Apparently Riot has some problem with women: nasty behind-the-scenes stuff

[Saelune]

I?ve just become numb to all of the PC culture stuff. I know a lot others I know of have too.

If you think that is a burden, imagine what is like to be condemned for being gay, black or female, I mean that has only been happening for most of human history, but being expected to respect others really is a cross to bear.


Really though, please, think about this for a moment, why does it trouble you so much to have people expect you to think about what you say and do? Why do people think that makes them more oppressed than people who have been forbidden to marry another, or be treated as literal property? Why is someone saying 'Don't use 'that's gay' as a slur' so much worse than just ya know, not using gay as a slur? Why is taking a moment to think if something you say or do is going to be really uncomfortable or upsetting for someone else so difficult?

HawkI said it better than my mentally challenged ass could. But I?ll add in that the current status of this culture tells me that my problems are insignificant no matter what they are because of my skin color, gender and/or sexual orientation.

This kind of proves my point. Maybe use that feeling to empathize instead?


'To those with privilege, equality feels like oppression'

Or I?ll just continue doing what I do and not talk to anyone IRL. That?s what I was taught since I was a child. Don?t bother socializing for fear of offending someone and getting hurt again.

I know the feeling too.

BIG. FUCKING. MEATY. MOOD.

Again, if you feel this way, use it to EMPATHIZE with the people abused by offensive bullshit. If you feel this way, then now you understand how it feels to be a woman or gay or black and constantly have what you are demonized and put down. Why use that feeling to do to others what you do not want done to you?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Again, if you feel this way, use it to EMPATHIZE with the people abused by offensive bullshit. If you feel this way, then now you understand how it feels to be a woman or gay or black and constantly have what you are demonized and put down. Why use that feeling to do to others what you do not want done to you?

As an Aspie that's experienced this many times before, I can tell you that telling someone they're being an insensitive asshole that doesn't empathize with others just because they don't fit perfectly into your narrow definition of being a good person does not in fact help your argument in any way whatsoever.

Maybe YOU are the one not empathizing with other people by not thinking about how the way you make your arguments just insults and belittles people, which not only doesn't make people like your argument, but also makes you sound hypocritical since you're being nasty and prejudice against others yourself.

Think about how maybe the reason he doesn't want to get involved with these kind of movements is because of people acting like you do here and alienating him to the cause?

 

[Saelune]

Again, if you feel this way, use it to EMPATHIZE with the people abused by offensive bullshit. If you feel this way, then now you understand how it feels to be a woman or gay or black and constantly have what you are demonized and put down. Why use that feeling to do to others what you do not want done to you?

As an Aspie that's experienced this many times before, I can tell you that telling someone they're being an insensitive asshole that doesn't empathize with others just because they don't fit perfectly into your narrow definition of being a good person does not in fact help your argument in any way whatsoever.

Maybe YOU are the one not empathizing with other people by not thinking about how the way you make your arguments just insults and belittles people, which not only doesn't make people like your argument, but also makes you sound hypocritical since you're being nasty and prejudice against others yourself.

Think about how maybe the reason he doesn't want to get involved with these kind of movements is because of people acting like you do here and alienating him to the cause?

I cant assume every single person who doesn't want to mind their words around others has a mental condition that makes it hard. I cant assume people understand my own mental issues when dealing with people, if we're going to start playing these cards. I am talking to a general whole. If I was talking to an individual about their individual issues with this, then sure, I could personalize it more. I am certainly making it more personal by trying to make RaikuFA realize he could empathize instead based on the feelings he is expressing here. I hope it is getting through. I don't know.


But really though, if this is why he sides with those people, then he is siding with people who are out to hurt him, and honestly, I am kind of done with using my kids gloves with these people. A lot of people who voted last election voted against their own self-interest while also voting against the wellbeing of tons of others, and honestly, I am out of empathy for them.


I have faced my own oppression, and used that to motivate me to fight for others. I am not black, but how I have been treated as an LGBT person has made me empathize with them, with women as well. I hope RaikuFA can learn that same lesson.


Or you can get mad at me for not being nice to people who are literally trying to defend the 'freedom' to not be nice to people.

 

[Hawki]

I have also explained why you saying they are different is wrong. It was not just 'nuh uh'.

No, you didn't.

Also, you decided to block quote me instead of singling out the quotes, so thanks for forcing me to constantly go back and forth to get the context of your statements.

Tolerance of intolerance is the death of tolerance.

I agree. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

Denying services to minorities is intolerance.

Slurring against minorities is bigotry.

Both are bad, but discrimination isn't the same thing as offensive language.

Sure, I have offended plenty of people, but they are offended cause I think Nazism is wrong and think that rape is wrong

Forgive me for being highly skeptical as to the claim that you've met people that think either of these things are wrong.

Like, does anyone on these forums think that?

If that is freedom of speech, then tons of people who defend it are hypocrites. But then, most people who accuse others of being snowflakes are themselves snowflakes.

I agree that many people are hypocrites, that doesn't change the principle.

You are arguing to restrict speech. Either you don't want to restrict any speech, or you think it is ok to restrict some speech, in which case your entire defense falls flat.

What, you referring to the bomb analogy?

Surely you can understand the difference between speech that hurts feelings and speech that can endanger lives?

Me saying fuck politeness then asking for politeness is me mocking the hypocrisy of being criticized for not being polite by people who literally defend offensive speech. I am pointing out the hypocrisy. I am sure you knew that and are grasping for straws.

No Saleune. You were playing it straight. Doing a 180 doesn't change that.

What's clear is that you want some offensive speech banned, but not all of it. Apparently it's fine to use offensive speech against targets you disagree with. And while I'm not going to shed tears over actual Nazis (key word being "actual") or people who genuinely think that rape is okay, the world's far more grey than you think.

