Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

??

 

What do you mean by reactionary?

 

We don't think tacky shirts are equal to harassing over tacky shirts.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

??

 

What do you mean by reactionary?

We don't think tacky shirts are equal to harassing over tacky shirts.

 

 

Please, do show me that famed harrassment. I'm genuinely curious.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here you make an assumption about what kind of person would wear that clothing.

 

In fairness, those examples are fairly petty, and, like I wrote, I'm too lazy to pour over 200 or so pages of this discussion to look for better, more meaningful examples and reading back through what came before it for proper context.  More importantly, my comment was more aimed at SJWs in general and less at you specifically.  I certainly didn't make that clear, which is my mistake, apologies for that.  

 

I found that funny, hence the snark and the joke, since putting words into people's mouths is the modus operandi of SJWs.  To borrow one of anti-GGs terms (it's only fitting), SJWs have weaponized putting words into people's mouths and making assumptions about their intent.

 

 

So I'm glad you have given me some concrete examples, its important that I respond

 

I have already said I was wrong to suggest he shouldn't have cried in the interview, now we don't need to dwell on a mistake of judgement I made

 

And  that  cowboy shirt, its definitely a gay themed shirt. I have gay friends and I go to gay clubs. The reason why we know this is not just a normal cowboy shirt is that the guys are buff and not wearing shirts. There is nothing wrong with the shirt but it is not something that most straight men would wear because it sends a certain image. If you disagree with me ask yourself one question ..." would you wear shirt like that " and if not, why wouldn't you wear it?

 

So I go to my original point, what assumptions am I making ? I don't expect you to read all my posts in this thread but my view has been based on real events and has been consistent.

This thread is so ridiculously reactionary.

Always, people thrive on it 

[Meshugger]

 

 

If you don't like his shirt and thus you would make the bold assumption that this guy is some massive misogynistic, woman-hating **** because he wore such a shirt rather than using Occam's Razor and assuming "he likes boobs and isn't afraid to say so," then that's your right. But you know what's in his rights? Wearing a shirt you don't like. Make your little presumptious judgement of him in silence or amongst your friends, then keep it to yourself.

 

 

So you're essentially saying "it's okay for him to offend someone's sensibilities (however idiotic those sensibilities are), but when said someone wants to express that their sensibilities were offended, THAT's a big no-no"?

 

This is a very prevalent and utterly ridiculous stance. If you're willing to cry "freedom of expression" for protecting people's rights to wear tacky T-shirts/draw giant boobs in their art projects/whatever, why don't their critics also get to exercise their freedom of expression by writing scathing articles about what they think of tacky T-shirts/art with giant boobs/whatever?

 

 

No one is saying that the article shouldn't be published or people should be banned from the social media. What people are angry about is that bullies and authoritarians applying false rage and shame tactics, effectively abusing the kind and gentler side of people. It is simply morally repugnant.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

If you don't like his shirt and thus you would make the bold assumption that this guy is some massive misogynistic, woman-hating **** because he wore such a shirt rather than using Occam's Razor and assuming "he likes boobs and isn't afraid to say so," then that's your right. But you know what's in his rights? Wearing a shirt you don't like. Make your little presumptious judgement of him in silence or amongst your friends, then keep it to yourself.

 

 

So you're essentially saying "it's okay for him to offend someone's sensibilities (however idiotic those sensibilities are), but when said someone wants to express that their sensibilities were offended, THAT's a big no-no"?

 

This is a very prevalent and utterly ridiculous stance. If you're willing to cry "freedom of expression" for protecting people's rights to wear tacky T-shirts/draw giant boobs in their art projects/whatever, why don't their critics also get to exercise their freedom of expression by writing scathing articles about what they think of tacky T-shirts/art with giant boobs/whatever?

 

 

No one is saying that the article shouldn't be published or people should be banned from the social media. What people are angry about is that bullies and authoritarians applying false rage and shame tactics, effectively abusing the kind and gentler side of people. It is simply morally repugnant.

