Ce sujet est fermé
That depends on what you said to them.
Used good ol' fashioned stereotypes.
It's more than possible to troll somebody without acting like a sexist jerk.
When it comes to feminists what is more important than their femininity? Obvious target is obvious as they say.
(NOT IMPLIED RAPE).
That's ironic, since social activists love scoring points themselves. I could post some videos here showing social activists and feminists harassing people with their extremism, but they usually have excessive swearing, so I'm not sure if it's ok to post it here. You could also spend 5 minutes on tumblr or twitter. I'm sure you would have an field day.
Somehow - for reasons that I can't explain - my google searches for feminist video game activists have not turned up these videos of swearing and harrasing that you're talking about. So we're back to the same challenge: back up your accusations with actual evidence. Otherwise, you have 0 credibility.
People also use a person's race, sexuality, religion, place of origin, weight, accent, ect when they attack them.
Gender is not exempt.
Better get used to it.
That might very well make those people racists or homophobes. I'm not sure why you think this is some form of a defence.
And, again, we're talking about rape threats. I'm going to keep repeating that until you address it. You're defending rape threats as trolling.
That might very well make those people racists or homophobes. I'm not sure why you think this is some form of a defence.
And, again, we're talking about rape threats. I'm going to keep repeating that until you address it. You're defending rape threats as trolling.
WRONG! I support trolling minus death threats AND rape jokes.
You really need to learn to differentiate between me being a realist and defending something.
WRONG! I support trolling minus death threats AND rape jokes.
You mean, you support potential run of the mill racism, sexism, or homophobia? Because again, from your posts, you're not doing a good job justifying the dividing line between these two, and the things you say count as just trolling fall pretty much in those camps.
Guest_Puddi III_*
Yet there is an easy-to-use switch that can turn off such cyber-bullying. Anybody can find it on the back of their PC's power supply. I think we have a civic duty to spread the word of this invention.
racism,
Everyone is a little bit racist, but nah, not yet anyway.
sexism,
Yep, got to love the rants by feminists.
homophobia?
Yep, got to stop raging in online video games and then compensating the butthurt with trolling.
Because again, from your posts, you're not doing a good job justifying the dividing line between these two, and the things you say count as just trolling fall pretty much in those camps.
Well guess what pal, I don't use death threats or rape jokes in my subjective trolling. I, however, acknowledge that others will use death threats and rape jokes as trolling.
That's my clarification, feel free to keep accusing me because I won't respond.
I just don't see what the point of trolling is. Here's a conversation I've never seen online:
SJW: Games need to be more inclusive.
Troll: You only think that because you're an ugly feminist hag.
SJW: Wow, you're right! I never thought of it that way before. I guess I am an ugly feminist hag; better change my mind about this issue! Thanks, troll!
Troll: Anytime. Have a nice day!
There's nothing wrong about disagreeing with the SJW's, but I don't see any purpose in actively trolling them when you know it will never persuade them to think otherwise. It's also probably harmful to the gaming community as a whole; there is a widespread perception among a lot of folks that gamers are just immature and sexist across the board, and I don't see any good reason to give ammunition to people who think this.
I call it personal entertainment during rainy days.
That is literally not what inclusiveness means.
inclusive (ɪnˈkluːsɪv) — adj (foll by of ) 1. considered together (with): capital inclusive of profit 2. ( postpositive ) including the limits specified: Monday to Friday inclusive is five days 3. comprehensive 4. not excluding any particular groups of people: an inclusive society 5. logic Compare exclusive (of a disjunction) true if at least one of its component propositions is true
Inclusiveness means not excluding a particular group of people. It doesn't mean "give me what I want".
Did I just out you as someone against same-sex marriage? I think I'm just going to savour that victory for a second.
Moving on, it's no longer up for debate in any self-respecting circle that the systematic denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples is the violation of a fundamental right, namely the right of any individual to be treated equally by law. Whether we are talking about denying minorities the right to vote or same-sex couples the right to marry, both are fundamental affronts to the constitutional principles of equality that underlie a free and democratic society (in Canada, this would be s. 15 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms; I believe America has similar equality clauses).
