[QUOTE=Duck M.;51710837]I hear this all the time but I've never seen it in practice. Usually when people are labeled a racist, sexist, or bigot, they're being racist, sexist, or bigoted.[/QUOTE]
Alternatively, it could be that rather than debating or educating said people whose opinions veer into sexist or racist territory, labeling them is a far easier and cathartic option, with the small "oopsie" of making said people want to not associate with people who have labelled them so, and less likely to respond favourably to any rational explanation or actual attempts at educating them from said group.
Let's face it, racism is something of a default setting in the human brain. Immediately labeling and spitting at people who, not being aware of their own prejudices (and most people are blissfully unaware of it - even people who consider themselves liberal and open-minded often have their fair share of prejudices) and not knowing any better resort to this evolutionarily advantegous but quite uncivilized "default setting", while making you feel much better about yourself, does nothing to alleviate the problem.
Due to the global instabilization and economic downturn in the last decade, peoples' livelihoods have become much less stable. The resulting stress kickstarts the old survival instincts, which don't exactly works as intended in a modern society. Reverting to old and 'proven' ways of doing things, being wary of outsiders, looking for scapegoats, all part of these behaviours. Antagonism and sensationalism does nothing to turn people away from these behaviours.
[QUOTE=IAmIchigo;51710893]Nobody is saying it is the majority of left who think like this, the issue is that they are so vocal and when people raise concerns about it they are shouted down and told its not a problem.[/QUOTE]
It is a problem, but it's nothing compared to the rise of the alt-right. For every 'social justice warrior' there are 10 alt-rightists actively fighting against social progress.
[QUOTE=wewt!;51710898]No, I'm saying they didn't vote democrat. So either they didn't turn out or they voted 3rd party, [I]or [/I]voted trump. You are oversimplifying, but I could've been more specific I guess.[/QUOTE]
That still doesn't make sense. Vote on policy, don't vote based on it's worst supporters. If you abstained from voting, then base it on the fact that you like none of candidates, not none of the candidate's supporters.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51710899]There's being anti-hillary and then there's being a self-hating liberal who votes trump because he/she hates liberals.
Also don't get me started on Bernie or Bust.[/QUOTE]
It is not self hating to vote Trump, if they prefer Trump over Hillary that is something people need to get over.
I hate this idea you HAVE to vote a certain way or be labelled a racist.
[QUOTE=CanUBe;51710909]It is a problem, but it's nothing compared to the rise of the alt-right. For every 'social justice warrior' there are 10 alt-rightists actively fighting against social progress.[/QUOTE]
How is the alt right doing anything, they are crazies on the internet.
I can show you loads of videos of people that are "SJWs" that attack others for different opinions.
[QUOTE=CanUBe;51710909]It is a problem, but it's nothing compared to the rise of the alt-right. For every 'social justice warrior' there are 10 alt-rightists actively fighting against social progress.[/QUOTE]
The problem is, the actions of so-labelled "social justice warriors" was what started a process in the public discourse that snowballed and snowballed until the far-right could gain traction.
[QUOTE=CanUBe;51710887]Oh yeah, people see videos like this and delude themselves into thinking the Hugh Mungus lady or other social justice warriors represent any sizeable portion of the left.[/QUOTE]
I don't think this, mostly because I [I]am[/I] left leaning and I am not like that. People really became distrustful of liberal media because of the media itself propagating really bizzare claims regarding race and similar topics, not just the SJW activists themselves.
[quote]Meanwhile you're quick to cry "generalisation!" when alt-rightists are called bigots for supporting a bigoted man who spreads bigoted views.[/quote]
I would say it's a generalization simply because the newer influx of people into the alt right were completely unaware of its white supremacist origins. As fas as the bigoted man thing goes, I think you're overreacting. I don't think Trump is that bigoted, but if his administration tries to impose bigoted laws you can believe your buttered biscuit I'll be the first in line to call him out over :ok:the internet:ok:.
Regardless of whether you want foreigners in or out, I digress that a refugee problem is probably a better problem to have than an illegal alien problem.
