Female gamers having a hard time in gaming communites

[SusurrusParadox]

 

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.

 

The issue there is it's not as simple as "hearing dumb stuff" when it comes to that particular type of bigotry.

Those are the sorts that would kill (& have killed) the targets of their particular prejudice.

Amongst other offences and abuses.

(That particular issue tends to be most prominent when the statistics for violence against trans women crop up. They're absolutely appalling.)

 

It's all well and good to prosecute them after the fact (if/when that actually happens) but.. I'd much rather the incidents never happened in the first place.

 

Although, assuming you're American, the rest of the world disagrees with your laws on what "freedom of speech" covers.

(I'm assuming that's the freedom you were referring to since you mentioned "hearing".)

Europe and Canada and others tend to consider abusive/hateful language to be exempt from protection and often grounds for prosecution due to inciting violence/hatred.

 

That said, I do disagree with "Life in the dungeons!!" approaches.

[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.

 

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.)

 

 

Or you can easily become a christian, turn the other cheek and forgive them. Then you do not have to fall into the rabbit hole of having to separate your opinions from ethics.

[Malcador]

Well people that will kill or have killed people are already handled by laws, so no need to handle that specially.  Don't want to fall into some thought-crime type stuff where you look at someone and then say they will probably do something bad so better jail them first.  I get the sense BruceVC would probably jail people who post sexist things online or catcall a woman on the street. 

 

I am not in the USA, am in Canada.  But the US idea of free speech is nice, the state won't toss you in jail but the citizen next to you might take exception to your call to "hang the darkies" or whatever and tell you what for and that is fine.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Malcador

[Nonek]

More importantly what should the taglines be for the next thread dedicated to the SJW's preaching at us like we're remedial ten year olds? Now there are obvious ones such as: Check ones privilege, self righteous, sayeth the preacher, but i'm thinking something more humorous may be warranted, pot calls kettle, speck of dust in my eye and a log in thy own, proto fascists, Goebbels would be proud etcetera? I think the forums could come up with some better one, any suggestions?

Edited May 16, 2014 by Nonek

[Bartimaeus]

"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.

 

 

"Female" and "male" flow off the tongue better for me than "man" and "woman". I've never liked the latter two so I generally do not use them, (with the rare case of "man" as part of a phrase, such as, "What were you thinking, man?").

 

Define female: noun: female; plural noun: females 1. a female person, animal, or plant.

 

Usage defines, unfortunately. The "weirdness" is kind of your own making - the same could be said for my dislike of "man" and "woman", true, but I'm not preaching at others for it.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

More importantly what should the taglines be for the next thread dedicated to the SJW's preaching at us like we're remedial ten year olds? Now there are obvious ones such as: Check ones privilege, self righteous, sayeth the preacher, but i'm thinking something more humorous may be warranted, pot calls kettle, speck of dust in my eye and a log in thy own, proto fascists, Goebbels would be proud etcetera? I think the forums could come up with some better one, any suggestions?

 

You sound very guilty about something Nonek, what have you done? Have you offended another lady gamer in the armour thread ......tell me all about it. There is no judgment here my son

[Nonek]

Father Bruce I confess I have lusted after my neighbours ass, but it is a very fine and strong animal.

 

Edit: South Park "sexism is bad m'kay" as a tagline? Semi literate grammatically challenged ramblings?

Edited May 16, 2014 by Nonek

[Malekith]

I am not in the USA, am in Canada.  But the US idea of free speech is nice, the state won't toss you in jail but the citizen next to you might take exception to your call to "hang the darkies" or whatever and tell you what for and that is fine.

That is how it is in the majority of Europe as far as i know. I'm from Europe, and i don't know many countries here that take legal action against someone because he is a bigot.

Until we vote Bruce for EU president of cource.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Malekith

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

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.

 

Its all nice and dandy but what about me? Do you  want me to persecute because I am male white? I don't get job because someone else is acting wrongly? Never hear of such protection of collective guilt

[JadedWolf]

 

I am not in the USA, am in Canada.  But the US idea of free speech is nice, the state won't toss you in jail but the citizen next to you might take exception to your call to "hang the darkies" or whatever and tell you what for and that is fine.

That is how it is in the majority of Europe as far as i know. I'm from Europe, and i don't know many countries here that take legal action against someone because he is a bigot.

Until we vote Bruce for EU president of cource.

 

 

Except we don't get to vote on presidents, they're forced upon us. Luckily they're really not of any consequence.