My point is some speech should be restricted, that people do not deserve free reign to say ANYTHING THEY WANT. I do not think gay pride should be among the restricted speech. My defense doesnt rely on vast generalization, yours does.

No, your defence relies on you being the arbiter of deciding what is and isn't among restricted speech.

If you think it is bad to do, then why defend it? That is illogical.

Same reason I defend the right for people to smoke, to do drugs, to drink alcohol, to consume copious amounts of sugar, etc.

Everyone does "objectively bad" stuff all the time.

Or you can get mad at me for not being nice to people who are literally trying to defend the 'freedom' to not be nice to people.

You mean the freedom you're enjoying right now?

 

[Agema]

But reducing bias is not the same thing as shifting percentages. If you change the process only to get workers who resemble the overall population better, you don't have necessarily reduced bias. You just have shifted the numbers and might even have introduced more bias.

An important thing to consider is that organisations are not attempting to increase their diversity for the sake of diversity or social conscience; they're increasing diversity because there is research indicating that it improves productivity. If you consider a hypothetical company, 80% of its applicants / employees may be male, but only 50% of its customers are - and they're the people its income depends on.

That is because job applications nearly never match the overall population. All other things equal, if the distribution of the people you hire matches the distribution of the applicants, then you have least bias.
But wait, there is still the possibility of prior bias and/ or discrimination to influence which people even try to apply. But you can't really change your recruitment process to counter that.

Okay, let imagine you're firing a gun, and it keeps hitting to the left of where the sights suggest it should. You are unable to adjust the sights. So you aim slightly to the right when you fire instead. Is this best described as 'introducing additional bias', and thus a bad idea?

Is it okay to accept bias against one group that's hard to resolve, because it's not acceptable to counteract it with a deliberate, reverse bias?

Now, I think a person can validly argue that line on numerous levels. However, making that argument whilst bleating the platitude "treat everyone as an individual" to establish one's virtuous credentials isn't worth a damn when we have all the evidence we need to know that it isn't happening in practice. I think that person should have the guts to drop the idealistic guff and openly admit that the disadvantaged have to suck up the pain of being second class candidates. That's the real world result advocated, that world's advocates should stare it in the face.

 

[Elijin]

I still dont totally understand the actual problem with giving a group that might, under normal conditions find themselves marginalised or outnumbered to a degree which limits participation, a bit of time to share the experience the 'primary' group always gets.


I say actual problem because I know a bunch of people say things like it being inherently sexist, or infringing on mens rights or stuff like that. Those arent real problems.

Having a 2 hour window to create a safe, welcoming environment for ladies to ask their questions and express their interest without being overshadowed or made insecure by guys, before then opening it up to everyone as usual, seems like a reasonable move.

 

[Erttheking]

I still dont totally understand the actual problem with giving a group that might, under normal conditions find themselves marginalised or outnumbered to a degree which limits participation, a bit of time to share the experience the 'primary' group always gets.


I say actual problem because I know a bunch of people say things like it being inherently sexist, or infringing on mens rights or stuff like that. Those arent real problems.

Having a 2 hour window to create a safe, welcoming environment for ladies to ask their questions and express their interest without being overshadowed or made insecure by guys, before then opening it up to everyone as usual, seems like a reasonable move.

I have a pet theory regarding this. Gamers have a bit of a victim complex. A lot of us grew up around the pearl clutching over violent video games. Unfair criticisms were constantly leveled at gaming and a lot of gamers were upset with it. The problem is that, nowadays, a lot of the criticisms leveled at gaming (not all at them, don't jump down my throat anyone reading this) are more well thought out and with more grounding. And the people who grew up defending their hobby automatically go into defensive mode.

That and, I hate to say it, gaming still has a lot of a boy's club, with things designed specifically to appeal to boys, being very unwelcoming to outsiders, and with many people having a "well this doesn't bother ME so if it actually bothers anyone they're just whining," mindset. In other words, it's going "Stop complaining that you're hungry, I just ate."

 

[Hawki]

I still dont totally understand the actual problem with giving a group that might, under normal conditions find themselves marginalised or outnumbered to a degree which limits participation, a bit of time to share the experience the 'primary' group always gets.

You could say that for any group outside the 'primary' group in any setting.

Also, the people attending the panel aren't those already working at Riot. And while League of Legends doesn't exactly have the most civil fanbase in the world, unless you're using voice chat (which only got implemented this year), it's equal opportunity assholery.

I say actual problem because I know a bunch of people say things like it being inherently sexist, or infringing on mens rights or stuff like that. Those arent real problems.

On the one hand, the panel itself isn't much of an issue.

On the other, it does meet the definition of sexism ("prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender").

Having a 2 hour window to create a safe, welcoming environment for ladies to ask their questions and express their interest without being overshadowed or made insecure by guys, before then opening it up to everyone as usual, seems like a reasonable move.

Actually, it was 4.5 hours of a 7.5 hour event. And of those last hours, 1.5 of them was dedicated to "quiet room/meditation" activities.

That and, I hate to say it, gaming still has a lot of a boy's club, with things designed specifically to appeal to boys, being very unwelcoming to outsiders, and with many people having a "well this doesn't bother ME so if it actually bothers anyone they're just whining," mindset. In other words, it's going "Stop complaining that you're hungry, I just ate."

I agree with you in the sense that games are dominated by males (least if we don't include mobile games, and I'm dubious as to whether that's a fair exclusion), and that if Gamergate showed us anything it's that yes, the hostility to outsiders is a thing. However, the "well this doesn't bother me" argument is one I'm iffy about - does PAX affect me personally? No. But I can't help but be perturbed as:

a) Discrimination is ugly regardless of who's doing it.

b) If anything, it'll make it even more difficult for Riot to solve its workplace issues by fostering resentment

To cite a counter-example where gender inequality cuts the other way, off the top of my head, it's a running trend in the West that boys are lagging behind girls in secondary and tertiary education, with some rates of college graduation being up to 60% female. What's the solution? I dunno. But no-one's suggesting that females be excluded from the conversation, because that would be a bone-headed proposition.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I sometimes wonder about the circular logic some people have.

