Female gamers having a hard time in gaming communites

[SusurrusParadox]

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Gromnir. Because I can expect a reasonable response from him. Peddle your petty ideology elsewhere

What a shame.

I suppose I'm obligated to inform you that you must have made a mistake: you posted in a semi-public thread instead of sending Gromnir a private message.

 

If you'd like to resort to personal attacks instead of actually responding to what I believe are quite valid points then I might recommend against that.

Given that such would contravene the forum prohibition on harassment, as you should well know.

[BruceVC]

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Gromnir. Because I can expect a reasonable response from him. Peddle your petty ideology elsewhere

Wow thats an unnecessarily rude and dismissive comment  Drowsy

 

This whole thread is basically about social justice issues. If you really have an issue with someone indirectly responding to you than rather don't comment at all. You do have the rest of forum to discuss what you want. But on this thread we don't have an issue where someone challengers our opinion

Edited May 16, 2014 by BruceVC

[Meshugger]

 

Men and women think and behave differently? Whoa! Who would've thought?

 

I am sensing that these 'privileges' are more a result of people with similar values and creeds banding together than any institutional -ism. Take hiring someone for work, do you tend to hire the wildcard or someone with the same ideas and values....someone that even reminds of yourself?

That would be pretty much the definition of bias and prejudice when those "ideas and values" are based on skintone or gender or sexuality or any other superficial irrelevant trait or set of traits.

(As I've mentioned before, the reasoning can be seen but that doesn't mean it's not faulty.)

 

"Privilege" is more the concept that certain groups are inherently advantaged in terms of societal prejudices and systemic bias.

(That doesn't mean that members of those groups cannot be disadvantaged in other ways, most commonly economically. The standard way of describing it is: In the majority of instances, all other things being equal, someone of the privileged group/s will fare better in the same situation than someone of a disadvantaged group.)

[For most areas of the West, such disadvantaged groups include: non-white people, individuals that are LGBTQIA, women, and those that are disabled.  A short but by no means comprehensive list.]

I wouldn't think anyone could reasonably argue that prejudice and bias don't exist, or are not things which most people perpetrate without being aware of, nor that socioeconomic and political/legal systems tend to be apply in a rather unequal manner.

 

 

 

I think that anyone can tell people are different from each and tend to band together for different reasons, superficial or no.

 

But is it even a bad thing? You cannot force people to love each other, it has to come evolve from each individual, and neither can it be reason with, since love, well, isn't not that reasonable to begin with. I am not asking for isolation or to live through the eyes of fear, i am simply asking for freedom of association. Do you wish to undermine it? And how can you expect to deconstruct power-structures without seriously hindering it?

 

Just curious.

[Meshugger]

Topical: Don't ever let BruceVC become a mod.

[Ineth]

 

I am sensing that these 'privileges' are more a result of people with similar values and creeds banding together than any institutional -ism. Take hiring someone for work, do you tend to hire the wildcard or someone with the same ideas and values....someone that even reminds of yourself?

 

Yes, this is a big part. I don't think anybody suggests a conspiracy with malicious intent among those who uphold the status quo. But regardless of the intent, the resulting system is unjust and wasteful.

 

 

we kind of need those quotas for a period of time (while societal perceptions reassert themselves).

 

I have no trouble believing that the small proportion of women in, say, senior management positions, is largely due to tendency of employers to hire people from their own peer group for such jobs.

 

But I believe "Social Justice" activists are making a mistake when they then jump to the conclusion that this discrimination happens evenly along gender lines, leading them to massively overestimate the benefit that average men gain from this employer behavior, and underestimate the amount of new injustice added by the quotas they demand.

 

The demand for legally mandated quotas is based on the assumption that the peer group from which the employer prefers to fill senior positions is defined by gender:

 

ingroup: the ~50% of the population that happens to be male

outgroup: the ~50% of the population that happens to be female

 

When it is in fact much more plausible to assume that the line is drawn like this:

 

ingroup: the ~0.001% of the population that went to the same elite universities, frequents the same private clubs and events, has the same business connections, etc. as the employer

outgroup: ~100% of all women and men

 

Sure, the ingroup may consist mostly of men, but that is of no benefit to men as a whole, and not something that men as a whole should "pay" for

 

But unfortunately, 'class-think' clouds the judgement of "Social Justice" activists - everything is immediately treated as a property of (or an effect on) a gender/racial/social 'class' as a whole, with little to no thought on whether such a generalization is at all justified in the case at hand. (It almost never is.)

