Tropes vs. Women / #GamerGate Conspiracies

[AngelCityOutlaw]

Uh, yeah. "Boys will be boys" is still a defense. Hate to break that to ya.

Doesn't it strike you even the least bit odd how eerily similar your post reads in comparison to date rape apologetics? Think about it. Think about what you're insisting "should be expected" rather than actively opposed.

I was waiting for this inevitable, asinine response. You see how you don't have to be Nostradamus to kind of anticipate what might happen?

The common example of saying something like "Oh, well you might not have got raped if you didn't wear those clothes" is entirely different from saying "You might not have got robbed if you didn't leave a stack of 20s on your drivers seat, in plain view with the windows down." or "Hey, you saying that thing you said is going to probably make some people mad at you." If you can't see that difference, you're retarded.

I'll explain the difference anyway.

In the case of rape victims, there is like...zero logical reason to believe that attire is more or less likely to result in you being preyed on by a rapist. A friend of mine, true story, was wearing just her pajamas, driving home from picking up some snacks at a gas station one night when a man posing as a police officer forced her into his car and then held her prisoner in his own home for a week. He snatched her from outside of her parent's home for christ sake.

It's pretty sound reasoning to saying something like "Wearing a lot of Jewelry in a part of town notorious for muggings is a bad idea." I think if you can't agree on that...you probably don't live in the real world. You can take steps to defend yourself from thieves.

It's not sound reasoning to say something like "Don't wear those kinds of clothes, you might get raped!" when rapists really don't seem to have clothing preferences and it's not like we can say "Don't frequent this part of town - rapists kinda hangout there." What can you really do to defend yourself from potential rapists?

[AngelCityOutlaw]

Well, at least by the wording, it came off that way for some. Notice you're saying "stupid", "willing to accept", etc. Again, not knowing it'll happen if it's never happened to you before is not really stupid. That's why I like the quote, "if you don't know something, then you haven't learned it yet"; it's more euphemistic that way, rather than saying, "if you don't know something, then you're not smart."

That is true, perhaps my wording is too harsh.

[DusK]

"You might not have got robbed if you didn't leave a stack of 20s on your drivers seat, in plain view with the windows down."

Stupid comparison. A more accurate one would be "You might not have gotten followed home and murdered in your sleep if you didn't leave a stack of $20s on your drivers seat, in plain view, with the windows down."

"Hey, you saying that thing you said is going to probably make some people mad at you."

So we should all assume that death threats are just the "typical scenario"? Why? Why, instead of insisting that kind of crap should be fixed, are you insisting that such stuff should be "expected"?

Expecting people to disagree (like I do) or even to be mad because you posted your opinion on the Internet is reasonable. Expecting your fucking life to be ruined just because you posted your opinion on the Internet is not, and

you're retarded

for thinking it is.

Edited September 5, 2014 by DusK

[AngelCityOutlaw]

Stupid comparison.

So we should all assume that death threats are just the "typical scenario"? Why? Why, instead of insisting that kind of crap should be fixed, are you instead insisting that such stuff should be "expected"?

Expecting people to disagree (like I do) or even to be mad because you posted your opinion on the Internet is reasonable. Expecting your fucking life to be ruined just because you posted your opinion on the Internet is not, and

for thinking it is.

How many voices live in your head, Dusk?

I invite you to find a point where I said it shouldn't be fixed.

Actually, don't answer that question. You'll probably just accuse me of hating people with mental illness.

Edited September 5, 2014 by AngelCityOutlaw

[DusK]

I invite you to find a point where I said it shouldn't be fixed.

Every single time you've stated "it should be expected".

[Meteo Xavier]

I feel like you guys (or kids) are arguing two halves of one truth here. When a crime or conflict happens, from a mechanical standpoint, there's a bit of blame to go around, as it usually requires both someone of malicious intent of to initiate the morally reprehensible, and someone leaving themselves exposed for the crime to connect.

It's not an equal share, and anyone with common sense will tell you that, most of the time, at least 80% of the blame goes to perpetrator. However, just because a perp is wanting to commit something does not mean crime always gets committed as there is no window of opportunity, because target was smart enough to secure themselves properly so consequences would not occur. Not every person exposing jewelry gets robbed, so we can strike out that victims bring it on themselves. Not every crime goes as planned because there is no window of opportunity, so we can also strike out any idea that there isn't at least some responsibility of the potential victim to be smart about what they're doing so they don't attract trouble. Trouble requires both to actually succeed.

Let's stop bickering like children and accept that, until harder proof and information is brought to light, there is most likely blame to go around for an explosive issue like this to happen. You guys keep trying to find simple scapegoats for why complicated problems occur and it's just senseless. Might as well be trying to shove square pegs into round holes.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

Every single time you've stated "it should be expected".

So because bad behavior from people is to be expected...In your world, that means I said it should be considered acceptable behavior? Pretty sure I said the opposite.

[DusK]

Blame to go around? Remind me. What exactly did Sarkeesian or Quinn do that makes them "to blame" for death threats, endless harassment, etc?