 

 

Sorry, I don't think "(m)ake your little presumptious judgement of him in silence or amongst your friends, then keep it to yourself" (actual quote) allows for that interpretation.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

??

 

What do you mean by reactionary?

 

We don't think tacky shirts are equal to harassing over tacky shirts.

Please, do show me that famed harrassment. I'm genuinely curious.

You don't see how calling someone sexist for wearing a shirt is harassment?

 

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213819/your-bowling-shirt-is-holding-back-progress

 

Because clearly, Matt Taylor's shirt is actively keeping women out of science.

 

And the horrible misogynist who made the shirt:

 

 

You can find her at https://twitter.com/ellypriZeMaN

 

I suggest you let her know how horrible she is for keeping women out of science.

 

EDIT: Thinking in it, perhaps "harassment" isn't the right word. I suppose the definition of it as "aggressive pressure or intimidation" applies, but it feels less direct and more like "unfounded criticism that is harsh". Anyone got a word for that?

Edited November 16, 2014 by KaineParker

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

If you don't like his shirt and thus you would make the bold assumption that this guy is some massive misogynistic, woman-hating **** because he wore such a shirt rather than using Occam's Razor and assuming "he likes boobs and isn't afraid to say so," then that's your right. But you know what's in his rights? Wearing a shirt you don't like. Make your little presumptious judgement of him in silence or amongst your friends, then keep it to yourself.

 

 

So you're essentially saying "it's okay for him to offend someone's sensibilities (however idiotic those sensibilities are), but when said someone wants to express that their sensibilities were offended, THAT's a big no-no"?

 

This is a very prevalent and utterly ridiculous stance. If you're willing to cry "freedom of expression" for protecting people's rights to wear tacky T-shirts/draw giant boobs in their art projects/whatever, why don't their critics also get to exercise their freedom of expression by writing scathing articles about what they think of tacky T-shirts/art with giant boobs/whatever?

 

 

No one is saying that the article shouldn't be published or people should be banned from the social media. What people are angry about is that bullies and authoritarians applying false rage and shame tactics, effectively abusing the kind and gentler side of people. It is simply morally repugnant.

 

 

Sorry, I don't think "(m)ake your little presumptious judgement of him in silence or amongst your friends, then keep it to yourself" (actual quote) allows for that interpretation.

 

 

For some reason i missed that you were quoting Longknife, sorry. Carry on then.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

To get back directly to gg: http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2mh5ea/steve_tom_sawyer_attacked_for_being_a_prominent/

 

"It's actually about gender equality"

[Meshugger]

That's simply appaling.

[Volourn]

"They were both equally sophomoric."

 

Equal? One wwore a silly shirt the other used bullying, threats,  and gang tatics to to break down another human being because theya re nazis. EVIL.

 

 

"So you're essentially saying "it's okay for him to offend someone's sensibilities (however idiotic those sensibilities are), but when said someone wants to express that their sensibilities were offended, THAT's a big no-no"?

 

This is a very prevalent and utterly ridiculous stance. If you're willing to cry "freedom of expression" for protecting people's rights to wear tacky T-shirts/draw giant boobs in their art projects/whatever, why don't their critics also get to exercise their freedom of expression by writing scathing articles about what they think of tacky T-shirts/art with giant boobs/whatever?"

 

Freedom of expression is fine. Bullying is not.  They basically gang piled on him. Chances are if that they were in person with him as  agroup they would have murdered him because that's how vicious they were in their bullying attacks. It's all about power and control and slavery.

 

Judging people on what they were is evil. Plain and simple.

 

 

"Always, people thrive on it"

 

The double standard hyopcrisy is frightening here because  this is how feminists and SJWs live.

 

 

 

 

Also, we're sexist against women because we criticied a male writer on a horribly evil article.  LMAO

 

So,, a woman makes a shirt with sexy women on it, a male attacks the man wearing it, people criticize the male writer, and somehow we're the sexist ones out of this? LMAO The warped logic. L0L

 

If the guy had refused the gift and the feminists found out theyn would be bashing him for being mean to his female friend and not appreciated her work on the shirt. SICKENING.

