Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[Longknife]

 

 

Science is gendered ?

 

How many women do you know working in STEM?

 

Is that STEM's fault?

 

 

 

This.

 

I attribute this more to the fact that women simply don't seem interested in such fields of study.

 

I can hear the feminists arguing "that's cuz patriarchy culture!!!" Let me ask this: what damage does it do to us as a society if women prefer sciences such as psychology or biology over ones like computer sciences and physics/engineering.

 

  Yes, diversity helps when collecting ideas. That's why minorities tend to get priority for picks at universities (one of the reasons). But that men and women enjoy different areas of study is simply a fact of life, whether it be culturally or genetically. I for one do not see a purpose in crying about the low gender quotas - especially when the exact same can be said for men in other fields of study (where I live the psychology classes are typically 28 women and 2 men while physics are the opposite) - until we can show why and how this gender "issue" is actually hurting or hindering us as a society.

 

I could ask that same question of feminism as a whole: how do sexualized women (scandidly clad women, prostitutes, porn stars etc) hinder or harm society? That question often seems skipped over when they begin chanting about how we need to do away with those ideas and those depictions of women.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Longknife

[Amentep]

I attribute this more to the fact that women simply don't seem interested in such fields of study.

There's a lot of discussion about how teachers will support boys vs girls in the STEM subjects in schools in subtle ways (say calling on boys more for questions in STEM classes than girls) and some studies on it seem to indicate a bias may exist.

 

Even with that, however, its not STEM that's the problem, since its a neutral entity in the equation. The problem would be how STEM classes are taught (or more specifically if there's a favor bias towards supporting boys in STEM subjects over girls) but that isn't inherent to STEM and is certainly correctable on the part of educators.

[Meshugger]

 

I asked a question, you responded directly to that question with something totally unrelated (and also completely clueless), I facepalm'd, then you tried to frame it as me avoiding having to present an argument - but when your argument makes about as much sense as creationist babbling, it's hard to respond with anything more than "actually, no, there is pretty much nothing at all that supports the things you're saying, please, at least try to keep things in the realm of possibilities". That's all there is.

 

But okay, I'll humor you.

 

You just can't help yourself, can you? I will let that one slide by since there are other things to discuss.

 

 

From wikipedia (which can be derided as a source for being shallow, but you've presented that your knowledge of critical theory is at a place where even wikipedia offers significant new information): "Critical theory is a school of thought that stresses the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture by applying knowledge from the social sciences and the humanities."

 

Well, so much for science being discarded, I guess.

 

I am talking about not understanding science at best or discarding hard science at worst. I am talking about forming an opinion/ideal and roll with it, and still roll with it when the science says otherwise. For example, look at the whole Sokal Affair: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair . My point is that the very same ideals stem from these departments in academia that do not care about science to begin with.

 

 

 

Personal, lived experience is important for most feminists, but that has less to do with any postmodernist ideology and more with the fact that patronizing **** completely clueless people (usually white men, duh) are so often trying to tell them what their movement is about (*cough*) or how women really work, based on nebulous speculation.

 

Pretty much everyone from this generation agrees with the second wave feminists: Equal pay, equal oppurtunity and so on. It's the third wave that i have problem with, who are not much more than another variety of Alex Jones with their deconstruction of gender, patriarchy, rape culture and forced quotas on everything. People who disrupt Janice Fiamengo from speaking at University:

 

 

Such diversity of opinion. When their feels are threathen it is time for some good 'ole attacking. Nevermind that what studies she had brought with her, nevermind what debate she wishes to have. She make ungood fell, must be unperson. 

 

 

That sounds more like frothing objectivist tripe - and considering the fact that Ayn Rand is one of the most universally loathed people in social justice circles, I'd say it's probably a safe bet that no SJW has ever uttered those words.

 

 

 

If you could cite primary sources on these things (aka actual feminists vocally espousing the views you've described), that would be great.

 

I hope you're not claiming that some art, music and literature have instrinsic value over any other? James Joyce and Herman Melville are no better than a amateur rapper from Detroit? How on earth can that be only objectivist in any way? But what has that to do with feminism since there are atleast 3 different 'waves' of it? No, what i am talking about are SJW that only use feminism when it is used against the very things that they hate the most - white men. 

 

 

 

You are aware of the fact that SJWs are pretty much the most morally colorblind people in the world, aren't you? "Oppression is always bad" and "I don't care about your advances in science, your shirt is degrading to women" is, if anything, morally absolutist, not the other way around.