It's horrible that I'm oppressed by being told I shouldn't do the things that make people uncomfortable. My feelings are important. They can get thicker skin, it's super important that my opinion is heard. So I'm going to continue to fight for my rights to do whatever I want regardless of how it might affect other people. And when I get backlash, it's an infringement of my rights that people would hinder my ability to speak out for who I am, even at the cost of other people's comfort. It's horrible that I'm oppressed by being told I shouldn't do the things that make people uncomfortable...

 

[Erttheking]

I agree with you in the sense that games are dominated by males (least if we don't include mobile games, and I'm dubious as to whether that's a fair exclusion), and that if Gamergate showed us anything it's that yes, the hostility to outsiders is a thing. However, the "well this doesn't bother me" argument is one I'm iffy about - does PAX affect me personally? No. But I can't help but be perturbed as:

a) Discrimination is ugly regardless of who's doing it.

b) If anything, it'll make it even more difficult for Riot to solve its workplace issues by fostering resentment

To cite a counter-example where gender inequality cuts the other way, off the top of my head, it's a running trend in the West that boys are lagging behind girls in secondary and tertiary education, with some rates of college graduation being up to 60% female. What's the solution? I dunno. But no-one's suggesting that females be excluded from the conversation, because that would be a bone-headed proposition.

The thing about discrimination is that it's a lot like a lot of other terrible things human beings do. They have a rather skewered view on it, viewing it in extremes. If you mentioned discrimination to the average person, their minds would probably jump to Jim Crow south, with discrimination being the law of the land. I don't think many of them would think a more passive discrimination, a series of passive elements that slowly pushes some people out, at all. If anything, moving to end stuff like this wouldn't be viewed as making the workplace more welcome (even though there are plenty of men like me who think this stuff would be unacceptable) and more as a bunch of humorless killjoys ruining their fun. Which is nonsense, but they don't see what they're doing as wrong and that other people just need to adapt to them.

And I said that no one should be excluded from the conversation (Except for people who don't want to actually debate and just scream at people, those kinds of people should be cut from both sides of the debate, because in a conversation you need to listen.) As for the matter of boys not doing as well in school, I highly doubt that's due to discrimination. As someone who works in the school system, boys in general just tend to be the ones who are more likely to take school less seriously, tend to be the ones who act out in class more, who don't even bother doing school work even when there's a worksheet right in front of them and the teacher is staring. There has never been any widespread recorded problems of boys who took school seriously struggling to get into college. If we're going to solve the problem, we're gonna have to tackle that mindset.

 

[Elijin]

I agree with you in the sense that games are dominated by males (least if we don't include mobile games, and I'm dubious as to whether that's a fair exclusion), and that if Gamergate showed us anything it's that yes, the hostility to outsiders is a thing. However, the "well this doesn't bother me" argument is one I'm iffy about - does PAX affect me personally? No. But I can't help but be perturbed as:

a) Discrimination is ugly regardless of who's doing it.

b) If anything, it'll make it even more difficult for Riot to solve its workplace issues by fostering resentment

To cite a counter-example where gender inequality cuts the other way, off the top of my head, it's a running trend in the West that boys are lagging behind girls in secondary and tertiary education, with some rates of college graduation being up to 60% female. What's the solution? I dunno. But no-one's suggesting that females be excluded from the conversation, because that would be a bone-headed proposition.

Here's the thing, I dont view a short, time based exclusion as discrimination. It's not about keeping the one side out, it's about giving another side who is only marginally represented, ample opportunity to engage without feeling overshadowed, unwelcome, or whatever else may exist in a shared environment. Ultimately, the doors are opened and everyone is invited into the conversation. The kicker is that before that happens, a group of voices that have a high likelihood of going unheard in the mixed environment are being given time to engage.

To go to your school example, I would be consulting with teachers, parents and students in order to see what could be done about it. But, I would expect those in the stronger position (teachers, successful students, parents) to have more to say, and be more confident about saying it. So at some point I would have the group on the lesser foot (in this case, the boys) be given a chance to voice their piece without teacher, parent or female students present. Let their voice be heard, detached from the environment where it might go unnoticed or overshadowed by stronger influences within the topic.

 

[Kerg3927]

snip

Is that how you want people to believe your more perception of reality is less distorted? You call yourself a man of science, and yet you fail to do what every scientist has to do first: to question their own perception.

And you assume that based upon what? Because you disagree with my opinions? I do question my own perceptions. And I don't doubt that Saelune questions his/hers. The problem is that we still both arrive at different perceptions because we're looking at the world from different points of view, utilizing different data, and incorporating our own natural, unavoidable biases.

'As a science guy' is you trying to apply a status onto yourself to give your unscientific views more credit than they deserve.

By "a science guy," I didn't mean that I am a scientist, just that I am a proponent of the methods used in science, i.e. forming opinions and drawing conclusions from hard evidence rather than speculation. I try to look at the evidence at hand and form a view based upon that, which is all anyone can do.

You say you want things to be equal but complain about anyone actually doing anything to make that happen. I see this far too often. It makes me doubt you mean it.

I think more equality of opportunity is a worthy goal, although I believe there will always be limits to what can be accomplished in the real world.

But the majority of the complaining I see is not about that. It's about equality of outcome, which I think is a foolish pursuit. For example, a company is 60% male and 40% female employees. Simply looking at the number and crying sexism, without any evidence of causation, and pressuring the company to adopt hiring policies that ensure that the ratio is 50/50... is stupid. There may be some bias involved - there probably is on some level - but how does one objectively identify where exactly it's occurring and how to get rid of it? You can't.

