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

[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.

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.

Fair enough. Except that I never said that I that don't see bad "anywhere" I look. I acknowledge that there is bad in the world. Our difference on that viewpoint is a matter of degree. I would also add that your use of the term "privileges" is part of your lens not mine.

 

[Saelune]

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.

WW2 wasn't solved with hugs and understanding.


You are arguing that people who want to limit certain things that people can say are wrong for wanting that because people should have the freedom to say things unrestrained.


White Supremacists had their chances and lost each time. Slavers and Nazis do not deserve a seat at the table of discussion, it just validates their evil. Australian Aboriginals did not cause the holocaust or treat entire populations as inhuman property. Comparing aboriginals to white supremacists is insulting to them.


Those slurs meet the definition verbatim. Those slurs devalue the people they are aimed at. Perhaps you need to educate yourself better then?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1056123-So-Brett-Kavanaughs-been-accused-of-sexual-assault?page=2#24269164 Read through Gorfias' posts.

Unfortunately, my Wild West links are now worthless.


Dont know if this is exactly the kind of source you want, but its a start. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1055858-Sam-Hyde-returns-to-the-internet#24260244

I think alot of people who 'believe in freedom of speech' are either confused, dont actually believe in it as they say and rather just are afraid to say they oppose it because of how it appears, or are hypocritical in supporting it.

Free speech as you defend it protects hate speech. I oppose hate speech and thus have concluded I do not support freedom of speech as people view it.

Yes, I do define more as hate speech than you, and I think you are severely lacking in your definition.

You're doing it again, you're doing that thing where you try to twist it to seem like I think anyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi. I do not think you are doing it on accident and itis really disingenuous and in bad faith. Stop it.

Free speech protects hate speech, apparently I need to repeat that. I am saying I am NOT using the all or nothing approach, because I think we should more clearly and specifically define what is ok and what isnt, instead of generalizing some vauge 'freedom of speech' that somehow doesnt defend hate speech despite protecting it.

Anyone who smokes knows the risks, and they still choose to smoke. This is clearly a topic bound to side track us further though, and I will just say, I HATE SMOKING!

The one bully I got to stop harassing me was because I physically stood up for myself. He stopped bullying me and I gained some respect from other students. Bullies prefer victims that dont fight back.

Gay Marriage came about in 2015. That took way too long. It took a war to end slavery. Maybe time and patience could solve all these problems eventually, but too many will suffer and die before then. Too many gay couples never got married though they deserved it, and far too many black people died as propety.

 

[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.

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.

It is upsetting, sure, but lets add to this little story. Imagine I then corrected them, and then instead of just apologizing and correcting themselves, they get defensive and angry and call me a snowflake and then intentionally misgender me out of anger? Cause that happens too often.


If they just apologize and correct themselves though, well, it wont make me not a little upset still, but I actually wont flip out on them, believe it or not. Most trans people aren't insane.


If you aren't a bad person, you shouldn't have anything to worry about, because you wont intentionally try to upset innocent people, and if you do it accidentally, you will probably feel bad and try to fix it, or atleast apologize. I think too many people just think being a decent person is too much effort and that's pathetic.


I know I probably seem like I just spend all my time angry and scowling, but I actually try to be as polite as possible in person, cause I don't actually like upsetting people for no reason.

 

[Satinavian]

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.

Yes, there is research showing that hiring to match customers can drive profits.
That already is something many big companies use : Hiring people from the same circles as prospective customers in marketing, service and support. It works.

But that is completely not what i was talking about. Base of the discussion was STEM and the tendency of being 80% male. The envirenment coming first to mind is the university and the research institutes. The products are papers in scientific journals. Matching customers is a complete non-issue here.

Even in industry, by far most STEM-jobs have no customer contact whatsoever. That is deliberate, most companies want only people talking to customers who are specialized in doing so. That is also a thing that works. Only really small companies do it differently, otherwise even in a technology-based company it needs to escalate to level 3-support before some STEM-person gets to speak to a customer about the product and its problems or ideas about improvements.
Also "customer" does not mean average population. Most parts of the industry don't sell to end users at all. And those intra-industry contacts are usually recruited from the same applicant pool anyway (except for the cross border buissness), so there is another reason to not care about matching the population in hiring.

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?

Basically yes.

A "reverse bias" is still some additional bias. Making stuff even more biased hardly solves things. One needs to find the original bias and remove that instead.

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.

Why are so many minorities second class citicens ?

- education
- wealth
- social status of parents

There are the problems to solve.


But we were talking about women in STEM, not about minorities. Women are not a minority. Women come from the same social class as their brothers. Women get the same education. Women somehow still choose different careers.

Why are choosing women different careers ? What can be done about that ?