 

What i am talking about is the same SJWs that claim that everything in western culture is a form of oppression, all while turning the blind eye on cultures that have real oppression embedded in their very laws. Often they manage to blame the western world for people oppressing themselves in their warped relativism. Kinda racist really.

 

It is very embroided in academia as far as i can tell. This is a documentary that was created and broadcasted on the norwegian national TV, that shows how disconnected from reality these people are:

 

 

Lastly, in order to connect all of this to GG: I do not believe that Anita, ZQ or Brianna are SJWs, they are just con-artists that abuse the current system. Their portrayal in media pretty much confirm this.

 

//Edit: Care to elaborate about what your deal is about evolutionary psychology? I am not really familiar with the subject at all.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Meshugger

[Meshugger]

Hum, twitter apparantly went all berserk, all while i was typing my previous post.

 

Someone posted child porn on 8chan while the mods were asleep. Then someone downloaded the images, took screenshots and spread them on twitter to point out that GG endorses child porn. While HotWheels have nuked the board where it happened (according to the rules of the site), people are now faced with the problem that these Anti-GGs have spread child porn all over Twitter just to prove a point. Apparantly the authorities are now involved since any form of distribution of child porn is illegal (duh!).

 

What were they thinking?!!  

 

https://twitter.com/PlayDangerously/status/547301012415844352

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Hum, twitter apparantly went all berserk, all while i was typing my previous post.

 

Someone posted child porn on 8chan while the mods were asleep. Then someone downloaded the images, took screenshots and spread them on twitter to point out that GG endorses child porn. While HotWheels have nuked the board where it happened (according to the rules of the site), people are now faced with the problem that these Anti-GGs have spread child porn all over Twitter just to prove a point. Apparantly the authorities are now involved since any form of distribution of child porn is illegal (duh!).

 

What were they thinking?!!  

 

https://twitter.com/PlayDangerously/status/547301012415844352

Yeah I saw this yesterday. If your first reaction to seeing CP is to save it and distribute it to score points, rather than reporting it to the authorities, you're an evil piece of ****.

 

Good on 8chan for nuking it as soon as it came to their attention.

[Malcador]

 

Ah Chu the Warrior.

[Keyrock]

 

Ah Chu the Warrior.

The ol' the ends justify the means argument.  I've already made it clear on here several times how frightening and dangerous I find that kind of mindset.

[Longknife]

 

You are aware of the fact that SJWs are pretty much the most morally colorblind people in the world, aren't you? "Oppression is always bad" and "I don't care about your advances in science, your shirt is degrading to women" is, if anything, morally absolutist, not the other way around.

 

 

I'm not going to debate this point directly because I think this is one of those things that's all about perspective and can be twisted both ways, good and bad. For example a colorblind person doesn't discriminate, but can also be guilty of not recognizing a situation for what it is; I've encountered people who claim to be colorblind and therefore would deny some efforts in the name of minority groups because they didn't agree with or perceive inequality, or they felt any unequal treatment was bad (helpful included) while denying the reality of unequal treatment already. Meanwhile a non-colorblind person can discriminate but may prove more capable of seeing a situation for what it is objectively and handling it more appropriately. Sure enough with your example, one can debate if that is TRULY an issue of oppression or degradation (pro-tip: some women like such depictions as seen on the guy's shirt) and whether the true issue isn't professional victimization. There's no clear answer.

   Another example, Amentep above mentioned teachers might call on men more for science and math classes. This for me, based on my personal experiences, is absurd. If we go by my personal experiences, I've had a lot of old dude teachers who called on the hot girls cause they wanted to "flirt" with them, and the hot girls got the most attention from the teachers by far. The female teachers actually called on the male students more, come to think of it... Anyways, because of my personal experience, I am more or less "colorblind" to if women or men can participate in STEM or if one of them is better or what-have-you. I don't see an issue and I feel both are welcome, and as such, some would consider me of being inobjective and not properly recognizing an issue they consider to be there, and as such might provide better work towards fixing the alleged issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  But the reason I quote you is this:

 

I would argue the very act of trying to argue who is MOST colorblind or MOST morally absolute is part of the problem. I feel like much of the SJW aspects we've encountered involve competitions to see who can be the MOST accepting and the BEST, MOST morally righteous crusader. It's....blinding, to the degree where those that are perceived as the most morally right have the Word of God. Case and point: remember when that anti-GG girl got harassed for trying to talk to GamerGate and start a dialog? Then the moment Wu said she wasn't a shill, the harassment came to a screeching halt? Yeah, that.

