Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«106 »
  • Locked thread
VideoTapir
Oct 18, 2005

He'll tire eventually.


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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Torpor
Oct 20, 2008


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?

Panzeh
Nov 27, 2006



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.

DaveWoo
Aug 14, 2004



Fun Shoe

Here's an editorial that seemed appropriate to this thread:

Forbes.com writer Bill Frezza posted:


Drunk Female Guests Are The Gravest Threat To Fraternities

I realize this headline is click-bait, but I believe it to be true. Let me explain.

I am the president of the alumni house corporation of my MIT fraternity. One of my responsibilities is working with our young brothers to identify and manage risks that could lead to a tragic loss of life, the bankruptcy or loss of our chapter house as a result of a legal judgment, or forced dissolution after serving MIT students for over 125 years.

A recent incident at MIT’s Lambda Chi Alpha chapter in which a drunk female student apparently danced her way out of a window has, once again, resulted in a clamp-down on all fraternity parties. Thankfully, she seems to be recovering. And while this may appear to be a freak accident, something like this could happen on any campus, at any dorm or fraternity party, wet or dry. Unless and until we address how student drinking culture has evolved in response to the very regulations designed to control it, incidents like this are not going to go away. As recriminations against fraternities mount and panicked college administrators search for an easy out, one factor doesn’t seem to be getting sufficient analysis: drunk female guests.

Before feminist web vigilantes call for my defenestration, I single out female guests for one simple reason. Fraternity alumni boards, working with chapter officers, employ a variety of policies designed to guide and police member behavior. Our own risk management manual exceeds 22 pages. The number of rules and procedures that have to be followed to run a party nowadays would astound anyone over 40. We take the rules very seriously, so much so that brothers who flout these policies can, and will, be asked to move out. But we have very little control over women who walk in the door carrying enough pre-gaming booze in their bellies to render them unconscious before the night is through.

Yes, boozed up males also show up at parties, sometimes mobs of them disturbing the peace on the front steps. But few are allowed in, especially if they are strangers. Plus, it remains socially acceptable for bouncers to eject drunk and rowdy males because our society rarely casts them as sympathetic victims, as opposed to the irresponsible jerks that they are. In our age of sexual equality, why drunk female students are almost never characterized as irresponsible jerks is a question I leave to the feminists. But it is precisely those irresponsible women that the brothers must be trained to identify and protect against, because all it takes is one to bring an entire fraternity system down.

Pre-gaming is a serious problem, both for the safety of the young people who practice it and the safety of our institutions in a litigious, nanny-state society. As I wrote in my recent column “Ban Kegs From Fraternity Parties? Require Them Instead!,” the best way to reduce the incentive to furtively chug half a bottle of vodka before going out for a night of fun is by lowering the drinking age to 18 while encouraging the consumption of beer over distilled spirits. Alas, this is not going to happen any time soon. And so, any time a fraternity hosts an open party, wet or dry, brothers must assume that the house will be filled with ticking time bombs.

Here are the things that worry me most. Any of them could result in organizational extinction, even if the fraternity never served the “victim” a single drop of alcohol:

Alcohol poisoning due to overconsumption before, during, or after an event. Death or grievous injury as a result of falling down the stairs or off a balcony. Death or grievous injury as a result of a pedestrian or traffic accident as the young lady weaves her way home. False accusation of surprise sex months after the fact triggered by regrets over a drunken hook-up, or anger over a failed relationship. And false 911 calls accusing our members of gang surprise sex during a party in progress. (Yes, this happened, resulting in seven police cars and thirty officers storming the chapter house.)

Here is what I recommend to my young charges:

Identify drunks at the door. I don’t care how pretty or flirtatious a young lady is; if she’s visibly intoxicated, don’t let her in. Although we were once reprimanded for turning away a drunk female student who ultimately required an ambulance when she passed out on our sidewalk, it would have gone a lot worse for us had she collapsed inside.

In addition to the usual bouncers, assign several brothers to monitor female party guests. If any appear out of control, walk them to the door and put them in a cab heading back to their dorm. You can send me the bill. If they refuse to leave, call for an escort from campus police.

Never, ever take a drunk female guest to your bedroom – even if you have a signed contract indicating sexual consent. Based on new standards being promulgated on campus, all consent is null and void the minute a woman becomes intoxicated – even if she is your fiancée. And while a surprise sex charge under these circumstances is unlikely to hold up in a court of law, it doesn’t take much for a campus kangaroo court to get you expelled, ruining your life while saddling your fraternity with a reputation for harboring rapists.