 

 

As for that last link, if true,, ewwwwwwwwwwwwww...........

 

 

And, it also looks like a woman I think set up the scietnist soemthing to buy him a gift. LMAO

Edited November 16, 2014 by Volourn

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

That's simply appaling.

Trust but verify. There is apparently video, so we should hold out for that.

 

In addition, Kotaku has been knocked off the first page of Steam curators.

 

And, it also looks like a woman I think set up the scietnist soemthing to buy him a gift. LMAO

It is a woman and it has been over funded. Of course it's misogynist and evil because that money should be going to Patreons of indie devs.

Edited November 16, 2014 by KaineParker

[Lexx]

Nonek gets my point. Imaginary cup of tea to you, my good sir!

 

Btw, Gamergate has started a fund to buy a gift for the shirt guy: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/matt-taylor-rosetta-project-scientist#home

 

4426 dollars so far, exceeding the estimated target by 146% within a day.

If it would be for me, I'd say "thanks, but please give the money to a charity of some sorts." Really, I don't think accepting this gift (or giving it in the first place) is a good idea.

 

 

/Edit: Besides, if it really has nothing to do with politics, as is stated at the bottom of the page, then it is still a bad idea, because he certainly isn't the only one on the team who did the work. He is just the most prominent face. So if it really has to be, then it should be a gift for everyone involved, imo.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Lexx

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Nonek gets my point. Imaginary cup of tea to you, my good sir! Btw, Gamergate has started a fund to buy a gift for the shirt guy: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/matt-taylor-rosetta-project-scientist#home 4426 dollars so far, exceeding the estimated target by 146% within a day.

If it would be for me, I'd say "thanks, but please give the money to a charity of some sorts." Really, I don't think accepting this gift (or giving it in the first place) is a good idea./Edit: Besides, if it really has nothing to do with politics, as is stated at the bottom of the page, then it is still a bad idea, because he certainly isn't the only one on the team who did the work. He is just the most prominent face. So if it really has to be, then it should be a gift for everyone involved, imo.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/matt-taylor-rosetta-project-scientist#description

 

"If more money is received, it would make it possible to either organize a large dinner for the entire team or send everyone a bottle of whiskey with a custom label mentioning their names and role in the mission"

 

It's over double the requested, I'm pretty sure they will get some whiskey.

[Volourn]

"/Edit: Besides, if it really has nothing to do with politics, as is stated at the bottom of the page, then it is still a bad idea, because he certainly isn't the only one on the team who did the work. He is just the most prominent face. So if it really has to be, then it should be a gift for everyone involved, imo."

 

His coworkers weren't harassed, bullied, and attacked by psychos though.

[Malcador]

 

 

 

I like that you have to ask who you should be judging based on their clothing.

 

I like how you expertly avoid giving anything resembling an answer to my question.

 

I mean, I'm trying to have a discussion here, but the sheer amount of bad faith arguments and condescending bull**** is making it really hard to engage with the problem in any way, shape, or form.

Oh this is amusing from you. Good to see people realizing how full of it Bruce is at last, heh.

 

Silly that people focus on that of all things, his choice of clothing.

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

I like that you have to ask who you should be judging based on their clothing.

I like how you expertly avoid giving anything resembling an answer to my question.

 

I mean, I'm trying to have a discussion here, but the sheer amount of bad faith arguments and condescending bull**** is making it really hard to engage with the problem in any way, shape, or form.

Oh this is amusing from you. Good to see people realizing how full of it Bruce is at last, heh.

 

Silly that people focus on that of all things, his choice of clothing.

 

You need to understand that a man cannot wear a shirt like that but a woman can wear the equivalent because we live under patriarchy.

