when it touch women it's sexual harassment, and when it's against men, it's verbal harassment and threat on the physical integrity (beating, etc.). Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? No. People online get flamed. No matter and not because of the gender. The flamers just adjust their flames based on their knowlede about the target. There is 0 need for a distinction. Except there is a distinction, and our societies make that distinction - for good reasons. If a white person starts insulting a black person and calls him a "dumb nigger asshole", it will not be seen as the same thing as if that person had called him a "dumb asshole". According to your brilliant argument, the person insulting "just adjusted his insults based on their knowledge about the target". Yet that doesn't change the fact that insulting the black person through his skin color introduced a racist component in the insult. Likewise, if a homosexual gets called a "dumb cock-sucking faggot asshole" by a straight person who knows he's a homosexual, the negative reference to the sexuality of the homosexual getting insulted will have introduced a homophobic component in the insult. The same applies to sexist insults targeting women for being women. I have yet to see a man attacked online for being a man, and even if it happens it certainly does not happen even remotely as often as women get attacked through negative referencing to their identity as women. If another guy insults the masculinity of a straight man, although also abuse, it is still completely different than attacking that man for being a man. So, now that we've highlighted this distinction, let's make something else clear: being targeted negatively for being part of a group which is already discriminated against in our societies is harder than being on the receiving end of generic insults for two reasons. First, it's harder because it targets your identity specifically. If you get told "I hope you get raped" when you're a guy who's never had any fear of being raped in his life, it's much easier to shrug off the insult than if you're a person who's been raped in the past, or who lives knowing there's a very real possibility of them getting raped if they're not careful in many situations. If you get told "I hope you die from cancer" and you don't have cancer/don't consider yourself likely to get cancer, it just won't have much of an effect on you. If you actually have cancer, that's a very different story. If you get told "go eat fried chicken you nigger monkey" as a white person, chances are it won't have much of an effect on you either, while if you're black that's an attack directly targeting a core element of how you define your identity (your skin color). Second, being part of a group that is discriminated against/in a position of weakness in our societies (to whatever degree), insults targeting you for being part of that group only serve to highlight further this position. You are reminded that you are part of a group which, at the systemic level, is not the "normal", dominant group. It is therefore utterly dishonest to pretend that all insults are equal regardless of who is being targeted and why. Saying that "everyone gets insulted" completely misses the point. This being said, something else has to be mentioned: women, homosexuals, non-whites, etc., have not exactly been waiting for some posters' brilliant insight to "ignore the insults". Of course they are trying to not let these insults affect them too much or at all - they don't need your advice for that. But what they're also trying to do is denounce such sexist, homophobic, racist insults and the exclusion dynamics that accompany them, in order to fight them and hopefully make them progressively less socially acceptable, and ultimately rarer, in social arenas such as video games. How exactly is that not a positive thing? Stop condescendingly telling them to "grow thicker skins", recognize that many have not exactly waited for you to learn not to let insults affect them, and recognize also that they've gone beyond that to attempt to actually push back against the sexism, homophobia, and racism that they've been facing - which, I'll have you know, is actually more impressive and difficult than simply ignoring a problem. And this push back against sexism and other forms of discrimination/hate speech is something everyone should be happy about. Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 00:40 Plansix wrote:On March 18 2015 00:31 Zocat wrote:http://i.imgur.com/B0F70Zc.pngThis image was linked in this thread. I read the rest of the study and noticed some other interesting things: Since we're talking (at least the topic was) about gaming: In gaming - men are more likely to be harassed. I thus don't really understand why everyone is always claiming that gamers are so bad. http://i.imgur.com/EJyVj9G.pngIs another interesting thing. Women respond stronger to harassment. It's unknown if they receive more serious harassment or if they just react stronger to it (possible leading to "get a thicker skin"). You didn't show the(but did link to) the part of that survey where women receive almost 50% more sexual harassment, over 50% more sustained harassment and stalking. Its quality over quantity and the harassment is over a longer period. They are more effected because the harassment they receive is straight up scarier. This has already been adressed : insults and harassment online is sexualize, which mean that when it touch women it's sexual harassment, and when it's against men, it's verbal harassment and threat on the physical integrity (beating, etc.). Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? You can't prove that tho (it's a question of intention). Some people here believe some people would insult anybody on the internet, it's just that when they know that they are facing a woman, they adjust their insults to their target(s). First, women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well. Second, with regards to your "adjusted insults" comment, see above. You make it sound as if whites are some how "impervious" to racial insults. lol. If you're irish, you get potato famine and ginger insults. If you're jewish you get illuminati, shekel stealing, insults. If you're eastern european, you get insults regarding Russian politics, and being a gypsy. If you're british you get made fun of being a britbong, and having retarded nanny state laws. etc etc. Even white people can get insulted if given any extra information on their background. It's whatever "triggers" people is what they target.
|
On March 18 2015 09:07 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:47 Velr wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 00:40 Plansix wrote:On March 18 2015 00:31 Zocat wrote:http://i.imgur.com/B0F70Zc.pngThis image was linked in this thread. I read the rest of the study and noticed some other interesting things: Since we're talking (at least the topic was) about gaming: In gaming - men are more likely to be harassed. I thus don't really understand why everyone is always claiming that gamers are so bad. http://i.imgur.com/EJyVj9G.pngIs another interesting thing. Women respond stronger to harassment. It's unknown if they receive more serious harassment or if they just react stronger to it (possible leading to "get a thicker skin"). You didn't show the(but did link to) the part of that survey where women receive almost 50% more sexual harassment, over 50% more sustained harassment and stalking. Its quality over quantity and the harassment is over a longer period. They are more effected because the harassment they receive is straight up scarier. This has already been adressed : insults and harassment online is sexualize, which mean that when it touch women it's sexual harassment, and when it's against men, it's verbal harassment and threat on the physical integrity (beating, etc.). Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? No. People online get flamed. No matter and not because of the gender. The flamers just adjust their flames based on their knowlede about the target. There is 0 need for a distinction. Except there is a distinction, and our societies make that distinction - for good reasons. If a white person starts insulting a black person and calls him a "dumb nigger asshole", it will not be seen as the same thing as if that person had called him a "dumb asshole". According to your brilliant argument, the person insulting "just adjusted his insults based on their knowledge about the target". Yet that doesn't change the fact that insulting the black person through his skin color introduced a racist component in the insult. Likewise, if a homosexual gets called a "dumb cock-sucking faggot asshole" by a straight person who knows he's a homosexual, the negative reference to the sexuality of the homosexual getting insulted will have introduced a homophobic component in the insult. The same applies to sexist insults targeting women for being women. I have yet to see a man attacked online for being a man, and even if it happens it certainly does not happen even remotely as often as women get attacked through negative referencing to their identity as women. If another guy insults the masculinity of a straight man, although also abuse, it is still completely different than attacking that man for being a man. So, now that we've highlighted this distinction, let's make something else clear: being targeted negatively for being part of a group which is already discriminated against in our societies is harder than being on the receiving end of generic insults for two reasons. First, it's harder because it targets your identity specifically. If you get told "I hope you get raped" when you're a guy who's never had any fear of being raped in his life, it's much easier to shrug off the insult than if you're a person who's been raped in the past, or who lives knowing there's a very real possibility of them getting raped if they're not careful in many situations. If you get told "I hope you die from cancer" and you don't have cancer/don't consider yourself likely to get cancer, it just won't have much of an effect on you. If you actually have cancer, that's a very different story. If you get told "go eat fried chicken you nigger monkey" as a white person, chances are it won't have much of an effect on you either, while if you're black that's an attack directly targeting a core element of how you define your identity (your skin color). Second, being part of a group that is discriminated against/in a position of weakness in our societies (to whatever degree), insults targeting you for being part of that group only serve to highlight further this position. You are reminded that you are part of a group which, at the systemic level, is not the "normal", dominant group. It is therefore utterly dishonest to pretend that all insults are equal regardless of who is being targeted and why. Saying that "everyone gets insulted" completely misses the point. This being said, something else has to be mentioned: women, homosexuals, non-whites, etc., have not exactly been waiting for some posters' brilliant insight to "ignore the insults". Of course they are trying to not let these insults affect them too much or at all - they don't need your advice for that. But what they're also trying to do is denounce such sexist, homophobic, racist insults and the exclusion dynamics that accompany them, in order to fight them and hopefully make them progressively less socially acceptable, and ultimately rarer, in social arenas such as video games. How exactly is that not a positive thing? Stop condescendingly telling them to "grow thicker skins", recognize that many have not exactly waited for you to learn not to let insults affect them, and recognize also that they've gone beyond that to attempt to actually push back against the sexism, homophobia, and racism that they've been facing - which, I'll have you know, is actually more impressive and difficult than simply ignoring a problem. And this push back against sexism and other forms of discrimination/hate speech is something everyone should be happy about. On March 18 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 00:40 Plansix wrote:On March 18 2015 00:31 Zocat wrote:http://i.imgur.com/B0F70Zc.pngThis image was linked in this thread. I read the rest of the study and noticed some other interesting things: Since we're talking (at least the topic was) about gaming: In gaming - men are more likely to be harassed. I thus don't really understand why everyone is always claiming that gamers are so bad. http://i.imgur.com/EJyVj9G.pngIs another interesting thing. Women respond stronger to harassment. It's unknown if they receive more serious harassment or if they just react stronger to it (possible leading to "get a thicker skin"). You didn't show the(but did link to) the part of that survey where women receive almost 50% more sexual harassment, over 50% more sustained harassment and stalking. Its quality over quantity and the harassment is over a longer period. They are more effected because the harassment they receive is straight up scarier. This has already been adressed : insults and harassment online is sexualize, which mean that when it touch women it's sexual harassment, and when it's against men, it's verbal harassment and threat on the physical integrity (beating, etc.). Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? You can't prove that tho (it's a question of intention). Some people here believe some people would insult anybody on the internet, it's just that when they know that they are facing a woman, they adjust their insults to their target(s). First, women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well. Second, with regards to your "adjusted insults" comment, see above. You make it sound as if whites are some how "impervious" to racial insults. lol. If you're irish, you get potato famine and ginger insults. If you're jewish you get illuminati, shekel stealing, insults. If you're eastern european, you get insults regarding Russian politics, and being a gypsy. If you're british you get made fun of being a britbong, and having retarded nanny state laws. etc etc. Even white people can get insulted if given any extra information on their background. It's whatever "triggers" people is what they target. I'm not "making it sound as" anything. When I mentioned homosexuals, did you think I was only referring to non-white homosexuals or something? My point was precisely about the singling out of specific groups, obviously not only based on skin color. I addressed what you just said in my post.