[HoonDing]

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

[Gromnir]

 

I am not in the USA, am in Canada.  But the US idea of free speech is nice, the state won't toss you in jail but the citizen next to you might take exception to your call to "hang the darkies" or whatever and tell you what for and that is fine.

That is how it is in the majority of Europe as far as i know. I'm from Europe, and i don't know many countries here that take legal action against someone because he is a bigot.

Until we vote Bruce for EU president of cource.

 

that isn't actually true. as we said elsewhere, we has done papers on this. you may not be aware, but all across europe, people is being fined all the time for saying stuff that offends, and more rare, some folks is being arrested for such speech. typically, the government waits til after the speaker has spoken before it intervenes. somehow this is viewed as a concession to Free Speech. see, the government won't restrict your right to speak until after you has said something... that way you got to speak, and therefore you still have free speech... or somesuch.

 

the weird thing is, most countries has institutions or traditions that fly in the face o' rule o' law. there is magazines that can print scandalous, spurious, and racist comments without fear 'cause those magazines has always been what they is. on the other hand, some random "comedian" who spews hate at a show can be arrested if some seeming ill-defined threshold o' anger results in the public consciousness. tradition frequent establishes who is free o' government interference, and it ain't the hate o' a speaker's message that determines if fines or prosecution is necessary, but the whim o' the mob.

 

is all very democratic... and wrong.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Nonek]

I agree with the talk like a pirate chap, it is extremely worrying and perhaps most blatantly being abused in England. Stupid people spouting nonsense is not a cause for imprisonment, but people are facing trial for exactly that, meanwhile dangerous murderers are housed in open prisons and walk out without supervision to endanger the public. A clear case of the law being an absolute arse, and the rule of law being gradually eroded by itself. Bear in mind that the party who traditionally espouse law and order are currently in power, so this is an extremely worrisome trend.

 

I am of course not defending the idiots who mouth profanities and idle threats at politically incorrect times, merely their right to do so along with everybody else. In this I believe that despite all of the fashionable hate heaped upon America for supposed warmongering (which is rather rich considering European history,) their respect for free speech is to be emulated.

 

In this day and age I don't believe a film such as the Life of Brian would ever get made.

[decado]

 

Sorry.

 

Edit: In general I agree with Ms Lightfoot however, isolation and preferential treatment do not create a harmonious melange. If there are womens group then for parities sake there should be a simlar group for the other gender, though personally I would say both are harmful to creating a successful mixed virtual society.

No.

 

See, what you're not understanding here is that (assuming you are male yourself) men already predominate.

What is ensured through 'safe spaces' is that there is a place outside of that for people to feel safe.

(The same applies to LGBTQIA groups, or in other circumstances to non-white individuals. It's not about "special clubs", it's about being protected from the abuses and threats that society in general poses.)

 

You don't need a club of your own.Yo

You need to change your behaviour, and that of fellow men, so that people don't feel the need to have a separate safe space.

 

Seriously, the response to "These people don't feel safe in the world at large" should not be "BUT HOW COME THEY GET-".

It should be working out why they feel that way and then trying to fix the flaws in the system.

(& once you've done that, I think you'll find you will get a "successful mixed virtual society". As well as a much happier and friendlier one, I reckon. Diminished bigotry and abuse benefits everyone, since it shows there's no tolerance for that sort of obnoxious harmful behaviour in the community.)

 

(As a disclaimer, I'm a white cis male that likes women. So I'm pretty much the archetype of the privileged gamer myself.)

 

First of all, the concept of a "Safe Space" on the internet is hilarious. If you feel "unsafe" on the internet, I submit to you that you have a problem that all of the safe spaces in the world is never going to fix.

 

Second and more importantly, just because someone -- or a group of someones -- has a feeling, doesn't mean that feeling is valid, or even worth paying attention to. This is harsh, I know, but it is reality. A million people can complain about feeling "unsafe" on the internet, but the first question we should ask is not "How do we make these people feel safe?!" but "What the hell does that even mean?" Feelings are not arguments. Feelings are not proof of a systemic problem. Feelings are not enough to demand compliance to a way of doing things.

 

Feelings are feelings, and we all have them every day, and many of them are quite dumb and irrational. Just because a bunch of people all have the same feeling and are vocalizing it on the internet doesn't make that feeling any less dumb or any less irrational.

Edited May 16, 2014 by decado

[Volourn]

"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."