We're dealing with human minds, which we don't have the technology to read objectively. We're dealing with human bias, which we ALL have. Everyone forms biases based upon first impressions. We are hard-wired by evolution to do that, and for good reason. If two prehistoric strangers encountered each other on the savanna, they had to try to ascertain friend or foe and size up that other person in a hurry, or risk getting impaled by a spear, and there wasn't time to read their resume, run a background check, interview them, and check references.

We form our biases based upon our personal experiences. If I'm putting together a basketball team, and I have a black guy and a white guy of similar builds applying for a spot, I'm going to assume that the black guy is probably more athletic, and for good reason. Now the smart thing to do is to not make a decision based upon that biased assumption. I should ask them to go one-on-one and observe them and form an opinion based upon real evidence, but if this is just a pick up game and everyone wants to play right now, I may not have that option. So I'm gonna go with the black guy. There is nothing evil about this. It just is. It's normal human behavior, and you're never going to be able to eradicate it.

Back to the 60/40 thing, there may be other factors involved that don't involve bias, and there probably are. Maybe more men are applying for those jobs. The point is that the causes of the 60/40 disparity are probably varied and complicated, and there may be good reasons for it. It's bad logic to assume that it is all a product of sexism and to conclude that it is something that needs to be corrected by a quota mandate.

Yeah, things were worse, and because people complained, and fought and just in general stood up for themselves, it got better. You don't think people back then didn't say the same shit you're saying now? You don't think there were people in the 1950's or earlier telling black people 'Hey, you aren't slaves anymore, stop complaining'?

I'm certainly no expert on Martin Luther King, but it is my understanding that he preached togetherness and nonviolence. He didn't say f--- white people because they are all evil. He said we're all brothers and sisters. I think that approach is more effective than demonizing the majority group, lumping them all together, and trying to fight prejudice with prejudice.

You just want to blame the victims for fighting back. We didn't make identity politics, people who oppressed others made identity politics. 'You're a woman, so you cant do what a man can do', 'You're black, so you are property, not human', 'You're gay, so you will rot in Hell'.

If you wanted to oppose identity politics, you would be on my side.

The difference is that back then, shit was really, really bad. That bad stuff was exposed to the world, people started feeling sympathetic, and things changed. But now things are so much better that it's not so obvious. It's often difficult for people to tell if there is really a problem of lack of opportunity or if it's just someone complaining about inequality of outcomes, which may very well be occurring for other reasons.

And as a science guy...

If you wish to assume the mantle of "a science guy", you put an onus on yourself to research the matter with appropriate literature and studies in order to make an informed decision.

So for instance (a drop in the ocean of studies, STEM related):

https://www.nature.com/articles/387341a0
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/12/4403
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/apl-0000022.pdf

I believe that everyone should be judged by the content of their character and competence rather than the color of their skin, etc. - as an individual rather than the category into which they happen to be born

Indeed.

However, whatever way we want to look at it, there's plenty of evidence of bias against gender, race, etc.; certainly who is disadvantaged and by how much may vary significantly by job role, industrial sector, geographical location. What we need are not admirable platitudes, but an evidence-informed approach to identifying forms of prejudice and either eliminating or counteracting them.

As I said above, of course there is bias. That's normal and natural. Eliminating it is impossible. Counteracting it is difficult without authoritarian quota mandates based upon bad logic.

I also think we have to be careful about going down that road of trying to force equality of outcomes in everything. That line of thinking led to arguably 100 MILLION people dying of starvation or murder or being worked to death in labor camps in the past century [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism].

I think the best we can do is to better educate people. And I'm not talking about being "educated" by angry people on the internet. I'm talking about studying history and science. Teaching people to think more logically, so the biases they do form are at least more logical. And teaching people to not trust their first impressions and to dig deeper when possible to get more evidence about a person before judging them. I think most of the existing prejudice in the world is possessed by poorly educated people. There seems to be a strong correlation.

The difference is one of those sides is in way more and way higher power.

This is a perfect example of differences in perception. I'm a straight, white, male, and I don't have any power. Nor do most straight white males. I'm just an average Joe trying to make it through the world and pay my bills like everyone else.

Let's assume for a minute that your world view is correct, and everyone in minority groups is horribly oppressed. If you are wanting to improve their lot, I disagree with your approach. Every time you lump everyone in the majority group together and accuse them all of oppressing minority groups, you create enemies out of the ones who aren't oppressing anyone and who don't have the power to do so (most of them). It's divisive and nonproductive.

Your goal should be to gain sympathy for your cause from those who are currently apathetic. But when you make false accusations, which is what you're doing when you attack a whole group that is mostly innocent, all you do is piss a bunch of people off. It's a missed opportunity to obtain allies for your cause. It's just a bad strategy.

 

[Saelune]

I have also explained why you saying they are different is wrong. It was not just 'nuh uh'.

No, you didn't.

Also, you decided to block quote me instead of singling out the quotes, so thanks for forcing me to constantly go back and forth to get the context of your statements.

Tolerance of intolerance is the death of tolerance.

I agree. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

Denying services to minorities is intolerance.

Slurring against minorities is bigotry.

Both are bad, but discrimination isn't the same thing as offensive language.

Sure, I have offended plenty of people, but they are offended cause I think Nazism is wrong and think that rape is wrong

Forgive me for being highly skeptical as to the claim that you've met people that think either of these things are wrong.

Like, does anyone on these forums think that?

If that is freedom of speech, then tons of people who defend it are hypocrites. But then, most people who accuse others of being snowflakes are themselves snowflakes.

I agree that many people are hypocrites, that doesn't change the principle.

You are arguing to restrict speech. Either you don't want to restrict any speech, or you think it is ok to restrict some speech, in which case your entire defense falls flat.

What, you referring to the bomb analogy?

Surely you can understand the difference between speech that hurts feelings and speech that can endanger lives?