I am physicist. I worked at several universities. All trying a lot to make STEM more appealing to women. "Girls days", visiting schools, big exhibitions of female scientists, all of that.

Did it work ? No. Students still ~ 70*% male outside of biology. Postgraduate master students ~70% male. Postdocs ~70% male. Postdocs ~70% male. Professors ? The same (even if that means roughly a generation of no movement at all).

Yes, the 70% is a very rough number, of course it did vary with the universities and eductation levels a bit and even more with the subjects, with informatics even more male, chemistry less so etc. It should also be kept in mind that "teaching" is a seperate university subject in this country, so prospective teachers (overwhelmingly female) are not included.


When i was still at university i was involved several times in hiring decisions, mostly phd-studends and postdocs. Now those samples are so few that it counts as personal anecdote, not really data, but we got always less than 30% female applicants. The university also required oversight by some commitee to make sure women were ot discriminated again, because they really tried. Which more than once felt utterly pointless with only male candidates.

Not even once i had seen discrimination against women there. I also didn't hear even a single accusation of discrimination against women. There was some stuff over the years (problems with flirting between students and tutors, some lab assistent talking about women not fit to do certain tasks, some female postdoc trying to avoid certain tasks with "that is no work for a women"), so i am pretty sure i would have heard real complaints.

When i switched into industry i also did not see discrimination. I still was occossionally responsible for hiring decisions but now the applications where more than 90% male, but we were hiring programmers mostly. Hiring was based as much as possible on tests and trying to get rid of bias. Aside from trying to get a good guess about long term motivation because we wanted to reduce turnover. But companies differ more between each other


I am fully convinced, the reason for the overwhelming male majority in STEM lie very much outside universities and also job environments. Women don't start a STEM career and then leave it because of ugly reality and discrimination. They just don't start one.
That means, it is preconceptions about working in STEM, not the reality of working in STEM that holds women back here.


Now, in that light, can you see how utterly insane it is to treat the 80% male number as a proof of discrimination ? Or how harmful it is to claim that STEM is a bad environment for women ?

It is precicely those things that are resposnsible for it. And it is also pretty insulting to claim that the STEM-environment itself is an old boys club trying to keep females out when the exact opposite is the case and most of the "old boys" go out of their way to convince girls to seek a career in science.

 

[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 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.

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.

Fair enough. Except that I never said that I that don't see bad "anywhere" I look. I acknowledge that there is bad in the world. Our difference on that viewpoint is a matter of degree. I would also add that your use of the term "privileges" is part of your lens not mine.

Are you a straight white cis man? Cause I mean, if you are, well, ever wonder why you don't see as much problems as others?

 

[Hawki]

And once again I have to go back and forth because Saelune won't separate block quotes.

WW2 wasn't solved with hugs and understanding.

...did you seriously just compare the situation of 2018 to WWII?

You are arguing that people who want to limit certain things that people can say are wrong for wanting that because people should have the freedom to say things unrestrained.

Which is an absolute lie and you know it.

I've already provided the definitions for you, and the difference between hate speech and free speech. You can try and twist it all you want, that doesn't make it true.

White Supremacists had their chances and lost each time. Slavers and Nazis do not deserve a seat at the table of discussion, it just validates their evil. Australian Aboriginals did not cause the holocaust or treat entire populations as inhuman property. Comparing aboriginals to white supremacists is insulting to them.

I wasn't comparing them, just pointing out that we shouldn't cherry pick who gets to say what.

Whie supremacists and Nazis don't need to come to the 'table,' per se, but shouting "you're racist" isn't a counter-argument to their abhorent ideas.

Those slurs meet the definition verbatim. Those slurs devalue the people they are aimed at. Perhaps you need to educate yourself better then?

Did you even read my post? I pointed out that the use of some terms can be used separately from the people they're derived from.

Maybe you need to educate yourself better.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1056123-So-Brett-Kavanaughs-been-accused-of-sexual-assault?page=2#24269164 Read through Gorfias' posts.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

Dont know if this is exactly the kind of source you want, but its a start. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1055858-Sam-Hyde-returns-to-the-internet#24260244

What does immigration have to do with anything?

Yes, I do define more as hate speech than you, and I think you are severely lacking in your definition.

And I can only say that I think you're overly zealous with your definition.

You're doing it again, you're doing that thing where you try to twist it to seem like I think anyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi. I do not think you are doing it on accident and itis really disingenuous and in bad faith. Stop it.

Disingenuous?

You're the one who decided to bring WWII into this for no reason.

You're the one who's repeatedly claimed that I've stated that people should be able to say things unrestricted.

You're the one who's linked to posts on immigration and sexual assault in some kind of bid to prove...something.

And that's just in your last post.

You're the one who's acting in bad faith. Not me.

