Ce sujet est fermé
She is a being attacked by a misogynist horde.
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.
Guest_Puddi III_*
No she is not, she is getting attacked by trolls who just happen to use her gender against her.
Trolls use the most hurtful things to illicit a response whether or not they believe it. To trolls the potential lolz is worth it.
Being a "troll" doesn't absolve anyone of the content of their speech. They are trolls and a misogynistic horde both.
Being a "troll" doesn't absolve anyone of the content of their speech. They are trolls and a misogynistic horde both.
You obviously don't understand trolling: it's using material that you may or may not believe to elicit a humorous response.
Guest_Puddi III_*
You obviously don't understand trolling: it's using material that you may or may not believe to elicit a humorous response.
Or it's just a sad excuse to air out how they really feel and then try to act blameless and misunderstood afterward.
Guest_AedanStarfang_*
Wait, are you saying it's not OK to have kids apologize to other kids when they're being bullies/jerks?
Um no, I was pointing out that a child being forced our guilted into apologizing is not the same as a genuine or heartfelt apology (i.e. we're putting more fat people in TES 6 because we wanted to, not because the public told us so).
Except that you're doing exactly that, because your example loses a great deal of rhetorical force when you substitute the absurd hypothetical you're using with a shared cultural value. For example, if we substitute religious fundamentalism with "opposition to virulent racism", the example goes in another direction entirely. It's exactly the same as another analogy you've previously used, that of support for the environment.
Asking for inclusiveness is asking for something that's, as a general value, broadly supported (at least in public) and generally representative of the fundamental social and political morality of the society that we live in. Using other examples - like religious extremism - simply doesn't carry the same weight because it makes the quest seem idiosyncratic in a way that it simply isn't when it comes to the actual values in play.
To expand on this analogy:
There are lots of moral values that are shared by a large and substantial portion of the public, and while these are subjective in some academic and philosophical sense, they are most certainly not really up for debate for most people making up our society.
This is all nothing more than a false equivalence. There are some values that, if people don't share them, we will judge and society will consider us right for judging. For example, marriage equality. Someone who doesn't share that value, at this point, is on the wrong side of the moral fence.
People support what they are convinced is in their best interests regardless of if that really is true or not. Or they will support something if they are coerced, guilted, or shamed into doing so. "Inclusiveness" isn't some moral value, it's a buzzword used by those who believe "equality" means quotas and forced respect based around the idea that people cannot be trusted to judge a person on their merits as opposed to race/gender/whatever.
Who is "we" and what do you intend to do about those on the "wrong side of the moral fence"? Is your judgement supposed to shame them? Considering the schizophrenic behavior of society these days any sort of "moral fence" on that issue is meaningless.
Or it's just a sad excuse to air out how they really feel and then try to act blameless and misunderstood afterward.
The anonymity of the internet (which is a good thing) means it could be either, but does it even matter? Unless some idiot does something stupid IRL she isn't some sort of victim. Trolls will troll and the world keeps on spinning.
You obviously don't understand trolling: it's using material that you may or may not believe to elicit a humorous response.
Trolling doesn't excuse you from acting misogynistic or any other way.
It just means that on top of being misogynistic, you're also an idiot.
People support what they are convinced is in their best interests regardless of if that really is true or not. Or they will support something if they are coerced, guilted, or shamed into doing so. "Inclusiveness" isn't some moral value, it's a buzzword used by those who believe "equality" means quotas and forced respect based around the idea that people cannot be trusted to judge a person on their merits as opposed to race/gender/whatever.
Who is "we" and what do you intend to do about those on the "wrong side of the moral fence"? Is your judgement supposed to shame them? Considering the schizophrenic behavior of society these days any sort of "moral fence" on that issue is meaningless.
The anonymity of the internet (which is a good thing) means it could be either, but does it even matter? Unless some idiot does something stupid IRL she isn't some sort of victim. Trolls will troll and the world keeps on spinning.
Pretty much my feelings on the issue. I mostly don't see people fighting for an righteous cause or to make the world an better place. But what I see is people using their indentity as an shield for criticism and excuse for their harassments. It's pretty much like saying "my status as an minority/opressed group makes me aways right and completely excuses my behaviour no matter how bad it is".