Me saying fuck politeness then asking for politeness is me mocking the hypocrisy of being criticized for not being polite by people who literally defend offensive speech. I am pointing out the hypocrisy. I am sure you knew that and are grasping for straws.

No Saleune. You were playing it straight. Doing a 180 doesn't change that.

What's clear is that you want some offensive speech banned, but not all of it. Apparently it's fine to use offensive speech against targets you disagree with. And while I'm not going to shed tears over actual Nazis (key word being "actual") or people who genuinely think that rape is okay, the world's far more grey than you think.

My point is some speech should be restricted, that people do not deserve free reign to say ANYTHING THEY WANT. I do not think gay pride should be among the restricted speech. My defense doesnt rely on vast generalization, yours does.

No, your defence relies on you being the arbiter of deciding what is and isn't among restricted speech.

If you think it is bad to do, then why defend it? That is illogical.

Same reason I defend the right for people to smoke, to do drugs, to drink alcohol, to consume copious amounts of sugar, etc.

Everyone does "objectively bad" stuff all the time.

Or you can get mad at me for not being nice to people who are literally trying to defend the 'freedom' to not be nice to people.

You mean the freedom you're enjoying right now?

Yes, I did.

The difference is that anti-PC people who want to abuse and oppress others have twisted people into thinking there is a difference, but there isn't. PC culture is about respecting others, anti-PC culture is about tricking people into thinking it isn't.


They sure act like they think that. People so burdened by people fighting for gay/black/women/minority rights and bitching how they now cant enjoy anything apparently.


Yes, disliking the slur is the same as being PC. The polite response is not as effective as it should be. I know, I have given it many many many times. Sure, sometimes it works, but not always. Certainly not enough.

Eh, block quoting is kind of lazy, but I don't except and honestly, don't like your method.


The paradox of tolerance is one of the defenses being repeatedly used against me, that I need to be accepting of shitty behavior or else I am 'as bad' as that shitty behavior. Except I am not arguign in the defense of teh absolute, you are. I think somethings should be allowed to be said, even if they do not seem so nice, I think alot of mean things should NOT be allowed to be said. I think gay pride should be allowed, I think white supremacy should not.

When that offensive language is based around minorities, it is. There are offensive words that are non-descriminate, like 'fuck'. Fag and the N word however, are descriminatory by default.

Yes, people on these forums think that.

It does though, if people fighting for freedom of speech are not actually fighting for freedom of speech, then what are they fighting for? I will give you a hint, its bigotry.

So you dont support freedom of speech? Cause surely you can understand teh difference between speech that is bigoted, and speech that is not? Either you support freedom of speech, or you dont. You cannot cherry pick it and claim you arent. The point is, some things should not be allowed to be said because it causes bad things to happen, and hate speech is that.


No Hawki, I was making a point, and you are trying to twist that.


The targets I disagree with are the Nazis, the KKK, the religious folk who want to oppress gays and women. Not everyone I disagree with I think is a Nazi, but I disagree with every Nazi. If you are going to try to pull that BS to discredit me, then it says where you and I stand and it is not a good place. Do not use that falacy against me.

I wish I was the arbiter, but I wont be, but society at large would be, and I AND YOU are part of that. Why not work together to find where that line is between opposing hate speech while not opposing the freedom of differing ideals and views? I want to find it, but those arguing so vehemently to defend hate speech do not. Its all or nothing for them and you, but not for me. For me, there is a 'some' answer.

Well, you also should not defend smoking. Second-hand smoke should be considered assault, since smoking does not only effect the person smoking it. Alchohol, while I wish it would go away (as a drink anyways), it is too entrenched, but anyone who hurts others cause they got drunk is a piece of garbage, and alchohol is best IN MODERATION! Let me know when people cancer from second-hand sugar, or when someone gets into an accident cause of eating cookies. Hell, I am sure they have, so maybe people should not eat and drive, I can respect that.

There is a difference between a bully punching their victim and a victim punching their bully. And I could be meaner, but I dont actually have that freedom like you think I do.

 

[Saelune]

'As a science guy' is you trying to apply a status onto yourself to give your unscientific views more credit than they deserve.

By "a science guy," I didn't mean that I am a scientist, just that I am a proponent of the methods used in science, i.e. forming opinions and drawing conclusions from hard evidence rather than speculation. I try to look at the evidence at hand and form a view based upon that, which is all anyone can do.

You say you want things to be equal but complain about anyone actually doing anything to make that happen. I see this far too often. It makes me doubt you mean it.

I think more equality of opportunity is a worthy goal, although I believe there will always be limits to what can be accomplished in the real world.

But the majority of the complaining I see is not about that. It's about equality of outcome, which I think is a foolish pursuit. For example, a company is 60% male and 40% female employees. Simply looking at the number and crying sexism, without any evidence of causation, and pressuring the company to adopt hiring policies that ensure that the ratio is 50/50... is stupid. There may be some bias involved - there probably is on some level - but how does one objectively identify where exactly it's occurring and how to get rid of it? You can't.

We're dealing with human minds, which we don't have the technology to read objectively. We're dealing with human bias, which we ALL have. Everyone forms biases based upon first impressions. We are hard-wired by evolution to do that, and for good reason. If two prehistoric strangers encountered each other on the savanna, they had to try to ascertain friend or foe and size up that other person in a hurry, or risk getting impaled by a spear, and there wasn't time to read their resume, run a background check, interview them, and check references.

We form our biases based upon our personal experiences. If I'm putting together a basketball team, and I have a black guy and a white guy of similar builds applying for a spot, I'm going to assume that the black guy is probably more athletic, and for good reason. Now the smart thing to do is to not make a decision based upon that biased assumption. I should ask them to go one-on-one and observe them and form an opinion based upon real evidence, but if this is just a pick up game and everyone wants to play right now, I may not have that option. So I'm gonna go with the black guy. There is nothing evil about this. It just is. It's normal human behavior, and you're never going to be able to eradicate it.

