Tumblr Debates Freedom of Speech at Oxford, Says You Must Censor Privileged White CIS Men To Achieve
234 replies, posted
[QUOTE=mooman1080;48543336]What's dishonest is calling reddit small, regardless of the size of the physical team reddit is a big deal and brings large amounts of internet traffic, other companies take notice of successful companies and to call reddit successful is a understatement, that's like calling google kinda popular.
But fine, what about the case of a college campus diversity teacher coming out and saying discrimination or racism against white people is physically impossible? Surely there's nothing significant about the education system.
Then we have cases in the game industry like the notorious bayonetta review by polygon, they openly admitted that the game was good but chose to give it a lower score because they found it sexist. To call that insignificant is absolutely ridiculous because this thing called meta critic. Such arguably unrelated topic weighting the score has an impact as like it or not publishers most certainly make choices based on meta critic averages.
Then the multiple cases that the insignificant people caused real changes in others' works of art, the Joker cover, the armor of the female pro tag of divinity original sin, and certainly several other unspoken artistic choices.
I'm not saying it's a grand conspiracy, I'm saying people are starting to feel real impact from radicals. To come in and tell them they're insignificant does nothing but spurn them when they see this things happening in the circles they care about. Go tell some hard core comic readers that the censoring of the joker cover was insignificant.[/QUOTE]
When you're talking about Reddit's hiring practices, I'm going to talk about how many people they have employed. You can't conflate hiring practices and internal company ethics with web traffic to call it a "big company" - it's a small company by any measure. Google has almost 60,000 employees - reddit has 70.
Polygon had every right to review the game how they did. Who cares? Sure, it hurts game developers, but if the Christian Born-Again Christ Almighty Gaming Network decided to give The Binding of Isaac a 0/10 and got onto Metacritic, would you be talking about how EXTREMISTS are CENSORING our GAMES? Probably not, you'd dismiss it as a dumb review by a dumb reviewer and stop consuming the website's content.
I dislike the academic re-defining of racism to have the "power" definition and I won't support that. That is something worth discussing and talking about - video games getting bad reviews because the author doesn't share your ethical values isn't something even remotely worth arguing about.
If the extent of your experience with radical feminism is video games and a Joker comic book cover, you need to spend more time on Google actually researching this sort of stuff. There has always been external influence on video games - before the "extremist feminism" bogeyman it was Jack Thompson and "video games make people violent" threatening to censor all our games. Look how that ended up. It's no different in this case.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48543343]and you're making an assumption that I'm making baseless assumptions about people's intentions. I didn't accuse anybody of anything.
It's fine to talk about them. I just think it's both unhealthy and dishonest to focus so intently on such a small minority of such a massive movement, especially when it is often misconstrued as the backbone of the larger movement - which I have personally seen several times across the internet. I disagree with their methodology - but I [i]understand the reasoning behind it[/i], which a lot of people don't [i]seem[/i] to be putting in the effort to do.
I never said "talking about extremism is harmful now." You're making baseless assumptions about what I meant. I'm saying that the [i]specific type of people[/i] that latch onto these types of videos and use them to back up their heavily anti-feminist views are [i]harmful to the image of feminism as a whole[/i]. It pushes people away and makes them start counter-movements like the Mens' Rights Movement when 98% of feminists are standing there actively saying that our modern concept of masculinity is as oppressive to men as the concept of a domestic housewife is to women. It's a dishonest type of talk that misrepresents extremism as the core movement. That's not okay - talking about the extremism itself is perfectly fine, and encouraged - making assumptions about feminism as a whole based on the actions and words of extremists is not okay.[/QUOTE]
Why else are you mentioning how a 'specific type of people' latch onto videos and believe a radical subsection to constitute a majority in response to posts in this thread? When you argue that an issue shouldn't be discussed and one of your main reasons as to why is that a 'specific type of people' will make assumptions based on it, it makes it sound as if you mean the people in [i]this[/i] thread consist of a 'specific type of people'. Otherwise, that entire argument is irrelevant as to why people in [i]this[/i] thread should not discuss the issue.