Dictionaries say a lot of things, but it's irrelevant to how the word is used by the SJWs at this point. When a society thinks racism/sexism/homophobia is wrong, when it is illegal to discriminate against somebody based on such factors, there is no need for special attention to be paid to "inclusiveness".
That's an amusing definition of victory that wouldn't win many battles for sure. It's not in line with my views of what constitutes marriage but I've never bothered protesting or writing some politican about it. So do please go on and tell me what a terrible person I am. Do inform me how I am now trying to block a "fundamental right" that isn't listed in the Bill of Rights, Constitution, or anywhere else. No person is denied the right to marriage anyway, but no sole citizen has the right to determine what the legal defintion of marriage is. So should I feel ashamed for supporting the exercise of democratic principles in believing that individual states should decide that for themselves by voting? (Isn't that outrageous concept what the SJWs wanted to crucify Orson Scott Card for a year ago?)
But I suppose I am just not an enlightened part of some "self-respecting circle". Which way to reeducation comrade? Because why bother trying to convince anybody that something is a good idea when you can just shame them instead?
Running away isn't a real solution, even leaving aside that some of these "trolls" are persistent enough to leave phone messages and mail too if they get the chance. That's just an excuse to pretend everything is fine and it's OK to viciously harass people because internet. At the very least we can have conversations like these to remind people how irresponsible, stupid or even criminal the "innocent" behavior they are tacitly condoning really is.
Of course it's a solution in this case. Either that or toughen up and deal with it. You're talking about an issue that cannot be solved. Lots of people are irresponsible, stupid, or even criminal. Yet am I somehow condoning their behavior because I recognize their right to behave like idiots online? With all of the real problems out there in the world I don't see any reason to lose sleep over online bullying.
Guest_TheDarkKnightReturns_*
I don't like the so-called inclusiveness of certain brands simply for the fact that it forces me to accept or tolerate an idea whether I like it or not. I tend to become less sympathetic about accepting/embracing such and such sub-culture or train of thought or whatever when it's plastered in neon lights that it's 'wrong' not to do so. It makes me think "you know what subtext, SJW, and whoever else... screw you and your message. I'm going to believe what I want even if it's wrong just to stick it to you." Sometimes taking a hard stance on whatever idea can be counterproductive. It's why I don't take fundamentalist Christians serious anymore despite being a monotheist myself.
I just don't see what the point of trolling is. Here's a conversation I've never seen online:
but I don't see any purpose in actively trolling them when you know it will never persuade them to think otherwise.
Trolling is an art dedicated to getting the response the troll wants. Such as making a SJW extremely mad to the point of foaming at the mouth, slamming their keyboard with caps-lock on, and making a complete fool of themselves. It's not about trying to convince somebody who can't be convinced.
Every good point TDKR.
Shoving inclusiveness down other people's throats is a good way to ****** people off and turn them off to your cause. It worked with me.
Guest_Puddi III_*
Of course it's a solution in this case. Either that or toughen up and deal with it. You're talking about an issue that cannot be solved. Lots of people are irresponsible, stupid, or even criminal. Yet am I somehow condoning their behavior because I recognize their right to behave like idiots online? With all of the real problems out there in the world I don't see any reason to lose sleep over online bullying.
When it's criminal, they actually don't have a right to behave like that. If it's not criminal and you "recognize their right" by telling the people they harass they should just toughen up and deal with it, if that's your great solution, then yeah, you are basically condoning the behavior even if you're not outright doing it yourself.
When it's criminal, they actually don't have a right to behave like that. If it's not criminal and you "recognize their right" by telling the people they harass they should just toughen up and deal with it, if that's your great solution, then yeah, you are basically condoning the behavior even if you're not outright doing it yourself.
When it's actually criminal (I suppose threats would be) the anonymity factor of the internet comes into play. So there isn't any way to correct the issue. So I am now a supporter of online bullying? Oh well.
I would actually argue that it kind of depends(as some lore things are very specifically defined, such as Asari being mono gendered), but in the specific case being talked about then the internal logic and representation shouldn't even be conflicting. It would not be a stretch to say they're travelers from some far off land.