|
Oh okay, from now on i'll call anyone who disagrees with me as stupid, moron, ignorant because i think its well versed, and smartly done. And yes, this is an insult and i'm pretty sure its offensive, go try your luck with a lawyer and cop and see what happens.
|
On March 18 2015 09:37 lastpuritan wrote: Oh okay, from now on i'll call anyone who disagrees with me as stupid, moron, ignorant because i think its well versed, and smartly done. And yes, this is an insult and i'm pretty sure its offensive, go try your luck with a lawyer and cop and see what happens.
There's nothing illegal about being offensive to lawyers or police.
This sites been around a while. People have thrown jabs at other people while posting and that will never change. There's a difference between saying someone is a moron while explaining why you think they're an idiot and just posting "Rofl you're fucking retarded, kill yourself dipshit". One of those contributes literally nothing to any discussion and will end in bans.
|
On March 18 2015 09:21 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 09:07 wei2coolman wrote:On March 18 2015 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:47 Velr wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 00:40 Plansix wrote:On March 18 2015 00:31 Zocat wrote:http://i.imgur.com/B0F70Zc.pngThis image was linked in this thread. I read the rest of the study and noticed some other interesting things: Since we're talking (at least the topic was) about gaming: In gaming - men are more likely to be harassed. I thus don't really understand why everyone is always claiming that gamers are so bad. http://i.imgur.com/EJyVj9G.pngIs another interesting thing. Women respond stronger to harassment. It's unknown if they receive more serious harassment or if they just react stronger to it (possible leading to "get a thicker skin"). You didn't show the(but did link to) the part of that survey where women receive almost 50% more sexual harassment, over 50% more sustained harassment and stalking. Its quality over quantity and the harassment is over a longer period. They are more effected because the harassment they receive is straight up scarier. This has already been adressed : insults and harassment online is sexualize, which mean that when it touch women it's sexual harassment, and when it's against men, it's verbal harassment and threat on the physical integrity (beating, etc.). Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? No. People online get flamed. No matter and not because of the gender. The flamers just adjust their flames based on their knowlede about the target. There is 0 need for a distinction. Except there is a distinction, and our societies make that distinction - for good reasons. If a white person starts insulting a black person and calls him a "dumb nigger asshole", it will not be seen as the same thing as if that person had called him a "dumb asshole". According to your brilliant argument, the person insulting "just adjusted his insults based on their knowledge about the target". Yet that doesn't change the fact that insulting the black person through his skin color introduced a racist component in the insult. Likewise, if a homosexual gets called a "dumb cock-sucking faggot asshole" by a straight person who knows he's a homosexual, the negative reference to the sexuality of the homosexual getting insulted will have introduced a homophobic component in the insult. The same applies to sexist insults targeting women for being women. I have yet to see a man attacked online for being a man, and even if it happens it certainly does not happen even remotely as often as women get attacked through negative referencing to their identity as women. If another guy insults the masculinity of a straight man, although also abuse, it is still completely different than attacking that man for being a man. So, now that we've highlighted this distinction, let's make something else clear: being targeted negatively for being part of a group which is already discriminated against in our societies is harder than being on the receiving end of generic insults for two reasons. First, it's harder because it targets your identity specifically. If you get told "I hope you get raped" when you're a guy who's never had any fear of being raped in his life, it's much easier to shrug off the insult than if you're a person who's been raped in the past, or who lives knowing there's a very real possibility of them getting raped if they're not careful in many situations. If you get told "I hope you die from cancer" and you don't have cancer/don't consider yourself likely to get cancer, it just won't have much of an effect on you. If you actually have cancer, that's a very different story. If you get told "go eat fried chicken you nigger monkey" as a white person, chances are it won't have much of an effect on you either, while if you're black that's an attack directly targeting a core element of how you define your identity (your skin color). Second, being part of a group that is discriminated against/in a position of weakness in our societies (to whatever degree), insults targeting you for being part of that group only serve to highlight further this position. You are reminded that you are part of a group which, at the systemic level, is not the "normal", dominant group. It is therefore utterly dishonest to pretend that all insults are equal regardless of who is being targeted and why. Saying that "everyone gets insulted" completely misses the point. This being said, something else has to be mentioned: women, homosexuals, non-whites, etc., have not exactly been waiting for some posters' brilliant insight to "ignore the insults". Of course they are trying to not let these insults affect them too much or at all - they don't need your advice for that. But what they're also trying to do is denounce such sexist, homophobic, racist insults and the exclusion dynamics that accompany them, in order to fight them and hopefully make them progressively less socially acceptable, and ultimately rarer, in social arenas such as video games. How exactly is that not a positive thing? Stop condescendingly telling them to "grow thicker skins", recognize that many have not exactly waited for you to learn not to let insults affect them, and recognize also that they've gone beyond that to attempt to actually push back against the sexism, homophobia, and racism that they've been facing - which, I'll have you know, is actually more impressive and difficult than simply ignoring a problem. And this push back against sexism and other forms of discrimination/hate speech is something everyone should be happy about. On March 18 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 00:40 Plansix wrote:On March 18 2015 00:31 Zocat wrote:http://i.imgur.com/B0F70Zc.pngThis image was linked in this thread. I read the rest of the study and noticed some other interesting things: Since we're talking (at least the topic was) about gaming: In gaming - men are more likely to be harassed. I thus don't really understand why everyone is always claiming that gamers are so bad. http://i.imgur.com/EJyVj9G.pngIs another interesting thing. Women respond stronger to harassment. It's unknown if they receive more serious harassment or if they just react stronger to it (possible leading to "get a thicker skin"). You didn't show the(but did link to) the part of that survey where women receive almost 50% more sexual harassment, over 50% more sustained harassment and stalking. Its quality over quantity and the harassment is over a longer period. They are more effected because the harassment they receive is straight up scarier. This has already been adressed : insults and harassment online is sexualize, which mean that when it touch women it's sexual harassment, and when it's against men, it's verbal harassment and threat on the physical integrity (beating, etc.). Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? You can't prove that tho (it's a question of intention). Some people here believe some people would insult anybody on the internet, it's just that when they know that they are facing a woman, they adjust their insults to their target(s). First, women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well. Second, with regards to your "adjusted insults" comment, see above. You make it sound as if whites are some how "impervious" to racial insults. lol. If you're irish, you get potato famine and ginger insults. If you're jewish you get illuminati, shekel stealing, insults. If you're eastern european, you get insults regarding Russian politics, and being a gypsy. If you're british you get made fun of being a britbong, and having retarded nanny state laws. etc etc. Even white people can get insulted if given any extra information on their background. It's whatever "triggers" people is what they target. I'm not "making it sound as" anything. When I mentioned homosexuals, did you think I was only referring to non-white homosexuals or something? My point was precisely about the singling out of specific groups, obviously not only based on skin color. I addressed what you just said in my post. I made a post about this earlier in the thread, and I'm sure it's been buried somewhere in all this shit storm. But it essentially said, that there's an argument to be made regarding the type of insults being used towards female gamers perhaps mirrors the societal undertones in regards to sexism. However, that is a VASTLY different argument than saying female gamers are targeted because of their sex.
On March 18 2015 09:37 lastpuritan wrote: Oh okay, from now on i'll call anyone who disagrees with me as stupid, moron, ignorant because i think its well versed, and smartly done. And yes, this is an insult and i'm pretty sure its offensive, go try your luck with a lawyer and cop and see what happens. Heh, if you're a judge you can fling insults at cops and lawyers all day. It's about a position of power at that point. lol.
|
On March 18 2015 09:47 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 09:37 lastpuritan wrote: Oh okay, from now on i'll call anyone who disagrees with me as stupid, moron, ignorant because i think its well versed, and smartly done. And yes, this is an insult and i'm pretty sure its offensive, go try your luck with a lawyer and cop and see what happens. There's nothing illegal about being offensive to lawyers or police. This sites been around a while. People have thrown jabs at other people while posting and that will never change. There's a difference between saying someone is a moron while explaining why you think they're an idiot and just posting "Rofl you're fucking retarded, kill yourself dipshit". One of those contributes literally nothing to any discussion and will end in bans.