[Longknife]

 

 

If you don't like his shirt and thus you would make the bold assumption that this guy is some massive misogynistic, woman-hating **** because he wore such a shirt rather than using Occam's Razor and assuming "he likes boobs and isn't afraid to say so," then that's your right. But you know what's in his rights? Wearing a shirt you don't like. Make your little presumptious judgement of him in silence or amongst your friends, then keep it to yourself.

 

 

So you're essentially saying "it's okay for him to offend someone's sensibilities (however idiotic those sensibilities are), but when said someone wants to express that their sensibilities were offended, THAT's a big no-no"?

 

This is a very prevalent and utterly ridiculous stance. If you're willing to cry "freedom of expression" for protecting people's rights to wear tacky T-shirts/draw giant boobs in their art projects/whatever, why don't their critics also get to exercise their freedom of expression by writing scathing articles about what they think of tacky T-shirts/art with giant boobs/whatever?

 

 

 

There is a big difference between you, as an individual, saying "hey I don't like your shirt" and a massive collective of people dogpiling him about his shirt to the point people are reading about what the man wore on Tuesday in their daily news.

 

 

The entirety of Gamergate is essentially that: a conflict with a more powerful collective of people (mostly companies) doing whatever the hell they want even when it's questionable morally. You have every right to not like his shirt, but he also has every right to wear it. And for that situation to somehow turn into "let's report on this man's shirt his female friend gave him" more than his actual phenominal accomplishments is nothing short of insane.

 

 

No one is saying that the article shouldn't be published

 

 

Yes, I am, at least within this context. Not so much in principle, mind you. Theoretically a news organization could report on his shirt in an innocent way, but this isn't it. This is the same people spouting the same ideologies and using the same dogpiling tactics they've used before. I take offense to this because I'm pretty certain they went about publishing this fully knowing that a mass collective of people would then begin to dogpile the guy for...a piece of cloth. It's fully possible for a news organization to jokingly say "lol hey look at his tacky shirt! Those geniuses sure are eccentric!" with innocent intent, then someone else looks at it and takes offense and it snowballs, but this isn't it. It's the same people spouting the same principles and using the same drama queen tactics.

 

 

 

 

   Let's be reasonable, logical, and not ****nuts balls-to-the-wall insane for a moment, shall we?

 

Do you think this man put on that shirt with the attitude of "Boy, I sure can't wait to oppress the entire female gender and put them in their place by wearing my shirt!"? If you do, go **** yourself.

 

Do you think we had any reason pre-drama to believe that this man would react hostily or rudely if someone commented on his shirt? I sure didn't see anything to suggest that.

 

So now tell me...

 

 

If you've got a nice, well-meaning individual who's blissfully unaware they just screwed up (for arguments sake let's assume there is something objectively undeniably wrong with his shirt), do you kindly pull them aside and tell them they screwed up, or do you scream at them and say "HEY EVERYONE, LET'S COME CALL THIS GUY MEAN NAMES!"

 

For an analogy, imagine a school classroom having a water balloon fight, and some kids can opt out or their parents can opt them out for various reasons. Imagine that one kid unknowingly approaches a child who opted out of the water balloon fight and pegs him with one, and the child immediately begins to cry. Would you expect the teacher to:

 

A) Calmly ask the child that threw the balloon to be more careful and pay more attention to who he throws balloons at while also asking him to say he's sorry so that no ill will develops between the two.

 

B) Scream at the child, give him detention and make a giant spectacle of the child in front of the classroom, purposefully humiliating him by telling all his classmates what an idiot he was

 

 

If you chose B, congrats, you would be a perfect Public Relations manager for the SJW collective. You would also get fired on your first day as a school teacher.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And personally, I'd like to bring this back up:

 

 

That's why i ask Bruce and everyone that agrees with him: What is morally good by supporting this kinds of ideas?

 

 

No seriously. Please explain how you think the ideologies of the SJW collective are currently working to make the world a better place.

 

How is this a moral improvement that this guy was brought to tears?