 

   That's the end result of this focus on who is MOST insert-fancy-title-here: the "winners" of that competition become dictators (not neccesarily conciously or intentionally, nor are they neccesarily aware of their status and influence), and their word is law. Anita could, for example, accuse Carls Jr. of being sexist tomorrow on the most ridiculous circumstances imagineable, and I promise you the SJWs would declare Carls Jr an enemy and say no one should eat there.

 

 

This also has bad effects to the point where blatant bullsh*t gets serious treatment. I don't recall if I posted this here or not (could possibly dig the thread up if anyone's interested, but might take a bit), but a while back a transgender person posted on the KiA subreddit to basically just rant about how they felt alone and stressed. Why? All of the support groups for trans people were infested with fakers. They would go to these support groups (some online) trying to discuss the science and the facts, and there'd always be some idiot claiming to be the most special snowflake and that all the science and facts and methodology doesn't apply to them, and that what the trans person was saying is offensive to them. In a nutshell, trans groups - according to this person - had devolved into tumblr.  It was actually a pretty off-topic post for KiA and basically the trans person crying for help and trying to reach out to another trans person who wasn't....yknow, full of sh*t?

   I remember the post because the person used a ton of vocabulary I didn't understand and was completely unfamiliar with, so I asked trying to make sense of it because I initially understood the accusation was that trans support groups are infested with idiots who aren't even trans, but just trying to be the most special snowflake. I thought that sounded absolutely f***ing ridiculous so surely I had misunderstood and asked for clarity on the matter....then they confirmed trans support groups are infested with attention seeking idiots trying to be the specialist snowflake.

 

FURTHERMORE, I ended up having a convo with two trans people in that thread about how I've long had difficulty understanding the trans community. In a nutshell, I was born with one leg and I believe who you are is like the hand you were dealt in poker. ANY hand can work if you play well enough, you just need to adapt properly. As such, even if an operation existed right now to give me a second leg? I would not take it (only circumstance I would is if I was somehow a specialty and they needed someone SPECIFICALLY like me to test the new science on). It feels weak to me to do so. Well...trans people attempt to switch their gender. Gladly. And they do so in such a way that...dude, you can't switch. It's just not possible. It'll always be fake, and as a guy, I can tell you transgender women have not and will not ever fool me. My hormones say "NOPE, dude." So for me I long had difficulty understanding the trans community because it was at odds with my own philosophy. All the respect in the world for them as they deserve basic human rights and respect like everyone, but I was still at odds. It wasn't until I personally had a friend or two who SUDDENLY SWITCHED GENDER after years or months of no contact and I witnessed people attempting to bully or harass them over it that I realized I don't care enough about my disagreements with it, I care more about those people being jerks about it. Since then I've never really thought on the issue much and just "accept" it in that I don't think on it or challenge the methodology.

   I brought that up to the trans people of that thread and was told I provided one of the most respectful, honest and genuine treatments on the subject matter they ever received, was thanked for my insights and then we chatted a bit.

 

 

 

   In short: my point is people should be honest with themselves. If someone comes up to you and says they're a trisexual half-wolf asian and you think they're full of sh**, tell them they're full of sh**. Don't feel pressured to accept people because acceptance = superior. No, that's not true. Acceptance of lies is not superior. Acceptance of terrible priorities - where a man can land a probe on a meteor and we treat him like crud for wearing a tacky shirt his female friend gave him - is not superior. Don't deal in absolutes.

  Let's stop feeling sooooooooooooooooo f***ing pressured into being all accepting of everything and everyone and be honest with ourselves. I would hope everyone knows basic human respect should be applied to everyone....but respect and criticism are not mutually exclusive. I can respect a person while also accusing them of being full of ****. I can respect a person while telling them their priorities are terrible. And in doing so, I partake in actions I myself can still be proud of while still being true to myself and respecting honesty and the truth.

 

 

 

 

One last story (hell yeah, ****ing wall of text time):

 

 

When I was 14, I saw a documentary on that Valkerie mission (I think) to assassinate Hitler. They wanted to recreate the scene realizing the suitcase bomb was moved behind a table leg, and they wanted to see if - had it not been moved over - would Hitler have died. Tons of scientists on the job, a couple old military officers, both German and American, they recreate the room, run the test and....

 

  Hitler would've died had someone not hit the suitcase bomb over after hitting it with their foot. A table leg saved Hitler.

 

So after they come to this realization, everyone is understandably depressed as ****. One of the German officers, in a...flawed (bare with him) attempt to cheer people up, says there's good reason Hitler survived: because he believed, having lived through that time and having experienced his life experiences, that had Hitler died on that day, he would've gone down as one of Germany's greatest leaders. He believed that was a time Hitler's full intentions weren't known, and even if they became known, they'd've been denied by the public at large. Mind you, whether the death of six million Jews is worth Hitler's rep? Yeah, pretty flawed, but that's not my focus. His experiences are also debateable, but again, not my focus.