His insulting message contributes what? Except declaration of my stupidity,- if you count that as an explanation to our previous discussion-. You cant use offensive words in a public place that may provoke violent reaction. I stopped using "moron" when i was 16 and i advice you the same, it is a really poor behavior.
|
On March 18 2015 09:53 lastpuritan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 09:47 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 18 2015 09:37 lastpuritan wrote: Oh okay, from now on i'll call anyone who disagrees with me as stupid, moron, ignorant because i think its well versed, and smartly done. And yes, this is an insult and i'm pretty sure its offensive, go try your luck with a lawyer and cop and see what happens. There's nothing illegal about being offensive to lawyers or police. This sites been around a while. People have thrown jabs at other people while posting and that will never change. There's a difference between saying someone is a moron while explaining why you think they're an idiot and just posting "Rofl you're fucking retarded, kill yourself dipshit". One of those contributes literally nothing to any discussion and will end in bans. His insulting message contributes what? Except declaration of my stupidity,- if you count that as an explanation to our previous discussion-. You cant use offensive words in a public place that may provoke violent reaction. I stopped using "moron" when i was 16 and i advice you the same, it is a really poor behavior.
I think you might want to recheck the law because there is certainly nothing against using offensive words in public places. The first amendment is for those exact purposes. For saying the most offensive things that no one agrees with and being free to do so.
There's a reason groups like the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church exist. They say stuff that may provoke a violent reaction from anyone with 2 functioning braincells. But they can legally say whatever the hell they want and if you try and stop them they'll sue the hell out of you. That's how the WBC sustains itself, winning lawsuits.
|
On March 18 2015 09:49 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 09:21 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 09:07 wei2coolman wrote:On March 18 2015 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:47 Velr wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 00:40 Plansix wrote:On March 18 2015 00:31 Zocat wrote:http://i.imgur.com/B0F70Zc.pngThis image was linked in this thread. I read the rest of the study and noticed some other interesting things: Since we're talking (at least the topic was) about gaming: In gaming - men are more likely to be harassed. I thus don't really understand why everyone is always claiming that gamers are so bad. http://i.imgur.com/EJyVj9G.pngIs another interesting thing. Women respond stronger to harassment. It's unknown if they receive more serious harassment or if they just react stronger to it (possible leading to "get a thicker skin"). You didn't show the(but did link to) the part of that survey where women receive almost 50% more sexual harassment, over 50% more sustained harassment and stalking. Its quality over quantity and the harassment is over a longer period. They are more effected because the harassment they receive is straight up scarier. This has already been adressed : insults and harassment online is sexualize, which mean that when it touch women it's sexual harassment, and when it's against men, it's verbal harassment and threat on the physical integrity (beating, etc.). Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? No. People online get flamed. No matter and not because of the gender. The flamers just adjust their flames based on their knowlede about the target. There is 0 need for a distinction. Except there is a distinction, and our societies make that distinction - for good reasons. If a white person starts insulting a black person and calls him a "dumb nigger asshole", it will not be seen as the same thing as if that person had called him a "dumb asshole". According to your brilliant argument, the person insulting "just adjusted his insults based on their knowledge about the target". Yet that doesn't change the fact that insulting the black person through his skin color introduced a racist component in the insult. Likewise, if a homosexual gets called a "dumb cock-sucking faggot asshole" by a straight person who knows he's a homosexual, the negative reference to the sexuality of the homosexual getting insulted will have introduced a homophobic component in the insult. The same applies to sexist insults targeting women for being women. I have yet to see a man attacked online for being a man, and even if it happens it certainly does not happen even remotely as often as women get attacked through negative referencing to their identity as women. If another guy insults the masculinity of a straight man, although also abuse, it is still completely different than attacking that man for being a man. So, now that we've highlighted this distinction, let's make something else clear: being targeted negatively for being part of a group which is already discriminated against in our societies is harder than being on the receiving end of generic insults for two reasons. First, it's harder because it targets your identity specifically. If you get told "I hope you get raped" when you're a guy who's never had any fear of being raped in his life, it's much easier to shrug off the insult than if you're a person who's been raped in the past, or who lives knowing there's a very real possibility of them getting raped if they're not careful in many situations. If you get told "I hope you die from cancer" and you don't have cancer/don't consider yourself likely to get cancer, it just won't have much of an effect on you. If you actually have cancer, that's a very different story. If you get told "go eat fried chicken you nigger monkey" as a white person, chances are it won't have much of an effect on you either, while if you're black that's an attack directly targeting a core element of how you define your identity (your skin color). Second, being part of a group that is discriminated against/in a position of weakness in our societies (to whatever degree), insults targeting you for being part of that group only serve to highlight further this position. You are reminded that you are part of a group which, at the systemic level, is not the "normal", dominant group. It is therefore utterly dishonest to pretend that all insults are equal regardless of who is being targeted and why. Saying that "everyone gets insulted" completely misses the point. This being said, something else has to be mentioned: women, homosexuals, non-whites, etc., have not exactly been waiting for some posters' brilliant insight to "ignore the insults". Of course they are trying to not let these insults affect them too much or at all - they don't need your advice for that. But what they're also trying to do is denounce such sexist, homophobic, racist insults and the exclusion dynamics that accompany them, in order to fight them and hopefully make them progressively less socially acceptable, and ultimately rarer, in social arenas such as video games. How exactly is that not a positive thing? Stop condescendingly telling them to "grow thicker skins", recognize that many have not exactly waited for you to learn not to let insults affect them, and recognize also that they've gone beyond that to attempt to actually push back against the sexism, homophobia, and racism that they've been facing - which, I'll have you know, is actually more impressive and difficult than simply ignoring a problem. And this push back against sexism and other forms of discrimination/hate speech is something everyone should be happy about. On March 18 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 00:40 Plansix wrote:On March 18 2015 00:31 Zocat wrote:http://i.imgur.com/B0F70Zc.pngThis image was linked in this thread. I read the rest of the study and noticed some other interesting things: Since we're talking (at least the topic was) about gaming: In gaming - men are more likely to be harassed. I thus don't really understand why everyone is always claiming that gamers are so bad. http://i.imgur.com/EJyVj9G.pngIs another interesting thing. Women respond stronger to harassment. It's unknown if they receive more serious harassment or if they just react stronger to it (possible leading to "get a thicker skin"). You didn't show the(but did link to) the part of that survey where women receive almost 50% more sexual harassment, over 50% more sustained harassment and stalking. Its quality over quantity and the harassment is over a longer period. They are more effected because the harassment they receive is straight up scarier. This has already been adressed : insults and harassment online is sexualize, which mean that when it touch women it's sexual harassment, and when it's against men, it's verbal harassment and threat on the physical integrity (beating, etc.). Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? You can't prove that tho (it's a question of intention). Some people here believe some people would insult anybody on the internet, it's just that when they know that they are facing a woman, they adjust their insults to their target(s). First, women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well. Second, with regards to your "adjusted insults" comment, see above. You make it sound as if whites are some how "impervious" to racial insults. lol. If you're irish, you get potato famine and ginger insults. If you're jewish you get illuminati, shekel stealing, insults. If you're eastern european, you get insults regarding Russian politics, and being a gypsy. If you're british you get made fun of being a britbong, and having retarded nanny state laws. etc etc. Even white people can get insulted if given any extra information on their background. It's whatever "triggers" people is what they target. I'm not "making it sound as" anything. When I mentioned homosexuals, did you think I was only referring to non-white homosexuals or something? My point was precisely about the singling out of specific groups, obviously not only based on skin color. I addressed what you just said in my post. I made a post about this earlier in the thread, and I'm sure it's been buried somewhere in all this shit storm. But it essentially said, that there's an argument to be made regarding the type of insults being used towards female gamers perhaps mirrors the societal undertones in regards to sexism. However, that is a VASTLY different argument than saying female gamers are targeted because of their sex. Like I said in my initial post, "women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well". More broadly, however, my main point was about the attacks on women "through negative referencing to their identity as women" - I wasn't saying that the sole reason for every attack on female gamers is that they're women. It could be for a zillion reasons (for example that a female gamer is beating the person who decides to insult her), but the point I was highlighting was the specific character of insults containing negative referencing to the identity of a member of a group as member of that group - in this case women.
|
Someone can call you a moron and you do not have the right to physically assault them. You can ask them to leave you alone and they will have to do so or face charges of harassment. If you don't like the way the guy posts, don't respond or report it.