How is this a moral improvement that TIME was pressured into removing "feminism" from their "word people would most like to see the world be rid of" list if that is infact the truthful winner of that question?

How does making a big stink about this man's shirt make the world a better place?

 

 

 

 

Yknow it's funny, I'm suddenly reminded of this:

 

 

 

I expect differing opinions on this, but you know what? I agree with him. It's a very bitter truth I'm afraid, because I don't see it actually happening. But the fact of the matter is, when you constantly acknowledge differences, you know who that effects the most? Children. Children are impressionable, and they adapt to the world they're raised in. If you raise a child in an environment where race is a constant issue that their parents constantly reference in every single occurance, then yes, they will consider race important. If however you only name racism when in a historical context or in other factual situations, then they do not learn to see the world in regards to different racial issues. It's a very bitter truth because it's essentially also asking the very victims of racism to not overly or unneccesarily acknowledge the injustice they are victims of too much to their children, and understandably it's one many families may disagree with as being good parenting, as they may consider it important to teach their child they may be a victim of racism. But objectively speaking, I do find his opinion to be logically sound. I'm sure some of you may nitpick details where it's not (for example I would also believe someone who simply grows up in a pure white community or vice versa will be more prone to some form of racism), but point is this would help.

 

  We are doing the exact opposite now. We are acknowledging gender at every turn, even now when some guy is attempting to land something on a comet speeding through space. This is not good for the younger generations.

 

Meshugger did a fabulous post with some Grade-A analytical thinking where he highlighted that this strand of feminism - when following it's own principles - amounts to little more than a drive for personal power. This is not good, as it essentially promotes NOTHING but conflict. It's not even about women's rights, it's about personal interests. Until I see a counter argument to some of those points made, I see absolutely zero incentive to take any of this crap seriously.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Longknife

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

 

I like that you have to ask who you should be judging based on their clothing.

 

 

I like how you expertly avoid giving anything resembling an answer to my question.

 

 

Because you answer a question with a question.

 

"Why is it morally good to judge the clothing on some people and not on others?"

 

 

Well, if you mean, say, rape victims by "others", my answer would be very different from the one I'd give when "others" means "guys dressing up as SS officers as a 'joke'" (a politician in my country pulled that off a few years ago, if I remember correctly).

 

Therefore I asked you to clarify.

 

 

You're almost there....just elaborate a bit more.

 

 

Since you haven't answered yet, this is my problem:

 

It is morally reprehensible to judge a rape victim because of her clothing since it puts the blame on the victim itself instead of the perpetrator, thus it is equally morally reprehensible to judge mr. shirt guy for his clothing since it puts the blame on himself because of the harrasment of others. 

 

It is not "it's just an opinion, it's freedom of expression" because that's just the medium on how the malice intent was convayed. Malice is malice, not matter how it is portrayed.

[Darkpriest]

 

 

If you don't like his shirt and thus you would make the bold assumption that this guy is some massive misogynistic, woman-hating **** because he wore such a shirt rather than using Occam's Razor and assuming "he likes boobs and isn't afraid to say so," then that's your right. But you know what's in his rights? Wearing a shirt you don't like. Make your little presumptious judgement of him in silence or amongst your friends, then keep it to yourself.

 

 

So you're essentially saying "it's okay for him to offend someone's sensibilities (however idiotic those sensibilities are), but when said someone wants to express that their sensibilities were offended, THAT's a big no-no"?

 

This is a very prevalent and utterly ridiculous stance. If you're willing to cry "freedom of expression" for protecting people's rights to wear tacky T-shirts/draw giant boobs in their art projects/whatever, why don't their critics also get to exercise their freedom of expression by writing scathing articles about what they think of tacky T-shirts/art with giant boobs/whatever?

 

 

You know what, even though I am indifferent to the religious stuff, I wonder if you will react with the same passion next time when some "artist" decides to use the religious symbols in offensive manner to people that are faithful. Or if you will react in the same way when some LGBT groups will be runing skimpy and nearly naked in places where it is generally distastful to run half naked.