Free speech protects hate speech, apparently I need to repeat that. I am saying I am NOT using the all or nothing approach, because I think we should more clearly and specifically define what is ok and what isnt, instead of generalizing some vauge 'freedom of speech' that somehow doesnt defend hate speech despite protecting it.

I agree in principle, just I think you're far too draconian.

The one bully I got to stop harassing me was because I physically stood up for myself. He stopped bullying me and I gained some respect from other students. Bullies prefer victims that dont fight back.

Good for you, but I disagree with the assertion that bullies prefer victims to not fight back. In my experience, bullies love it when you fight back because it shows that they still have the power, that even when you commit to physical action, nothing changes, and it reinforces how powerless you actually are.

Gay Marriage came about in 2015. That took way too long.

Yes, and? It wasn't achieved through an "us vs. them" paradigm.

It took a war to end slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century

Yep. Really ended.

(Yes, I know you're referring to US slavery, but I'll get back to that.)

Maybe time and patience could solve all these problems eventually, but too many will suffer and die before then.

Arguably. But getting back to my original point, how constructive is it to engage in "us vs. them?"

If you look at that article I linked you to, India ranks highly in the proliferation of modern day slavery. Doesn't mean I'm advocating we invade India, nor hold every Indian to be complicit.

Too many gay couples never got married though they deserved it, and far too many black people died as propety.

Yes, and? The former was achieved (in some countries, still missing in others) through the democratic process. The latter was achieved in a war in the United States, but ended through legislation in the British Empire three decades prior. Slavery existed well before these countries existed, continues to exist, and has never been confined to one race or culture.

Slavery is despicable. Lack of marriage equality is despicable. However, it's a mistake to assume that everyone in that society is complicit with these things. Even with the United States, an argument exists that slavery would have died on its own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom

There's plenty of examples where slavery was ended in a society without conflict. When it comes to the 21st century, with slavery being far less overt, I'd rather go that route than fighting a war.

 

[Saelune]

And once again I have to go back and forth because Saelune won't separate block quotes.

WW2 wasn't solved with hugs and understanding.

...did you seriously just compare the situation of 2018 to WWII?

You are arguing that people who want to limit certain things that people can say are wrong for wanting that because people should have the freedom to say things unrestrained.

Which is an absolute lie and you know it.

I've already provided the definitions for you, and the difference between hate speech and free speech. You can try and twist it all you want, that doesn't make it true.

White Supremacists had their chances and lost each time. Slavers and Nazis do not deserve a seat at the table of discussion, it just validates their evil. Australian Aboriginals did not cause the holocaust or treat entire populations as inhuman property. Comparing aboriginals to white supremacists is insulting to them.

I wasn't comparing them, just pointing out that we shouldn't cherry pick who gets to say what.

Whie supremacists and Nazis don't need to come to the 'table,' per se, but shouting "you're racist" isn't a counter-argument to their abhorent ideas.

Those slurs meet the definition verbatim. Those slurs devalue the people they are aimed at. Perhaps you need to educate yourself better then?

Did you even read my post? I pointed out that the use of some terms can be used separately from the people they're derived from.

Maybe you need to educate yourself better.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1056123-So-Brett-Kavanaughs-been-accused-of-sexual-assault?page=2#24269164 Read through Gorfias' posts.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

Dont know if this is exactly the kind of source you want, but its a start. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1055858-Sam-Hyde-returns-to-the-internet#24260244

What does immigration have to do with anything?

Yes, I do define more as hate speech than you, and I think you are severely lacking in your definition.

And I can only say that I think you're overly zealous with your definition.

You're doing it again, you're doing that thing where you try to twist it to seem like I think anyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi. I do not think you are doing it on accident and itis really disingenuous and in bad faith. Stop it.

Disingenuous?

You're the one who decided to bring WWII into this for no reason.

You're the one who's repeatedly claimed that I've stated that people should be able to say things unrestricted.

You're the one who's linked to posts on immigration and sexual assault in some kind of bid to prove...something.

And that's just in your last post.

You're the one who's acting in bad faith. Not me.

Free speech protects hate speech, apparently I need to repeat that. I am saying I am NOT using the all or nothing approach, because I think we should more clearly and specifically define what is ok and what isnt, instead of generalizing some vauge 'freedom of speech' that somehow doesnt defend hate speech despite protecting it.

I agree in principle, just I think you're far too draconian.

The one bully I got to stop harassing me was because I physically stood up for myself. He stopped bullying me and I gained some respect from other students. Bullies prefer victims that dont fight back.

Good for you, but I disagree with the assertion that bullies prefer victims to not fight back. In my experience, bullies love it when you fight back because it shows that they still have the power, that even when you commit to physical action, nothing changes, and it reinforces how powerless you actually are.