If your looking for polite debate on who brain size influences if white and gray matter influence gender identify, you have come to the wrong place. That's a pretty wild theory and there are more than a couple members who will colorfully call you out on that.
|
Seeing a kwizach post is the only thing that makes topics like this bearable Thank you for fighting the good fight
|
On March 18 2015 10:13 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 09:49 wei2coolman wrote:On March 18 2015 09:21 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 09:07 wei2coolman wrote:On March 18 2015 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:47 Velr wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 00:40 Plansix wrote:On March 18 2015 00:31 Zocat wrote:http://i.imgur.com/B0F70Zc.pngThis image was linked in this thread. I read the rest of the study and noticed some other interesting things: Since we're talking (at least the topic was) about gaming: In gaming - men are more likely to be harassed. I thus don't really understand why everyone is always claiming that gamers are so bad. http://i.imgur.com/EJyVj9G.pngIs another interesting thing. Women respond stronger to harassment. It's unknown if they receive more serious harassment or if they just react stronger to it (possible leading to "get a thicker skin"). You didn't show the(but did link to) the part of that survey where women receive almost 50% more sexual harassment, over 50% more sustained harassment and stalking. Its quality over quantity and the harassment is over a longer period. They are more effected because the harassment they receive is straight up scarier. This has already been adressed : insults and harassment online is sexualize, which mean that when it touch women it's sexual harassment, and when it's against men, it's verbal harassment and threat on the physical integrity (beating, etc.). Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? No. People online get flamed. No matter and not because of the gender. The flamers just adjust their flames based on their knowlede about the target. There is 0 need for a distinction. Except there is a distinction, and our societies make that distinction - for good reasons. If a white person starts insulting a black person and calls him a "dumb nigger asshole", it will not be seen as the same thing as if that person had called him a "dumb asshole". According to your brilliant argument, the person insulting "just adjusted his insults based on their knowledge about the target". Yet that doesn't change the fact that insulting the black person through his skin color introduced a racist component in the insult. Likewise, if a homosexual gets called a "dumb cock-sucking faggot asshole" by a straight person who knows he's a homosexual, the negative reference to the sexuality of the homosexual getting insulted will have introduced a homophobic component in the insult. The same applies to sexist insults targeting women for being women. I have yet to see a man attacked online for being a man, and even if it happens it certainly does not happen even remotely as often as women get attacked through negative referencing to their identity as women. If another guy insults the masculinity of a straight man, although also abuse, it is still completely different than attacking that man for being a man. So, now that we've highlighted this distinction, let's make something else clear: being targeted negatively for being part of a group which is already discriminated against in our societies is harder than being on the receiving end of generic insults for two reasons. First, it's harder because it targets your identity specifically. If you get told "I hope you get raped" when you're a guy who's never had any fear of being raped in his life, it's much easier to shrug off the insult than if you're a person who's been raped in the past, or who lives knowing there's a very real possibility of them getting raped if they're not careful in many situations. If you get told "I hope you die from cancer" and you don't have cancer/don't consider yourself likely to get cancer, it just won't have much of an effect on you. If you actually have cancer, that's a very different story. If you get told "go eat fried chicken you nigger monkey" as a white person, chances are it won't have much of an effect on you either, while if you're black that's an attack directly targeting a core element of how you define your identity (your skin color). Second, being part of a group that is discriminated against/in a position of weakness in our societies (to whatever degree), insults targeting you for being part of that group only serve to highlight further this position. You are reminded that you are part of a group which, at the systemic level, is not the "normal", dominant group. It is therefore utterly dishonest to pretend that all insults are equal regardless of who is being targeted and why. Saying that "everyone gets insulted" completely misses the point. This being said, something else has to be mentioned: women, homosexuals, non-whites, etc., have not exactly been waiting for some posters' brilliant insight to "ignore the insults". Of course they are trying to not let these insults affect them too much or at all - they don't need your advice for that. But what they're also trying to do is denounce such sexist, homophobic, racist insults and the exclusion dynamics that accompany them, in order to fight them and hopefully make them progressively less socially acceptable, and ultimately rarer, in social arenas such as video games. How exactly is that not a positive thing? Stop condescendingly telling them to "grow thicker skins", recognize that many have not exactly waited for you to learn not to let insults affect them, and recognize also that they've gone beyond that to attempt to actually push back against the sexism, homophobia, and racism that they've been facing - which, I'll have you know, is actually more impressive and difficult than simply ignoring a problem. And this push back against sexism and other forms of discrimination/hate speech is something everyone should be happy about. On March 18 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 00:40 Plansix wrote:On March 18 2015 00:31 Zocat wrote:http://i.imgur.com/B0F70Zc.pngThis image was linked in this thread. I read the rest of the study and noticed some other interesting things: Since we're talking (at least the topic was) about gaming: In gaming - men are more likely to be harassed. I thus don't really understand why everyone is always claiming that gamers are so bad. http://i.imgur.com/EJyVj9G.pngIs another interesting thing. Women respond stronger to harassment. It's unknown if they receive more serious harassment or if they just react stronger to it (possible leading to "get a thicker skin"). You didn't show the(but did link to) the part of that survey where women receive almost 50% more sexual harassment, over 50% more sustained harassment and stalking. Its quality over quantity and the harassment is over a longer period. They are more effected because the harassment they receive is straight up scarier. This has already been adressed : insults and harassment online is sexualize, which mean that when it touch women it's sexual harassment, and when it's against men, it's verbal harassment and threat on the physical integrity (beating, etc.). Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? You can't prove that tho (it's a question of intention). Some people here believe some people would insult anybody on the internet, it's just that when they know that they are facing a woman, they adjust their insults to their target(s). First, women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well. Second, with regards to your "adjusted insults" comment, see above. You make it sound as if whites are some how "impervious" to racial insults. lol. If you're irish, you get potato famine and ginger insults. If you're jewish you get illuminati, shekel stealing, insults. If you're eastern european, you get insults regarding Russian politics, and being a gypsy. If you're british you get made fun of being a britbong, and having retarded nanny state laws. etc etc. Even white people can get insulted if given any extra information on their background. It's whatever "triggers" people is what they target. I'm not "making it sound as" anything. When I mentioned homosexuals, did you think I was only referring to non-white homosexuals or something? My point was precisely about the singling out of specific groups, obviously not only based on skin color. I addressed what you just said in my post. I made a post about this earlier in the thread, and I'm sure it's been buried somewhere in all this shit storm. But it essentially said, that there's an argument to be made regarding the type of insults being used towards female gamers perhaps mirrors the societal undertones in regards to sexism. However, that is a VASTLY different argument than saying female gamers are targeted because of their sex. Like I said in my initial post, "women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well". More broadly, however, my main point was about the attacks on women "through negative referencing to their identity as women" - I wasn't saying that the sole reason for every attack on female gamers is that they're women. It could be for a zillion reasons (for example that a female gamer is beating the person who decides to insult her), but the point I was highlighting was the specific character of insults containing negative referencing to the identity of a member of a group as member of that group - in this case women.
The reason that it's irrelevant is that a) women are not an oppressed minority, b) men receive gendered insults too. Moreover, women have never been an oppressed minority. Women got the vote shortly after men, without the tradeoff of being eligible for compulsory draft, as soon as it was clear this was what the majority of women wanted. Gender roles were not the enslavement of women by men, but a mutual understanding between the sexes. There may have been a glass ceiling, but there was a glass floor too, through which wives could watch their husbands choking down the mines. For every woman forced to miss out on the job she wanted to do, there was a man forced to die for his country. There is no historical injustice comparable to racial discrimination here.
It's important that society recognises this and drops the pretense that women are an oppressed class. There is no problem with saying that women receive gendered insults. There is a problem with not providing a justification for taking this more seriously than the abuse men receive.
It is really disingenuous to compare being a woman to being a homosexual or being black, jewish, etc. The difference between people sacrificing their lives to get you off the ship and not bothering to unchain you when the ship goes down is, I think, significant.