So I'll just assume you meant to make an irelevant argument to back up your point and aren't backpedalling in any way and disregard it. Here's your post after I remove any presence of the argument relating to 'specific type of people':
[quote]and you're making an assumption that I'm making baseless assumptions about people's intentions. I didn't accuse anybody of anything.
It's fine to talk about them. I just think it's both unhealthy and dishonest to focus so intently on such a small minority of such a massive movement, especially when it is often misconstrued as the backbone of the larger movement[/quote]
I never claimed you accused anybody of anything, I said you were making assumptions about the people posting in this thread based on your insistence to argue that we shouldn't discuss specific issues because they might be used as fodder for a 'specific type of people', which is one again irelevant if a 'specific type of people' aren't in this thread in the first place.
Why is it unhealthy to focus on a small minority with very bigotted views? Especially if the people involved in the discussion can disassociate that small minority from a larger majority. That's why I said that you're stating that talking about extremism is a bad thing, because that's what you seem to be saying. It's important to talk about this stuff so we can work out what causes people to be radicalized and hopefully prevent it from happening in the future. We talk the same way about radical social-justice/feminism/whatever as we do radical conservatives, do you feel we shouldn't talk about radical conservatives because it might misrepresent reasonable conservatives and moderates?
I think it's hilarious how so many people are entitled to having the world be like the one in their head.
The first-world has become so mundane and safe that people like this can be formed in their own little entitled bubble of life.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48543378]When you're talking about Reddit's hiring practices, I'm going to talk about how many people they have employed. You can't conflate hiring practices and internal company ethics with web traffic to call it a "big company" - it's a small company by any measure. Google has almost 60,000 employees - reddit has 70.
[/QUOTE]
So because there are only 70 members in a very successful company it's hiring practices are suddenly invalidated? And no one takes note of them? Not other companies that have a small work force?
[quote]
Polygon had every right to review the game how they did. Who cares? Sure, it hurts game developers, but if the Christian Born-Again Christ Almighty Gaming Network decided to give The Binding of Isaac a 0/10 and got onto Metacritic, would you be talking about how EXTREMISTS are CENSORING our GAMES? Probably not, you'd dismiss it as a dumb review by a dumb reviewer and stop consuming the website's content.
[/quote]
Yes I would. I'd say it has no place on metic critic because they're bringing their ideologies into the a review where they're not relevant. As would I say the polygon review has no place on meta critic. Both of which are weighing their reviews by their own ideologies which results in an impact of publisher decisions, it's subtle but it has impact. I appreciate you typing those words out in all caps and misrepresenting my tone though. I also like how your initial response is saying "who cares" then making an assumption about me.
[quote]
I dislike the academic re-defining of racism to have the "power" definition and I won't support that. That is something worth discussing and talking about - video games getting bad reviews because the author doesn't share your ethical values isn't something even remotely worth arguing about.
[/quote]
Did I say anything about whether I agreed with what polygon said or not? I said on the basis of a review it can most certainly be seen as irrelevant. But that's fine, dismissing things based on a caparison of value isn't a logical fallacy or anything.
[quote]
If the extent of your experience with radical feminism is video games and a Joker comic book cover, you need to spend more time on Google actually researching this sort of stuff. There has always been external influence on video games - before the "extremist feminism" bogeyman it was Jack Thompson and "video games make people violent" threatening to censor all our games. Look how that ended up. It's no different in this case.[/QUOTE]
Are you telling me Jack Thompson and all the craze about violent video games had no negative impact in the games industry? That's absolutely ridiculous, but please continue to talk down to me.
Responses like this is what spurns people and helps nothing. Dismissals, talking down, misrepresentations of the others' tone, overall being largely disrespectful. You notice I was sarcastic about the comparison of value? it's because you formed your response in dismissive tone that puts me in the feeling of being attacked. That shuts down a lot of discussion when you put things in that sort of form.