[QUOTE=wewt!;51710891]There are countless examples of people being constantly berated over minor shit, think of the Rosetta scientist who got called sexist because of a shirt he was wearing, the countless retarded buzzfeed and MTV videos bashing on "white men", manspreading, mansplaining. Hell, gamergate is a great example of antigg media pulling the sexist card on people just because there was a woman involved in the beginning of gamergate. This sort of dishonest behavior sparked a lot of distrust towards liberal media.[/QUOTE]
Oh man, I totally forgot about that shirt controversy. What was that, 3 years ago? Looking back on it, I think that it was a particularly heated issue for a few reasons. One being that women are notably underrepresented in STEM and so it definitely hit a sensitive note. I think that it was somewhat tasteless and unprofessional to be perfectly honest, but the backlash was a bit overblown. The shirt definitely would've been something that would've gotten you in trouble with dress code in high school, so I dont really think it was appropriate for the occasion. So it's at least somewhat more nuanced than it seems.
On a similar note, I think that the MTV video received a similar overreaction. It was bad and particularly condescending, but a lot of the points made were sound. I could go over them individually if you want but I agree with most of them. The problem was in that they presented them in probably the worst way I can imagine and directly attacked a single group of people on the basis of their gender and race which I pretty much inherently disagree with.'
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt gamergate begin with questioning the promiscuity of Zoe Quinn a la Five Guys? As someone who frequented 4chan at the time of the movements inception, I can attest to some of the motivations behind the movement as if I recall correctly that was one of the hotbeds of its origin. From the beginning, the movement was inseparable from sexism and progressivism in video games and games journalism, although those were just some of the concerns of the amorphous, vaguely defined grassroots movement (sound familiar?). It shouldn't be surprising that there were accusations of sexism, especially where they were warranted.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51710910][B]That still doesn't make sense. Vote on policy,[/B] don't vote based on it's worst supporters. If you abstained from voting, then base it on the fact that you like none of candidates, not none of the candidate's supporters.[/QUOTE]
Of course not voting on policy makes no sense, I'm not trying to justify the way people vote, I was only trying to explain that left leaning people didn't go "oh this is what liberals are, now I shall be alt right becuause I don't like that", they went "liberal media is shitting on my existence because I have testicles and can't put my legs together on the train, when did the liberal movement become so stupid" and then they became ambivalent or critical of mainstream liberal media and various left movements (feminism, BLM, etc). And also that the alt right wasn't people going from one train to the other, it was right leaning people being dissapointed at the republican party and joining an internet based movement that they really didn't know originated from a position of white supremacy and nationalism.
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51710334]The Police. You could use google you know and I wouldn't need to spoonfeed you.
[url]https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnyheteridag.se%2Fpolisens-interna-dokument-samtliga-sexforgripare-av-utlandsk-harkomst-pa-we-are-stockholm%2F[/url]
Oh and I like how none of the usual suspects have touched my question, clearly shows their agenda so far:[/QUOTE]
Just popping in to say this isn't how arguments work. It's your job to present your proof, not our job to find citations for your claims. If you think that providing citations is spoonfeeding you have no business debating anyone.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;51710976]Regardless of whether you want foreigners in or out, I digress that a refugee problem is probably a better problem to have than an illegal alien problem.[/QUOTE]
Not if the refugees are becoming illegal aliens disappearing into our country when said they get denied asylum.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51710992]Just popping in to say this isn't how arguments work. It's your job to present your proof, not our job to find citations for your claims. If you think that providing citations is spoonfeeding you have no business debating anyone.[/QUOTE]
You know this goes two ways, right?
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51710993]You know this goes two ways, right?[/QUOTE]
And?
[QUOTE=Duck M.;51710983]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt gamergate begin with questioning the promiscuity of Zoe Quinn a la Five Guys? As someone who frequented 4chan at the time of the movements inception, I can attest to some of the motivations behind the movement as if I recall correctly that was one of the hotbeds of its origin. From the beginning, the movement was inseparable from sexism and progressivism in video games and games journalism, although those were just some of the concerns of the amorphous, vaguely defined grassroots movement (sound familiar?). It shouldn't be surprising that there were accusations of sexism, especially where they were warranted.[/QUOTE]
The issue wasn't that she was sleeping with 5 guys it was that the 5 guys she slept with were in games journalism and all wrote good things about her game, it was proof of what people had believed for years that games journos were doing favours for friends or partners.