[BruceVC]

Topical: Don't ever let BruceVC become a mod.

 

Trust me I think Mods have a very difficult job and I wouldn't want to do it,

 

But I don't see how you can think Drowsy's comment was polite or constructive in anyway. Especially after Paradox spent time making a detailed post

[Meshugger]

 

Topical: Don't ever let BruceVC become a mod.

 

Trust me I think Mods have a very difficult job and I wouldn't want to do it,

 

But I don't see how you can think Drowsy's comment was polite or constructive in anyway. Especially after Paradox spent time making a detailed post

 

 

I've been on the internet long enough to not to mentally register posts that are rude or not constructive. You will learn as well, trust me

[BruceVC]

 

 

Topical: Don't ever let BruceVC become a mod.

 

Trust me I think Mods have a very difficult job and I wouldn't want to do it,

 

But I don't see how you can think Drowsy's comment was polite or constructive in anyway. Especially after Paradox spent time making a detailed post

 

 

I've been on the internet long enough to not to mentally register posts that are rude or not constructive. You will learn as well, trust me

 

 

Fair enough, I just believe in posting etiquette in the interests of healthy debate. Surly the least we should try to do if someone spends time making a longish post is respond without being completely dismissive. I'm not saying you have to agree but to reject the principle of the post is unhelpful?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

I am sensing that these 'privileges' are more a result of people with similar values and creeds banding together than any institutional -ism. Take hiring someone for work, do you tend to hire the wildcard or someone with the same ideas and values....someone that even reminds of yourself?

 

Yes, this is a big part. I don't think anybody suggests a conspiracy with malicious intent among those who uphold the status quo. But regardless of the intent, the resulting system is unjust and wasteful.

 

 

we kind of need those quotas for a period of time (while societal perceptions reassert themselves).

 

I have no trouble believing that the small proportion of women in, say, senior management positions, is largely due to tendency of employers to hire people from their own peer group for such jobs.

 

But I believe "Social Justice" activists are making a mistake when they then jump to the conclusion that this discrimination happens evenly along gender lines, leading them to massively overestimate the benefit that average men gain from this employer behavior, and underestimate the amount of new injustice added by the quotas they demand.

 

The demand for legally mandated quotas is based on the assumption that the peer group from which the employer prefers to fill senior positions is defined by gender:

 

ingroup: the ~50% of the population that happens to be male

outgroup: the ~50% of the population that happens to be female

 

When it is in fact much more plausible to assume that the line is drawn like this:

 

ingroup: the ~0.001% of the population that went to the same elite universities, frequents the same private clubs and events, has the same business connections, etc. as the employer

outgroup: ~100% of all women and men

 

Sure, the ingroup may consist mostly of men, but that is of no benefit to men as a whole, and not something that men as a whole should "pay" for

 

This is a reasonable argument, but even if we are willing to accept that only the 0,001 % gets preferred treatment (a theory I have some reservations against), wouldn't setting a 50% quota automatically increase the number of outgroup people by about 50%, while having no substantial effect on the males of the outgroup, who wouldn't have gotten those jobs anyway (since they are reserved for the 0,001%)?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Also, on a minor note, the repeated use of "females" instead of "women" makes people sound... well, vaguely creepy.

A friend once described it as making people sound like Ferengi. Not a flattering comparison, but an apt analogy as far as sexism.

(I haven't really seen Star Trek myself, but I have a couple friends that are heavily into it.)

 

Seriously. Using the word 'female' is creepy? That's a new one for me. I've never heard that before. Can you elaborate on this? Why is it creepy? Where does this creepiness come from? And does it also apply to the word 'male' as well? I just find it a little odd.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Zoraptor]

Their liberal self-loathing radiates from them like Polonium 210.

 

Polonium 210 is an alpha emitter, and as such it will not radiate from a person since even skin is enough to stop it. You want a nice beta or even better gamma emitter for your simile. 

 

Now that this vital information has been disbursed I return you to the eternal debate: misogyny vs misterogyny, which is worse and why?

[BruceVC]

 

Their liberal self-loathing radiates from them like Polonium 210.

 

Polonium 210 is an alpha emitter, and as such it will not radiate from a person since even skin is enough to stop it. You want a nice beta or even better gamma emitter for your simile. 

 

Now that this vital information has been disbursed I return you to the eternal debate: misogyny vs misterogyny, which is worse and why?