[QUOTE=splenda;48542505]The internet as a whole likes to stereotype people and group them. From things as innocent as different threads for different games to less innocent things like calling all people who follow Islam terrorists.[/QUOTE]
Little bit of a tangent, but I'd argue that imageboard/chan tier "offensiveness" is actually a good thing. It's so rampant and ubiquitous that meaningless but typically "offensive" words are entirely defused. If you want to offend someone within those internet cultures, you need to actually have some meaning behind what you say, just calling every muslim a "terrorist towelhead" or something ends up meaning absolutely nothing, the anonymity helps too. In general i think it's a positive thing for people to leave behind the idea of people getting offended by childish slurs or swears, it leaves a lot more room for very direct discussion, its the main positive of those otherwise hellscape-like boards.
You go to a forum like neogaf and everyone is so busy tiptoeing around all the language and PC nothing of substance ever gets said, usually that substance is against the rules in itself. Facepunch tackles the issue by having a pretty open style of moderation with both rules against use of slurs, and the kind of passive aggressive but still PC shitposting a number of people have gotten banned for since these SJW related discussions started popping up.
What's funny is watching what Peter Hitchens said right before she took the podium.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trRdlNTbe0k[/media]
He pretty much predicted word for word how she would argue against him, and perfectly described her kind of mindset.
Her voice... its the second coming of Anne Widdecombe .
[QUOTE=mooman1080;48543478]So because there are only 70 members in a very successful company it's hiring practices are suddenly invalidated? And no one takes note of them? Not other companies that have a small work force?
Yes I would. I'd say it has no place on metic critic because they're bringing their ideologies into the a review where they're not relevant. As would I say the polygon review has no place on meta critic. Both of which are weighing their reviews by their own ideologies which results in an impact of publisher decisions, it's subtle but it has impact. I appreciate you typing those words out in all caps and misrepresenting my tone though. I also like how your initial response is saying "who cares" then making an assumption about me.
Did I say anything about whether I agreed with what polygon said or not? I said on the basis of a review it can most certainly be seen as irrelevant. But that's fine, dismissing things based on a caparison of value isn't a logical fallacy or anything.
Are you telling me Jack Thompson and all the craze about violent video games had no negative impact in the games industry? That's absolutely ridiculous, but please continue to talk down to me.
Responses like this is what spurns people and helps nothing. Dismissals, talking down, misrepresentations of the others' tone, overall being largely disrespectful. You notice I was sarcastic about the comparison of value? it's because you formed your response in dismissive tone that puts me in the feeling of being attacked. That shuts down a lot of discussion when you put things in that sort of form.[/QUOTE]
I'm being dismissive because if you only [i]really[/i] care about feminism in the context of a fairly niche gaming market localized to the US and Europe, then you're dismissing the larger worldwide context. Jack Thompson had a negative impact on the gaming industry, sure - does that mean that lawyers are extremists damaging our society? It's taking a tiny minority and extrapolating it onto the whole. It's not even a stretch to compare a single person to all lawyers - a single Polygon review and an edited comic book cover being extrapolated to cover all of feminism is just as absurd.
I'm pro-disclosure in articles and I consider myself pro-gamergate, but when you're discussing something like gender identity and positive discrimination and debating the issues of radical feminism and intersectionality and shit, it's incredibly aggravating when people on the internet [i]continually[/i] drag it down to "but video games and journalistic ethics!" It's irrelevant to the discussion and all it does is highlight an absurd level of willful ignorance about the topic - if you just jump back to video games as a highlight of feminists "censoring" people, you're demonstrating an amazing inability to realize when you're in an echo chamber.
It's not even censorship in any of those cases. A review is an opinion piece - ideology can take part in that. Look at movies and you'll find hundreds of reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB done by [i]professionals[/i] that criticize movies for things far more ideological than Bayonetta flaunting her sexuality.
All I heard was an 8 minute sexist and racist rant about privilege. Why is that being clapped?
[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;48541184]heres a free avatar out of that
[img]http://kiwime.me/files/st/ohnoavatar.gif[/img]
no border thou too tired to do one
on topic
i dont know what to say, someone really needs to help her[/QUOTE]
Snagged! Idgaf if i'm late, gonna use this until i die!
[QUOTE=darcy010;48543888]All I heard was an 8 minute sexist and racist rant about privilege. Why is that being clapped?[/QUOTE]
Because they no longer have to listen to her anymore.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;48543352]I think they're significant in that they're giving the rest of this wonderful movement a bad name, making the movement seem less legitimate and generally fucking it up.