 

That documentary changed my life.

 

Why? Because it blew my mind to think that the guy that's thought of as evil incarnate could've possibly died a hero. It blew my mind that the truth could make that drastic of a difference in how a person is remembered.

   I came to realize that if I myself am not truthful in who I am, history will never know me. My friends will never know me. They'll only know a story I've concocted, and whether or not I myself am a likeable human being would remain a mystery until I reach my deathbed. Only through pure honesty with who I am can I have that answer.

 

Since then? I've been truthful. I'll say the truth and I'll say what's on my mind even if it's not pleasant.

 

What is the difference between myself and a tumblroni who both doubt the existence of trisexual half-wolf asians? What is the difference between myself and an anti-GG who finds Shirtgate ridiculous but keeps quiet about it? I voice my opinion on it. That's it. That's essentially the only difference. That is the only variable in the whole equation. And that variable - voicing my opinion - is why I might be subject to criticism.

 

  And by all means, to those truly offended by Shirtgate, voice that criticism and accept whatever judgement people cast upon you proudly, for it is who you are.

 

 

 

I only voice this concern because I cannot help but feel being accepting of people has become a god damned competition. I struggle to believe that many people care that deeply about a shirt, but I've seen for myself (as have we all) how the "heroes" of equality and acceptance can either spark an attack or silence harassment with but a word, whether they intend to do so or not. It often feels like this desire to be the "MOST-something" only sparks dictators whose word is revered as the word of God, whether those "dictators" are aware of their influence or not.

 

 

tl;dr No **** you, go read it. Lazy ass.

[Blarghagh]

tl;dr No **** you, go read it. Lazy ass.

I'm going to steal this from you for future use.

[Shallow]

 

FURTHERMORE, I ended up having a convo with two trans people in that thread about how I've long had difficulty understanding the trans community. In a nutshell, I was born with one leg and I believe who you are is like the hand you were dealt in poker. ANY hand can work if you play well enough, you just need to adapt properly. As such, even if an operation existed right now to give me a second leg? I would not take it (only circumstance I would is if I was somehow a specialty and they needed someone SPECIFICALLY like me to test the new science on). It feels weak to me to do so

Not to derail or anything, but I really don't get this, I personally do consider trans people the gender they were born as, regardless of what they would prefer having been born as, even more irrespective of whether they've gotten their genitals scrambled up, but nonetheless I don't understand this. It feels to me like refusing electricity, tools, or clothing. Adaption includes altering yourself, or creating/purchasing tools, to make stuff easier/more entertaining/whatever, sure, if the leg was nonfunctional I'd agree it's stupid, and I do feel it'd be silly getting an extra leg because you selfidentify as a guy with two legs, but I feel there is one very good and valid reason to get another leg if the option was hypothetically available, it'd no doubt make legbased activities quite easier. Rejecting it because it wasn't a part of you at birth just seems odd, if you wouldn't mind, I'd be legitimately interested in hearing the arguments for such a stance, it's not really a viewpoint I've ever had much disclosure to.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Science is gendered ?

 

How many women do you know working in STEM?

 

Is that STEM's fault?

 

 

 

Does it need to be anyone's fault in order for it to be recognised as a fact?

 

 

 

I can hear the feminists arguing "that's cuz patriarchy culture!!!" Let me ask this: what damage does it do to us as a society if women prefer sciences such as psychology or biology over ones like computer sciences and physics/engineering.

 

 

If we assume that it's solely the effect of culture, we must accept that there's equal distribution of [comsci/engineering/etc] talent between the genders, therefore by culturally priming some of those talented people to choose different fields, humanity as a whole gets deprived of great physicists, engineers, etc. Well, maybe less "deprived" and more "the people who'd have been 100% efficient in a society without gender bias get replaced by people who are only 90% as efficient". I'm not sure I'm buying into the "genius" narrative (by which I mean the idea that truly exceptional people exist whose contribution can change entire fields of culture and science, and whose prowess couldn't have been replicated by anyone else ever).

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

From wikipedia (which can be derided as a source for being shallow, but you've presented that your knowledge of critical theory is at a place where even wikipedia offers significant new information): "Critical theory is a school of thought that stresses the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture by applying knowledge from the social sciences and the humanities."

 

Well, so much for science being discarded, I guess.