 

It's funny, but it seems that you can bash freely a traditonalist, christian white male without any sort of outlook on sensibiliy, but try to criticize a woman, or black, or gay, then you will get such an uproar that it's beyond stupid.

 

You want to really fight for the well being of women... go to the ****ing Africa and Middleeast and go help those that really are in need. So far it seems like all these retards just were hit hard on their head with something heavy and simply have nothing better to do, but bash other people.

 

It's these frustrated people, who never achieved a really big success on their own, a real life losers, pile up and gang up on people who they can pick on, just because they can cover it under the veil of SJW or political correctness defense banner... while it really comes down just to pulling down the successful or getting the extra rights over 'regular' populace.

 

I agree with that short M.Freeman video. I also recommend watching a movie about Nelson Mandela... I do not see anyone prosecuted for being a woman in the "wrong" spot, being gay, or other race than white. I see however a bunch of retards blowing things out of porportion and politcal correctness driving towards absurds. Funnily enough I am sure that if i would buy tickets for all these retards for a flight to Africa and Middleeast so they could fight for the rights of really opressed, they would not go there... because the real fight for equality is out of their comfort zone and not in their real agenda. They just spout out their retardedness in the already tolerant and free speach environment, so they can now compensate for their own failures and shortcomings in their lives and their past, and now blame others for their own flaws.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Darkpriest

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Since you haven't answered yet, this is my problem:

 

It is morally reprehensible to judge a rape victim because of her clothing since it puts the blame on the victim itself instead of the perpetrator, thus it is equally morally reprehensible to judge mr. shirt guy for his clothing since it puts the blame on himself because of the harrasment of others. 

 

It is not "it's just an opinion, it's freedom of expression" because that's just the medium on how the malice intent was convayed. Malice is malice, not matter how it is portrayed.

 

 

I've reread the article in question, and have failed to see any mention of him being blamed for tha harrassment of others. It mentions the fact that he was allowed to give an interview in said clothing as indicative of a larger problem in the industry, not him having any sort of malicious intent with it.

 

So, erm, yeah.

 

 

You know what, even though I am indifferent to the religious stuff, I wonder if you will react with the same passion next time when some "artist" decides to use the reigious symbols in offensive manner to people that are faithful. Or if you will react in the same way when some LGBT groups will be runing skimpy and nearly naked in places where it is generally distastful to run half naked.

 

It's funny, but it seems that you can bash freely an traditonalist, christian white male without any sort of outlook on sensibiliy, but try to criticize a woman, or black, or gay, then you will get such an uproar that it's beyond stupid.

 

 

Oh yes, poor white christian males are the most oppressed members of our society. To arms, people! Thank you for opening my eyes, kind sir, thank you!

 

But to address some of your points (?), while I certainly won't be up in arms to protect poor, oppressed Christians who have no representation in popular media and no voice in the public consciousness at all, I just as certainly won't mock and deride those Christians who decide to voice their complaints about the artist's work.

 

Re: skimpy LGBT people running around half-naked, there's a difference between people doing something (say, running around half-naked in public spaces) in their own free time, and doing the same thing as representatives of a professional community. Also, were said LGBT people to whine about getting arrested and fined because there are laws forbidding running half-naked in public spaces, then yes, the fault would be with them for not looking up whether what they intend to do is illegal or not.

 

 

You want to really fight for the well being of women... go to the ****ing Africa and Middleeast and go help those that really are in need. 

 

 

Yupp, running off to play White Savior in other countries has always worked so well.

 

 

It's these frustrated people, who never achieved a really big success on their own, a real life losers, pile up and gang up on people who they can pick on, just because they can cover it under the veil of SJW or political correctness defense banner... while it really comes down just to pulling down the successful or getting the extra rights over 'regular' populace.

 

 

If Atlas Shrugged any harder, he'd fall off his father's ****ing couch, amirite?