 

 

Neither is good, both are equally bad and  a form of bigotry. But I do believe misogyny is more widespread, practiced and acceptable in some places in the world.

[SusurrusParadox]

 

 

Men and women think and behave differently? Whoa! Who would've thought?

 

I am sensing that these 'privileges' are more a result of people with similar values and creeds banding together than any institutional -ism. Take hiring someone for work, do you tend to hire the wildcard or someone with the same ideas and values....someone that even reminds of yourself?

That would be pretty much the definition of bias and prejudice when those "ideas and values" are based on skintone or gender or sexuality or any other superficial irrelevant trait or set of traits.

(As I've mentioned before, the reasoning can be seen but that doesn't mean it's not faulty.)

 

"Privilege" is more the concept that certain groups are inherently advantaged in terms of societal prejudices and systemic bias.

(That doesn't mean that members of those groups cannot be disadvantaged in other ways, most commonly economically. The standard way of describing it is: In the majority of instances, all other things being equal, someone of the privileged group/s will fare better in the same situation than someone of a disadvantaged group.)

[For most areas of the West, such disadvantaged groups include: non-white people, individuals that are LGBTQIA, women, and those that are disabled.  A short but by no means comprehensive list.]

I wouldn't think anyone could reasonably argue that prejudice and bias don't exist, or are not things which most people perpetrate without being aware of, nor that socioeconomic and political/legal systems tend to be apply in a rather unequal manner.

 

 

 

I think that anyone can tell people are different from each and tend to band together for different reasons, superficial or no.

 

But is it even a bad thing? You cannot force people to love each other, it has to come evolve from each individual, and neither can it be reason with, since love, well, isn't not that reasonable to begin with. I am not asking for isolation or to live through the eyes of fear, i am simply asking for freedom of association. Do you wish to undermine it? And how can you expect to deconstruct power-structures without seriously hindering it?

 

Just curious.

 

Well, yes.

It is a bad thing when it leads to oppressive and abusive behaviours or unjust discrimination.

(Just discrimination would be, say, giving medicine only to people that are sick. Or only imprisoning criminals. Etc.)

 

As I mentioned though, people do tend to fall into grouping behaviours just because it's part of human nature.

(We tend to want to belong and we like sharing similarities with people and having our existing notions reinforced.)

[sometimes that can be dangerous. It's good to have a balance, provided people don't go off the deep end when it comes to conflict.]

{There can be a tendency for people to draw lines in the sand and then take polar opposite stances when they wouldn't have done so if they hadn't done the "Us vs Them" thing in the first place.}

The issue is only when it goes badly or it's for.. less than savoury reasons.

So yes, I do believe people should think more critically and maintain self-awareness and try to ensure they are actually being as reasonable a person as possible and not lapsing into any 'traps' of faulty rationale.

 

Hmm.

See, this is where my personal and ethical views can diverge.

Personally, I wouldn't mind isolating/ostracising/exiling the more extreme sort of bigots.

I tend to consider them beyond redemption, because very little will convince someone that was raised from birth to believe xyz things and has their peer group and authority figures reinforcing those views and has no personal motivation (other than possibly a sense of ethical rightfulness?) to actually change their behaviour.

 

That said, I do believe that those that are simply naive/ignorant are more than capable of learning and adapting.

(Wilful ignorance is something that repeatedly confuses and irks me. I really don't understand why someone would completely ignore an opportunity to learn another perspective, even if they then disregard it after consideration.)

 

So yes, I would say that my favoured solution for dismantling overarching structures is altering them at the basic component level.

(Legislating change.. doesn't always work. It can help, but there needs to be pressure/revolution from a 'critical mass' forcing change on a social/community/individual level.)

 

Freedom of association though...

On the one hand, associating with the KKK does at least let one know which people are bigoted backwards racist cabbages.

On the other, it would be nice if such groups were excised like the metaphorical cancers they are.

(Again, I'm not sure whether mandating/enforcing their breakup would actually do anything other than force them underground. It can do one of two things: make it clear such views are no longer remotely acceptable and hasten progress or form a resilient 'hidden' movement that could be arguably more dangerous than having them in the open.)

 

There are flaws in the legal/political/economic systems stemming from the social faults, and they should absolutely be reformed.

However I'm not sure whether heavy-handed brute-forcing of legal/political measures as far as the social faults themselves are the best solution.