|
On March 18 2015 19:47 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 10:13 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 09:49 wei2coolman wrote:On March 18 2015 09:21 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 09:07 wei2coolman wrote:On March 18 2015 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:47 Velr wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 00:40 Plansix wrote: [quote] You didn't show the(but did link to) the part of that survey where women receive almost 50% more sexual harassment, over 50% more sustained harassment and stalking. Its quality over quantity and the harassment is over a longer period. They are more effected because the harassment they receive is straight up scarier. This has already been adressed : insults and harassment online is sexualize, which mean that when it touch women it's sexual harassment, and when it's against men, it's verbal harassment and threat on the physical integrity (beating, etc.). Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? No. People online get flamed. No matter and not because of the gender. The flamers just adjust their flames based on their knowlede about the target. There is 0 need for a distinction. Except there is a distinction, and our societies make that distinction - for good reasons. If a white person starts insulting a black person and calls him a "dumb nigger asshole", it will not be seen as the same thing as if that person had called him a "dumb asshole". According to your brilliant argument, the person insulting "just adjusted his insults based on their knowledge about the target". Yet that doesn't change the fact that insulting the black person through his skin color introduced a racist component in the insult. Likewise, if a homosexual gets called a "dumb cock-sucking faggot asshole" by a straight person who knows he's a homosexual, the negative reference to the sexuality of the homosexual getting insulted will have introduced a homophobic component in the insult. The same applies to sexist insults targeting women for being women. I have yet to see a man attacked online for being a man, and even if it happens it certainly does not happen even remotely as often as women get attacked through negative referencing to their identity as women. If another guy insults the masculinity of a straight man, although also abuse, it is still completely different than attacking that man for being a man. So, now that we've highlighted this distinction, let's make something else clear: being targeted negatively for being part of a group which is already discriminated against in our societies is harder than being on the receiving end of generic insults for two reasons. First, it's harder because it targets your identity specifically. If you get told "I hope you get raped" when you're a guy who's never had any fear of being raped in his life, it's much easier to shrug off the insult than if you're a person who's been raped in the past, or who lives knowing there's a very real possibility of them getting raped if they're not careful in many situations. If you get told "I hope you die from cancer" and you don't have cancer/don't consider yourself likely to get cancer, it just won't have much of an effect on you. If you actually have cancer, that's a very different story. If you get told "go eat fried chicken you nigger monkey" as a white person, chances are it won't have much of an effect on you either, while if you're black that's an attack directly targeting a core element of how you define your identity (your skin color). Second, being part of a group that is discriminated against/in a position of weakness in our societies (to whatever degree), insults targeting you for being part of that group only serve to highlight further this position. You are reminded that you are part of a group which, at the systemic level, is not the "normal", dominant group. It is therefore utterly dishonest to pretend that all insults are equal regardless of who is being targeted and why. Saying that "everyone gets insulted" completely misses the point. This being said, something else has to be mentioned: women, homosexuals, non-whites, etc., have not exactly been waiting for some posters' brilliant insight to "ignore the insults". Of course they are trying to not let these insults affect them too much or at all - they don't need your advice for that. But what they're also trying to do is denounce such sexist, homophobic, racist insults and the exclusion dynamics that accompany them, in order to fight them and hopefully make them progressively less socially acceptable, and ultimately rarer, in social arenas such as video games. How exactly is that not a positive thing? Stop condescendingly telling them to "grow thicker skins", recognize that many have not exactly waited for you to learn not to let insults affect them, and recognize also that they've gone beyond that to attempt to actually push back against the sexism, homophobia, and racism that they've been facing - which, I'll have you know, is actually more impressive and difficult than simply ignoring a problem. And this push back against sexism and other forms of discrimination/hate speech is something everyone should be happy about. On March 18 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 00:40 Plansix wrote: [quote] You didn't show the(but did link to) the part of that survey where women receive almost 50% more sexual harassment, over 50% more sustained harassment and stalking. Its quality over quantity and the harassment is over a longer period. They are more effected because the harassment they receive is straight up scarier. This has already been adressed : insults and harassment online is sexualize, which mean that when it touch women it's sexual harassment, and when it's against men, it's verbal harassment and threat on the physical integrity (beating, etc.). Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? You can't prove that tho (it's a question of intention). Some people here believe some people would insult anybody on the internet, it's just that when they know that they are facing a woman, they adjust their insults to their target(s). First, women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well. Second, with regards to your "adjusted insults" comment, see above. You make it sound as if whites are some how "impervious" to racial insults. lol. If you're irish, you get potato famine and ginger insults. If you're jewish you get illuminati, shekel stealing, insults. If you're eastern european, you get insults regarding Russian politics, and being a gypsy. If you're british you get made fun of being a britbong, and having retarded nanny state laws. etc etc. Even white people can get insulted if given any extra information on their background. It's whatever "triggers" people is what they target. I'm not "making it sound as" anything. When I mentioned homosexuals, did you think I was only referring to non-white homosexuals or something? My point was precisely about the singling out of specific groups, obviously not only based on skin color. I addressed what you just said in my post. I made a post about this earlier in the thread, and I'm sure it's been buried somewhere in all this shit storm. But it essentially said, that there's an argument to be made regarding the type of insults being used towards female gamers perhaps mirrors the societal undertones in regards to sexism. However, that is a VASTLY different argument than saying female gamers are targeted because of their sex. Like I said in my initial post, "women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well". More broadly, however, my main point was about the attacks on women "through negative referencing to their identity as women" - I wasn't saying that the sole reason for every attack on female gamers is that they're women. It could be for a zillion reasons (for example that a female gamer is beating the person who decides to insult her), but the point I was highlighting was the specific character of insults containing negative referencing to the identity of a member of a group as member of that group - in this case women. The reason that it's irrelevant is that a) women are not an oppressed minority, b) men receive gendered insults too. [...] You dont really belive that yourself do you?
|
On March 18 2015 19:47 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 10:13 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 09:49 wei2coolman wrote:On March 18 2015 09:21 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 09:07 wei2coolman wrote:On March 18 2015 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:47 Velr wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 00:40 Plansix wrote: [quote] You didn't show the(but did link to) the part of that survey where women receive almost 50% more sexual harassment, over 50% more sustained harassment and stalking. Its quality over quantity and the harassment is over a longer period. They are more effected because the harassment they receive is straight up scarier. This has already been adressed : insults and harassment online is sexualize, which mean that when it touch women it's sexual harassment, and when it's against men, it's verbal harassment and threat on the physical integrity (beating, etc.). Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? No. People online get flamed. No matter and not because of the gender. The flamers just adjust their flames based on their knowlede about the target. There is 0 need for a distinction. Except there is a distinction, and our societies make that distinction - for good reasons. If a white person starts insulting a black person and calls him a "dumb nigger asshole", it will not be seen as the same thing as if that person had called him a "dumb asshole". According to your brilliant argument, the person insulting "just adjusted his insults based on their knowledge about the target". Yet that doesn't change the fact that insulting the black person through his skin color introduced a racist component in the insult. Likewise, if a homosexual gets called a "dumb cock-sucking faggot asshole" by a straight person who knows he's a homosexual, the negative reference to the sexuality of the homosexual getting insulted will have introduced a homophobic component in the insult. The same applies to sexist insults targeting women for being women. I have yet to see a man attacked online for being a man, and even if it happens it certainly does not happen even remotely as often as women get attacked through negative referencing to their identity as women. If another guy insults the masculinity of a straight man, although also abuse, it is still completely different than attacking that man for being a man. So, now that we've highlighted this distinction, let's make something else clear: being targeted negatively for being part of a group which is already discriminated against in our societies is harder than being on the receiving end of generic insults for two reasons. First, it's harder because it targets your identity specifically. If you get told "I hope you get raped" when you're a guy who's never had any fear of being raped in his life, it's much easier to shrug off the insult than if you're a person who's been raped in the past, or who lives knowing there's a very real possibility of them getting raped if they're not careful in many situations. If you get told "I hope you die from cancer" and you don't have cancer/don't consider yourself likely to get cancer, it just won't have much of an effect on you. If you actually have cancer, that's a very different story. If you get told "go eat fried chicken you nigger monkey" as a white person, chances are it won't have much of an effect on you either, while if you're black that's an attack directly targeting a core element of how you define your identity (your skin color). Second, being part of a group that is discriminated against/in a position of weakness in our societies (to whatever degree), insults targeting you for being part of that group only serve to highlight further this position. You are reminded that you are part of a group which, at the systemic level, is not the "normal", dominant group. It is therefore utterly dishonest to pretend that all insults are equal regardless of who is being targeted and why. Saying that "everyone gets insulted" completely misses the point. This being said, something else has to be mentioned: women, homosexuals, non-whites, etc., have not exactly been waiting for some posters' brilliant insight to "ignore the insults". Of course they are trying to not let these insults affect them too much or at all - they don't need your advice for that. But what they're also trying to do is denounce such sexist, homophobic, racist insults and the exclusion dynamics that accompany them, in order to fight them and hopefully make them progressively less socially acceptable, and ultimately rarer, in social arenas such as video games. How exactly is that not a positive thing? Stop condescendingly telling them to "grow thicker skins", recognize that many have not exactly waited for you to learn not to let insults affect them, and recognize also that they've gone beyond that to attempt to actually push back against the sexism, homophobia, and racism that they've been facing - which, I'll have you know, is actually more impressive and difficult than simply ignoring a problem. And this push back against sexism and other forms of discrimination/hate speech is something everyone should be happy about. On March 18 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 00:40 Plansix wrote: [quote] You didn't show the(but did link to) the part of that survey where women receive almost 50% more sexual harassment, over 50% more sustained harassment and stalking. Its quality over quantity and the harassment is over a longer period. They are more effected because the harassment they receive is straight up scarier. This has already been adressed : insults and harassment online is sexualize, which mean that when it touch women it's sexual harassment, and when it's against men, it's verbal harassment and threat on the physical integrity (beating, etc.). Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? You can't prove that tho (it's a question of intention). Some people here believe some people would insult anybody on the internet, it's just that when they know that they are facing a woman, they adjust their insults to their target(s). First, women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well. Second, with regards to your "adjusted insults" comment, see above. You make it sound as if whites are some how "impervious" to racial insults. lol. If you're irish, you get potato famine and ginger insults. If you're jewish you get illuminati, shekel stealing, insults. If you're eastern european, you get insults regarding Russian politics, and being a gypsy. If you're british you get made fun of being a britbong, and having retarded nanny state laws. etc etc. Even white people can get insulted if given any extra information on their background. It's whatever "triggers" people is what they target. I'm not "making it sound as" anything. When I mentioned homosexuals, did you think I was only referring to non-white homosexuals or something? My point was precisely about the singling out of specific groups, obviously not only based on skin color. I addressed what you just said in my post. I made a post about this earlier in the thread, and I'm sure it's been buried somewhere in all this shit storm. But it essentially said, that there's an argument to be made regarding the type of insults being used towards female gamers perhaps mirrors the societal undertones in regards to sexism. However, that is a VASTLY different argument than saying female gamers are targeted because of their sex. Like I said in my initial post, "women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well". More broadly, however, my main point was about the attacks on women "through negative referencing to their identity as women" - I wasn't saying that the sole reason for every attack on female gamers is that they're women. It could be for a zillion reasons (for example that a female gamer is beating the person who decides to insult her), but the point I was highlighting was the specific character of insults containing negative referencing to the identity of a member of a group as member of that group - in this case women. The reason that it's irrelevant is that a) women are not an oppressed minority, b) men receive gendered insults too. Moreover, women have never been an oppressed minority. Women got the vote shortly after men, without the tradeoff of being eligible for compulsory draft, as soon as it was clear this was what the majority of women wanted. Gender roles were not the enslavement of women by men, but a mutual understanding between the sexes. There may have been a glass ceiling, but there was a glass floor too, through which wives could watch their husbands choking down the mines. For every woman forced to miss out on the job she wanted to do, there was a man forced to die for his country. There is no historical injustice comparable to racial discrimination here. It's important that society recognises this and drops the pretense that women are an oppressed class. There is no problem with saying that women receive gendered insults. There is a problem with not providing a justification for taking this more seriously than the abuse men receive. It is really disingenuous to compare being a woman to being a homosexual or being black, jewish, etc. The difference between people sacrificing their lives to get you off the ship and not bothering to unchain you when the ship goes down is, I think, significant.