 

I am talking about not understanding science at best or discarding hard science at worst. I am talking about forming an opinion/ideal and roll with it, and still roll with it when the science says otherwise. For example, look at the whole Sokal Affair: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair . My point is that the very same ideals stem from these departments in academia that do not care about science to begin with.

 

 

 

Meh, those attitudes are a/ hardly exclusive to feminists - if anything, I'd hazard the guess that the anti-science sentiment is maybe even lower among students of gender studies than among students of other liberal arts fields (granted, my perspective may be skewed, 'cause most of my introduction to feminism was by a molecular biologist and a statistician), and b/ they represent more of a hard-line fringe of people who never bothered to get into hard science enough to be able to separate the valid stuff from the bad, and seeing some of the bad stuff being lauded as "proof against feminism" has soured them on the whole deal. Yeah, it's irrational, but hey, when you get down to it, most people are pretty irrational.

 

 

It's the third wave that i have problem with, who are not much more than another variety of Alex Jones with their deconstruction of gender, patriarchy, rape culture and forced quotas on everything. People who disrupt Janice Fiamengo from speaking at University:

 

 

Such diversity of opinion. When their feels are threathen it is time for some good 'ole attacking. Nevermind that what studies she had brought with her, nevermind what debate she wishes to have. She make ungood fell, must be unperson. 

 

 

 

Preventing a rational debate is a ****ty thing to do, but I'm not sure that "deconstruction of gender, patriarchy and rape culture" would be so bad.

 

 

 

 

That sounds more like frothing objectivist tripe - and considering the fact that Ayn Rand is one of the most universally loathed people in social justice circles, I'd say it's probably a safe bet that no SJW has ever uttered those words.

 

 

If you could cite primary sources on these things (aka actual feminists vocally espousing the views you've described), that would be great.

 

I hope you're not claiming that some art, music and literature have instrinsic value over any other? James Joyce and Herman Melville are no better than a amateur rapper from Detroit? How on earth can that be only objectivist in any way? But what has that to do with feminism since there are atleast 3 different 'waves' of it? No, what i am talking about are SJW that only use feminism when it is used against the very things that they hate the most - white men. 

 

 

Well, the thing you quoted was in response to "Only power can change your position or your surrounds, and it cannot be judged on any objective moral standard" - problem is, I've never met a feminist (or "SJW", if you prefer) who espoused this idea. Again, citing actual feminists ("SJWs") saying cartoon evil stuff such as this would go a long way to make the claim credible.

 

 

 

You are aware of the fact that SJWs are pretty much the most morally colorblind people in the world, aren't you? "Oppression is always bad" and "I don't care about your advances in science, your shirt is degrading to women" is, if anything, morally absolutist, not the other way around.

 

What i am talking about is the same SJWs that claim that everything in western culture is a form of oppression, all while turning the blind eye on cultures that have real oppression embedded in their very laws. Often they manage to blame the western world for people oppressing themselves in their warped relativism. Kinda racist really.

 

 

 

I'd rather characterize the attitude as "recognizing that enforcing our norms on other cultures is a kinda skeevy thing to do, therefore refraining from it". Especially given the fact that when members of oppressed groups within such cultures get the ability to campaign for some amount of change, they're sometimes prioritizing differently than their would-be white saviors would've done. "Listening to and whenever possible, supporting oppressed people" is desirable to "riding in as their White Savior and forcing them to adopt your norms" in my opinion.

 

It's not moral relativism, it's recognizing cultural blindspots.

 

 

 

//Edit: Care to elaborate about what your deal is about evolutionary psychology? I am not really familiar with the subject at all.

 

 

 

It's basically a branch of faux-science that seems to exist only to provide validation to people who think the gender norms of the 60s is How The World Was Meant To Be, mostly through the power of crappy research methodology and an ability to jump to bat**** ****ing insane conclusions.

 

Allow me to demonstrate:

 

Not so long ago, a paper come out, in which the researchers interviewed 293 women in college to report on their condom use habits and fill out a Beck Depression Inventory, to find that the women who had unprotected sex have generally reported fewer symptoms of depression. So far, so good; sample size gives us a pretty good confidence in the validity of the findings, so no obviously faulty methodology here. One might think that a sane person would arrive to the conclusion based on this data that the people who are willing to have unprotected sex - therefore expose themselves to the risk of STIs and unwanted pregnancies - are generally more optimistic types, who are less predisposed to experiencing depression. Or that the people who are willing to engage in unprotected sex have a better relationship satisfaction (ie. trust their partners to the extent where they're not worried about STIs and the risk of unwanted pregnancy), which affects their general mood. The conclusion the researchers arrived on? "**** must be a natural antidepressant".

