If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Outrage culture is exactly what the RW media has been fostering and exploiting for years now. MaybeVT doesn't like that the LW media is trying to play the same game. I guess thats something I can understand in principle, though some things are more deserving of outrage than others
If it was just a regular media thing, this would be as old as the hills. Much of this is a social media phenomenon. This is private individuals acting as a concerted group.
As I said, I'm not a fan of the term, but the ground zero for this are those called Social Justice Warriors.
I don't have a problem with social justice. As I've said, I buy into a lot of it. The warrior part comes in with irresponsibly using social media like Twitter and Tumblr as a means to derail your opponent.
Some opponents deserve to get derailed, but the connection to what's deserved is getting more and more tenuous.
Alternatively, the argument about having the right to free speech anywhere on public land could be countered for the WBC by the government claiming that allowing them to do so would be a violation of separation of church and state.
As an aside, my understanding is the opposite. Separation between church and state is one of the reasons they can't ban it on public property. Banning religious protest on public grounds is the opposite of separation... it's active exclusion.
Here's another set of dots, and at least speaks somewhat to why there's an urge to link the phenomenon to progressives.
The type of unequivocal racism and homophobia Oreo gave examples of is pretty clearly on the ropes, and make no mistake it had to be fought there, and still does... but to a far lesser extent than it used to be.
Obama by no means signaled the end of racism, but a black president was unthinkable for most of my life. We've made solid, material gains in these things, and by all rights, we'll continue to see more as the Boomers start dying off.
With the obvious boogeyman, slowly but surely being laid to rest, the question becomes how do we deal with what's left over. There's still obviously racism. Where is it coming from and what do we do about it?
The answer, to some (myself included) is academic social theory. Academia in general, but sociology in particular, is flat-out not the province of the right wing. This is why it gets pinned as a progressive phenomenon, and why there isn't exactly a counter-wing example. Economics would be the only place it would happen. Good luck setting the Twitterverse afire with your supply-side economics rant.
Nothing about any of that is inherently scary, as I said, I pretty much buy into it, but it's starting to get... I don't know... weird.
It's like the response never got scaled back to match the diminished target. Racist (or sexist or homophobic) behavior from an academic standpoint involves a lot of unconscious behavior focused around the concept of normalization.
What's scaring me is people are getting attacked for that type of racism (or sexism, or homophobia) like its the kind Oreo provided examples of.
Wasn't this a case of it being shut down by the private owners of whatever forum the discussions occurred on? You can understand how companies might be a little OTT when it comes to protecting their reputation. They are simply trying to avoid being tarred with the same outrage.
I just happened to drop by one of the sites in question. It's rpg.net. The largest tabletop RPG forum by a large margin.
Guy was just banned for being a Gamergate apologist.
The reason given for Gamergate apologia being unacceptable is that the SPLC considers Gamergate to be a hate group.
Now, think about that for a second. Isn't that pretty severely watering down the meaning of hate group?
Here's the kicker, the SPLC doesn't list Gamergate as a hate group. This guy got whacked for a crazy excuse, which isn't even true.
That's kind of scary.
I don't really care to what extent the right wing engages in like behavior because I care about policing my own house first. I have a huge problem with sexism in videogames, but I can't turn a blind eye to people who theoretically agree with me going so far off the rails in trying to combat it.
In theory then, you should be against banning the WBC from protesting funerals.
As tasteless as I find their actions, of course I am in favor of their right to protest, because on a larger scale not curbing free speech is more important than hurting someone's feelings.
Originally Posted by subego
These actually sound like different things to me.
Not being willing to be in the same room as a homosexual? You can't really argue that's not homophobic. An admonition not to associate with black people? You can't argue that's not racist.
My point was slightly different: I am saying that ~20 years ago certain things were thought to be acceptable by a rather large part of the population that are unacceptable now. Gay marriage was the pipe dream of a fringe of the gay community. Now that these cases of obvious homophobia and racism are dealt with can we peel the next layer of the onion, i. e. we can deal with more subtle forms of racism, misogyny and homophobia such as the issues you mentioned. For many people who are perhaps half of a generation or a generation older than us, the shift in opinion must feel even larger, and you now encounter opposition to things that were considered “normal” to you. Some people re-evaluate their beliefs, but many simply don't and react strongly when their deeply held opinions are being challenged by the main stream.
Originally Posted by subego
Believing the Confederate flag represents more than slavery, or that someone isn't wiling to abandon their religion over marriage rights... those people don't deserve the label.
You can do racist things without necessarily being a racist. When I was a child we had a candy in German whose name was (literally translated) a “nigger's kiss” or “negro's kiss”.