Between forced marriages, marital rape, husbands' historical right to physically discipline their families, and systematic exclusion of women from positions of power it seems like quite a few parallels can be drawn between oppression of women and oppression of (other) minority groups.
Also, the thing about "women and children first" is probably a myth. It turns out people generally just try to save themselves:
A new analysis of 18 maritime disasters where 15,000 people died only 17.8 percent of the women survived versus 34.5 percent of the men. Source
|
On March 18 2015 21:04 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 19:47 bardtown wrote:On March 18 2015 10:13 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 09:49 wei2coolman wrote:On March 18 2015 09:21 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 09:07 wei2coolman wrote:On March 18 2015 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:47 Velr wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] This has already been adressed : insults and harassment online is sexualize, which mean that when it touch women it's sexual harassment, and when it's against men, it's verbal harassment and threat on the physical integrity (beating, etc.). Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? No. People online get flamed. No matter and not because of the gender. The flamers just adjust their flames based on their knowlede about the target. There is 0 need for a distinction. Except there is a distinction, and our societies make that distinction - for good reasons. If a white person starts insulting a black person and calls him a "dumb nigger asshole", it will not be seen as the same thing as if that person had called him a "dumb asshole". According to your brilliant argument, the person insulting "just adjusted his insults based on their knowledge about the target". Yet that doesn't change the fact that insulting the black person through his skin color introduced a racist component in the insult. Likewise, if a homosexual gets called a "dumb cock-sucking faggot asshole" by a straight person who knows he's a homosexual, the negative reference to the sexuality of the homosexual getting insulted will have introduced a homophobic component in the insult. The same applies to sexist insults targeting women for being women. I have yet to see a man attacked online for being a man, and even if it happens it certainly does not happen even remotely as often as women get attacked through negative referencing to their identity as women. If another guy insults the masculinity of a straight man, although also abuse, it is still completely different than attacking that man for being a man. So, now that we've highlighted this distinction, let's make something else clear: being targeted negatively for being part of a group which is already discriminated against in our societies is harder than being on the receiving end of generic insults for two reasons. First, it's harder because it targets your identity specifically. If you get told "I hope you get raped" when you're a guy who's never had any fear of being raped in his life, it's much easier to shrug off the insult than if you're a person who's been raped in the past, or who lives knowing there's a very real possibility of them getting raped if they're not careful in many situations. If you get told "I hope you die from cancer" and you don't have cancer/don't consider yourself likely to get cancer, it just won't have much of an effect on you. If you actually have cancer, that's a very different story. If you get told "go eat fried chicken you nigger monkey" as a white person, chances are it won't have much of an effect on you either, while if you're black that's an attack directly targeting a core element of how you define your identity (your skin color). Second, being part of a group that is discriminated against/in a position of weakness in our societies (to whatever degree), insults targeting you for being part of that group only serve to highlight further this position. You are reminded that you are part of a group which, at the systemic level, is not the "normal", dominant group. It is therefore utterly dishonest to pretend that all insults are equal regardless of who is being targeted and why. Saying that "everyone gets insulted" completely misses the point. This being said, something else has to be mentioned: women, homosexuals, non-whites, etc., have not exactly been waiting for some posters' brilliant insight to "ignore the insults". Of course they are trying to not let these insults affect them too much or at all - they don't need your advice for that. But what they're also trying to do is denounce such sexist, homophobic, racist insults and the exclusion dynamics that accompany them, in order to fight them and hopefully make them progressively less socially acceptable, and ultimately rarer, in social arenas such as video games. How exactly is that not a positive thing? Stop condescendingly telling them to "grow thicker skins", recognize that many have not exactly waited for you to learn not to let insults affect them, and recognize also that they've gone beyond that to attempt to actually push back against the sexism, homophobia, and racism that they've been facing - which, I'll have you know, is actually more impressive and difficult than simply ignoring a problem. And this push back against sexism and other forms of discrimination/hate speech is something everyone should be happy about. On March 18 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] This has already been adressed : insults and harassment online is sexualize, which mean that when it touch women it's sexual harassment, and when it's against men, it's verbal harassment and threat on the physical integrity (beating, etc.). Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? You can't prove that tho (it's a question of intention). Some people here believe some people would insult anybody on the internet, it's just that when they know that they are facing a woman, they adjust their insults to their target(s). First, women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well. Second, with regards to your "adjusted insults" comment, see above. You make it sound as if whites are some how "impervious" to racial insults. lol. If you're irish, you get potato famine and ginger insults. If you're jewish you get illuminati, shekel stealing, insults. If you're eastern european, you get insults regarding Russian politics, and being a gypsy. If you're british you get made fun of being a britbong, and having retarded nanny state laws. etc etc. Even white people can get insulted if given any extra information on their background. It's whatever "triggers" people is what they target. I'm not "making it sound as" anything. When I mentioned homosexuals, did you think I was only referring to non-white homosexuals or something? My point was precisely about the singling out of specific groups, obviously not only based on skin color. I addressed what you just said in my post. I made a post about this earlier in the thread, and I'm sure it's been buried somewhere in all this shit storm. But it essentially said, that there's an argument to be made regarding the type of insults being used towards female gamers perhaps mirrors the societal undertones in regards to sexism. However, that is a VASTLY different argument than saying female gamers are targeted because of their sex. Like I said in my initial post, "women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well". More broadly, however, my main point was about the attacks on women "through negative referencing to their identity as women" - I wasn't saying that the sole reason for every attack on female gamers is that they're women. It could be for a zillion reasons (for example that a female gamer is beating the person who decides to insult her), but the point I was highlighting was the specific character of insults containing negative referencing to the identity of a member of a group as member of that group - in this case women. The reason that it's irrelevant is that a) women are not an oppressed minority, b) men receive gendered insults too. [...] You dont really belive that yourself do you? Its hard to tell any more. Poe's law is in full effect. I'm mostly here for the train wreck at this point.
Edit: Holy shit, he said that women got to vote shortly after men. I'm not sure if he is talking about the US or not, but 1778 is a long way from 1920. And it took people entire lifetimes to get that right. Of course if we use the metric of "all of human history", its pretty quick. But then your using the metric of ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY.