(I'd lean towards no, but in terms of things like abolishing slavery and prohibiting discrimination against minorities.. the laws existing does certainly help.)

 

... in summary, I think the answer is "yes" I do wish to undermine certain types of associations.

Just not in particularly foolish and tyrannical ways.

[SusurrusParadox]

 

Their liberal self-loathing radiates from them like Polonium 210.

 

Polonium 210 is an alpha emitter, and as such it will not radiate from a person since even skin is enough to stop it. You want a nice beta or even better gamma emitter for your simile. 

 

Now that this vital information has been disbursed I return you to the eternal debate: misogyny vs misterogyny, which is worse and why?

 

Thank you, Baldrick.

[Malcador]

 

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Gromnir. Because I can expect a reasonable response from him. Peddle your petty ideology elsewhere

Wow thats an unnecessarily rude and dismissive comment  Drowsy

 

This whole thread is basically about social justice issues. If you really have an issue with someone indirectly responding to you than rather don't comment at all. You do have the rest of forum to discuss what you want. But on this thread we don't have an issue where someone challengers our opinion

 

 

What's wrong with being rude and dismissive ? You're that way plenty of times - see the Ukraine thread.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Gromnir. Because I can expect a reasonable response from him. Peddle your petty ideology elsewhere

Wow thats an unnecessarily rude and dismissive comment  Drowsy

 

This whole thread is basically about social justice issues. If you really have an issue with someone indirectly responding to you than rather don't comment at all. You do have the rest of forum to discuss what you want. But on this thread we don't have an issue where someone challengers our opinion

 

 

What's wrong with being rude and dismissive ? You're that way plenty of times - see the Ukraine thread.

 

 

Malc thats it, I'm tired of your cheekiness. I'm sorry to do this but you but you are forcing me to send you to your bedroom with no dessert !!!

 

Hopefully you will learn your lesson the next time !!!

 

[SusurrusParadox]

 

 

I am sensing that these 'privileges' are more a result of people with similar values and creeds banding together than any institutional -ism. Take hiring someone for work, do you tend to hire the wildcard or someone with the same ideas and values....someone that even reminds of yourself?

 

Yes, this is a big part. I don't think anybody suggests a conspiracy with malicious intent among those who uphold the status quo. But regardless of the intent, the resulting system is unjust and wasteful.

 

 

we kind of need those quotas for a period of time (while societal perceptions reassert themselves).

 

I have no trouble believing that the small proportion of women in, say, senior management positions, is largely due to tendency of employers to hire people from their own peer group for such jobs.

 

But I believe "Social Justice" activists are making a mistake when they then jump to the conclusion that this discrimination happens evenly along gender lines, leading them to massively overestimate the benefit that average men gain from this employer behavior, and underestimate the amount of new injustice added by the quotas they demand.

 

The demand for legally mandated quotas is based on the assumption that the peer group from which the employer prefers to fill senior positions is defined by gender:

 

ingroup: the ~50% of the population that happens to be male

outgroup: the ~50% of the population that happens to be female

 

When it is in fact much more plausible to assume that the line is drawn like this:

 

ingroup: the ~0.001% of the population that went to the same elite universities, frequents the same private clubs and events, has the same business connections, etc. as the employer

outgroup: ~100% of all women and men

 

Sure, the ingroup may consist mostly of men, but that is of no benefit to men as a whole, and not something that men as a whole should "pay" for

 

But unfortunately, 'class-think' clouds the judgement of "Social Justice" activists - everything is immediately treated as a property of (or an effect on) a gender/racial/social 'class' as a whole, with little to no thought on whether such a generalization is at all justified in the case at hand. (It almost never is.)

 

Oooh, see this is where it gets fun.

 

Your statistics are way off, and in fact the "social justice" types I actually know would argue that you're completely ignoring the effect that race (amongst other things) has in particular.

The dominant bias is towards white (cis) men followed by white (cis) women.

 

(So actually it's you at fault for flawed generalisations it would seem.)

 

Also, the arguments for the "quotas" (& they're actually a very small portion of the total) is that once you have diverse groups actually in those positions then the latent biases should dissolve and the systemic disadvantaging should be less of an issue.

(Essentially the theory goes that once it's not just heterosexual white cis men from economically privileged backgrounds in positions of influence then things should hopefully balance themselves out.)

It's certainly flawed, but it's better than nothing.

 

Nothing occurs in isolation, and to disregard other factors is a disservice.