Christ look at the aftermath the whole games journos pro thing kinda shows that Zoe Quinn was but a part of a huge mess in the games industry.
On another note that "Dear White guys video" was a racist video that judged all white people and tried to play it off as some cutesy little jab.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51711003]And?[/QUOTE]
Usually both parties present data as proof for what they are arguing about. I been doing my part, the other part, not everyone much.
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51711012]Usually both parties present data as proof for what they are arguing about.[/QUOTE]
The sky is also blue. What's your point, and how does it relate to you viewing presenting citations as spoonfeeding?
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51711016]The sky is also blue. What's your point, and how does it relate to you viewing presenting citations as spoonfeeding?[/QUOTE]
He wasn't doing any research at all. Wasn't even reading links or articles I linked, I know that since I got such fast replies - either that or he's an idiot savant like Rain Man.
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51711023]He wasn't doing any research at all. Wasn't even reading links or articles I linked, I know that since I got such fast replies - either that or he's an idiot savant like Rain Man.[/QUOTE]
Oh, so is this like a "He's doing it, so I can do it too" kinda thing?
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51711031]Oh, so is this like a "He's doing it, so I can do it too" kinda thing?[/QUOTE]
Your point being?
[QUOTE=Duck M.;51710983]Oh man, I totally forgot about that shirt controversy. What was that, 3 years ago? Looking back on it, I think that it was a particularly heated issue for a few reasons. One being that women are notably underrepresented in STEM and so it definitely hit a sensitive note. I think that it was somewhat tasteless and unprofessional to be perfectly honest, but the backlash was a bit overblown. The shirt definitely would've been something that would've gotten you in trouble with dress code in high school, so I dont really think it was appropriate for the occasion. So it's at least somewhat more nuanced than it seems.[/QUOTE]
It was a shirt made for him by his friend (who is female, if you find that relevant for some reason) and he wore it for the occasion specifically because he appreciated her gift. Women aren't under represented in STEM, there just isn't as many of them in those fields. I can't even understand the connection of how it could be offensive and I have yet to meet a woman in STEM who would be so sensitive and weak as to be offended by a [I]shirt.[/I] And high school isn't really comparably with many things in the real world.
[quote] On a similar note, I think that the MTV video received a similar overreaction. It was bad and particularly condescending, but a lot of the points made were sound. I could go over them individually if you want but I agree with most of them. The problem was in that they presented them in probably the worst way I can imagine and directly attacked a single group of people on the basis of their gender and race which I pretty much inherently disagree with.'[/QUOTE]
If we're talking about the 2017 resolutions, I would strongly disagree that any of their points were sound. They called Kanye West a race traitor for meeting with Trump, which is stupid. They ignored that rich black people exist in america, they put white people into a singular box labelled as "the ones in power", which is ridiculous, why would you ever judge someone based on the colour of their skin? Their points were not only presented in a questionable manner, their very foundation was questionable in exactly the manner that you inherently disagree with.
[QUOTE]Correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt gamergate begin with questioning the promiscuity of Zoe Quinn a la Five Guys? As someone who frequented 4chan at the time of the movements inception, I can attest to some of the motivations behind the movement as if I recall correctly that was one of the hotbeds of its origin. From the beginning, the movement was inseparable from sexism and progressivism in video games and games journalism, although those were just some of the concerns of the amorphous, vaguely defined grassroots movement (sound familiar?). It shouldn't be surprising that there were accusations of sexism, especially where they were warranted.[/QUOTE]
The reason people were pissed wasn't because Zoe Quinn fucked five guys. They were pissed because those five guys [I]clearly[/I] had a relationship with her, didn't disclose that they even knew her, and then reviewed and promoted her game unethically. The movement was inseperable from progressivism and sexism because that was the angle game media used in order to discredit it. The actual warranted accusations of sexism didn't hurt the original message of the movement (more transparency and ethics in games journalism), which means that the accusations that the movement is just gamers being pissed at girls takin' their vidya, people really got angry for being labelled sexist when they weren't.