 

 

 

Someone posted child porn on 8chan while the mods were asleep. Then someone downloaded the images, took screenshots and spread them on twitter to point out that GG endorses child porn. While HotWheels have nuked the board where it happened (according to the rules of the site), people are now faced with the problem that these Anti-GGs have spread child porn all over Twitter just to prove a point. Apparantly the authorities are now involved since any form of distribution of child porn is illegal (duh!).

 

 

That's delightfully ironic 

Edited December 23, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Meshugger]

^Thanks for the input, but it's 5 minutes before christmas time now, so i will stop here with us basically disagreeing (to no ones surprise).  

[Malcador]

Hm, so 8Chan's days are numbered then. Hits keep coming with this.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Hm, so 8Chan's days are numbered then. Hits keep coming with this.

Near as I can tell, 8chan has their ass covered.

[Longknife]

 

 

FURTHERMORE, I ended up having a convo with two trans people in that thread about how I've long had difficulty understanding the trans community. In a nutshell, I was born with one leg and I believe who you are is like the hand you were dealt in poker. ANY hand can work if you play well enough, you just need to adapt properly. As such, even if an operation existed right now to give me a second leg? I would not take it (only circumstance I would is if I was somehow a specialty and they needed someone SPECIFICALLY like me to test the new science on). It feels weak to me to do so

Not to derail or anything, but I really don't get this, I personally do consider trans people the gender they were born as, regardless of what they would prefer having been born as, even more irrespective of whether they've gotten their genitals scrambled up, but nonetheless I don't understand this. It feels to me like refusing electricity, tools, or clothing. Adaption includes altering yourself, or creating/purchasing tools, to make stuff easier/more entertaining/whatever, sure, if the leg was nonfunctional I'd agree it's stupid, and I do feel it'd be silly getting an extra leg because you selfidentify as a guy with two legs, but I feel there is one very good and valid reason to get another leg if the option was hypothetically available, it'd no doubt make legbased activities quite easier. Rejecting it because it wasn't a part of you at birth just seems odd, if you wouldn't mind, I'd be legitimately interested in hearing the arguments for such a stance, it's not really a viewpoint I've ever had much disclosure to.

 

 

 

Better analogy: Small boobs? Should you go get a boob job or find other ways to attract people?

 

I typically find fake boobs to be a turn off. Not because I've got a problem with the look or feel (never felt), but because it says something about the personality where that person likely looked in the mirror and said "you're right world, there's something wrong with me I should change."

 

Alternatively...for example, what's something comedians often have in common? They were bullied. They were bullied and adapted by developing a sense of humor. With the above example with boobs, I say you can adapt to less impressive looks (if this sounds insensitive or something, it's probably cause I just dunno what to word it as. Sorry) with a more charming personality or what-have-you.

 

  I for one believe my disability to be a part of me in the sense that it helped shape who I am and my personality. To change that just feels wrong to me out of principle.

 

 There's a common misconception Charles Darwin said "survival of the fittest," or the misconception is what the fittest actually is. Well he actually elaborated in a more detailed speech that was anything but "survival of fittest herpderp," and explained that what he meant was the one that's most capable of adapting to their scenario is the strongest. I often feel like people consider me automatically weaker by Darwin's standards or something and I've even had a girl turn me down on the grounds of "genetics." Thing is, by his very definition, Stephen Hawking is far more adapted to his environment than we ever will be, cause he (or rather his genetics) recognized intelligence - not physical capacity - is the key to surviving and flourishing in today's society. In that sense, arguing for the surgery cause "better" seems moot.

 

  I'm also kind of big on things like the basics of Taoism and "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Taoism, if you didn't know is basically the Yin Yang symbol. The Yin Yang represents that for every action, there is both a positive and negative result. For example, Hitler killed millions of jews. The largest portion of this is bad as people with thoughts and ideas and stories and experiences are now gone and lost forever. However, there's also the speck of good within it as there is always a speck of good (or bad) in everything. In this case that speck of good might be that that act and the entirety of WWII would reduce the world population, and overpopulation is a serious issue that acts as a catalyst for other issues. You can take this same philosophy of Taoism and basically recognize that good can be achieved from anything. It's all quid pro quo.

 

   And lastly, yeah, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. As a result of my leg I have better upper body strength, I've got pretty agile hands and nimble fingers (I've actually both picked a lock and picked a pocket before. No worries, the first was only to get inside a classroom building early from freezing weather, the latter was only to avoid a scolding from an ass of a father who was looking forward to yelling at me for not having something) and my pain tolerance is through the roof due to all the surgeries I've undergone combined with my morphine allergy. (don't let anyone tell you the painkiller alternatives to morphine are just as good. They're f***ing not).

