|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Really this shouldn't matter because she's trying to make her points as simple as possible for literal mental children but she's used to the soft academic mode of explanation which expects intelligent users to extrapolate where stubborn nerds will inevitably mask their insecurity by employing superior technical knowledge of the subject. "Well actually in S03E12 the main character uses a katana, not a western sword which means..." kind of poo poo. That's just it, they aren't mental children. They're capable of dissecting her arguments and forming counterarguments; they aren't capable of accepting her premises. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRSaLZidWI This is what I'm talking about. He isn't pulling that gunchat bullshit; he IS doing everything that he accuses her of. Thunderf00t is not a mental child; but he is at least as dishonest as he accuses Anita Sarkeesian of being. Apart from that, he is missing the forest for the trees. Guys like that last one I posted don't even understand what a forest is.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2014 19:29 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 13:47 |
|
botany posted:Yeah I really don't get this attitude. If she lists 100 games with lovely attitudes about women, and 10 of them are debatable, she hasn't "tainted" anything, because she's right about 90 of them and that's maybe something that's a little more important?? I watched her video on violence against women in videogames and she brought up good points about it being stupid, lazy writing but then went a bridge too far by saying its inclusion in video games will normalize violence against women. It is a kind of Jack Thompson argument. Maybe that is why the other poster mentioned taint?
|
# ? Sep 24, 2014 19:39 |
|
Torpor posted:I watched her video on violence against women in videogames and she brought up good points about it being stupid, lazy writing but then went a bridge too far by saying its inclusion in video games will normalize violence against women. It is a kind of Jack Thompson argument. Maybe that is why the other poster mentioned taint? I mean, Jack Thompson got the kind of super-enraged reaction that you'll get when you say something that might be used as an argument for taking away manchildren's(and children's) toys. For all their rage, it's the multi-billion dollar industry's lobbyists and lawyers that keep anything from going beyond Joe Lieberman's pet project.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2014 19:43 |
|
Here's an editorial that seemed appropriate to this thread:Forbes.com writer Bill Frezza posted:
|
# ? Sep 24, 2014 19:54 |
|
Panzeh posted:I mean, Jack Thompson got the kind of super-enraged reaction that you'll get when you say something that might be used as an argument for taking away manchildren's(and children's) toys. For all their rage, it's the multi-billion dollar industry's lobbyists and lawyers that keep anything from going beyond Joe Lieberman's pet project. You really do not want to equate Anita Sarkeesian with Jack Thompson.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2014 19:55 |
|
The language choice there is crazy tone deaf and comes across as being mad that throwing big alcohol blowouts attracts litigious drunks.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2014 19:57 |
|
Torpor posted:I watched her video on violence against women in videogames and she brought up good points about it being stupid, lazy writing but then went a bridge too far by saying its inclusion in video games will normalize violence against women. It is a kind of Jack Thompson argument. Maybe that is why the other poster mentioned taint? Violence against women ALREADY is normalized. Video games at the moment are doing nothing more than pushing the status quo and in the case of gamer gate has created some violence against women all in the name of "objectivity" and "real games"
|
# ? Sep 24, 2014 20:01 |
|
I've never been in (or near) a frat, so perhaps someone with more experience can tell me: just how full of poo poo is this guy about how frats today are scrupulously careful about alcohol use and police themselves responsibly?