|
On March 18 2015 21:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 21:04 Artisreal wrote:On March 18 2015 19:47 bardtown wrote:On March 18 2015 10:13 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 09:49 wei2coolman wrote:On March 18 2015 09:21 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 09:07 wei2coolman wrote:On March 18 2015 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:47 Velr wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote: [quote] Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? No. People online get flamed. No matter and not because of the gender. The flamers just adjust their flames based on their knowlede about the target. There is 0 need for a distinction. Except there is a distinction, and our societies make that distinction - for good reasons. If a white person starts insulting a black person and calls him a "dumb nigger asshole", it will not be seen as the same thing as if that person had called him a "dumb asshole". According to your brilliant argument, the person insulting "just adjusted his insults based on their knowledge about the target". Yet that doesn't change the fact that insulting the black person through his skin color introduced a racist component in the insult. Likewise, if a homosexual gets called a "dumb cock-sucking faggot asshole" by a straight person who knows he's a homosexual, the negative reference to the sexuality of the homosexual getting insulted will have introduced a homophobic component in the insult. The same applies to sexist insults targeting women for being women. I have yet to see a man attacked online for being a man, and even if it happens it certainly does not happen even remotely as often as women get attacked through negative referencing to their identity as women. If another guy insults the masculinity of a straight man, although also abuse, it is still completely different than attacking that man for being a man. So, now that we've highlighted this distinction, let's make something else clear: being targeted negatively for being part of a group which is already discriminated against in our societies is harder than being on the receiving end of generic insults for two reasons. First, it's harder because it targets your identity specifically. If you get told "I hope you get raped" when you're a guy who's never had any fear of being raped in his life, it's much easier to shrug off the insult than if you're a person who's been raped in the past, or who lives knowing there's a very real possibility of them getting raped if they're not careful in many situations. If you get told "I hope you die from cancer" and you don't have cancer/don't consider yourself likely to get cancer, it just won't have much of an effect on you. If you actually have cancer, that's a very different story. If you get told "go eat fried chicken you nigger monkey" as a white person, chances are it won't have much of an effect on you either, while if you're black that's an attack directly targeting a core element of how you define your identity (your skin color). Second, being part of a group that is discriminated against/in a position of weakness in our societies (to whatever degree), insults targeting you for being part of that group only serve to highlight further this position. You are reminded that you are part of a group which, at the systemic level, is not the "normal", dominant group. It is therefore utterly dishonest to pretend that all insults are equal regardless of who is being targeted and why. Saying that "everyone gets insulted" completely misses the point. This being said, something else has to be mentioned: women, homosexuals, non-whites, etc., have not exactly been waiting for some posters' brilliant insight to "ignore the insults". Of course they are trying to not let these insults affect them too much or at all - they don't need your advice for that. But what they're also trying to do is denounce such sexist, homophobic, racist insults and the exclusion dynamics that accompany them, in order to fight them and hopefully make them progressively less socially acceptable, and ultimately rarer, in social arenas such as video games. How exactly is that not a positive thing? Stop condescendingly telling them to "grow thicker skins", recognize that many have not exactly waited for you to learn not to let insults affect them, and recognize also that they've gone beyond that to attempt to actually push back against the sexism, homophobia, and racism that they've been facing - which, I'll have you know, is actually more impressive and difficult than simply ignoring a problem. And this push back against sexism and other forms of discrimination/hate speech is something everyone should be happy about. On March 18 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote: [quote] Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? You can't prove that tho (it's a question of intention). Some people here believe some people would insult anybody on the internet, it's just that when they know that they are facing a woman, they adjust their insults to their target(s). First, women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well. Second, with regards to your "adjusted insults" comment, see above. You make it sound as if whites are some how "impervious" to racial insults. lol. If you're irish, you get potato famine and ginger insults. If you're jewish you get illuminati, shekel stealing, insults. If you're eastern european, you get insults regarding Russian politics, and being a gypsy. If you're british you get made fun of being a britbong, and having retarded nanny state laws. etc etc. Even white people can get insulted if given any extra information on their background. It's whatever "triggers" people is what they target. I'm not "making it sound as" anything. When I mentioned homosexuals, did you think I was only referring to non-white homosexuals or something? My point was precisely about the singling out of specific groups, obviously not only based on skin color. I addressed what you just said in my post. I made a post about this earlier in the thread, and I'm sure it's been buried somewhere in all this shit storm. But it essentially said, that there's an argument to be made regarding the type of insults being used towards female gamers perhaps mirrors the societal undertones in regards to sexism. However, that is a VASTLY different argument than saying female gamers are targeted because of their sex. Like I said in my initial post, "women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well". More broadly, however, my main point was about the attacks on women "through negative referencing to their identity as women" - I wasn't saying that the sole reason for every attack on female gamers is that they're women. It could be for a zillion reasons (for example that a female gamer is beating the person who decides to insult her), but the point I was highlighting was the specific character of insults containing negative referencing to the identity of a member of a group as member of that group - in this case women. The reason that it's irrelevant is that a) women are not an oppressed minority, b) men receive gendered insults too. [...] You dont really belive that yourself do you? Its hard to tell any more. Poe's law is in full effect. I'm mostly here for the train wreck at this point. Edit: Holy shit, he said that women got to vote shortly after men. I'm not sure if he is talking about the US or not, but 1778 is a long way from 1920. And it took people entire lifetimes to get that right. Of course if we use the metric of "all of human history", its pretty quick. But then your using the metric of ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY. He probably meant "not that long after suffrage was extended to the whole male population". Please don't make the same mistakes as he did.
|
Ah, propaganda.
Everyone needs more propaganda.
|
Women are not an "opressed class" because they're not a class. There is no unity in the group called "women", no common interests nor common practice / way of life, and they are define by their position in the production... Can we be a little more careful with the words ? All those false equivalency are making me sad.
|
On March 18 2015 21:21 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 19:47 bardtown wrote:On March 18 2015 10:13 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 09:49 wei2coolman wrote:On March 18 2015 09:21 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 09:07 wei2coolman wrote:On March 18 2015 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:47 Velr wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] This has already been adressed : insults and harassment online is sexualize, which mean that when it touch women it's sexual harassment, and when it's against men, it's verbal harassment and threat on the physical integrity (beating, etc.). Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? No. People online get flamed. No matter and not because of the gender. The flamers just adjust their flames based on their knowlede about the target. There is 0 need for a distinction. Except there is a distinction, and our societies make that distinction - for good reasons. If a white person starts insulting a black person and calls him a "dumb nigger asshole", it will not be seen as the same thing as if that person had called him a "dumb asshole". According to your brilliant argument, the person insulting "just adjusted his insults based on their knowledge about the target". Yet that doesn't change the fact that insulting the black person through his skin color introduced a racist component in the insult. Likewise, if a homosexual gets called a "dumb cock-sucking faggot asshole" by a straight person who knows he's a homosexual, the negative reference to the sexuality of the homosexual getting insulted will have introduced a homophobic component in the insult. The same applies to sexist insults targeting women for being women. I have yet to see a man attacked online for being a man, and even if it happens it certainly does not happen even remotely as often as women get attacked through negative referencing to their identity as women. If another guy insults the masculinity of a straight man, although also abuse, it is still completely different than attacking that man for being a man. So, now that we've highlighted this distinction, let's make something else clear: being targeted negatively for being part of a group which is already discriminated against in our societies is harder than being on the receiving end of generic insults for two reasons. First, it's harder because it targets your identity specifically. If you get told "I hope you get raped" when you're a guy who's never had any fear of being raped in his life, it's much easier to shrug off the insult than if you're a person who's been raped in the past, or who lives knowing there's a very real possibility of them getting raped if they're not careful in many situations. If you get told "I hope you die from cancer" and you don't have cancer/don't consider yourself likely to get cancer, it just won't have much of an effect on you. If you actually have cancer, that's a very different story. If you get told "go eat fried chicken you nigger monkey" as a white person, chances are it won't have much of an effect on you either, while if you're black that's an attack directly targeting a core element of how you define your identity (your skin color). Second, being part of a group that is discriminated against/in a position of weakness in our societies (to whatever degree), insults targeting you for being part of that group only serve to highlight further this position. You are reminded that you are part of a group which, at the systemic level, is not the "normal", dominant group. It is therefore utterly dishonest to pretend that all insults are equal regardless of who is being targeted and why. Saying that "everyone gets insulted" completely misses the point. This being said, something else has to be mentioned: women, homosexuals, non-whites, etc., have not exactly been waiting for some posters' brilliant insight to "ignore the insults". Of course they are trying to not let these insults affect them too much or at all - they don't need your advice for that. But what they're also trying to do is denounce such sexist, homophobic, racist insults and the exclusion dynamics that accompany them, in order to fight them and hopefully make them progressively less socially acceptable, and ultimately rarer, in social arenas such as video games. How exactly is that not a positive thing? Stop condescendingly telling them to "grow thicker skins", recognize that many have not exactly waited for you to learn not to let insults affect them, and recognize also that they've gone beyond that to attempt to actually push back against the sexism, homophobia, and racism that they've been facing - which, I'll have you know, is actually more impressive and difficult than simply ignoring a problem. And this push back against sexism and other forms of discrimination/hate speech is something everyone should be happy about. On March 18 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:36 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] This has already been adressed : insults and harassment online is sexualize, which mean that when it touch women it's sexual harassment, and when it's against men, it's verbal harassment and threat on the physical integrity (beating, etc.). Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? You can't prove that tho (it's a question of intention). Some people here believe some people would insult anybody on the internet, it's just that when they know that they are facing a woman, they adjust their insults to their target(s). First, women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well. Second, with regards to your "adjusted insults" comment, see above. You make it sound as if whites are some how "impervious" to racial insults. lol. If you're irish, you get potato famine and ginger insults. If you're jewish you get illuminati, shekel stealing, insults. If you're eastern european, you get insults regarding Russian politics, and being a gypsy. If you're british you get made fun of being a britbong, and having retarded nanny state laws. etc etc. Even white people can get insulted if given any extra information on their background. It's whatever "triggers" people is what they target. I'm not "making it sound as" anything. When I mentioned homosexuals, did you think I was only referring to non-white homosexuals or something? My point was precisely about the singling out of specific groups, obviously not only based on skin color. I addressed what you just said in my post. I made a post about this earlier in the thread, and I'm sure it's been buried somewhere in all this shit storm. But it essentially said, that there's an argument to be made regarding the type of insults being used towards female gamers perhaps mirrors the societal undertones in regards to sexism. However, that is a VASTLY different argument than saying female gamers are targeted because of their sex. Like I said in my initial post, "women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well". More broadly, however, my main point was about the attacks on women "through negative referencing to their identity as women" - I wasn't saying that the sole reason for every attack on female gamers is that they're women. It could be for a zillion reasons (for example that a female gamer is beating the person who decides to insult her), but the point I was highlighting was the specific character of insults containing negative referencing to the identity of a member of a group as member of that group - in this case women. The reason that it's irrelevant is that a) women are not an oppressed minority, b) men receive gendered insults too. Moreover, women have never been an oppressed minority. Women got the vote shortly after men, without the tradeoff of being eligible for compulsory draft, as soon as it was clear this was what the majority of women wanted. Gender roles were not the enslavement of women by men, but a mutual understanding between the sexes. There may have been a glass ceiling, but there was a glass floor too, through which wives could watch their husbands choking down the mines. For every woman forced to miss out on the job she wanted to do, there was a man forced to die for his country. There is no historical injustice comparable to racial discrimination here. It's important that society recognises this and drops the pretense that women are an oppressed class. There is no problem with saying that women receive gendered insults. There is a problem with not providing a justification for taking this more seriously than the abuse men receive. It is really disingenuous to compare being a woman to being a homosexual or being black, jewish, etc. The difference between people sacrificing their lives to get you off the ship and not bothering to unchain you when the ship goes down is, I think, significant. Between forced marriages, marital rape, husbands' historical right to physically discipline their families, and systematic exclusion of women from positions of power it seems like quite a few parallels can be drawn between oppression of women and oppression of (other) minority groups. Also, the thing about "women and children first" is probably a myth. It turns out people generally just try to save themselves: Show nested quote + A new analysis of 18 maritime disasters where 15,000 people died only 17.8 percent of the women survived versus 34.5 percent of the men. Source
It's not a 'myth' because it does not happen in every situation (on Titanic it absolutely did happen, and I was referencing specific events), but I take your point. In the face of death people retreat into their animal instincts. I read a very graphic account of the 'layers' in holocaust gas chambers where people tried to climb over each other to the ceiling to avoid the gas.