Part of that blame lies with the people who see the extremists and don't look any further though, as well as those who just apply the 'extremist' label to any feminist who holds ideas that they don't personally agree with. It's super subjective and difficult to manage.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about you, but I always thought it was extremely unhealthy for the sane and rational ones of a group to not acknowledge/fight against the extremists of the same group. I mean, if the extremists are all- or most of all- they hear it's hard to blame them because of both how loud they are and how easy it is to get exposed to their side first.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;48543944]I don't know about you, but I always thought it was extremely unhealthy for the sane and rational ones of a group to not acknowledge/fight against the extremists of the same group. I mean, if the extremists are all- or most of all- they hear it's hard to blame them because of both how loud they are and how easy it is to get exposed to their side first.[/QUOTE]
I used to think this, until I started realizing that people would hear only the extremists, and then they'd dive into discussion [i]knowing nothing but the extremist viewpoint[/i] and would outright refuse to click on their search bar and look up reasonable feminist points of view that are actually widely accepted and acknowledged. Instead of listening to people who have spent their lives on gender studies and actually written some thought-provoking stuff that they can access for free on the internet, people are more inclined to go and dig for whatever they can to reinforce their own already-established perspectives on a whole movement.
I think that people like the woman in the video are absolutely fucking insane and blatantly unreasonable. I say this all the time and I acknowledge and fight against them a lot by proposing more reasonable perspectives on feminism that are actually rooted in academia.
This goes for [i]absolutely any social movement on the internet[/i].
Black Lives Matter, right? Why don't black people care about black on black crime? [I]Oh wait[/I], there's literally hundreds of organizations dedicated to getting rid of it a google search away.
What is privilege? It's such a nebulous concept that nobody understands and it's just used to shut down arguments! It's so confusing! Instead of googling the concept to learn something and understand what I'm talking about, I'm going to skip that part and start discussing it without even knowing what it is!
I absolutely blame people who repeatedly refuse to spend a couple hours googling to learn the perspectives of the other side. It's easier to just dig into the trenches and scream SJW instead of ].[i]fucking reading[/i].
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48544008] -snip- [/QUOTE]
You know what tends to make people dismiss what you have to say no matter how reasonable? Talking down to people and acting like a condescending asshole.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48544008]I used to think this, until I started realizing that people would hear only the extremists, and then they'd dive into discussion [i]knowing nothing but the extremist viewpoint[/i] and would outright refuse to click on their search bar and look up reasonable feminist points of view that are actually widely accepted and acknowledged. Instead of listening to people who have spent their lives on gender studies and actually written some thought-provoking stuff that they can access for free on the internet, people are more inclined to go and dig for whatever they can to reinforce their own already-established perspectives on a whole movement.
I think that people like the woman in the video are absolutely fucking insane and blatantly unreasonable. I say this all the time and I acknowledge and fight against them a lot by proposing more reasonable perspectives on feminism that are actually rooted in academia.
This goes for [i]absolutely any social movement on the internet[/i].
Black Lives Matter, right? Why don't black people care about black on black crime? [I]Oh wait[/I], there's literally hundreds of organizations dedicated to getting rid of it a google search away.
What is privilege? It's such a nebulous concept that nobody understands and it's just used to shut down arguments! It's so confusing! Instead of googling the concept to learn something and understand what I'm talking about, I'm going to skip that part and start discussing it without even knowing what it is!
I absolutely blame people who repeatedly refuse to spend a couple hours googling to learn the perspectives of the other side. It's easier to just dig into the trenches and scream SJW instead of ].[i]fucking reading[/i].[/QUOTE]
and i used to think like you until i realized that people are retarded twats and nothing I do will change that
and I'm not saying they're not to blame, they are, but so is the guy that won't educate the idiots and instead just starts shit-flinging (not talking about you, though, you've been good).