[editline]23rd January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51710992]Just popping in to say this isn't how arguments work. It's your job to present your proof, not our job to find citations for your claims. If you think that providing citations is spoonfeeding you have no business debating anyone.[/QUOTE]
He was referring to spoonfeeding because he has provided evidence of his own accord before, but it has been ignored constantly to the point where you literally have to shove it in people's faces for them to acknowledge that maybe you're arguing from a position of fact.
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51711034]Your point being?[/QUOTE]
My point is I'm trying to understand precisely what it is you're doing. Someone asked you how you knew something after a lengthy discussion. Your response wasn't that you already posted the link in the thread, so clearly it wasn't a case of him not reading the citations that you didn't submit, your response was that he shouldn't need you to spoonfeed him your evidence to back up your claim, which is absolute nonsense.
Your defense was a bunch of vague non-sequitors and an aside about him not reading a different link. That's as flimsy as it comes. It seems as though your defense is "well, he's not adhering to standards of good faith debate so I don't have to either," but that would be stupid so I'm trying to figure it out.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51711065]My point is I'm trying to understand precisely what it is you're doing. Someone asked you how you knew something after a lengthy discussion. Your response wasn't that you already posted the link in the thread, so clearly it wasn't a case of him not reading the citations that you didn't submit, your response was that he shouldn't need you to spoonfeed him your evidence to back up your claim, which is absolute nonsense.
Your defense was a bunch of vague non-sequitors and an aside about him not reading a different link. That's as flimsy as it comes. It seems as though your defense is "well, he's not adhering to standards of good faith debate so I don't have to either," but that would be stupid so I'm trying to figure it out.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=like one post up;51711043]He was referring to spoonfeeding because he has provided evidence of his own accord before, but it has been ignored constantly to the point where you literally have to shove it in people's faces for them to acknowledge that maybe you're arguing from a position of fact.[/QUOTE]
The spoonfeding remark was out of exasperation because of cited evidence being ignored, not that he had to give it.
[QUOTE=wewt!;51711081]The spoonfeding remark was out of exasperation because of cited evidence being ignored, not that he had to give it.[/QUOTE]
But that's dumb, to say "nobody is reading my citations anyway so it is no longer my responsibility to provide citations... it is your job now to Google it yourself."
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51711087]But that's dumb, to say "nobody is reading my citations anyway so it is no longer my responsibility to provide citations... it is your job now to Google it yourself."[/QUOTE]
lol it certainly doesn't help, I agree with you there, but it's not inherently his fault
I had to quote page 4 for Trim because he couldn't be arsed to find out what the cited proof is even [I]referring to[/I] even though he has posts on it.
[QUOTE=wewt!;51711043]It was a shirt made for him by his friend (who is female, if you find that relevant for some reason) and he wore it for the occasion specifically because he appreciated her gift. Women aren't under represented in STEM, there just isn't as many of them in those fields. I can't even understand the connection of how it could be offensive and I have yet to meet a woman in STEM who would be so sensitive and weak as to be offended by a [I]shirt.[/I] And high school isn't really comparably with many things in the real world.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by "Women aren't under represented in STEM, there just isn't as many of them in those fields"? I would be interested in an extrapolation if possible. Also, just because you didn't know any females in STEM that weren't taken aback or offended (I hesitate to use this word because of the connotations it typically draws these days) doesn't mean that there weren't any. I do remember some notable female STEM figures and astrophysicists being opposed to the shirt over the controversy on twitter. Anecdotal evidence and generalizations don't hold much water.
My point with the high school dress code mention was that those dress codes are typically representative of some standards of decency and maturity in dress. Not to an extreme degree and not always to a point that I agree with, but in general terms it's a decent litmus for our purposes.