Gay Marriage came about in 2015. That took way too long.

Yes, and? It wasn't achieved through an "us vs. them" paradigm.

It took a war to end slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century

Yep. Really ended.

(Yes, I know you're referring to US slavery, but I'll get back to that.)

Maybe time and patience could solve all these problems eventually, but too many will suffer and die before then.

Arguably. But getting back to my original point, how constructive is it to engage in "us vs. them?"

If you look at that article I linked you to, India ranks highly in the proliferation of modern day slavery. Doesn't mean I'm advocating we invade India, nor hold every Indian to be complicit.

Too many gay couples never got married though they deserved it, and far too many black people died as propety.

Yes, and? The former was achieved (in some countries, still missing in others) through the democratic process. The latter was achieved in a war in the United States, but ended through legislation in the British Empire three decades prior. Slavery existed well before these countries existed, continues to exist, and has never been confined to one race or culture.

Slavery is despicable. Lack of marriage equality is despicable. However, it's a mistake to assume that everyone in that society is complicit with these things. Even with the United States, an argument exists that slavery would have died on its own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom

There's plenty of examples where slavery was ended in a society without conflict. When it comes to the 21st century, with slavery being far less overt, I'd rather go that route than fighting a war.

You want to make the point that violence doesn't solve anything, well, violence sometimes does solve things, atleast for 70 or so years before people start thinking Nazis deserve to be listened to again.


Nazis are racist, again, WW2 happened. If that isnt proof enough, then you dont know what Nazis are.


They cant, you're wrong, and you jsut are ok things that you flat out should not be ok with.

I cited sources that people on this site beliebe in horrendous things, because you say that that isnt possible. You flip out because I mentioned a period of history that has had and will continue to have long lasting rammifications on humanity for well, probably ever. You twist my words then get mad when you claim I am twisting yours.

You're too lassez-faire.


Why do you disagree about bullies? Do you disagree just because you disagree with me or becuase you actually have reason to believe otherwise? Fighting back means FIGHTING back, not going 'hey quit it' but actually showing them you will NOT stand for their shit anymore. You have to show them you are NOT powerless.


It was achieved by showing the bigoted bullies that gay people are not powerless. It was achieved by showing the police who raided gay bars that they do not have power over them anymore, it was standing up and fighting back. We're here, we're queer, get used to it!


You know I did not mean that slavery just doesnt exist as a concept anymore, but ending the remaining slavery will not be simply by being nice to the slavers.


You say engage in us vs them as if we started it. We are ending it. The bully metaphor continues. They make it us vs them, and we make them lose that fight by showing them that we will not stand for it.


You put alot of presumptions on me that arent there. Part of your bad faith. The people complicit are the people who protect, defend, and deny that they are problems. Slavery dying on its own is too little too late for everyone who doesnt get to live to see it. Even just being a slave is too much injustice. Slavery should have ended before it started.

 

[Hawki]

You want to make the point that violence doesn't solve anything,

Where did I claim that?

Of course violence can solve some things, it just can't solve everything.

Nazis are racist, again, WW2 happened. If that isnt proof enough, then you dont know what Nazis are.

Proof of what?

Nazis are racist? No shit.

WWII happened? No shit.

What point are you trying to make?

They cant, you're wrong, and you jsut are ok things that you flat out should not be ok with.

First of all, because of your posting style, I don't even know who "they" are.

Secondly, "you are just flat out wrong" isn't much of an argument, especially since I don't know what argument you're making.

I cited sources that people on this site beliebe in horrendous things,

You claimed that users on these forums didn't think rape and Nazism was wrong. The sources you sent me to had one user discussing Kavanagh, another discussing immigration. Neither of those things have anything to do with Nazism, and Kavanagh aside, I never saw anyone say "I think rape is okay."

because you say that that isnt possible.

I never said it wasn't possible, I said you needed to cite it. At best, you failed to do so. At worst, you've equated different views on different issues with Nazism and rape acceptance.

You flip out because I mentioned a period of history that has had and will continue to have long lasting rammifications on humanity for well, probably ever. You twist my words then get mad when you claim I am twisting yours.

I haven't flipped out, but if you want to claim I'm twisting your words when you're twisting mine, then you'll forgive me for getting a tad pissed.

Also, you're the one who arbitrarily decided to throw WWII into the mix. And if you want to use WWII as an example of "violence solves problems" then I can just as easily list conflicts that didn't solve problems, and if anything, have created more problems (Afganistan, Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, etc.)

Why do you disagree about bullies? Do you disagree just because you disagree with me or becuase you actually have reason to believe otherwise?

The latter.