Back to the 60/40 thing, there may be other factors involved that don't involve bias, and there probably are. Maybe more men are applying for those jobs. The point is that the causes of the 60/40 disparity are probably varied and complicated, and there may be good reasons for it. It's bad logic to assume that it is all a product of sexism and to conclude that it is something that needs to be corrected by a quota mandate.

Yeah, things were worse, and because people complained, and fought and just in general stood up for themselves, it got better. You don't think people back then didn't say the same shit you're saying now? You don't think there were people in the 1950's or earlier telling black people 'Hey, you aren't slaves anymore, stop complaining'?

I'm certainly no expert on Martin Luther King, but it is my understanding that he preached togetherness and nonviolence. He didn't say f--- white people because they are all evil. He said we're all brothers and sisters. I think that approach is more effective than demonizing the majority group, lumping them all together, and trying to fight prejudice with prejudice.

You just want to blame the victims for fighting back. We didn't make identity politics, people who oppressed others made identity politics. 'You're a woman, so you cant do what a man can do', 'You're black, so you are property, not human', 'You're gay, so you will rot in Hell'.

If you wanted to oppose identity politics, you would be on my side.

The difference is that back then, shit was really, really bad. That bad stuff was exposed to the world, people started feeling sympathetic, and things changed. But now things are so much better that it's not so obvious. It's often difficult for people to tell if there is really a problem of lack of opportunity or if it's just someone complaining about inequality of outcomes, which may very well be occurring for other reasons.

The difference is one of those sides is in way more and way higher power.

This is a perfect example of differences in perception. I'm a straight, white, male, and I don't have any power. Nor do most straight white males. I'm just an average Joe trying to make it through the world and pay my bills like everyone else.

Let's assume for a minute that your world view is correct, and everyone in minority groups is horribly oppressed. If you are wanting to improve their lot, I disagree with your approach. Every time you lump everyone in the majority group together and accuse them all of oppressing minority groups, you create enemies out of the ones who aren't oppressing anyone and who don't have the power to do so (most of them). It's divisive and nonproductive.

Your goal should be to gain sympathy for your cause from those who are currently apathetic. But when you make false accusations, which is what you're doing when you attack a whole group that is mostly innocent, all you do is piss a bunch of people off. It's a missed opportunity to obtain allies for your cause. It's just a bad strategy.

I do not think you use science like you claim to, and I do still think you wanted to give your opinions more weight with that claim.


Much of your post is you basically saying you dont see alot of the bad. Perhaps because you intentionally turn your gaze from it, and/or perhaps because you are so protected by privilage that you dont have to see it. But it is there. Maybe you need to actually take a better look. If you are the science guy you claim, then you would appreciate the idea that more research is needed.


I am sure there are plenty who want every company to be equal in diversity of numbers, but that is not what most want, it is not what I want. But there is far more going on preventing the equal opportunity from happening. Some intentional, some more subconscous. Descriminatory practices tend to filter in decriminatory people, who even if legally are required to not be bigoted, can still get away with bigoted practices, cause go figure, there is just a bunch of bigots in power. The intention is to diversify these people with more forceful means so to filter out the underlying bigotry.


In short, bigots tend to higher more bigots and less diversity.


Back then people didnt think it was so bad cause people didnt talk about it, and when people did talk about it, people said 'its not so bad, stop complaining'. Sound familiar? One day people will look back at our time and go 'It was much worse back then'...well, I hope they do, unless it gets so bad now that it just keeps going, because too many people were too apathetic to improving our situation.


You do have power though, far more than you understand. Just the fact that those in power are like you helps you, though yes, there is alot of power you lack, and that is because of people like you but with power who find other reasons to hate you. Maybe empathize instead with us? It can be easy to not see your power when you do not see what it is like to lack it in that same situation. How often do you walk alone at night and fear of being raped? Cause that is a common fear for women. Trans people too, though with alot of it of just being beaten up.


History has proven you wrong about gaining sympathy. Women, blacks, gays all asked for equality and were met with scoffing, hoses, and police raids. It is when they no longer asked, but demanded, that people started listening.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I?ve just become numb to all of the PC culture stuff. I know a lot others I know of have too.

If you think that is a burden, imagine what is like to be condemned for being gay, black or female, I mean that has only been happening for most of human history, but being expected to respect others really is a cross to bear.


Really though, please, think about this for a moment, why does it trouble you so much to have people expect you to think about what you say and do? Why do people think that makes them more oppressed than people who have been forbidden to marry another, or be treated as literal property? Why is someone saying 'Don't use 'that's gay' as a slur' so much worse than just ya know, not using gay as a slur? Why is taking a moment to think if something you say or do is going to be really uncomfortable or upsetting for someone else so difficult?

HawkI said it better than my mentally challenged ass could. But I?ll add in that the current status of this culture tells me that my problems are insignificant no matter what they are because of my skin color, gender and/or sexual orientation.

This kind of proves my point. Maybe use that feeling to empathize instead?


'To those with privilege, equality feels like oppression'

Or I?ll just continue doing what I do and not talk to anyone IRL. That?s what I was taught since I was a child. Don?t bother socializing for fear of offending someone and getting hurt again.

Maybe I'm out of touch as a straight white guy, but why do you care about offending someone? If through no direct action or choice, just going through your daily life as normal someone gets offended? Fuck 'em, and their entitled ass.
If you're at the grocery store and say "excuse me ma'am, can I quickly get in and grab some coffee?" and the response is "GET AWAY FROM ME HIDEOUS MONKEY MAN! RAPE!" that's not your fault.
People really have given too much power to the offended. You don't have to accept their offended-ness or justify yourself to them. If I tell someone good morning and they call me a racists, that's on them, not me.