[Malcador]

You need to understand that a man cannot wear a shirt like that but a woman can wear the equivalent because we live under patriarchy.

Would seem so, ah well. Wonder where all these equality crusaders came from or is it just a case of the Internet handing every random prole a megaphone, to borrow a phrase. Some of it is from useless social sciences, perhaps

 

Generally, witch hunts are ok as long as the hunters are The Right Kind, for these people. Maybe Herbert was on to something with the closet aristocrat within

[Meshugger]

 

I've reread the article in question, and have failed to see any mention of him being blamed for tha harrassment of others. It mentions the fact that he was allowed to give an interview in said clothing as indicative of a larger problem in the industry, not him having any sort of malicious intent with it.

 

So, erm, yeah.

 

?? 

 

Read again, i clearly stated the malice came from the article and the people supporting in shaming him. That is malice. 

[Darkpriest]

 

 

Since you haven't answered yet, this is my problem:

 

It is morally reprehensible to judge a rape victim because of her clothing since it puts the blame on the victim itself instead of the perpetrator, thus it is equally morally reprehensible to judge mr. shirt guy for his clothing since it puts the blame on himself because of the harrasment of others. 

 

It is not "it's just an opinion, it's freedom of expression" because that's just the medium on how the malice intent was convayed. Malice is malice, not matter how it is portrayed.

 

 

I've reread the article in question, and have failed to see any mention of him being blamed for tha harrassment of others. It mentions the fact that he was allowed to give an interview in said clothing as indicative of a larger problem in the industry, not him having any sort of malicious intent with it.

 

So, erm, yeah.

 

 

You know what, even though I am indifferent to the religious stuff, I wonder if you will react with the same passion next time when some "artist" decides to use the reigious symbols in offensive manner to people that are faithful. Or if you will react in the same way when some LGBT groups will be runing skimpy and nearly naked in places where it is generally distastful to run half naked.

 

It's funny, but it seems that you can bash freely an traditonalist, christian white male without any sort of outlook on sensibiliy, but try to criticize a woman, or black, or gay, then you will get such an uproar that it's beyond stupid.

 

 

Oh yes, poor white christian males are the most oppressed members of our society. To arms, people! Thank you for opening my eyes, kind sir, thank you!

 

But to address some of your points (?), while I certainly won't be up in arms to protect poor, oppressed Christians who have no representation in popular media and no voice in the public consciousness at all, I just as certainly won't mock and deride those Christians who decide to voice their complaints about the artist's work.

 

Re: skimpy LGBT people running around half-naked, there's a difference between people doing something (say, running around half-naked in public spaces) in their own free time, and doing the same thing as representatives of a professional community. Also, were said LGBT people to whine about getting arrested and fined because there are laws forbidding running half-naked in public spaces, then yes, the fault would be with them for not looking up whether what they intend to do is illegal or not.

 

 

You want to really fight for the well being of women... go to the ****ing Africa and Middleeast and go help those that really are in need. 

 

 

Yupp, running off to play White Savior in other countries has always worked so well.

 

 

It's these frustrated people, who never achieved a really big success on their own, a real life losers, pile up and gang up on people who they can pick on, just because they can cover it under the veil of SJW or political correctness defense banner... while it really comes down just to pulling down the successful or getting the extra rights over 'regular' populace.

 

 

If Atlas Shrugged any harder, he'd fall off his father's ****ing couch, amirite?

 

 

I will not get into the religious stuff, so I will leave the "white christian" stuff out.

 

Where did I  say "white savior"? Go and educate, show advantages, emphasize the HUMAN BEING being equal one to another, show the importance of equal chances, protest THERE about the porsecutions and rally up people THERE by building arguments. But for you going there is equivalent to militant "white savior" apparently.

 

not sure what you want to achieve with last part, but whatever. If I am wrong, please show me a successful and rich personality of the allegidly "opressed" that would bash the likes of the poor Tshirt guy.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Where did I  say "white savior"? Go and educate, show advantages, emphasize the HUMAN BEING being equal one to another, show the importance of equal chances, protest THERE about the porsecutions and rally up people THERE by building arguments. But for you going there is equivalent to militant "white savior" apparently.