In as much that there's no Fighting back means FIGHTING back, not going 'hey quit it' but actually showing them you will NOT stand for their shit anymore. You have to show them you are NOT powerless.

In my experience, fighting back doesn't achieve anything, and reinforces how powerless you are.

Not saying that one shouldn't fight back, especially if faced with physical harm, but it's naieve to think that fighting back automatically solves bullying.

It was achieved by showing the bigoted bullies that gay people are not powerless. It was achieved by showing the police who raided gay bars that they do not have power over them anymore, it was standing up and fighting back. We're here, we're queer, get used to it!

And marriage equality was achieved through the democratic process. And when they did stand up and fight back, it wasn't with the assumption that every non-gay was against them.

but ending the remaining slavery will not be simply by being nice to the slavers.

Did I ever claim that?

The point I was making was that there's plenty of historical precedent where slavery was ended without a war being fought.

You say engage in us vs them as if we started it. We are ending it. The bully metaphor continues. They make it us vs them, and we make them lose that fight by showing them that we will not stand for it.

No, I say "us vs. them" because it's exactly the paradigm you're perpetuating.

You claim that it's "oppressed vs. oppressors" or "bigots vs. anti-bigots." At best, it's a simplistic view of the world. At worst, it's counter-productive to the cause, and throws in people who aren't bigots with bigots. We've already seen examples of the latter (Brett Weinstein for example).

You put alot of presumptions on me that arent there. Part of your bad faith.

That's exactly what you're doing.

The people complicit are the people who protect, defend, and deny that they are problems.

By definition, complicity requires active participation. You might say denying is an element of complicity, but...okay, let's put it this way.

John: "X is a problem."

Jane: "I don't think it is."

John: "So you're denying that X is a problem?"

We can probably agree that stuff like slavery and sexism are bad, but if your approach is anyone who disagrees that something is a problem is simply in denial, then...yeah. Good luck with that.

If you want an example of this, look at the STEM debate going on in this thread. The fact everyone agrees on is that more men than women go into STEM fields. However, is Satinavian "denying" that this is a problem, or simply disagreeing?

Slavery dying on its own is too little too late for everyone who doesnt get to live to see it. Even just being a slave is too much injustice. Slavery should have ended before it started.

I agree. And?

 

[Satinavian]

If you want an example of this, look at the STEM debate going on in this thread. The fact everyone agrees on is that more men than women go into STEM fields. However, is Satinavian "denying" that this is a problem, or simply disagreeing?

Denying that this is proof of and brought about by discrimination of women in STEM. Also disagreeing about quotas being a good idea to correct this.

 

[Kerg3927]

Are you a straight white cis man? Cause I mean, if you are, well, ever wonder why you don't see as much problems as others?

Yes and yes. I work in a fairly diverse environment. In fact, I am the only male among 8 people who work in my specific area within the company. I attend meetings and happy hours where I am the only dude present. I have had a female boss for 16 years. I work with minorities. I have worked with openly gay people. I don't think that my straight white maleness has given me one bit of an advantage since I started my career. And I have a hard time believing that my work environment is unique. I doubt I'm that special.

Have you ever wondered if you assuming that I am privileged based only upon my gender and sexual orientation, and the color of my skin is racist, sexist, and heterophobic? I could be typing this from a white trash ghetto for all you know. Ever thought that it may be wrong to accuse the 17 MILLION white people living in poverty in the U.S. [https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/?dataView=1?tTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D] of being privileged? I doubt they feel very privileged.

Ever wonder if maybe your primary motivation is not compassion for the disadvantaged but hatred and jealousy toward people who are more successful than you or simply happier than you? The former is generally a good thing. The latter ideology has a history of leading to tragedy on a colossal scale. As I said before, in the most extreme cases, it led to arguably 100 MILLION people dying horribly this past century [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism].

The people who started those revolutions all claimed to be doing so out of compassion for the oppressed - for equality. Perhaps they even believed it themselves. And then when they siezed power, they murdered everyone who might oppose them, enslaved and starved the populace, and became the very thing that they once claimed to oppose, except far, far worse.

 

[Saelune]

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'.

That's all well and good up to the point when you consider the other end of the spectrum:

-"You're white, so you must be racist."

-You're male, so you must be sexist."

-"You're straight, so you must be homophobic."

My original point in bringing up the link to the PAX meeting was that as reprehensible the reported sexual harassment is, excluding 50% of the human race in the discussion meant to solve it is a bone-headed method of addressing the issue and is only going to cause more division.

Or, in other words, if you want to fight against identity politics, it's a bad idea to use identity politics as a means to combat identity politics.

We came a long way from here. I also noticed you neglected to respond to Agema.

Here? No.

Well then, let's stick to the matter at hand.