(I also have no idea what on earth you're drawing the idea of "elite universities" and "private clubs and events" from when the prejudices/biases are present at every level of employment/education.)

[Women in STEM fields have been present for centuries and yet consistently suffered erasure/abuse despite attending those same "elite universities". Don't think that's so easily explained by your hypothesis.]

 

No-one said it happens entirely evenly nor did they say it happens exclusively on the basis of gender.

I mean, if you're using "social justice" instead of "feminist" (& even there, there's intersectional feminism as an ideal taking into account other forms of discrimination/disadvantaging) surely you'd know it's not focused on gender alone.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

Men and women think and behave differently? Whoa! Who would've thought?

 

I am sensing that these 'privileges' are more a result of people with similar values and creeds banding together than any institutional -ism. Take hiring someone for work, do you tend to hire the wildcard or someone with the same ideas and values....someone that even reminds of yourself?

That would be pretty much the definition of bias and prejudice when those "ideas and values" are based on skintone or gender or sexuality or any other superficial irrelevant trait or set of traits.

(As I've mentioned before, the reasoning can be seen but that doesn't mean it's not faulty.)

 

"Privilege" is more the concept that certain groups are inherently advantaged in terms of societal prejudices and systemic bias.

(That doesn't mean that members of those groups cannot be disadvantaged in other ways, most commonly economically. The standard way of describing it is: In the majority of instances, all other things being equal, someone of the privileged group/s will fare better in the same situation than someone of a disadvantaged group.)

[For most areas of the West, such disadvantaged groups include: non-white people, individuals that are LGBTQIA, women, and those that are disabled.  A short but by no means comprehensive list.]

I wouldn't think anyone could reasonably argue that prejudice and bias don't exist, or are not things which most people perpetrate without being aware of, nor that socioeconomic and political/legal systems tend to be apply in a rather unequal manner.

 

 

 

I think that anyone can tell people are different from each and tend to band together for different reasons, superficial or no.

 

But is it even a bad thing? You cannot force people to love each other, it has to come evolve from each individual, and neither can it be reason with, since love, well, isn't not that reasonable to begin with. I am not asking for isolation or to live through the eyes of fear, i am simply asking for freedom of association. Do you wish to undermine it? And how can you expect to deconstruct power-structures without seriously hindering it?

 

Just curious.

 

Well, yes.

It is a bad thing when it leads to oppressive and abusive behaviours or unjust discrimination.

(Just discrimination would be, say, giving medicine only to people that are sick. Or only imprisoning criminals. Etc.)

 

As I mentioned though, people do tend to fall into grouping behaviours just because it's part of human nature.

(We tend to want to belong and we like sharing similarities with people and having our existing notions reinforced.)

[sometimes that can be dangerous. It's good to have a balance, provided people don't go off the deep end when it comes to conflict.]

{There can be a tendency for people to draw lines in the sand and then take polar opposite stances when they wouldn't have done so if they hadn't done the "Us vs Them" thing in the first place.}

The issue is only when it goes badly or it's for.. less than savoury reasons.

So yes, I do believe people should think more critically and maintain self-awareness and try to ensure they are actually being as reasonable a person as possible and not lapsing into any 'traps' of faulty rationale.

 

Hmm.

See, this is where my personal and ethical views can diverge.

Personally, I wouldn't mind isolating/ostracising/exiling the more extreme sort of bigots.

I tend to consider them beyond redemption, because very little will convince someone that was raised from birth to believe xyz things and has their peer group and authority figures reinforcing those views and has no personal motivation (other than possibly a sense of ethical rightfulness?) to actually change their behaviour.

 

That said, I do believe that those that are simply naive/ignorant are more than capable of learning and adapting.

(Wilful ignorance is something that repeatedly confuses and irks me. I really don't understand why someone would completely ignore an opportunity to learn another perspective, even if they then disregard it after consideration.)

 

So yes, I would say that my favoured solution for dismantling overarching structures is altering them at the basic component level.

(Legislating change.. doesn't always work. It can help, but there needs to be pressure/revolution from a 'critical mass' forcing change on a social/community/individual level.)

 

Freedom of association though...

On the one hand, associating with the KKK does at least let one know which people are bigoted backwards racist cabbages.

On the other, it would be nice if such groups were excised like the metaphorical cancers they are.