Let's accept, tentatively, that women are the sole victims of forced marriages (this is not necessarily true*), domestic violence (absolutely not true**), etc. You are obliged to acknowledge on the inverse that men are the victims of the compulsory draft and the expectation to work in hard labour, etc. Men are also historically, and at present, more likely to be victims of almost every kind of violence (excluding sexual violence). Men have a better right to the term 'minority': in the United States, the UK, Canada, etc, there are more women than men because of differences in life expectancy. Given these facts I'm sure you will be inclined to agree with me that men are an oppressed minority, no?
This is an argument ad absurdum, if that wasn't clear, designed not to be meaningful but to show how meaningless it is when you call women an oppressed minority. First, drop the word 'minority'. It is clearly wrong. Then what you need to do is justify why you believe that abuses against women, which one might say are less severe than the comparative abuses against men, warrant women receiving special treatment after the fashion of actual minorities who have suffered abuse through history? Why does the systematic exclusion of women from positions power override the systematic exclusion of women from hard labour and warfare and the systematic forcing of men into those positions? Why is a woman, who is forced to stay at home, more hard done by than a man who is forced to slave in a mine to provide for her?
*A woman forced into a marriage would have her financial needs taken care of, whereas a man forced into marriage would inherit the responsibility to provide for those needs. Forced marriage is not necessarily beneficial to the man involved, who may himself have been forced into the marriage or felt obliged to enter into marriage due to societal pressures. **Men and women initiate DV equally, with lesbian relationships being more violent than other demographics. Worth noting as well that public humiliation was not an uncommon communal punishment for wife beaters.
On March 18 2015 21:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 21:04 Artisreal wrote:On March 18 2015 19:47 bardtown wrote:On March 18 2015 10:13 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 09:49 wei2coolman wrote:On March 18 2015 09:21 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 09:07 wei2coolman wrote:On March 18 2015 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2015 03:47 Velr wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote: [quote] Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? No. People online get flamed. No matter and not because of the gender. The flamers just adjust their flames based on their knowlede about the target. There is 0 need for a distinction. Except there is a distinction, and our societies make that distinction - for good reasons. If a white person starts insulting a black person and calls him a "dumb nigger asshole", it will not be seen as the same thing as if that person had called him a "dumb asshole". According to your brilliant argument, the person insulting "just adjusted his insults based on their knowledge about the target". Yet that doesn't change the fact that insulting the black person through his skin color introduced a racist component in the insult. Likewise, if a homosexual gets called a "dumb cock-sucking faggot asshole" by a straight person who knows he's a homosexual, the negative reference to the sexuality of the homosexual getting insulted will have introduced a homophobic component in the insult. The same applies to sexist insults targeting women for being women. I have yet to see a man attacked online for being a man, and even if it happens it certainly does not happen even remotely as often as women get attacked through negative referencing to their identity as women. If another guy insults the masculinity of a straight man, although also abuse, it is still completely different than attacking that man for being a man. So, now that we've highlighted this distinction, let's make something else clear: being targeted negatively for being part of a group which is already discriminated against in our societies is harder than being on the receiving end of generic insults for two reasons. First, it's harder because it targets your identity specifically. If you get told "I hope you get raped" when you're a guy who's never had any fear of being raped in his life, it's much easier to shrug off the insult than if you're a person who's been raped in the past, or who lives knowing there's a very real possibility of them getting raped if they're not careful in many situations. If you get told "I hope you die from cancer" and you don't have cancer/don't consider yourself likely to get cancer, it just won't have much of an effect on you. If you actually have cancer, that's a very different story. If you get told "go eat fried chicken you nigger monkey" as a white person, chances are it won't have much of an effect on you either, while if you're black that's an attack directly targeting a core element of how you define your identity (your skin color). Second, being part of a group that is discriminated against/in a position of weakness in our societies (to whatever degree), insults targeting you for being part of that group only serve to highlight further this position. You are reminded that you are part of a group which, at the systemic level, is not the "normal", dominant group. It is therefore utterly dishonest to pretend that all insults are equal regardless of who is being targeted and why. Saying that "everyone gets insulted" completely misses the point. This being said, something else has to be mentioned: women, homosexuals, non-whites, etc., have not exactly been waiting for some posters' brilliant insight to "ignore the insults". Of course they are trying to not let these insults affect them too much or at all - they don't need your advice for that. But what they're also trying to do is denounce such sexist, homophobic, racist insults and the exclusion dynamics that accompany them, in order to fight them and hopefully make them progressively less socially acceptable, and ultimately rarer, in social arenas such as video games. How exactly is that not a positive thing? Stop condescendingly telling them to "grow thicker skins", recognize that many have not exactly waited for you to learn not to let insults affect them, and recognize also that they've gone beyond that to attempt to actually push back against the sexism, homophobia, and racism that they've been facing - which, I'll have you know, is actually more impressive and difficult than simply ignoring a problem. And this push back against sexism and other forms of discrimination/hate speech is something everyone should be happy about. On March 18 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 18 2015 03:41 kwizach wrote: [quote] Men do not get harassed for being men. Women do get harassed for being women. Is this distinction not clear yet? You can't prove that tho (it's a question of intention). Some people here believe some people would insult anybody on the internet, it's just that when they know that they are facing a woman, they adjust their insults to their target(s). First, women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well. Second, with regards to your "adjusted insults" comment, see above. You make it sound as if whites are some how "impervious" to racial insults. lol. If you're irish, you get potato famine and ginger insults. If you're jewish you get illuminati, shekel stealing, insults. If you're eastern european, you get insults regarding Russian politics, and being a gypsy. If you're british you get made fun of being a britbong, and having retarded nanny state laws. etc etc. Even white people can get insulted if given any extra information on their background. It's whatever "triggers" people is what they target. I'm not "making it sound as" anything. When I mentioned homosexuals, did you think I was only referring to non-white homosexuals or something? My point was precisely about the singling out of specific groups, obviously not only based on skin color. I addressed what you just said in my post. I made a post about this earlier in the thread, and I'm sure it's been buried somewhere in all this shit storm. But it essentially said, that there's an argument to be made regarding the type of insults being used towards female gamers perhaps mirrors the societal undertones in regards to sexism. However, that is a VASTLY different argument than saying female gamers are targeted because of their sex. Like I said in my initial post, "women do get targeted by some people simply for being women in what these people consider to be an arena that should be under the control of men. This happens in the real world as well". More broadly, however, my main point was about the attacks on women "through negative referencing to their identity as women" - I wasn't saying that the sole reason for every attack on female gamers is that they're women. It could be for a zillion reasons (for example that a female gamer is beating the person who decides to insult her), but the point I was highlighting was the specific character of insults containing negative referencing to the identity of a member of a group as member of that group - in this case women. The reason that it's irrelevant is that a) women are not an oppressed minority, b) men receive gendered insults too. [...] You dont really belive that yourself do you? Its hard to tell any more. Poe's law is in full effect. I'm mostly here for the train wreck at this point. Edit: Holy shit, he said that women got to vote shortly after men. I'm not sure if he is talking about the US or not, but 1778 is a long way from 1920. And it took people entire lifetimes to get that right. Of course if we use the metric of "all of human history", its pretty quick. But then your using the metric of ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY.
There is a difference between 'men' and 'some men'. Rich landowners do not represent men, they represent rich landowners, and when men got the vote it was on the basis that they should have a say in the direction of the country if they were to be expected to sacrifice their lives for said country.
I'm not saying women didn't suffer, I'm saying it's ridiculous to compare the struggles of women to the struggles of men and conclude that women were objectively worse. It's a horribly flawed comparison.
On March 18 2015 22:17 WhiteDog wrote: Women are not an "opressed class" because they're not a class. There is no unity in the group called "women", no common interests nor common practice / way of life, and they are define by their position in the production... Can we be a little more careful with the words ? All those false equivalency are making me sad.
Third wave feminism has its roots in communism/socialism, so the term 'oppressed class' is actually a thing in patriarchal theory. I agree that it's inappropriate. That's part of the reason that I'm dismissing it. Feel free to replace 'class' with 'demographic'.
|
oh common you cant deny women being treated as second class citizens outside the first world or over 200 years ago
|
On March 18 2015 23:40 ComaDose wrote: oh common you cant deny women being treated as second class citizens outside the first world or over 200 years ago i'm not him but I guess his response will be something like "life 200 years ago was shit for almost everyone except the high-class. You shouldn't compare one group's shit w/ the other's."
|
|
|
|