Guest_Puddi III_*
The anonymity of the internet (which is a good thing) means it could be either, but does it even matter? Unless some idiot does something stupid IRL she isn't some sort of victim. Trolls will troll and the world keeps on spinning.
Cyber bullying does matter. It's good that no one has done anything IRL, but the fact that they're doing it anywhere isn't OK. Not that I have any reasonable solution for that.
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.
That's called being a sexist. If you start using the "N" word against a black person because you think it'll really hurt them then you're a racist. It's a straightforward concept.
Secondly, we are talking about rape threats. That's not trolling. That's (depending on your jurisdiction) an actual criminal offence.
Um no, I was pointing out that a child being forced our guilted into apologizing is not the same as a genuine or heartfelt apology (i.e. we're putting more fat people in TES 6 because we wanted to, not because the public told us so).
The point of socializing behaviour like that isn't to get the bully to feel bad, it's to drive home the lesson that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable to both the perpetrator and the victim.
People support what they are convinced is in their best interests regardless of if that really is true or not. Or they will support something if they are coerced, guilted, or shamed into doing so. "Inclusiveness" isn't some moral value, it's a buzzword used by those who believe "equality" means quotas and forced respect based around the idea that people cannot be trusted to judge a person on their merits as opposed to race/gender/whatever.
Inclusiveness is a moral value. It encompasses things like "not being a racist", "not being a sexist" and "not being a homophobe", all of which are very clear-cut moral positions.
We can debate what achieves these goals effectively, but it's really not up for debate any more that these are desirable goals.
Who is "we" and what do you intend to do about those on the "wrong side of the moral fence"? Is your judgement supposed to shame them? Considering the schizophrenic behavior of society these days any sort of "moral fence" on that issue is meaningless.
Pretty much my feelings on the issue. I mostly don't see people fighting for an righteous cause or to make the world an better place. But what I see is people using their indentity as an shield for criticism and excuse for their harassments. It's pretty much like saying "my status as an minority/opressed group makes me aways right and completely excuses my behaviour no matter how bad it is".
Okay. Let's play this game. 5 examples. Give us 5 examples of that, from 5 different people, and you win the internet forever.
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.
That's called being a sexist. If you start using the "N" word against a black person because you think it'll really hurt them then you're a racist. It's a straightforward concept.
What In Exile said really can't be overstated.
Also, I think we need to at the very least seriously consider the possibility that people are emboldened to make rape threats, and to use a woman's gender against her, because we live in a society where they can do it knowing that people will attack her for having brought it on herself if she speaks up about it.
What In Exile said really can't be overstated.
Also, I think we need to at the very least seriously consider the possibility that people are emboldened to make rape threats, and to use a woman's gender against her, because we live in a society where they can do it knowing that people will attack her for having brought it on herself if she speaks up about it.
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?
Inclusiveness is a moral value. It encompasses things like "not being a racist", "not being a sexist" and "not being a homophobe", all of which are very clear-cut moral positions.
We can debate what achieves these goals effectively, but it's really not up for debate any more that these are desirable goals.
"We" is clearly a reference to the people that make up society. As for what will happen to them, social exclusion is a pretty big deal. If you think other wise, I encourage you to publicly announce your support for the KKK and see how that goes for you.
Tolerance is a moral value, looking beyond a person's race, gender, etc. and judging them based on who they are as a person is part of that. "Inclusiveness" is something different, "inclusiveness" is whatever those championing the concept want it to be. In other words: "Give me what I want or you aren't being inclusive."
Are you honestly comparing those opposed to gay marriage to the KKK? Why not be done with it and just invoke Godwin's Law right now? You can read a lot into the wording used on an issue such as gay marriage. "Marriage equality" is a term which seeks to further the notion that some fundamental right is being denied to somebody which is a clever way of reframing the question into something than vilifies all opposition. Regarding "social exclusion", I'll be damned if I am ever shamed into changing my opinions based on the current whims of the mob. Or is coercing somebody into the "correct" opinion only wrong when "they" do it?
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?
Because it's only wrong when they do it. SJWs love their double standards.
Cyber bullying does matter. It's good that no one has done anything IRL, but the fact that they're doing it anywhere isn't OK. Not that I have any reasonable solution for that.
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.
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?