|
# ? Sep 24, 2014 20:17 |
|
blackguy32 posted:Violence against women ALREADY is normalized. Video games at the moment are doing nothing more than pushing the status quo Maybe I am not on the same page as you but in the US it is not socially acceptable to do violence against women. Widespread? Quite. If you mean that normalization means people do it a lot then yes you are right. /\/\/\ the frat article author seems out of touch and includes thinking errors such as taking a victim stance for what appears to be reasonable mitigation. I think he forgot that women are often blamed and called irresponsible for rapes if they are drunk. Some of his suggestions for rules seem to be good ideas, like not letting drunk people into a party, but then he veers into weird. Torpor fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Sep 24, 2014 |
# ? Sep 24, 2014 20:28 |
|
Selachian posted:I've never been in (or near) a frat, so perhaps someone with more experience can tell me: just how full of poo poo is this guy about how frats today are scrupulously careful about alcohol use and police themselves responsibly? They are that strict, for insurance and liability reasons. What this means is how bad does frat-oriented drinking culture get when even 40 pages of legalese isn't enough to protect binge drinking teens from throwing irresponsible parties? Also note that as a shill he can't possibly tarnish the boozy allure of frats, instead blaming everyone but the only organizations on campus which host large pseudononymous keggers. Like if teenage girls tend to get really drunk before showing up at your facility expecting to drink even more, maybe that is as much your problem as it is theirs. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Sep 24, 2014 |
# ? Sep 24, 2014 20:51 |
|
Selachian posted:I've never been in (or near) a frat, so perhaps someone with more experience can tell me: just how full of poo poo is this guy about how frats today are scrupulously careful about alcohol use and police themselves responsibly? There was a frat that just got in trouble in the last week or so for allegedly marking girls with different colored handmarks to point them out as targets for spiking drinks. I say allegedly because it's still under investigation, but the chapter president was caught with date rape drugs, and they all refuse to comment on why all the people who ended up in the hospital had different colored hand marks, so... A Fancy 400 lbs fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Sep 24, 2014 |
# ? Sep 24, 2014 21:09 |
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:There was a frat that just got in trouble in the last week or so for allegedly marking girls with different colored handmarks to point them out as targets for spiking drinks. I say allegedly because it's still under investigation, but the chapter president was caught with date rape drugs, and they all refuse to comment on why all the people who ended up in the hospital had different colored hand marks, so... If true, god drat.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2014 22:05 |
|
Torpor posted:Maybe I am not on the same page as you but in the US it is not socially acceptable to do violence against women. Widespread? Quite. If you mean that normalization means people do it a lot then yes you are right. Rape is a form of violence that is normalized in US culture. Of course, a lot of people don't like to call it rape or think it is the woman's fault. But also, not all violence has to be physical.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2014 22:24 |
|
VideoTapir posted:Thunderf00t is not a mental child; but he is at least as dishonest as he accuses Anita Sarkeesian of being. It's not the first time he's been outrageously intellectually dishonest in a feminism debate either. He's really not even worth giving any credit for intellectual honesty on that topic at this point.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2014 22:53 |
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Also note that as a shill he can't possibly tarnish the boozy allure of frats, instead blaming everyone but the only organizations on campus which host large pseudononymous keggers. Like if teenage girls tend to get really drunk before showing up at your facility expecting to drink even more, maybe that is as much your problem as it is theirs. To be fair, the author has in fact addressed that very issue: quote:As I wrote in my recent column “Ban Kegs From Fraternity Parties? Require Them Instead!,”...
|
# ? Sep 24, 2014 23:07 |
|
VideoTapir posted:That's just it, they aren't mental children. They're capable of dissecting her arguments and forming counterarguments; they aren't capable of accepting her premises. I legit don't know how you can post a video where the thumbnail is a picture of her with "SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BUSTED" in hypercolor over it and think this person isn't a mental child. Thunderf00t is a total drooling idiot, he absolutely does the gunchat thing where he goes 'ah ha well one of the huge things you listed is a little debatable I WIN, BITCH' and he has a long history of being a giant reactionary manbaby against literally any time when a woman says a thing.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2014 23:35 |
|
blackguy32 posted:Rape is a form of violence that is normalized in US culture. Of course, a lot of people don't like to call it rape or think it is the woman's fault. But also, not all violence has to be physical. Yeah, I think we are just on different pages. In my background 'violence' doesn't really mean non-physical violence.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 01:25 |
|
Torpor posted:Yeah, I think we are just on different pages. In my background 'violence' doesn't really mean non-physical violence. Legit not trying to be a dick here but what then do you think about concepts like verbal abuse and emotional abuse?