Although I think it says a lot more that some people consider asians to be so different from us that they need an explanation for existing in the first place within the game world, even if they haven't been shown yet.
On another note I found Blizzard's "We focus on fun before representation in the media" a bit odd considering they'll go and make a character like Tyrael who is easily one of the most epic characters in the Diablo universe, and he isn't white. They have regularly included people beyond the standard grizzled angry white dude in all their games(not to say that they're perfect though, especially when it comes to female armour in their games).
I actually noticed that Blizzard's comments actually seem incongruent with their actions too.
No she is not, she is getting attacked by trolls who just happen to use her gender against her because she feels super-sensitive about it.
Trolls use the most hurtful things to illicit a response whether or not they believe it. To trolls the potential lolz is worth it.
Do you think that Anita would have as much exposure as she does if it hadn't been for the people being so virulently outspoken against her?
Do you think that Anita would have as much exposure as she does if it hadn't been for the people being so virulently outspoken against her?
Yep, it would taken several years but most certainly.
You mean, you support potential run of the mill racism, sexism, or homophobia? Because again, from your posts, you're not doing a good job justifying the dividing line between these two, and the things you say count as just trolling fall pretty much in those camps.
It is a funny thing to defend bigoted rhetoric by saying that you are trolling. The way I see it, there is a universal human right to free speech, which unfortunately includes the right to offend people for whatever reason you want, whether that be the belief that you are fighting to save someone's soul by offending them, offending someone just to amuse yourself, or just because you don't like the person you are trying to offend. Sure, our right to offend may hurt certain groups of people disproportionately and being a straight white male makes it easy for me to defend hate speech. However, I still believe our Right to Offend to be a necessary evil, because without it, governments could too easily ban legitimate criticism, by using some contrived excuse to call it hate speech.
Now with that said, I also believe that victims of hate speech have the right to strike back; to use their own freedom of speech to publicly shame bigots and call them out on their BS, and this is where the "I was just get trolling" defense gets absurd. Sure, if you want to say outrageous things in order to offend people for your own amusement, then you have the right to, but the fact that you only did it to amuse yourself does not make what you said less outrageous. If you say bigoted things, then you could argue that you are not actually a bigot yourself because you not actually believe the things you said, but it could also be argued that if you respected the feelings of the groups you smeared, you would find better ways to amuse yourself.
My point is, if you've decided to troll, you should be prepared to have people assume that you meant every word you said, and never assume that your motivation for offending people should make you immune to criticism. I've never really understood whether self-identified trolls actually feel like SJWs treat them unfairly, or if they just say so in order to troll people like me who admire legitimately funny trolls.
And yet if people call out social activists for going too far on their views or for harassing people for disagreeing, they are wrong? Why is that only one side get to be criticized?
I've seen plenty of people get called out for going too far. A lot of the time with our own game.
It's far easier to laugh at counter-trolling when you are a self-proclaimed troll.
Yep, it would taken several years but most certainly.
I don't. But I'm biased because the hate is literally what it took for me to take notice. It's what I focused on when sharing the issue too.
In any case, we can agree that the hate exacerbated the issue and now you have to suffer for it because it turned Anita into a martyr. She was able to leverage the attacks against her and has become more prolific as a result.
As such, I think it's a valid argument to point out that the hate filled responses helped fuel and motivate a lot of people. As TDKR pointed out, the radical views of people can push people away (which is what happened with me - I began to realize there was an issue, and while I was still getting my bearings it was clear to see a perspective I did not want to associate with).
Removed some posts since it's not actually relevant and overstepped myself a bit.
Do you think that Anita would have as much exposure as she does if it hadn't been for the people being so virulently outspoken against her?
Her videos would still be as polarizing (I would say biased) as they've always been. So I think she'd still get plenty of exposure because of that.
In any case, we can agree that the hate exacerbated the issue and now you have to suffer for it because it turned Anita into a martyr. She was able to leverage the attacks against her and has become more prolific as a result.
Me suffer? Oh no, I won't suffer as long as she stays away from my beloved franchises and keeps her ideology on TED talks.
And fortunately as she gained popularity, more people are beginning to notice her hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of like-minded individuals.
So it's kinda win some, lose some, get even.
Retour en haut