Germany does not have a long history of using African slaves as a cheap labor force, nor is a sizable portion of the population black. Up until today I have a positive connotation with this word because my first emotional response to this word is positive (memories come up about eating them at birthday parties, etc.). Nevertheless, intellectually I know that this is inappropriate and offensive, and I should refrain from using this word. (Nowadays it is called “foam kisses” or “chocolate kisses”.) That's very similar to your insight about GTA, I think.
So in this sense, introspection about certain old ways is necessary and can lead to a re-evaluation of, say, the meaning of the confederate flag. The stronger you associate with it, the harder it will be to change the feelings ingrained over the course of a life time. If you associate the Confederate flag with the life style and mentality of the South but don't associate it with slavery, it'll be much harder to convince you that for other people it symbolizes something very negative.
Originally Posted by subego
When we were talking about Anita Sarkeesian, you did a good job of flipping me, and getting me to focus on the validity of her statements.
Thanks.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Theres an odd new standard where everyone thinks that even personal or private interactions should be held to legal standards of proof. I find it a little odd.
On a public internet site it is heavy handed to ban someone immediately for not being negative about gamer gate, but it seems like a more sensible option to just ban the subject matter and warn people who violate it before banning them.
I implied that someone was a racist on FB the other day (because she was), but in a court of law I would not have been able to back it up. This was a white, Christian woman from the mid west who felt that she was regularly persecuted for her race and religion. She knew enough not to be blatantly racist, but she was an apologist with a totally one sided view of everything.
Would I ban her from my internet forum? No, I think she's the sort of person who might learn a thing or two if she didn't panic and run whenever her opinions weren't echoed back or validated. (She unfriended our mutual friend over my post, the worst thing in it was an accusation that she had made her feeling very clear. Which she said was mean.)
If my target demographic was organic free-range children of east coast hipsters, I might take different steps to control what they were exposed to. An RPG site probably wants to be family friendly so I guess I can understand wanting to avoid certain subject matter. Its all very well championing free speech but it doesn't always matter on the internet where your reputation can still get shredded amongst your better customers.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
As tasteless as I find their actions, of course I am in favor of their right to protest, because on a larger scale not curbing free speech is more important than hurting someone's feelings.
Just so we're clear, the president and congress think you should take your free speech protections and go pound dirt.
What's obvious to you and me isn't necessarily obvious to others. Some of these people should know better, right?
Would I ban her from my internet forum? No, I think she's the sort of person who might learn a thing or two if she didn't panic and run whenever her opinions weren't echoed back or validated. (She unfriended our mutual friend over my post, the worst thing in it was an accusation that she had made her feeling very clear. Which she said was mean.)
As a mod of a once-quite big forum I have a very particular take about this: a private website in no way shape or form has to respect the subtleties of free speech. We are a community that is also owned by a company. Unlike reddit, I would not tolerate subforums which are openly racist or concern themselves with the ins and outs of rape from the perpetrator's perspective. (I can't say how much of that is legal, because that depends on your jurisdiction and requires you to speak legalese in the local dialect.) I'm purposefully quite strict about policing these issues outside of the PL (which I do not mod), because I don't have to accept everything that is legal. In the end, I would like our members to feel welcome.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
On a public internet site it is heavy handed to ban someone immediately for not being negative about gamer gate, but it seems like a more sensible option to just ban the subject matter and warn people who violate it before banning them.
Do you mean ban the subject period, or ban one side of the conversation?
To be fair, this site has four banned subjects. Anything pro-Gamergate is one of them.
The others are:
Piracy
The WBC
That homosexuality isn't genetic
FWIW, not exactly a kid-friendly site. You can say **** and **** and shit.
As a mod of a once-quite big forum I have a very particular take about this: a private website in no way shape or form has to respect the subtleties of free speech. We are a community that is also owned by a company. Unlike reddit, I would not tolerate subforums which are openly racist or concern themselves with the ins and outs of rape from the perpetrator's perspective. (I can't say how much of that is legal, because that depends on your jurisdiction and requires you to speak legalese in the local dialect.) I'm purposefully quite strict about policing these issues outside of the PL (which I do not mod), because I don't have to accept everything that is legal. In the end, I would like our members to feel welcome.
I actually agree with this and have said in the past mods here should take the explicit position they're there to protect the smooth operation of the community, rather than respect any given user's speech. All I've ever asked is there be a modicum of rationalism in the way the rules are applied.
To catch a ban here you more or less have to consistently harass people. People aren't whacked for having shitty opinions. You have to be really annoying about them.
"Moderating you has become a big huge pain in my ass" is a legit excuse to toss someone.
That came off as a "gotcha". That wasn't my intent in asking the question, this just sort of came out as the best way to demonstrate the phenomenon I'm tying to get at.
I personally wouldn't mind just banning the whole thing because I don't think restricting people's rants against Gamergate is tantamount to protecting a hate group.