 

Are you insane? Then again, as a MALE (omg i'm anti man since I am emphaszing my body lol), this kind of thing is silly.

 

Male/man or female/woman  are interchangable.

 

 

On the earlier convo, Bruce shouldn't feel shame about apartheid if he had nothing to do with it. I feel no shame  about slaveryor what happened to the Indians. I have never bought or sold a slave so why the hell would I feel sorry about it anymore than I would feel shame/guilt over the fact that my birth father was a scumbag criminal? I don't. LMAO I feel empathy for the actual victims of slavery but I do not feel guilt over it. Guilt is something one should feel when they are guilty.

 

 AS for people usually preferring to hire those of their own social group/race/gender. This is actually true of everyone not just old white males. Just look at any black celebrity.  Their pose are overwhelmingly black way above the population % level. Nobody blinks an eye at the obviously bias/racism going on. Neither do I, but it's a point ignored due tor racism. I mean it's okay for minorities to be bigots but not majorities? LMAO

 

 

How can one feel unsafe on the internet? You can't be hurt on the internet. I've had multiple people threaten my life, send me porn pics, and do/say all slorts of nasty things. I've never felt 'unsafe'. Now, if the person tracks you down to you in real life... then feel unsafe.

 

 Then again, we all know in the modern world, men are just monstrous rapists who live for one thing -  controlling, raping, beating, and holding women down. Only a sexist thinks that.  Just like someone who thinks a woman's only place is in the kitchen or on her back in the bedroom is also sexist. They are both scumbags. Misogynists and feminists should both marry each other because theya re both types of scumbag sexists.

 

I've had female bosses and never had an issue with 99.9% of them just like 90% of my male bosses.

 

R00fles!

Edited May 16, 2014 by Volourn

[tajerio]

How can one feel unsafe on the internet? You can't be hurt on the internet. 

 

Oh come on now.  In a physical sense, you're correct.  In an emotional sense, you are absolutely wrong.  Not everyone has a thick skin and a detached perspective, but that doesn't make them any less important.

 

And we've got to remember what Louis CK said in a standup special a couple years ago--"I'm a white man.  You can't even hurt my feelings!"  Most of the filth that gets thrown around the internet isn't aimed at the straight white man, which most of us posting in this thread are.  So I don't think we can get inside the heads of people who are the targets of much worse abuse than we'll ever suffer and say, "What's wrong with you?  That shouldn't hurt."

[BruceVC]

 

On the earlier convo, Bruce shouldn't feel shame about apartheid if he had nothing to do with it. I feel no shame  about slaveryor what happened to the Indians. I have never bought or sold a slave so why the hell would I feel sorry about it anymore than I would feel shame/guilt over the fact that my birth father was a scumbag criminal? I don't. LMAO I feel empathy for the actual victims of slavery but I do not feel guilt over it. Guilt is something one should feel when they are guilty.

 

 AS for people usually preferring to hire those of their own social group/race/gender. This is actually true of everyone not just old white males. Just look at any black celebrity.  Their pose are overwhelmingly black way above the population % level. Nobody blinks an eye at the obviously bias/racism going on. Neither do I, but it's a point ignored due tor racism. I mean it's okay for minorities to be bigots but not majorities? LMAO

 

 

 

Volo has a good point here, why should you feel guilty for what your parents  did?

[Volourn]

"Most of the filth that gets thrown around the internet isn't aimed at the straight white man, which most of us posting in this thread are.  So I don't think we can get inside the heads of people who are the targets of much worse abuse than we'll ever suffer and say, "What's wrong with you?  That shouldn't hurt.""

 

O RLY? I've been threatened with rape, murder, and all other sorts of giggle inducing stuff. I find it hilarious because it is meaningless internet junk.

 

 

"And we've got to remember what Louis CK said in a standup special a couple years ago--"I'm a white man.  You can't even hurt my feelings!""

 

Yeah, because we all know white men aren't even human and therefore have no feelings and can't be hurt. LMAO  Tell that to the many white male victims of rape in the church (as one example). LMAO

[tajerio]

"Most of the filth that gets thrown around the internet isn't aimed at the straight white man, which most of us posting in this thread are.  So I don't think we can get inside the heads of people who are the targets of much worse abuse than we'll ever suffer and say, "What's wrong with you?  That shouldn't hurt.""

 

O RLY? I've been threatened with rape, murder, and all other sorts of giggle inducing stuff. I find it hilarious because it is meaningless internet junk.