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 02:13 |
|
Torpor posted:Maybe I am not on the same page as you but in the US it is not socially acceptable to do violence against women. Widespread? Quite. If you mean that normalization means people do it a lot then yes you are right. You're missing the overall point that it contributes to the normalization of the objectification of women, and that violence against women in games is often an extension of that objectification. The sense is that women are just objects to be treated however someone wishes to treat them. Anyone with an extra X chromosome is essentially being otherized. This contributes to the us vs. them mentality that so often pops up in discussions of gender, and serves to perpetuate the negative attitudes toward women that already exist in society. She could have talked about feminism in the context of society generally, but that's a well-worn path. She likes games, though, and so decided to do a series on what the depiction of women in games says about our culture in the same way she had done before with other media. Her argument is not the same as Jack Thompson's argument at all. Jack Thompson was convinced games directly made people more violent. Anita Sarkeesian's argument is that games often perpetuate some pretty extreme forms of bias against women that exist in our culture. She's not saying games are a cause. She's saying that games are a symptom, and that normalizing these things via their depictions in games can reinforce people's negative associations. This is very similar to the depiction of minorities in media. Does casting black people as criminals often cause racism? In very simple terms it probably doesn't. It stems from racism, but it also perpetuates an association between black people and crime that can go a long way in reinforcing negative attitudes. It's impossible to ignore the impact of media on culture. Most people taking issue with Anita Sarkeesian probably wouldn't bat an eye at the assertion that Ellen and Will & Grace* helped create a positive association with gay people among the general US population. However they somehow take issue with the idea that negative associations can be reinforced. To use the gay example again, if you go back 50 years you can see depictions of gay people in media as being prurient, perverse, criminal, and deranged. It was an oft-used element in noir and detective stories. You should know that on the most recent episode of the Idle Thumbs podcast Anita Sarkeesian actually responds to this exact question directly. So if you want an answer from her then you can listen to that to get it. It's in the e-mails section near the end. *Will & Grace's depiction of gay people looking back now was progressive for the time, but not actually all that great. I'm not saying it's a gold standard or anything. I'm just using it as an example of the impact of media on culture in a positive direction, but not necessarily as a panacea that's without side effects. ErIog fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Sep 25, 2014 |
# ? Sep 25, 2014 02:38 |
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Legit not trying to be a dick here but what then do you think about concepts like verbal abuse and emotional abuse?
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 08:08 |
|
Kegluneq posted:"Sticks and stones may break my bones..."? ...but words can make me think I deserved it.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 09:19 |
|
Kegluneq posted:"Sticks and stones may break my bones..."? Except words can be damaging. Off the top of my head, I know there is psychological, financial, and physical abuse. "You better stay with me, or you will never see your son again." "Give me your credit card and car keys, I will give you how much money I think you need."
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 09:40 |
|
Kegluneq posted:"Sticks and stones may break my bones..."? How far removed from reality are you not to realize that there is a causal link between, for instance, LGBTQ teenagers being bullied in school and their raised suicide rate? You don't have to physically touch someone to harm their mental health.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 10:44 |
|
Whoops. It was meant to sound like a paraphrase of Torpor's response, I don't actually believe that. The full saying is the work of a true shithead, presumably the kind of authority figure who doesn't care about bullying under their watch if it doesn't leave physical evidence. In the UK there are currently moves towards criminalising psychological abuse, which is long overdue.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 11:05 |
|
Kegluneq posted:Whoops. It was meant to sound like a paraphrase of Torpor's response, I don't actually believe that. The full saying is the work of a true shithead, presumably the kind of authority figure who doesn't care about bullying under their watch if it doesn't leave physical evidence. My bad. I never know what is real anymore. There are people who think that as long as you don't touch them, then there is no abuse involved.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 11:49 |
|
Kegluneq posted:"Sticks and stones may break my bones..."? No. For non-physical conduct I would probably call it abuse, coercion or intimidation. For instance I would use the word abuse to indicate non physical conduct inherent in most domestic violence fact patterns. The alternating pattern of physical and non physical conduct I may refer to as a cycle of violence and abuse. I am not entirely sure why you would think that those words would be minimizing bad conduct. I am also not sure why people are attempting to put words in my mouth.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 16:23 |
|
So for clarification, what level of harm do you believe is caused by abuse, coercion or intimidation alone?