As opposed to Saleune's insinuation/ad hominem that "you [Kerg] just want to keep the victims from fighting back?" and use of arbitary "sides?" That apparently there's one side of "oppressors" and one side of "oppressed?"

From various conversations over the years, Saelune seems to believe in intersectionality, which would mean there are networks of oppression in society such that one can be both oppressor and oppressed, with respect to different groups. Without necessarily endorsing the specific accusation here, the basic concept that people's inaction in the face of injustice is tacit condonement of that injustice is reasonable enough. If one does wish to bandy around accusation of tacit condonement however, it's surely going to irritate people and should be made with sufficient justification.

 

[Saelune]

Are you a straight white cis man? Cause I mean, if you are, well, ever wonder why you don't see as much problems as others?

Yes and yes. I work in a fairly diverse environment. In fact, I am the only male among 8 people who work in my specific area within the company. I attend meetings and happy hours where I am the only dude present. I have had a female boss for 16 years. I work with minorities. I have worked with openly gay people. I don't think that my straight white maleness has given me one bit of an advantage since I started my career. And I have a hard time believing that my work environment is unique. I doubt I'm that special.

Have you ever wondered if you assuming that I am privileged based only upon my gender and sexual orientation, and the color of my skin is racist, sexist, and heterophobic? I could be typing this from a white trash ghetto for all you know. Ever thought that it may be wrong to accuse the 17 MILLION white people living in poverty in the U.S. [https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/?dataView=1?tTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D] of being privileged? I doubt they feel very privileged.

Ever wonder if maybe your primary motivation is not compassion for the disadvantaged but hatred and jealousy toward people who are more successful than you or simply happier than you? The former is generally a good thing. The latter ideology has a history of leading to tragedy on a colossal scale. As I said before, in the most extreme cases, it led to arguably 100 MILLION people dying horribly this past century [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism].

The people who started those revolutions all claimed to be doing so out of compassion for the oppressed - for equality. Perhaps they even believed it themselves. And then when they siezed power, they murdered everyone who might oppose them, enslaved and starved the populace, and became the very thing that they once claimed to oppose, except far, far worse.

This was 'I have a black friend' in a lot of words.

Anyone can be poor, and go figure that women, blacks and LGBT people also tend to be poor. You dont think you being what you are helped you? Were you paid less for your work compared to your peers cause of your sex? Where you thrown out of your home for who you were attracted to? Were you fired for it?

If you're poor, then you should empathize with these groups instead of throwing them under the bus.

Also good job playing the 'poor straight white people' card then bringing up examples when those people were the villains. Really supporting your own point/s.

Here? No.

Well then, let's stick to the matter at hand.

As opposed to Saleune's insinuation/ad hominem that "you [Kerg] just want to keep the victims from fighting back?" and use of arbitary "sides?" That apparently there's one side of "oppressors" and one side of "oppressed?"

From various conversations over the years, Saelune seems to believe in intersectionality, which would mean there are networks of oppression in society such that one can be both oppressor and oppressed, with respect to different groups. Without necessarily endorsing the specific accusation here, the basic concept that people's inaction in the face of injustice is tacit condonement of that injustice is reasonable enough. If one does wish to bandy around accusation of tacit condonement however, it's surely going to irritate people and should be made with sufficient justification.

I agree with Agema's description of me.

 

[Kerg3927]

Yes, I do define more as hate speech than you, and I think you are severely lacking in your definition.

And I can only say that I think you're overly zealous with your definition.

These two statements are great evidence as to why making a law banning "hate speech" is a bad idea. It's an arbitrary term and people don't agree on how it should be defined.

What's next, a ban on saying "fuck you"? Not much you can say to someone that is more offensive than that.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Instead of passing vague, arbitrary laws that could have unintended consequences for our freedoms, the best defense against someone saying offensive things is to suck it up and realize that the above statement is actually true. Or hell, tell them to "go fuck themselves" and be thankful that the Constitution allows you to do that.

The First Amendment is the most important law we have in the U.S. because it allows us to openly criticize those in power without fear of retribution. It's a timeless fail-safe against tyranny. It should not be jacked with except in the most extreme, necessary cases, like when speech can actually cause measurable harm to people, e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Hurt feelings don't qualify.

 

[Saelune]

Yes, I do define more as hate speech than you, and I think you are severely lacking in your definition.

And I can only say that I think you're overly zealous with your definition.

These two statements are great evidence as to why making a law banning "hate speech" is a bad idea. It's an arbitrary term and people don't agree on how it should be defined.

What's next, a ban on saying "fuck you"? Not much you can say to someone that is more offensive than that.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Instead of passing vague, arbitrary laws that could have unintended consequences for our freedoms, the best defense against someone saying offensive things is to suck it up and realize that the above statement is actually true. Or hell, tell them to "go fuck themselves" and be thankful that the Constitution allows you to do that.