 

[Kerg3927]

Much of your post is you basically saying you dont see alot of the bad.

Yes. And much of your post is you basically saying that you see bad everywhere you look. Straight white male boogymen hiding behind every tree and under every bed.

As I said, this is a waste of time, because you see the world completely differently than I do. You are certain that your view is correct and mine is wrong. Likewise, I am pretty sure that your view is greatly exaggerated. Not necessarily through any fault of yours... we see what we see, through the lens of our own life experiences and biases.

Anyway, we're talking past each other, and this could go on forever without accomplishing anything. Good day.

 

[Saelune]

Much of your post is you basically saying you dont see alot of the bad.

Yes. And much of your post is you basically saying that you see bad everywhere you look. Straight white male boogymen hiding behind every tree and under every bed.

As I said, this is a waste of time, because you see the world completely differently than I do. You are certain that your view is correct and mine is wrong. Likewise, I am pretty sure that your view is greatly exaggerated. Not necessarily through any fault of yours... we see what we see, through the lense of our own life experiences and biases.

Anyway, we're talking past each other, and this could go on forever without accomplishing anything. Good day.

Yes. And much of your post is you basically saying that you don't see bad anywhere you look, except from people like me. SJW boogypeople hiding behind every tree and under every bed ready to 'overexaggerate'.


As you said, a waste of time, because you see the world completely different than I do. You are certain that your view is correct and mine is wrong. Likewise, Iam pretty sure that your view is greatly exaggerated. You see, or don't rather, what you want to not see, through the lens of your own privileges and biases.

 

[Saelune]

I?ve just become numb to all of the PC culture stuff. I know a lot others I know of have too.

If you think that is a burden, imagine what is like to be condemned for being gay, black or female, I mean that has only been happening for most of human history, but being expected to respect others really is a cross to bear.


Really though, please, think about this for a moment, why does it trouble you so much to have people expect you to think about what you say and do? Why do people think that makes them more oppressed than people who have been forbidden to marry another, or be treated as literal property? Why is someone saying 'Don't use 'that's gay' as a slur' so much worse than just ya know, not using gay as a slur? Why is taking a moment to think if something you say or do is going to be really uncomfortable or upsetting for someone else so difficult?

HawkI said it better than my mentally challenged ass could. But I?ll add in that the current status of this culture tells me that my problems are insignificant no matter what they are because of my skin color, gender and/or sexual orientation.

This kind of proves my point. Maybe use that feeling to empathize instead?


'To those with privilege, equality feels like oppression'

Or I?ll just continue doing what I do and not talk to anyone IRL. That?s what I was taught since I was a child. Don?t bother socializing for fear of offending someone and getting hurt again.

Maybe I'm out of touch as a straight white guy, but why do you care about offending someone? If through no direct action or choice, just going through your daily life as normal someone gets offended? Fuck 'em, and their entitled ass.
If you're at the grocery store and say "excuse me ma'am, can I quickly get in and grab some coffee?" and the response is "GET AWAY FROM ME HIDEOUS MONKEY MAN! RAPE!" that's not your fault.
People really have given too much power to the offended. You don't have to accept their offended-ness or justify yourself to them. If I tell someone good morning and they call me a racists, that's on them, not me.

I find I don't want to upset people for no good reason cause I don't want people to upset me for no good reason. Its the golden rule. Selfishness is not a positive trait.


People have really given too much power to the offensive. We don't have to accept their offensiveness or justify ourselves to them. If people call me a ****** or use gay as a slur around me and I get upset, that's on them not me.

 

[Hawki]

The paradox of tolerance is one of the defenses being repeatedly used against me, that I need to be accepting of shitty behavior or else I am 'as bad' as that shitty behavior.

In this case it's more I don't think you should use shitty behaviour to fight shitty behaviour, especially when you're applying a binary view of "oppressors vs. oppressed."

Except I am not arguign in the defense of teh absolute, you are.

Excuse me?

If I was arguing for "the absolute," I'd be saying that all speech of any kind should be allowed without consequence. I've already provided the definitions of hate speech and free speech, and have also discussed examples of a clear and present danger from speech. If I was arguing for the absolute, none of these distinctions would matter.

I think somethings should be allowed to be said, even if they do not seem so nice, I think alot of mean things should NOT be allowed to be said. I think gay pride should be allowed, I think white supremacy should not.

Again, I disagree - at least in the sense that marching for white supremacy should be banned. Despicable an idea as it is, I'd rather meet ideas with arguments.

This year, on Australia Day, there was a rally where an Aboriginal activist declared "fuck Australia, I hope it burns to the ground." Much as I'd like to not be incinerated, I'm not arguing that her speech should be curtailed. It's not an overt threat of violence, nor is it targeting one particular group.

When that offensive language is based around minorities, it is. There are offensive words that are non-descriminate, like 'fuck'. Fag and the N word however, are descriminatory by default.

Discrimination: "The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."

Those slurs don't meet the definition of discrimination. Maybe if they were directed at the person in question, maybe, but for instance "fag" can easily be used to describe anyone, not just gays. The origins of the word is prejudicial, the use of the word itself isn't.

Course I'd prefer it if such words weren't used at all, but I'd rather not police speech. Educate people about the connotations of that speech though? Sure.

Yes, people on these forums think that.

Source needed.

Like, really, REALLY needed.

It does though, if people fighting for freedom of speech are not actually fighting for freedom of speech, then what are they fighting for? I will give you a hint, its bigotry.

Yeah, and? Is everyone who believes in freedom of speech a bigot?

So you dont support freedom of speech? Cause surely you can understand teh difference between speech that is bigoted, and speech that is not? Either you support freedom of speech, or you dont.

I've already given you the definitions of free speech vs. hate speech.

You cannot cherry pick it and claim you arent.

Um...

The point is, some things should not be allowed to be said because it causes bad things to happen, and hate speech is that.