So the law is the be all and end all but your boy Farrakhan chose his words carefully so as not to break the law,
I'll get back to some of the other points later, I'm not in the US right now and I'm pretty busy, but I will say that trying to bait me by making such comments, in an attempt to somehow connect me to a known racist and hate group leader, is... What's the point?
At any rate, he did break the law (he could easily be charged with inciting violence and conspiracy to commit murder), but the state AG and the USAG chose not to pursue charges, there's a difference. But, you know... he's "powerless". Heh.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
And it will be. #FourmAgainstSleepIsRacist. #ForumAgainstSleepSupportsHate.
Wasn't the purpose behind your policy not to get tarred in the discussion? You've literally just accomplished the opposite.
Further, should you try and defend yourself to your user base, you're breaking your own rules.
To use a phrase from that blogger I like, the incentive gradient is totally lopsided.
If you're talking an obvious example of racism or sexism, then that gradient should be lopsided. Something like Gamergate? I think it's arguable it should fall in that category. If there's an argument to be had, I'm going to take issue with people who kill one side of the discussion with policy as opposed to argument.
What makes this really sad for me is while my stomach is turned by the policy, I am so sympathetic to the philosophy it's defending. I can state in no uncertain terms rpg.net has made me a better feminist. They get my admiration for that.
I'll get back to some of the other points later, I'm not in the US right now and I'm pretty busy, but I will say that trying to bait me by making such comments, in an attempt to somehow connect me to a known racist and hate group leader, is... What's the point?
Oh don't be daft. I'm only giving you "ownership" of him because you have a particular distaste for him. And I'm not saying you shouldn't either.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
At any rate, he did break the law (he could easily be charged with inciting violence and conspiracy to commit murder), but the state AG and the USAG chose not to pursue charges, there's a difference. But, you know... he's "powerless". Heh.
I can't imagine it would have been entirely unpopular as decisions go.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
"We are hoping to establish a file ending .bro for brotli compressed files, a command line tool 'bro' for compressing and uncompressing brotli files, and a accept/content encoding type 'bro'," explained Google software engineer Jyrki Alakuijala. "Can I talk you out of it?," replied Mozilla SW engineer Patrick McManus. "'bro' has a gender problem, even though the dual meaning is unintentional. It comes of[f] misogynistic and unprofessional due to the world it lives in."
There's a whole lot of stupid, puriel, "problematic" shit.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
This is another thing I can sympathize with to some extent. Language has an effect on culture, and vice-versa. I'm the poster child for reinstatement of "they" as a gender neutral singular pronoun.
That said, if you qualify "bro" as misogynist, IMO you've sapped almost all practical meaning out of the term "misogynist".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
There are no than enough people who would voluntarily take over care of it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
This is one of those things that isn't about "progressivism" ... it's simply about facts. It's about "uncomfortable realities" that some are all too eager to downplay or outright ignore. African-Americans today come in all sorts of skin tones. Yet when Africans first arrived on these shores in chains that wasn't the case. Today the average African-American has 65% African, 29% European, and 2% Native-American ancestry. So just where exactly did all these multi-hued black people come from in this country? 95+% of it is the direct result of white male slavemasters impregnating black female slaves. White male slavemasters would routinely have their way with black females slaves at their leisure. All while droning on and on about how "Christian" they were. And it did not matter if the black women held in bondage had a husband and a family. She was considered the white slavemaster's property ... and therefore he could have his way with her whenever the hell he felt like it. And then he would enslave his own bi-racial children and his own sons would have their way with their own siblings/cousins. And guess what? The "Founding Fathers" were no different. A woman held in chattel slavery simply did not have the capacity to grant or withhold consent. So I'm sorry to shatter the historical presidential fantasy ... but by any objective measure Thomas Jefferson et al were rapists too. Period.
There's zero, absolutely no proof whatsoever that Jefferson's alleged relationship with Hemings was anything but consensual. And that right there is the ****ing problem, there's no evidence of any wrongdoing, just opinion pieces by those with an axe to grind. If you're going to throw around words like rape with regard to some of the greatest people in history, you damned well had better have proof, not hearsay. Did Jefferson have slaves? Yes. Did he ever harm or mistreat any of them? There's not a scrap of evidence to show that he did. Not that these new Progressives need evidence, mind you.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
One could argue that there is "zero evidence" that the millions of other enslaved black women who went along with massa's advances rather than suffer the business end of a whip weren't in "consensual" relationships as well. So what makes Sally Hemmings so special in the minds of some of our more self-deluded white brethren? Because she was with a revered white figure we read about in history books? Because Thomas Jefferson being a US President somehow meant that he was a slaveowner like the others ... but not really? At the end of the day when you are quite literally property it's not like you have a choice one way or the other. And lest one gets it all the way twisted ... President Jefferson never freed Sally Hemmings ... despite this so-called "consensual" relationship. Not even on his death bed. Not even in his will. But such simple concepts seem to elude certain individuals. For most of us there's no need to explain the obvious but for those so deeply in denial the self-evident is anything but.