The First Amendment is the most important law we have in the U.S. because it allows us to openly criticize those in power without fear of retribution. It's a timeless fail-safe against tyranny. It should not be jacked with except in the most extreme, necessary cases, like when speech can actually cause measurable harm to people, e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Hurt feelings don't qualify.

People don't agree on a lot of laws, doesn't make them bad. Slavery was made illegal and half the US disagreed.


That playground rhyme is not true. Words are probably more hurtful than just some bruises, unless we're talking straight up battery, in which case well, lets nip it in the bud at punishing people who use hate speech since they are more likely to turn it into hate assault and murder.


But a lot of people kill themselves because of 'mere words'.


I do not think punishing hate crime should involve stopping the ability to say 'The president is a terrible person'. I fail to see how calling Obama the N word is necessary for that. But that's really what it is, people want to call Obama the N word and not get punished for it.

People just want the freedom to be shitty to others and not have to face consequences for it.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Spoiler

Are you a straight white cis man? Cause I mean, if you are, well, ever wonder why you don't see as much problems as others?

Yes and yes. I work in a fairly diverse environment. In fact, I am the only male among 8 people who work in my specific area within the company. I attend meetings and happy hours where I am the only dude present. I have had a female boss for 16 years. I work with minorities. I have worked with openly gay people. I don't think that my straight white maleness has given me one bit of an advantage since I started my career. And I have a hard time believing that my work environment is unique. I doubt I'm that special.

Have you ever wondered if you assuming that I am privileged based only upon my gender and sexual orientation, and the color of my skin is racist, sexist, and heterophobic? I could be typing this from a white trash ghetto for all you know. Ever thought that it may be wrong to accuse the 17 MILLION white people living in poverty in the U.S. [https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/?dataView=1&currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D] of being privileged? I doubt they feel very privileged.

Ever wonder if maybe your primary motivation is not compassion for the disadvantaged but hatred and jealousy toward people who are more successful than you? The former is a good thing. The latter ideology has a history of leading to tragedy on a colossal scale. As I said before, it led to arguably 100 MILLION deaths this past century [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism].

The people who started those revolutions all claimed to be doing so out of compassion for the oppressed - for equality. Perhaps they even believed it themselves. And then when they siezed power, they murdered everyone who might oppose them, enslaved and starved the populace, and became the very thing that they once claimed to oppose, except far, far worse.

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Hedrick Smith had estimated only about 10% of Soviet Communist Party members actually believed in communism in the first place. It?s a wonder what the rest were still doing there...either sticking around for fear of dissenting or simply to enjoy the perks. What motives were all the ?revolutionaries? over the past century adhering to exactly? Or were they really that naive.

The irony. For all the more recent lamenting of greed and wealth hoarding via capitalism, there is no better example of it than what communism has demonstrated since its inception.

 

[CaitSeith]

Ever wonder if maybe your primary motivation is not compassion for the disadvantaged but hatred and jealousy toward people who are more successful than you or simply happier than you?

Isn't that backwards? I mean, there is lots of people who sound jelous of minorities because the later get to be the heroes in the romantisiced version of social oppression (not to mention the oppressors most commonly are white cis men). In their jelausy they forget the same source of oppression has victims outside the minorities (like in Riot, where men who didn't agree with the fratboy ambience had a bad time).

 

[Kerg3927]

This was 'I have a black friend' in a lot of words.

Nonsense. You insinuated that I don't see as many problems as you do merely because I'm a cis white man, so I tried to explain what I do see every day, which is zero sexism, racism, or homophobia in my work place.

Anyone can be poor, and go figure that women, blacks and LGBT people also tend to be poor.

I have never heard anyone say that women or LGBT people tend to be poor. I think now you're just making shit up. Black people, I agree, and I'm sympathetic to the plight of poor black people, as I am to all poor people, regardless of the color of their skin.

You dont think you being what you are helped you?

No.

Were you paid less for your work compared to your peers cause of your sex?

No, but I don't think the "gender pay gap" is strictly due to sexism, although that may be a small factor. There are many other factors involved [https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/#4333c5842596]. There are still cultural pressures on men to be the main family provider. Men are also often judged as mates by women based upon their financial success. These factors and others encourage men on average to work longer hours [https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/06/30/new-report-men-work-longer-hours-than-women/#3be063fe18b4]. I think women on the other hand, on average, don't feel these pressures to the same degree, because many of them have a man supporting them. So they are freer to work fewer hours and take time off to focus on raising children or for leisure. Women tend to not work dangerous, manual labor jobs. They tend to not want to work in STEM fields, as discussed prior.