And please, look out for each other. Do not let a drunk brother take a drunk female to his bedroom. During parties wet or dry, let the water flow – proper hydration and dilution is the best remedy for over consumption. Make sure there are filled water pitchers everywhere. Press them on intoxicated guests even if they resist.

Pre-gaming can be dangerous, but it becomes especially destructive to others in a world that no longer believes in personal responsibility—when a student, male or female, can blame a friend, a host, even a university, for the unfortunate consequences of guzzling half a bottle of booze before joining a party. No nanny administrators or well-meaning risk-managers can fix the situation after an incident has occurred, and besieged fraternity systems are particularly vulnerable. (When has a dorm ever been permanently shut down as a consequence of the residents’ folly?)

Unless and until the drinking age is reduced to 18, students relearn how to pace themselves while drinking, and individuals are held responsible for the consequences of their own behavior, rather than blaming the institutions that house and educate them, the only defense is extreme vigilance.

Bill Frezza is the President of The Beta Foundation, the house corporation for the Chi Phi fraternity at MIT.

Torpor
Oct 20, 2008


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.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich


The language choice there is crazy tone deaf and comes across as being mad that throwing big alcohol blowouts attracts litigious drunks.

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

This is the Jam of the Year

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"

Selachian
Oct 9, 2012



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?

Torpor
Oct 20, 2008


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 Sep 24, 2014 around 19:35

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich


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 Sep 24, 2014 around 19:54

A Fancy 400 lbs
Jul 23, 2008


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 surprise sex 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 Sep 24, 2014 around 20:11

VideoTapir
Oct 18, 2005

He'll tire eventually.


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 surprise sex 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.

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

This is the Jam of the Year

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.

surprise sex is a form of violence that is normalized in US culture. Of course, a lot of people don't like to call it surprise sex or think it is the woman's fault. But also, not all violence has to be physical.

Idran
Jan 12, 2005


Grimey Drawer

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.

DaveWoo
Aug 14, 2004



Fun Shoe

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!,”...

sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!


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.

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.

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.

Torpor
Oct 20, 2008


blackguy32 posted:

surprise sex is a form of violence that is normalized in US culture. Of course, a lot of people don't like to call it surprise sex 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.

sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!


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?

ErIog
Jul 11, 2001



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 Sep 25, 2014 around 01:44

Kegluneq
Feb 18, 2011

Mr President, the physical reality of Prime Minister Corbyn is beyond your range of apprehension. If you'll just put on these PINKOVISION glasses...



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?
"Sticks and stones may break my bones..."?

Pope Guilty
Nov 6, 2006

The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Kegluneq posted:

"Sticks and stones may break my bones..."?

...but words can make me think I deserved it.

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

This is the Jam of the Year

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."

botany
Apr 27, 2013

by Lowtax


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.

Kegluneq
Feb 18, 2011

Mr President, the physical reality of Prime Minister Corbyn is beyond your range of apprehension. If you'll just put on these PINKOVISION glasses...



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.

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

This is the Jam of the Year

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.

In the UK there are currently moves towards criminalising psychological abuse, which is long overdue.

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.

Torpor
Oct 20, 2008


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.

Kegluneq
Feb 18, 2011

Mr President, the physical reality of Prime Minister Corbyn is beyond your range of apprehension. If you'll just put on these PINKOVISION glasses...



So for clarification, what level of harm do you believe is caused by abuse, coercion or intimidation alone?

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

This is the Jam of the Year

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.

Torpor
Oct 20, 2008


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.

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

This is the Jam of the Year

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.

Torpor
Oct 20, 2008


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.

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

This is the Jam of the Year

Torpor posted:

googling "define:violence" pretty much means physical.

World Health Organization

http://www.who.int/topics/violence/en/

Strudel Man
May 19, 2003
ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

quote:

Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power
???

Pope Guilty
Nov 6, 2006

The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

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.

Avren
Jul 25, 2004
This is my custom title.


Seriously?

"Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual,"

Shalebridge Cradle
Apr 23, 2008





read the next three words

"threatened or actual"

Strudel Man
May 19, 2003
ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Shalebridge Cradle posted:

read the next three words

"threatened or actual"
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.

Spangly A
May 14, 2009

God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

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.

Shalebridge Cradle
Apr 23, 2008




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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Idran
Jan 12, 2005


Grimey Drawer

Shalebridge Cradle posted:

This is the example he gave:


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.

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".

  • Locked thread
«106 »