[QUOTE]If we're talking about the 2017 resolutions, I would strongly disagree that any of their points were sound. They called Kanye West a race traitor for meeting with Trump, which is stupid. They ignored that rich black people exist in america, they put white people into a singular box labelled as "the ones in power", which is ridiculous, why would you ever judge someone based on the colour of their skin? Their points were not only presented in a questionable manner, their very foundation was questionable in exactly the manner that you inherently disagree with.[/QUOTE]
Well that is why I said most of their points and not all of them. You actually singled out the one I disagreed with most as a matter of fact. I found West's meeting with Trump to be a rather mature and insightful response to his election.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PEizajt.png[/IMG]
I would have done the same, good on him.
I just rewatched the video a few times a little while ago and I dont remember them "putting white people into a singular box labelled as 'the ones in power'", could you timestamp that part for me if we're talking about the same video?
[QUOTE]The reason people were pissed wasn't because Zoe Quinn fucked five guys. They were pissed because those five guys [I]clearly[/I] had a relationship with her, didn't disclose that they even knew her, and then reviewed and promoted her game unethically. The movement was inseperable from progressivism and sexism because that was the angle game media used in order to discredit it. The actual warranted accusations of sexism didn't hurt the original message of the movement (more transparency and ethics in games journalism), which means that the accusations that the movement is just gamers being pissed at girls takin' their vidya, people really got angry for being labelled sexist when they weren't.[/QUOTE]
Ah, I see. I appreciate the insight. I would definitely believe that those were the initial qualms, but I would also argue that the movement was co-opted by actual sexists, misogynists, and people like Milo in a wider scale. Would you disagree?
Sweden is such a fucking joke lol
[QUOTE=TheJoey;51709593]is live streaming your horrible violent crime on facebook the new "in" thing now?[/QUOTE]
It's like people want to feel powerful or something, like "try to catch us, we are total [whatever they think they are] by doing this" and they just come off as subhuman filth.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;51711129]What do you mean by "Women aren't under represented in STEM, there just isn't as many of them in those fields"? I would be interested in an extrapolation if possible. Also, just because you didn't know any females in STEM that weren't taken aback or offended (I hesitate to use this word because of the connotations it typically draws these days) doesn't mean that there weren't any. I do remember some notable female STEM figures and astrophysicists being opposed to the shirt over the controversy on twitter. Anecdotal evidence and generalizations don't hold much water.
My point with the high school dress code mention was that those dress codes are typically representative of some standards of decency and maturity in dress. Not to an extreme degree and not always to a point that I agree with, but in general terms it's a decent litmus for our purposes.[/QUOTE]
Maybe he shouldn't have worn the shirt, but that guy meant nothing but well with that shirt, and if anything it shows the importance of looking further than simply how people look. Shit blew up because sites like the verge ran stories saying his shirt just invalidated the progress of landing that spacecraft. The controversy was a product of shitty journalists who didn't think about the fact that they were calling out some random guy, and I assure you (because that guy has held presentations about the whole project) that he has inspired many more men and women to take up work in this field than he has turned away by wearing that particular shirt. The only tragedy was a bunch of sites starting a witchhunt on a guy they knew nothing about simply to drive clicks.
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51710438]I like how you quoted my post but didn't answer the question at all.
Never was never been, just want those that come here saying they need asylum and protection and committing crimes like rape and murder to be deported and I don't want the government to cover their crimes up. For that I am a racist.[/QUOTE]
Sweden truly does have cases of covering shit up, same as Germany (though in Germany isn't so bad).
Though deportation sends wrong message. If you deport them, this means to them they can rape, then get deported and that is.. should just jail them for long time I think.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;51711129]
Ah, I see. I appreciate the insight. I would definitely believe that those were the initial qualms, but I would also argue that the movement was co-opted by actual sexists, misogynists, and people like Milo in a wider scale. Would you disagree?[/QUOTE]
The actual sexists and misogynists are a minority of GG, in fact a lot of them left GG because they thought it was a weak movement.
Also do you actually believe Milo is a sexist misogynist? if yes could you just run me through why you think that as i don't understand how people have come to that conclusion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