(Again, I'm not sure whether mandating/enforcing their breakup would actually do anything other than force them underground. It can do one of two things: make it clear such views are no longer remotely acceptable and hasten progress or form a resilient 'hidden' movement that could be arguably more dangerous than having them in the open.)

 

There are flaws in the legal/political/economic systems stemming from the social faults, and they should absolutely be reformed.

However I'm not sure whether heavy-handed brute-forcing of legal/political measures as far as the social faults themselves are the best solution.

(I'd lean towards no, but in terms of things like abolishing slavery and prohibiting discrimination against minorities.. the laws existing does certainly help.)

 

... in summary, I think the answer is "yes" I do wish to undermine certain types of associations.

Just not in particularly foolish and tyrannical ways.

 

 

You see little room for redemption and you wish to excise those who do not fit your utopia?

 

You have taken the first steps to the dark side with those thoughts, my child.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Men and women think and behave differently? Whoa! Who would've thought?

 

I am sensing that these 'privileges' are more a result of people with similar values and creeds banding together than any institutional -ism. Take hiring someone for work, do you tend to hire the wildcard or someone with the same ideas and values....someone that even reminds of yourself?

That would be pretty much the definition of bias and prejudice when those "ideas and values" are based on skintone or gender or sexuality or any other superficial irrelevant trait or set of traits.

(As I've mentioned before, the reasoning can be seen but that doesn't mean it's not faulty.)

 

"Privilege" is more the concept that certain groups are inherently advantaged in terms of societal prejudices and systemic bias.

(That doesn't mean that members of those groups cannot be disadvantaged in other ways, most commonly economically. The standard way of describing it is: In the majority of instances, all other things being equal, someone of the privileged group/s will fare better in the same situation than someone of a disadvantaged group.)

[For most areas of the West, such disadvantaged groups include: non-white people, individuals that are LGBTQIA, women, and those that are disabled.  A short but by no means comprehensive list.]

I wouldn't think anyone could reasonably argue that prejudice and bias don't exist, or are not things which most people perpetrate without being aware of, nor that socioeconomic and political/legal systems tend to be apply in a rather unequal manner.

 

 

 

I think that anyone can tell people are different from each and tend to band together for different reasons, superficial or no.

 

But is it even a bad thing? You cannot force people to love each other, it has to come evolve from each individual, and neither can it be reason with, since love, well, isn't not that reasonable to begin with. I am not asking for isolation or to live through the eyes of fear, i am simply asking for freedom of association. Do you wish to undermine it? And how can you expect to deconstruct power-structures without seriously hindering it?

 

Just curious.

 

Hmm.

See, this is where my personal and ethical views can diverge.

Personally, I wouldn't mind isolating/ostracising/exiling the more extreme sort of bigots.

I tend to consider them beyond redemption, because very little will convince someone that was raised from birth to believe xyz things and has their peer group and authority figures reinforcing those views and has no personal motivation (other than possibly a sense of ethical rightfulness?) to actually change their behaviour.

 

That said, I do believe that those that are simply naive/ignorant are more than capable of learning and adapting.

(

 

You see thats where I have no issue locking away extreme irredeemable bigots. Just remove them from society, some people on these forums have called me an authoritarian and dictator because of this perspective of mine. But I think I could sleep fine in the evening knowing certain people weren't able to negatively impact society

[Meshugger]

Aah, Et tu Brute.

[Malcador]

You see thats where I have no issue locking away extreme irredeemable bigots. Just remove them from society, some people on these forums have called me an authoritarian and dictator because of this perspective of mine. But I think I could sleep fine in the evening knowing certain people weren't able to negatively impact society

And somewhere someone has classed you as the same that need to be "removed" from society. Price of freedom is hearing dumb stuff now and then, and all.

[SusurrusParadox]

 

 

Also, on a minor note, the repeated use of "females" instead of "women" makes people sound... well, vaguely creepy.

A friend once described it as making people sound like Ferengi. Not a flattering comparison, but an apt analogy as far as sexism.

(I haven't really seen Star Trek myself, but I have a couple friends that are heavily into it.)

 

Seriously. Using the word 'female' is creepy? That's a new one for me. I've never heard that before. Can you elaborate on this? Why is it creepy? Where does this creepiness come from? And does it also apply to the word 'male' as well? I just find it a little odd.

 

"Female", not necessarily.

(There are valid usages for that, though they've been few & far between in this thread.)

"Females", yes.

 

It comes from the clinical/biological usage of it.

Connotations of reducing people to their body, which.. is a bit of a problem with women in society.