If you ask me, women on average have it much better because their men are often willing to take on more of the financial burden. Meanwhile, women drive 70-80% of all consumer purchasing [https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridgetbrennan/2015/01/21/top-10-things-everyone-should-know-about-women-consumers/#5a8bb27c6a8b]. They may not make the most money, but they are the ones who get to spend it, which is really all that matters if you think about it. It seems to me that if things are unequal, it's unequal in favor of women. But that's fine, I'm not complaining.

Where [sic] you thrown out of your home for who you were attracted to?

No. Were you? If so, I'm sorry.

Were you fired for it?

No. Were you? If so, maybe you should sue, because I'm pretty sure that's illegal in most states.

If you're poor, then you should empathize with these groups instead of throwing them under the bus.

I'm not poor. I would say that I am middle class. And I haven't thrown anyone under the bus.

Also good job playing the 'poor straight white people' card then bringing up examples when those people were the villains. Really supporting your own point/s.

I'm not even sure what this means. Who exactly were the straight white villains? The 17 million poor white people living in poverty? Or maybe you're talking about the Chinese?

 

[Kerg3927]

Yes, I do define more as hate speech than you, and I think you are severely lacking in your definition.

And I can only say that I think you're overly zealous with your definition.

These two statements are great evidence as to why making a law banning "hate speech" is a bad idea. It's an arbitrary term and people don't agree on how it should be defined.

What's next, a ban on saying "fuck you"? Not much you can say to someone that is more offensive than that.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Instead of passing vague, arbitrary laws that could have unintended consequences for our freedoms, the best defense against someone saying offensive things is to suck it up and realize that the above statement is actually true. Or hell, tell them to "go fuck themselves" and be thankful that the Constitution allows you to do that.

The First Amendment is the most important law we have in the U.S. because it allows us to openly criticize those in power without fear of retribution. It's a timeless fail-safe against tyranny. It should not be jacked with except in the most extreme, necessary cases, like when speech can actually cause measurable harm to people, e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Hurt feelings don't qualify.

People don't agree on a lot of laws, doesn't make them bad. Slavery was made illegal and half the US disagreed.


That playground rhyme is not true. Words are probably more hurtful than just some bruises, unless we're talking straight up battery, in which case well, lets nip it in the bud at punishing people who use hate speech since they are more likely to turn it into hate assault and murder.


But a lot of people kill themselves because of 'mere words'.


I do not think punishing hate crime should involve stopping the ability to say 'The president is a terrible person'. I fail to see how calling Obama the N word is necessary for that. But that's really what it is, people want to call Obama the N word and not get punished for it.

People just want the freedom to be shitty to others and not have to face consequences for it.

Or the freedom to play a joke on their girlfriend by training her dog to salute Hitler [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/03/21/for-weeks-he-trained-a-dog-to-do-a-nazi-salute-the-man-was-just-convicted-of-a-hate-crime/?utm_term=.01f31353ca55].

 

[Kerg3927]

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Hedrick Smith had estimated only about 10% of Soviet Communist Party members actually believed in communism in the first place. It?s a wonder what the rest were still doing there...either sticking around for fear of dissenting or simply to enjoy the perks. What motives were all the ?revolutionaries? over the past century adhering to exactly? Or were they really that naive.

The irony. For all the more recent lamenting of greed and wealth hoarding via capitalism, there is no better example of it than what communism has demonstrated since its inception.

I think there were people in the beginning who believed in it. I studied Marxism in college, read Das Kapital. It's convincing stuff. And capitalism during the industrial revolution was pretty awful, before unions and labor laws made things much better.

Marx's main message was that the bourgeoisie were exploiting the proletariat - which they were - and they must be overthrown. But he didn't provide much good instruction on what to do afterward. I think in the end, every revolution devolved into your typical bloody power struggle that you see throughout history, and undoubtedly many joined the cause just because they wanted to kill rich people and take their shit, out of jealousy. And those who ended up on top, being the selfish humans that they were, abused their power like everyone else given the opportunity. Over time, communism just became a justification for their right to be in power.

As far as fear of dissenting vs. enjoying the perks, I think it was both. "Factionalism" was a crime under Stalin, meaning basically anyone who disagreed with him could be executed or sent to the Gulag. And there were perks. So they just rolled with it.

And then there was that whole communism just doesn't work very well as an economic model because people are selfish thing, and it was a tragic disaster.

 

[CaitSeith]

People just want the freedom to be shitty to others and not have to face consequences for it.

Or the freedom to play a joke on their girlfriend by training her dog to salute Hitler.

More like the freedom to be an Edgelord in public (uploading the video to Youtube wasn't part of the joke, was it?). If you push the limits, don't be surprised there will be consequences from crossing them.

PS: It was also a shitty thing to do.