Accuses me of cherry picking.

Advocates cherry picking.

Or, if I'm being generous, we can agree that hate speech is bad, but you appear to define far more things as hate speech than I do.

No Hawki, I was making a point, and you are trying to twist that.

This point in time, I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make.

The targets I disagree with are the Nazis, the KKK, the religious folk who want to oppress gays and women. Not everyone I disagree with I think is a Nazi, but I disagree with every Nazi. If you are going to try to pull that BS to discredit me, then it says where you and I stand and it is not a good place. Do not use that falacy against me.

Fallacy?

To quote your own words, "Sure, I have offended plenty of people, but they are offended cause I think Nazism is wrong and think that rape is wrong."

You're the one who's generalizing, the idea that anyone who takes offence to you is a Nazi.

Also, religious folk who "want to oppress gays and women" aren't even Nazis. Not necessarily. Despicable as some views may be, that isn't Nazism. Oppression of women and gays was around well before Nazism was a thing, and has never been confined to the West.

I wish I was the arbiter, but I wont be, but society at large would be, and I AND YOU are part of that. Why not work together to find where that line is between opposing hate speech while not opposing the freedom of differing ideals and views? I want to find it, but those arguing so vehemently to defend hate speech do not. Its all or nothing for them and you, but not for me. For me, there is a 'some' answer.

"All of nothing?"

I'm the one who's provided distinctions between hate speech, free speech, and 'hazardous speech' (for lack of a better term). You're the one who's repeatedly used generalizations and binary divides.

I'd love to find 'the answer,' but since you're the one using the all or nothing approach, that makes it difficult.

Well, you also should not defend smoking. Second-hand smoke should be considered assault, since smoking does not only effect the person smoking it.

No. Just no.

You're right in that second-hand smoke is a health hazard, but that isn't assault. Assault is defined as "an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact." Almost always it applies to physical assault. No-one who smokes does so with the intention of poisoning others.

Let me know when people cancer from second-hand sugar, or when someone gets into an accident cause of eating cookies.

High sugar consumption results in things like diabetes, obesity, and other diseases. Just because it doesn't cause cancer doesn't mean that it doesn't present a health risk.

There is a difference between a bully punching their victim and a victim punching their bully. And I could be meaner, but I dont actually have that freedom like you think I do.

Um, yes?

What, you think I somehow have the 'freedom' to punch bullies and you don't?

Not that I particuarly desire to punch bullies, because violence rarely works. Certainly never worked in school, and of all the jackasses I deal with in the real world, physical assault isn't the best course of action.

History has proven you wrong about gaining sympathy. Women, blacks, gays all asked for equality and were met with scoffing, hoses, and police raids. It is when they no longer asked, but demanded, that people started listening.

Except that same history should serve as an example that "us vs. them" isn't a good mentality.

Martin Luther King didn't start a race war. Nor did Nelson Mandela. Native Australians got the vote through a referendum. Marriage equality was achieved through a similar referendum not too long ago.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I?ve just become numb to all of the PC culture stuff. I know a lot others I know of have too.

If you think that is a burden, imagine what is like to be condemned for being gay, black or female, I mean that has only been happening for most of human history, but being expected to respect others really is a cross to bear.


Really though, please, think about this for a moment, why does it trouble you so much to have people expect you to think about what you say and do? Why do people think that makes them more oppressed than people who have been forbidden to marry another, or be treated as literal property? Why is someone saying 'Don't use 'that's gay' as a slur' so much worse than just ya know, not using gay as a slur? Why is taking a moment to think if something you say or do is going to be really uncomfortable or upsetting for someone else so difficult?

HawkI said it better than my mentally challenged ass could. But I?ll add in that the current status of this culture tells me that my problems are insignificant no matter what they are because of my skin color, gender and/or sexual orientation.

This kind of proves my point. Maybe use that feeling to empathize instead?


'To those with privilege, equality feels like oppression'

Or I?ll just continue doing what I do and not talk to anyone IRL. That?s what I was taught since I was a child. Don?t bother socializing for fear of offending someone and getting hurt again.

Maybe I'm out of touch as a straight white guy, but why do you care about offending someone? If through no direct action or choice, just going through your daily life as normal someone gets offended? Fuck 'em, and their entitled ass.
If you're at the grocery store and say "excuse me ma'am, can I quickly get in and grab some coffee?" and the response is "GET AWAY FROM ME HIDEOUS MONKEY MAN! RAPE!" that's not your fault.
People really have given too much power to the offended. You don't have to accept their offended-ness or justify yourself to them. If I tell someone good morning and they call me a racists, that's on them, not me.

I find I don't want to upset people for no good reason cause I don't want people to upset me for no good reason. Its the golden rule. Selfishness is not a positive trait.


People have really given too much power to the offensive. We don't have to accept their offensiveness or justify ourselves to them. If people call me a ****** or use gay as a slur around me and I get upset, that's on them not me.

I get that. Insulting someone is deliberately trying to offend them, so that works. Get offended because they meant to hurt you. but what if they didn't?
Like you're transgender. I honestly don't know if you've transitioned or not, but for the sake of my point I am going to assume you were born a male and have not transitioned to female yet.
Lets say you're wearing more gender neutral clothes, like jeans and a t-shirt, and you're leaving a restaurant and you say to the receptionist 'Good night' and the person, with a smile, just says 'have a great evening sir' would you be offended? They don't mean to hurt you, its a literal pleasantry being exchanged, and regardless they're paid to be nice there is no ill-will intended. And its not even a misunderstanding, its a simply 'I didn't know'.
Is that offensive, or just one of those things you say 'who cares? They meant well and we all have bigger problems than this'

That's my point. Being worried about offending someone through day-to-day normal interactions that you are unaware presses against the boundaries of another. People shouldn't be afraid to interact with other people.