  

 

 

 

And as a final argument....Let's say tomorrow you became God, and you could do anything you wanted to change the world, and you, AS A GOOD HUMAN BEING, want to make the world a better place. What would you do? When I ask myself this I have no idea, because I recognize quid pro quo and that, if I solved hunger problems in Africa for example, I'd be escalating overpopulation, which thereby escalates other issues like Climate Change. You simply cannot understand the importance or relevance of everything, and even a well-intentioned change can be terrible.

  That's sort of what the idea of giving myself another leg is like, too. It feels like playing God or "toiling in God's domain." I don't mean that from a religious perspective like that it would legitimately anger God, I use "God" only as a placeholder for "the natural order of things." I recognize I can gain and lose things from such a change and I recognize that, had I had two legs from birth, I may not have the sense of humor, the pain tolerance, the adversity to assistance and the hobbies I have today. I'd be a different person. In that same regard, who am I to judge that the me that accepts such a surgery/change would be better than the me that refuses it? I'd rather opt to remain who I am and see what the natural, unaltered me is capable of and what I'll become.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Longknife

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

And as a final argument....Let's say tomorrow you became God, and you could do anything you wanted to change the world, and you, AS A GOOD HUMAN BEING, want to make the world a better place. What would you do? When I ask myself this I have no idea, because I recognize quid pro quo and that, if I solved hunger problems in Africa for example, I'd be escalating overpopulation, which thereby escalates other issues like Climate Change. You simply cannot understand the importance or relevance of everything, and even a well-intentioned change can be terrible.

 

 

 

Well, that problem is most elegantly solved by using that power to "do anything to change the world and you" to grant yourself omniscience, and then act, isn't it?

 

 

 

  That's sort of what the idea of giving myself another leg is like, too. It feels like playing God or "toiling in God's domain." I don't mean that from a religious perspective like that it would legitimately anger God, I use "God" only as a placeholder for "the natural order of things." I recognize I can gain and lose things from such a change and I recognize that, had I had two legs from birth, I may not have the sense of humor, the pain tolerance, the adversity to assistance and the hobbies I have today. I'd be a different person.

 

 

Would I be correct to assume that you'd keep your current body out of sentimentality, then? I mean, you already possess most of the beneficial side-effects - or so it seems to me.

[HoonDing]

Apparantly the authorities are now involved since any form of distribution of child porn is illegal (duh!).

 

What were they thinking?!!  

 

https://twitter.com/PlayDangerously/status/547301012415844352

Was gonna make a joke about Japan, then remembered about a recent law change.

[Keyrock]

Alright folks, Christmas Eve is a mere few hours away here.  I'm dropping out of this thread for a few days for the Holidays.  Hopefully nobody on either side pulls any **** during the holiday season, because they would be a seriously scumbag move, like worse than usual.  I'll go back to liking and hating the appropriate people after the holidays, until then, I'm going into Jay Cutler Mode.

 

Edited December 24, 2014 by Keyrock

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Alright folks, Christmas Eve is a mere few hours away here.  I'm dropping out of this thread for a few days for the Holidays.  Hopefully nobody on either side pulls any **** during the holiday season, because they would be a seriously scumbag move, like worse than usual.  I'll go back to liking and hating the appropriate people after the holidays, until then, I'm going into Jay Cutler Mode.

 

But you're missing out on the Patriarchy's master plan to use our misogyny fueled time machine to assassinate influential female figures before they can have an impact!

[Barothmuk]

I could ask that same question of feminism as a whole: how do sexualized women (scandidly clad women, prostitutes, porn stars etc) hinder or harm society?

Well instead of shouting into the wind hoping that some homogenous blob called Feminism™ will give you the single "correct" feminist answer you actually go out and investigate.

 

And not just skimming a Wikipedia article or just some teenager's tumblr but actually reading any of the hundreds of thousands of works of feminist literature.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Barothmuk

[Malcador]

Or he could do something useful and learn C++.

[Longknife]

 

I could ask that same question of feminism as a whole: how do sexualized women (scandidly clad women, prostitutes, porn stars etc) hinder or harm society?

Well instead of shouting into the wind hoping that some homogenous blob called Feminism™ will give you the single "correct" feminist answer you actually go out and investigate.And not just skimming a Wikipedia article or just some teenager's tumblr but actually reading any of the hundreds of thousands of works of feminist literature.