 

 

Going off to other countries and telling people there how to conduct their business is pretty much the definition of white saviorism, yes.

 

Without a wider cultural context you'll most definitely lack as an outsider, it's generally considered to be quite rude to start attacking other people's culture. For example, I've heard most african feminists actually consider the issue of genital mutilation to be somewhat low on their priority list, even though most of us would think of that as something that has to be stopped immediately (admittedly, I am very much uneducated on the subject).

 

 

not sure what you want to achieve with last part, but whatever. If I am wrong, please show me a successful and rich personality of the allegidly "opressed" that would bash the likes of the poor Tshirt guy.

 

 

If they had successful and rich people in abundance, who are also incredibly forthcoming with their opinions, they'd hardly count as "oppressed" groups, wouldn't they?

 

I know this might sound strange, but the plight of Mr. Taylor holds essentially zero interest to the large majority of people in the world (me included, actually).

Edited November 16, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Darkpriest]

 

 

Where did I  say "white savior"? Go and educate, show advantages, emphasize the HUMAN BEING being equal one to another, show the importance of equal chances, protest THERE about the porsecutions and rally up people THERE by building arguments. But for you going there is equivalent to militant "white savior" apparently.

 

 

Going off to other countries and telling people there how to conduct their business is pretty much the definition of white saviorism, yes.

 

Without a wider cultural context you'll most definitely lack as an outsider, it's generally considered to be quite rude to start attacking other people's culture. For example, I've heard most african feminists actually consider the issue of genital mutilation to be somewhat low on their priority list, even though most of us would think of that as something that has to be stopped immediately (admittedly, I am very much uneducated on the subject).

 

 

not sure what you want to achieve with last part, but whatever. If I am wrong, please show me a successful and rich personality of the allegidly "opressed" that would bash the likes of the poor Tshirt guy.

 

 

If they had successful and rich people in abundance, who are also incredibly forthcoming with their opinions, they'd hardly count as "oppressed" groups, wouldn't they?

 

I know this might sound strange, but the plight of Mr. Taylor holds essentially zero interest to the large majority of people in the world (me included, actually).

 

 

So in other words you do not want to affect the culture there, which might be brutal and inhuman? The whole pont of education is to improve upon behaviors and drive cultural development. We could say that 150 yers ago, slavery and heavy male dominance was a part of our culture, so why change it? You admit that there are movements there that want to improve the rights of the opressed, but you deny them the active support THERE, where they need additional hands and minds. The culutral differences on priorities can be worked with an resolved through conusltation with the local movements for equality. You refute the big picture problem of oppression and inequality through the difficulty in understanding the local culture and the priorites for local populations in their drive for equality. Does it sound like a real person who is willing to work on equality and general egalitarian rights?

 

Hmm... lets see... USA has a black president, has women on important positions in various areas of culutral and social life and their words carry equal weight then those who they are allegidly oppressed by... and these people do not participate in the "SJW fanatics" bashing actions. I ask "why"? Because in reality most of the SJW are puny little people with the big "L" on their Curriculum Vitae, and they look for reasons for their failures everywhere else than themselves and compensante by bshng on other people, because now they can under veils of PC.

 

If I will see a person prosecuted for their beliefs, gender, race or sexual orientation I will be among these who defend them, but the actions like the one with the T-shirt is an example of taking things to retarded extremes, which should be shunned in the same way like those prosecutions I mentioned. There is a line between equal rights and opportunites and fight for extra benefits and recognition as an organized group. I feel like this line was crossed quite a few years ago, and is now heading toward unhealthy absurd.

 

We already had the same thing in the past with employees unions. The origins were just and they driven for much needed employees rights, but at some point they just became organizations that want more benefits for their associates in comparison to non-unions.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Darkpriest