[QUOTE=ClauAmericano;48540896]Not even 20 seconds in and I'm already laughing on how fancy everyone is dressed up.[/QUOTE]
the lady talking thinks she is some kind of fucking queen lmao
[QUOTE=Anderan;48544027]You know what tends to make people dismiss what you have to say no matter how reasonable? Talking down to people and acting like a condescending asshole.[/QUOTE]
I'm not a teacher. If you dismiss all of feminism because somebody on the internet was condescending, you're the asshole, not me.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48544077]I'm not a teacher. If you dismiss all of feminism because somebody on the internet was condescending, you're the asshole, not me.[/QUOTE]
no offense but that's a pretty shitty excuse
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48544077]I'm not a teacher. If you dismiss all of feminism because somebody on the internet was condescending, you're the asshole, not me.[/QUOTE]
That's a pretty massive leap in logic. Just because someone doesn't listen to you doesn't mean they'll disregard a movement in its entirety. I'm just saying you're not helping the movement in the slightest by talking down to people and all you do is turn off people who might still be sitting on the fence and cause them to look for information elsewhere which may or may not drive them either way.
He didn't say all of feminism. He said what [B]you[/B] have to say.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;48544079]no offense but that's a pretty shitty excuse[/QUOTE]
So is saying that condescension is enough of a reason to dismiss everything else someone's said.
I came into this thread with my perspective on how people get to have the perspective of the woman in the video. That was it - just some explanation. Only got condescending three posts in when someone thought the hiring practices of a 70-person private company was enough evidence to say that radical feminists were negatively impacting the world.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48544098]So is saying that condescension is enough of a reason to dismiss everything else someone's said.
I came into this thread with my perspective on how people get to have the perspective of the woman in the video. That was it - just some explanation. Only got condescending three posts in when someone thought the hiring practices of a 70-person private company was enough evidence to say that radical feminists were negatively impacting the world.[/QUOTE]
ok that is too but you gotta understand that 2 wrongs don't make a right, compadre. If someone comes in and think your group is a group of assholes, don't be an asshole to them, that helps [I]nobody.[/I] Instead explain to them the real deal, and sure they might not get it immediately but if you have enough patience, then eventually most will get it through their heads.
It doesn't matter if you're not a teacher. [B]It's your group.[/B]
I can't follow a fucking thing she's saying.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya2nUm6UqLM[/media]
She spends the first half of her argument joking and talking about herself because she knows she can basically win it with the other 4 minutes.
She doesn't support the words of the column writers but she explains that offensive language is a fluid thing that can both support prosecution and oppose it.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48540902]Social justice minded people in SH keep saying that these people don't exist but I keep seeing them existing.[/QUOTE]
nobody really tries denying that they exist
people just say they're a vocal minority
i've probably said this about a thousand times tho but even when i call you out directly on the shit you say you proceed to make the exact same posts like a week later so tbh i'm not sure why i bother
if that's some sort of crazy strategy then gj it's stupid but it's working
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;48544279]nobody really tries denying that they exist
people just say they're a vocal minority
i've probably said this about a thousand times tho but even when i call you out directly on the shit you say you proceed to make the exact same posts like a week later so tbh i'm not sure why i bother
if that's some sort of crazy strategy then gj it's stupid but it's working[/QUOTE]
Vocal minorities are the ones who get shit done most of the time, since they're loud and heard by people in power. A silent majority doesn't matter if a vocal minority is heard. Be you a feminist, anti feminist, mra or whatever other crap, everyone should speak up against shit like this. Instead all you get is "they're a vocal minority" and nothing gets done. Then slowly universities get poisoned and it starts to spread.
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;48544412]I wish the search thing here sucked less because people have being denying it without the vocal minority attached to it.[/QUOTE]
i'm sure you can find some random dudes saying these people straight up don't exist. you can also find people on the other side of the argument saying "there is a war on men" and similar crap, but i don't use quotes like that to attack people who disagree with me because that's just a cheap and childish way of trying to discredit a side by targeting the weakest portion of the group, which is exactly what rangerxi is doing
Shooting down a guy right after she says it's not right to exclude people from discourse.
Is it even possible to have this little self-awareness?
Oh god, the whole 'research' thing is just the cherry on the sundae.
I fucking loved Peter "Morality Man" Hitchens in this video
"Khalid al husseini 17 hours ago
we muslims don't need some fat liberal white woman to speak for us thanks
go back to the kitchen"
Found this absolute gem in the comments
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.