No, it's not wrong. It's currently imagined, since you haven't actually, you know, given any examples of this, but it's still wrong to harass.
Find the death threats, the rape threats, etc. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm sure it does. I'm just saying you're not pointing to any real examples, instead just trying to score cheap points to win an internet debate.
Because it's only wrong when they do it. SJWs love their double standards.
Literally no one loves a double standard, other than the hypocrisy currently going around about how supposed SJWs aren't calling out other people who are harassing people for disagree.
Tolerance is a moral value, looking beyond a person's race, gender, etc. and judging them based on who they are as a person is part of that. "Inclusiveness" is something different, "inclusiveness" is whatever those championing the concept want it to be. In other words: "Give me what I want or you aren't being inclusive."
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".
Are you honestly comparing those opposed to gay marriage to the KKK? Why not be done with it and just invoke Godwin's Law right now? You can read a lot into the wording used on an issue such as gay marriage. "Marriage equality" is a term which seeks to further the notion that some fundamental right is being denied to somebody which is a clever way of reframing the question into something than vilifies all opposition. Regarding "social exclusion", I'll be damned if I am ever shamed into changing my opinions based on the current whims of the mob. Or is coercing somebody into the "correct" opinion only wrong when "they" do it?
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).
No, it's not wrong. It's currently imagined, since you haven't actually, you know, given any examples of this, but it's still wrong to harass.
Find the death threats, the rape threats, etc. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm sure it does. I'm just saying you're not pointing to any real examples, instead just trying to score cheap points to win an internet debate.
Literally no one loves a double standard, other than the hypocrisy currently going around about how supposed SJWs aren't calling out other people who are harassing people for disagree.
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.
Tolerance is a moral value, looking beyond a person's race, gender, etc. and judging them based on who they are as a person is part of that. "Inclusiveness" is something different, "inclusiveness" is whatever those championing the concept want it to be. In other words: "Give me what I want or you aren't being inclusive."
I'm going to avoid the whole issue of what constitutes a moral value, but I would argue that inclusiveness is a legitimate artistic goal to have; it's not the only or most important goal, but it is a goal. To contextualize this, it helps to use the thought experiment that David Gaider used in his GDC presentation last year:
"I want you to indulge me for a moment, imagine that since video games were first made, all major characters are black. Every hero. Everyone who does something virtuous, they're all black. Good white characters? Few and far between. Mostly minor—the white guy on the team. White female characters? Unheard of...If your response to that is, 'Actually I wouldn't mind,' I'm pretty sure if you talked to somebody who is in that position, they could tell you that you would."
If this scenario were real, I think white gamers would have a legitimate complaint about how games are being made. And since a lot of female and LGBT gamers find themselves in a situation very much like this as regards how they are represented, I think they have a legitimate concern as well. That doesn't mean that we have to implement mandatory quota systems or anything like that, but I think it does mean asking the question, "Why not have a female protagonist, more options for LGBT players, etc.?" And I think if game developers do this consistently (and if they make more efforts to hire female, non-white and/or LGBT game developers, or at least, fewer efforts to repel them), then an increase in the number of female, non-white and LGBT characters will happen quite naturally.
EDIT: Added some clarification
Y'all just don't understand trolling.
But it's alright.
What In Exile said really can't be overstated.
Also, I think we need to at the very least seriously consider the possibility that people are emboldened to make rape threats, and to use a woman's gender against her, because we live in a society where they can do it knowing that people will attack her for having brought it on herself if she speaks up about it.
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.
Y'all just don't understand trolling.
But it's alright.
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.
I understand trolling just fine, but I'm not about to defend it as some kind of cover all excuse.
If you're acting like a sexist jerk then you're a sexist jerk, no matter if you're being serious or "doing it for the lulz".
If you're acting like a sexist jerk then you're a sexist jerk, no matter if you're being serious or "doing it for the lulz".
Alright then an admission of guilt.
I've trolled my fair share of feminists (nothing too racy, I have a filter), guess I'm a sexist and misogynist jerk.
Alright then an admission of guilt.
I've trolled my fair share of feminists (nothing too racy, I have a filter), guess I'm a sexist and misogynist jerk.
That depends on what you said to them.
It's more than possible to troll somebody without acting like a sexist jerk.
Retour en haut