 

That's not how it works,

 

If I question the legitimacy of philosophy, of sociology, of psychology or any other major, their students and professors can explain to me what they do without me needing to study a two year (minimum) program to answer that. Let's hear the proponents of feminism defend it. The burden of proof is on them and part of their ability to utilize the knowledge they've gained is tested in the ability or inability to explain important portions of it to us.

 

 

I've also actually done some studies of English literature. Here's something funny: my very first term paper for that course involved writing about a classical work of literature and re-assessing it in some new way that was mine while also building off of various schools of thought. One of the easiest schools of thought was feminism, and I actually wrote my paper about feminism. Why? Because it was a **** assignment. It asked for us to interpret a classical work in our own, new way, while failing to address that we simply cannot do that if we're limited to somehow involving EXISTING interpretations of the works, nor does it address the reality of the fact that 500 year old stories have probably been discussed to death already at this point with absolutely nothing new left to add. So I took Macbeth and applied feminism to it because it was the only easy solution for an easy grade. That semester of that course remains THE semester and course where I felt like I learned absolutely nothing. The only thing that semester and course did for me was acknowledge that I was right to believe every single word in a work of literature must be taken seriously and with purpose, as the author includes things for a reason, one must assume. But I had figured that out on my own without the help of the course beforehand. Was much happier to hit the culture studies the following semester when we were given much more freedom in what to cover and how to interpret it, but I can tell you there was a staggering number of people who covered feminism that semester, and not because we were big proponents of it, but because it was the easy grade. It feels like feminism is just in this position where it justifies itself by inventing reasons or ways to keep existing.

 

 

Also, apparently this professor regularly gets harassed cause now my recommended list is filled with it:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would I be correct to assume that you'd keep your current body out of sentimentality, then? I mean, you already possess most of the beneficial side-effects - or so it seems to me.

 

 

No, I'm saying that through my own life experiences, I know something positive can come as a direct result of the disability, so it seems ill-advised to tamper with it and do away with it based on those experiences. That's why I draw a parallel to, say you get made fun of in school for being ugly. If you can wave a magic wand and change that, ok you're attractive now, but you missed an opportunity to develop a great sense of humor.

 

It's quid pro quo, but I often have difficulty explaining this because people often want to argue you can, for example, be attractive and still develop a great sense of humor, and while that's certainly true, it's a "dream concept" where you're basically just expecting it to happen magically or with minimal effort when the reality is who you are is built upon the proper life experiences, and without the proper opportunities, the latter quality won't happen. Case and point, I may offend some people here but I find a woman who can make me laugh to be as rare as a motherf***ing unicorn. I attribute this partly to the fact that boys are far more likely to bully and tease one another than girls are and thus the average male child is given more opportunities to develop a sense of humor than female children. (as well as the fact that women in comedy are already rare, so much like a disabled comedian may build much of his material around his disability, a woman may build her comedy around her gender, which is unfortunate for them since **** jokes are already the go-to material for loser comedians with nothing witty to say)

Edited December 24, 2014 by Longknife

[Barothmuk]

That's not how it works,

 

If I question the legitimacy of philosophy, of sociology, of psychology or any other major

It should be expected you've actually done some proper investigation of the subject in order to properly critique it or question its legitimacy.

Let's hear the proponents of feminism defend it.

They have in the aforementioned hundreds of thousands of woks of feminist literature.

 

Your wilful ignorance is not their fault.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Barothmuk

[Longknife]

 

That's not how it works,

 

If I question the legitimacy of philosophy, of sociology, of psychology or any other major

It should be expected you've actually done some proper investigation of the subject in order to properly critique it or question its legitimacy.

Let's hear the proponents of feminism defend it.

They have in the aforementioned hundreds of thousands of woks of feminist literature.

 

Your wilful ignorance is not their fault.

 

 

 

 I am critiquing the parts of feminism I know and the parts I've seen as they attempt to suggest overhauls of systems we know, as the expressed methodology they've presented seems flawed to me.

 

Likewise, again with your same logic, one is not allowed to question the existence of God until one has read the entirety of the Bible from start to finish as you can claim "all the answers are there, your willful ignorance is not God's fault." You can say the same with Neo-Nazis and their works alongside Mein Kampf.

 

There is a reason the burden of proof and the responsibility of explaining oneself and defending one's stance comes into play the moment a group attempts to change a system. It is unreasonable to expect everyone ELSE to drop all of their important work to go study up on the important work of another group just because group B is now suggesting a system overhaul. No, you want the change? Sell it in a way anyone can understand, highlight important parts. Put it in layman's terms.

 

 

 

  Also, is it just me or has Barothmuk not posted a SINGLE argument that did not involve some sort of ridiculous hyperbole?