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 16:40 |
|
Torpor posted:No. For non-physical conduct I would probably call it abuse, coercion or intimidation. For instance I would use the word abuse to indicate non physical conduct inherent in most domestic violence fact patterns. The alternating pattern of physical and non physical conduct I may refer to as a cycle of violence and abuse. I am not entirely sure why you would think that those words would be minimizing bad conduct. I am also not sure why people are attempting to put words in my mouth. Those are all defining aspects of violence. They all use power as a way to harm other individuals. Telling someone to shut up or else you are going to go to their house and kill them is a form of violence. It isn't physical, the threat is there, and it usually gives some psychological damage to the person it is being done to. To not call that violence is selling the definition of violence short.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 16:44 |
|
blackguy32 posted:Those are all defining aspects of violence. They all use power as a way to harm other individuals. Telling someone to shut up or else you are going to go to their house and kill them is a form of violence. It isn't physical, the threat is there, and it usually gives some psychological damage to the person it is being done to. To not call that violence is selling the definition of violence short. I really think this is like a soda/pop discussion. Whereas you refer to violence as some kind of umbrella term I would use other words. Why you prefer the word violence is beyond me.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 17:37 |
|
Torpor posted:I really think this is like a soda/pop discussion. Whereas you refer to violence as some kind of umbrella term I would use other words. Why you prefer the word violence is beyond me. Because the definition fits? Violence is a pretty broad term that has everything with using power to harm others. I mean look it up. Violence does not have to be physical for it to be violence. Torture is violent even though it does not have to be physical.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 18:42 |
|
blackguy32 posted:Because the definition fits? Violence is a pretty broad term that has everything with using power to harm others. I mean look it up. Violence does not have to be physical for it to be violence. Torture is violent even though it does not have to be physical. googling "define:violence" pretty much means physical.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 19:44 |
|
Torpor posted:googling "define:violence" pretty much means physical. World Health Organization http://www.who.int/topics/violence/en/
|
# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:04 |
|
blackguy32 posted:World Health Organization quote:Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 00:32 |
|
Torpor posted:I really think this is like a soda/pop discussion. Whereas you refer to violence as some kind of umbrella term I would use other words. Why you prefer the word violence is beyond me. Because avoiding the word violence is being done to minimize the harm.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 00:39 |
|
Seriously? "Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual,"
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 00:42 |
|
read the next three words "threatened or actual"
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 00:43 |
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:read the next three words
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 00:53 |
|
Strudel Man posted:Yeah, that's still not "anything that harms people in any way," and clearly is focused on, you know, physical violence. Since it's either doing it, or threatening to do it. "Or power" Jesus christ. Power in this situation refers to any authority or influence, to hold power over a person and threaten to use it. This would include the power to socially exclude and ostracise, so the WHO definition very clearly includes verbal abuse and bullying. You can argue about whether that should count, you can't argue whether it does count.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 01:56 |
|
Strudel Man posted:Yeah, that's still not "anything that harms people in any way," and clearly is focused on, you know, physical violence. Since it's either doing it, or threatening to do it. This is the example he gave: blackguy32 posted:Those are all defining aspects of violence. They all use power as a way to harm other individuals. Telling someone to shut up or else you are going to go to their house and kill them is a form of violence. It isn't physical, the threat is there, and it usually gives some psychological damage to the person it is being done to. To not call that violence is selling the definition of violence short. That fits the WHO definition perfectly. What are you even arguing? The full definition is: Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation. That's not harming people in any way, but in very defined ways.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 01:59 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 13:47 |
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:This is the example he gave: I'm pretty sure they're reading "physical force or power" in the definition as physical (force or power). The intent is (physical force) or power, Strudel Man. "Physical" is only meant to modify "force".
|
# ? Sep 26, 2014 02:08 |