As for your question about the statue I'm pretty much ambivalent about it quite frankly. I've never been one to bow down at the altar of the "Founding Fathers" for these very reasons I've outlined. But OTOH we are talking about one of the architects of the republic. So if it were up to me the statues would stay. But American History courses wouldn't be so "whitewashed" that they never bother to mention that many "Founding Fathers" were slaveowners and even if they did it's only in passing. You see it's the nearly exclusively Eurocentric perspective in how history is taught that's the real issue. All this drama about the statue is merely a symptom of that underlying disease.
That's what I was saying. However, there's no proof, not a shred of evidence proving that it wasn't consensual. Anyone, anyone, who alleges that their relationship was "rape", or even coerced, is full of shit. By every account ever given regarding the two of them, she loved him very much.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
That's what I was saying. However, there's no proof, not a shred of evidence proving that it wasn't consensual. Anyone, anyone, who alleges that their relationship was "rape", or even coerced, is full of shit. By every account ever given regarding the two of them, she loved him very much.
You should walk away from such an argument: if you are not free, you are also not free to give consent or resist. The victim starts to conflate her own circumstances with the well-being of her master (just like Stockholm Syndrome). Under these circumstances the onus is on the other side, that it wasn't rape.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
You should walk away from such an argument: if you are not free, you are also not free to give consent or resist. The victim starts to conflate her own circumstances with the well-being of her master (just like Stockholm Syndrome). Under these circumstances the onus is on the other side, that it wasn't rape.
Exactly, and this seems to me like another case of this weird notion that many conservatives have that our founding fathers were saints and we should undo all of the wonderful progressive causes this country has benefited from by going back to the way things were when everything was "great".
I still don't get the point of this thread.
Extreme progressivism and conservatism are problems, but so are your internal biases that want to make everything out to be extreme progressivism or conservatism. Extreme anything is usually bad though, because most things work best in balance, but this is hardly a news flash.
Was this thread created before or after Playboy shifted away from nudity?
That's what I was saying. However, there's no proof, not a shred of evidence proving that it wasn't consensual. Anyone, anyone, who alleges that their relationship was "rape", or even coerced, is full of shit. By every account ever given regarding the two of them, she loved him very much.
The entire point to owning someone is having the means to force their consent. By owning a person, one has given up the ability to claim said person acts of their own volition.
If Jefferson had a problem with this, his option was to manumit Hemings.
Exactly, and this seems to me like another case of this weird notion that many conservatives have that our founding fathers were saints and we should undo all of the wonderful progressive causes this country has benefited from by going back to the way things were when everything was "great".
I still don't get the point of this thread.
Extreme progressivism and conservatism are problems, but so are your internal biases that want to make everything out to be extreme progressivism or conservatism. Extreme anything is usually bad though, because most things work best in balance, but this is hardly a news flash.
Was this thread created before or after Playboy shifted away from nudity?
The thread was created long before.
The point is to question the validity of notions such as "[t]he need to project a progressive environment is just as important as food and shelter to survive", and note the prevalence of such notions in the halls of higher education.
As for your question about the statue I'm pretty much ambivalent about it quite frankly. I've never been one to bow down at the altar of the "Founding Fathers" for these very reasons I've outlined. But OTOH we are talking about one of the architects of the republic. So if it were up to me the statues would stay. But American History courses wouldn't be so "whitewashed" that they never bother to mention that many "Founding Fathers" were slaveowners and even if they did it's only in passing. You see it's the nearly exclusively Eurocentric perspective in how history is taught that's the real issue. All this drama about the statue is merely a symptom of that underlying disease.
OAW
Again, I would be the last to argue this should be whitewashed.
I'll note the petition starter makes the odd claim the statue isn't a problem in the case of those to whom it's been whitewashed, as they are uneducated. It's people on campus who are damaged by the presence of the statue, precisely because they are educated and hence consider the statue as de facto support of the behavior.
You should walk away from such an argument: if you are not free, you are also not free to give consent or resist. The victim starts to conflate her own circumstances with the well-being of her master (just like Stockholm Syndrome). Under these circumstances the onus is on the other side, that it wasn't rape.
Riiight, more speculation. With respect to Jefferson, I'm not going to believe it was anything but a loving relationship without proof. If anyone deserves the right to be innocent until proven guilty, it's him.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"Welcome to the Hotel California. Such a lovely place. Such a lovely place."
OAW
I'm not going to roast Thomas Jefferson without proof, so you can go suck it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'm shocked. This thread is for pointing out the dangers of, and stupidity inherent in, Progressive Collectivism, that's its point.
Was this thread created before or after Playboy shifted away from nudity?
Was it created before or after the other? Go read the timestamps.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
What's the point?
Top