(Also a potential transphobic element if emphasis is placed on the biology/body.)

 

Any species can be female, only humans can be women.

(Assuming current real-world perspective. Fictional species need not apply.)

That adds a dehumanising element as well.

(Not a great indicator for discourse on treating people as equals, is it?)

 

Female/male are adjectives, woman/man/person are nouns.

So it's also grammatically... less-than-optimal.

 

(Part of it is also from the sort of person that typically refers to women as "females", because they aren't exactly the sort to harbour uh.. 21st century views.)

 

Repeated usage of "females" from some users was definitely coming off as a bit weird at the very least.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

You see thats where I have no issue locking away extreme irredeemable bigots. Just remove them from society, some people on these forums have called me an authoritarian and dictator because of this perspective of mine. But I think I could sleep fine in the evening knowing certain people weren't able to negatively impact society

 

 

I'm sure Governments at the time when they locked away dissidents thought the same way too.

[SusurrusParadox]

 

 

 

 

Men and women think and behave differently? Whoa! Who would've thought?

 

I am sensing that these 'privileges' are more a result of people with similar values and creeds banding together than any institutional -ism. Take hiring someone for work, do you tend to hire the wildcard or someone with the same ideas and values....someone that even reminds of yourself?

That would be pretty much the definition of bias and prejudice when those "ideas and values" are based on skintone or gender or sexuality or any other superficial irrelevant trait or set of traits.

(As I've mentioned before, the reasoning can be seen but that doesn't mean it's not faulty.)

 

"Privilege" is more the concept that certain groups are inherently advantaged in terms of societal prejudices and systemic bias.

(That doesn't mean that members of those groups cannot be disadvantaged in other ways, most commonly economically. The standard way of describing it is: In the majority of instances, all other things being equal, someone of the privileged group/s will fare better in the same situation than someone of a disadvantaged group.)

[For most areas of the West, such disadvantaged groups include: non-white people, individuals that are LGBTQIA, women, and those that are disabled.  A short but by no means comprehensive list.]

I wouldn't think anyone could reasonably argue that prejudice and bias don't exist, or are not things which most people perpetrate without being aware of, nor that socioeconomic and political/legal systems tend to be apply in a rather unequal manner.

 

 

 

I think that anyone can tell people are different from each and tend to band together for different reasons, superficial or no.

 

But is it even a bad thing? You cannot force people to love each other, it has to come evolve from each individual, and neither can it be reason with, since love, well, isn't not that reasonable to begin with. I am not asking for isolation or to live through the eyes of fear, i am simply asking for freedom of association. Do you wish to undermine it? And how can you expect to deconstruct power-structures without seriously hindering it?

 

Just curious.

 

Well, yes.

It is a bad thing when it leads to oppressive and abusive behaviours or unjust discrimination.

(Just discrimination would be, say, giving medicine only to people that are sick. Or only imprisoning criminals. Etc.)

 

As I mentioned though, people do tend to fall into grouping behaviours just because it's part of human nature.

(We tend to want to belong and we like sharing similarities with people and having our existing notions reinforced.)

[sometimes that can be dangerous. It's good to have a balance, provided people don't go off the deep end when it comes to conflict.]

{There can be a tendency for people to draw lines in the sand and then take polar opposite stances when they wouldn't have done so if they hadn't done the "Us vs Them" thing in the first place.}

The issue is only when it goes badly or it's for.. less than savoury reasons.

So yes, I do believe people should think more critically and maintain self-awareness and try to ensure they are actually being as reasonable a person as possible and not lapsing into any 'traps' of faulty rationale.

 

Hmm.

See, this is where my personal and ethical views can diverge.

Personally, I wouldn't mind isolating/ostracising/exiling the more extreme sort of bigots.

I tend to consider them beyond redemption, because very little will convince someone that was raised from birth to believe xyz things and has their peer group and authority figures reinforcing those views and has no personal motivation (other than possibly a sense of ethical rightfulness?) to actually change their behaviour.

 

That said, I do believe that those that are simply naive/ignorant are more than capable of learning and adapting.

(Wilful ignorance is something that repeatedly confuses and irks me. I really don't understand why someone would completely ignore an opportunity to learn another perspective, even if they then disregard it after consideration.)

 

So yes, I would say that my favoured solution for dismantling overarching structures is altering them at the basic component level.