 

 

"And we've got to remember what Louis CK said in a standup special a couple years ago--"I'm a white man.  You can't even hurt my feelings!""

 

Yeah, because we all know white men aren't even human and therefore have no feelings and can't be hurt. LMAO  Tell that to the many white male victims of rape in the church (as one example). LMAO

 

I think my point just thundered over your head at an altitude of about 12,000 metres.

 

You have a thick skin.  Good for you--I do too.  But not everyone does.  And when people say terrible things in an online forum, it's not meaningless.  It shouldn't be taken to heart, but it does say a lot about how many arseholes there are out there, and viscerally it's very hard for a lot of people just to ignore that sort of thing.

 

As for the second part, I think you might have missed my explanation.  Neither I nor Louis CK is serious on that point, and I know you know it.  And I'm not saying that straight white men can't be the targets of really horrific abuse.  But compared to all other types of people in the world, straight white men face and have faced the fewest specific forms of derogatory and dehumanizing treatment.  So it's hard for us to say when people should or shouldn't be hurt by things, because sexism and racism and a whole bunch of other prejudices have tended to work for rather than against us.

[decado]

But compared to all other types of people in the world, straight white men face and have faced the fewest specific forms of derogatory and dehumanizing treatment.

Nah. They face less discrimination, certainly. But as to who faces "derogatory" and "dehumanizing" treatment? How can you even being to quantify that?

[Volourn]

"straight white men face and have faced the fewest specific forms of derogatory and dehumanizing treatment."

 

\Yeah, it's not dehumanizing at all to be considered a monster simply because of your skin colour and gender alone. LMAO

[Blarghagh]

Interesting that Volo keeps saying all the things that are known to happen to women have also happened to him. None of those things have ever happened to me. In fact, the few times dumb idiots have harassed me on the internet they attempted to do so by making me out to be effeminate by comparing me to a girl, female slurs (bitch) or implying I was gay (liking men is a traditionally female trait). That, or they threaten and insult not me but my mother (hint: a woman). It's either bitch or son of a bitch. Women literally get more insults than me even when they're not around. In fact, one member of this board who shall not be named found a youtube channel of a female friend of mine and started insulting *her* in an attempt to attack me. I have never once been insulted based on my own gender or even race and I grew up as one of the few white kids in a black neighbourhood.

 

There's only one conclusion. Volo is a woman. :D Kidding, obviously. Seriously though, I wonder if my experience is just skewed. In my experience men, especially white men, don't get harrassed on the internet even a quarter as much females do, but it could be that my experience has been skewed. I have not been seriously harassed on the internet - even playing MOBAs or MMOs (can't say about CoD type shooters, I never play 'em). I've gotten into a share of flame wars but that's the end of it. On the other hand, practically all the women I know are gamers (hell, my mother of all people killed the end boss of the Diablo 3 expansion this morning) and practically all of them have had bad experiences with it. Any other guys here faced strong abuse like Volo claims he has? Since no one else but Volo has spoken in this manner I'm inclined to take it with a grain of salt because hyperbolic grandstanding is his default setting.

[decado]

"straight white men face and have faced the fewest specific forms of derogatory and dehumanizing treatment."

 

\Yeah, it's not dehumanizing at all to be considered a monster simply because of your skin colour and gender alone. LMAO

In my view, complaining about this stuff is just as dumb as those people who whine about feeling "unsafe" on the internet. White dudes have it pretty easy on this Planet Earth. People who are upset about that have a legitimate grievance. And they are allowed to have that grievance without prefacing their remarks so as not to hurt your feelings.

 

But what flows equally from that grievance is the understanding that, when it comes to issues like this, your delivery is just as important as the content. Very few people actually run around calling white men "devils" and they are usually made fun of by everyone else. Sure, certain radicalized idiots might find an internet forum where they can indulge this behavior without fear of being called on it, but for the most part these people cannot act that way and get away with it.

 

All of this whining about it makes a person look like a petulant crybaby. I'm of the opinion that everybody -- men, women, etc -- should harden the eff up and stop complaining about their goddamn feelings all the time. I don't care about your feelings, and I don't want you to care about my feelings. Let's care about things that are actual and verifiable and measurable, and leave feelings for bedtime.

Edited May 16, 2014 by decado

[kirottu]

 

 

*snip*

 

Really? You don't believe people have attacked Volo over the internet?

Edited May 16, 2014 by kirottu

[Blarghagh]

Not over his gender or skin color, anyway. But if anyone would drive people to do that...