(Legislating change.. doesn't always work. It can help, but there needs to be pressure/revolution from a 'critical mass' forcing change on a social/community/individual level.)

 

Freedom of association though...

On the one hand, associating with the KKK does at least let one know which people are bigoted backwards racist cabbages.

On the other, it would be nice if such groups were excised like the metaphorical cancers they are.

(Again, I'm not sure whether mandating/enforcing their breakup would actually do anything other than force them underground. It can do one of two things: make it clear such views are no longer remotely acceptable and hasten progress or form a resilient 'hidden' movement that could be arguably more dangerous than having them in the open.)

 

There are flaws in the legal/political/economic systems stemming from the social faults, and they should absolutely be reformed.

However I'm not sure whether heavy-handed brute-forcing of legal/political measures as far as the social faults themselves are the best solution.

(I'd lean towards no, but in terms of things like abolishing slavery and prohibiting discrimination against minorities.. the laws existing does certainly help.)

 

... in summary, I think the answer is "yes" I do wish to undermine certain types of associations.

Just not in particularly foolish and tyrannical ways.

 

 

You see little room for redemption and you wish to excise those who do not fit your utopia?

 

You have taken the first steps to the dark side with those thoughts, my child.

 

Oh psh.

I never said that, given the opportunity, I would actually implement such things.

(That would indeed be a very dark path.)

 

Did clarify that was a personal view not in line with my ethics (because it's the arguably "simple" solution).

Really I'd rather people just.. not be bigoted so-&-so's towards each other on such ridiculous grounds.

(Like, if you're gonna take issue with someone then target their behaviour rather than whatever other nonsense people have problems with.)

[SusurrusParadox]

 

 

 

 

Men and women think and behave differently? Whoa! Who would've thought?

 

I am sensing that these 'privileges' are more a result of people with similar values and creeds banding together than any institutional -ism. Take hiring someone for work, do you tend to hire the wildcard or someone with the same ideas and values....someone that even reminds of yourself?

That would be pretty much the definition of bias and prejudice when those "ideas and values" are based on skintone or gender or sexuality or any other superficial irrelevant trait or set of traits.

(As I've mentioned before, the reasoning can be seen but that doesn't mean it's not faulty.)

 

"Privilege" is more the concept that certain groups are inherently advantaged in terms of societal prejudices and systemic bias.

(That doesn't mean that members of those groups cannot be disadvantaged in other ways, most commonly economically. The standard way of describing it is: In the majority of instances, all other things being equal, someone of the privileged group/s will fare better in the same situation than someone of a disadvantaged group.)

[For most areas of the West, such disadvantaged groups include: non-white people, individuals that are LGBTQIA, women, and those that are disabled.  A short but by no means comprehensive list.]

I wouldn't think anyone could reasonably argue that prejudice and bias don't exist, or are not things which most people perpetrate without being aware of, nor that socioeconomic and political/legal systems tend to be apply in a rather unequal manner.

 

 

 

I think that anyone can tell people are different from each and tend to band together for different reasons, superficial or no.

 

But is it even a bad thing? You cannot force people to love each other, it has to come evolve from each individual, and neither can it be reason with, since love, well, isn't not that reasonable to begin with. I am not asking for isolation or to live through the eyes of fear, i am simply asking for freedom of association. Do you wish to undermine it? And how can you expect to deconstruct power-structures without seriously hindering it?

 

Just curious.

 

Hmm.

See, this is where my personal and ethical views can diverge.

Personally, I wouldn't mind isolating/ostracising/exiling the more extreme sort of bigots.

I tend to consider them beyond redemption, because very little will convince someone that was raised from birth to believe xyz things and has their peer group and authority figures reinforcing those views and has no personal motivation (other than possibly a sense of ethical rightfulness?) to actually change their behaviour.

 

That said, I do believe that those that are simply naive/ignorant are more than capable of learning and adapting.

(

 

You see thats where I have no issue locking away extreme irredeemable bigots. Just remove them from society, some people on these forums have called me an authoritarian and dictator because of this perspective of mine. But I think I could sleep fine in the evening knowing certain people weren't able to negatively impact society

 

As was mentioned, that's a dangerous path to go down.

Altering things so their behaviours are no longer socially acceptable seems a better option.

Then their nonsense dies out naturally with their own inevitably deaths.

 

Furthermore, I'm not sure I trust authorities to that extent.

A good excuse today, a bad excuse tomorrow.

Could be the first step on a slippery slope.