So because bad behavior from people is to be expected

To the degree these two are experiencing it, no. That's the whole point I'm trying to make here. You're being unreasonable in your "boys will be boys" prattle.

It is completely unreasonable to expect your life to be ruined just because you posted your opinion on the Internet.

Simple concept. How are you not grasping it?

Edited September 5, 2014 by DusK

[Native Jovian]

I've only been able to finish one of her videos because they are so incredibly tedious and she doesn't really engage in much constructive criticism.

This is my biggest problem with Sarkeesian's videos. (The constructive criticism part, I mean. The tediousness is a matter of opinion, and I've watched all of them, so the constructive criticism is the only really germaine part of the quote.)

Sarkeesian does a good job of calling attention to things that she sees as problematic. She probably does too good a job of it, actually -- she tends to spend too much time on examples (ie, raw gameplay footage that she finds problematic) and not enough on explanation (ie, discussing why she finds them problematic or what makes them problematic in her eyes) and none at all on suggesting alternatives. It's entirely possible to watch her videos, agree wholeheartedly, and have no idea what acting on that agreement would look like.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

I feel like you guys (or kids) are arguing two halves of one truth here. When a crime or conflict happens, there's a bit of blame to go around, as it usually requires both someone of malicious intent of to initiate the morally reprehensible, and someone leaving themselves exposed for the crime to connect.

It's not an equal share, and anyone with common sense will tell you that, most of the time, at least 80% of the blame goes to perpetrator. However, just because a perp is wanting to commit something does not mean crime always gets committed as there is no window of opportunity, because target was smart enough to secure themselves properly so consequences would not occur. Not every person exposing jewelry gets robbed, so we can strike out that victims bring it on themselves. Not every crime goes as planned because there is no window of opportunity, so we can also strike out any idea that there isn't at least some responsibility of the potential victim to be smart about what they're doing so they don't attract trouble. Trouble requires both to actually succeed.

Let's stop bickering like children and accept that, until harder proof and information is brought to life, there is likely blame to go around for an explosive issue like this to happen. You guys keep trying to find simple scapegoats for why complicated problems occur and it's just senseless. Might as well be trying to shove square pegs into round holes.

This is more or less my point in the sage like words of Meteo Xavier.

Can Dusk proceed to accuse him of being a rape apologist too now?

[The Coop]

MOMMY DADDY STOP FIGHTING!

You guys can decide who's who.

[DusK]

Can Dusk proceed to accuse him of being a rape apologist too now?

He doesn't wash his fedora more often than his shirts, so no.

[Meteo Xavier]

Blame to go around? Remind me. What exactly did Sarkeesian or Quinn do that makes them "to blame" for death threats, endless harassment, etc?

Not that I think explaining it to you at this point would do any good, but I doubt they'd be getting death threats and harassment if they hadn't done the things they're known for in the first place.

I'm not saying that makes it ok to make death threats and harass people, I'm simply explaining the mechanics of how real world actions and consequences work. Having a political/ethical position doesn't suddenly change the mechanics of how that stuff follows one another. This is not a black-and-white issue, there's some major gray area, a lot of speculation, he-said-she-said, and bullshit on all sides of this to make it what it is.

[DusK]

Not that I think explaining it to you at this point would do any good, but I doubt they'd be getting death threats and harassment if they hadn't done the things they're known for in the first place.

I'm not saying that makes it ok to make death threats and harass people, I'm simply explaining the mechanics of how real world actions and consequences work. Having a political/ethical position doesn't suddenly change the mechanics of how that stuff follows one another. This is not a black-and-white issue, there's some major gray area, a lot of speculation, he-said-she-said, and bullshit on all sides of this to make it what it is.

So basically, they're to blame because they did... something.

I'm too tired for this shit. I'm going to bed. But hey, I'm enlightened now. Thanks for explaining it so clearly. I'll do you guys a favor and pass the word along that if they didn't want to get doxxed, harassed, and threatened, they should have never have "done the things they're known for".

And on that note, that goes for the rest of you. Clearly, if you don't want to deal with the heinous behavior Quinn and Sarkeesian have had to deal with over the past few months, you should never "do the things you're known for", because if it happens to you, it's your fault for... doing stuff.

Edited September 5, 2014 by DusK

[timaeus222]

How many voices live in your head, Dusk?

I invite you to find a point where I said it shouldn't be fixed.

Actually, don't answer that question. You'll probably just accuse me of hating people with mental illness.

I didn't see you say that, but you did say people should be aware of what consequences are possible, and that they should "just know" what to expect... which isn't realistic, and here's why. Saying that what you've experienced is true for you doesn't make it true for many people. Mainly, just true for you, because it's unclear how representative you or someone else is with respect to the majority of the world. Hence all the uncertainty Descartes, Quantitative Analysis chemists, and others say. You can use yourself or someone else to illustrate a point, but extrapolating one person as a practical generalization to a large group of people is a logical fallacy---a hasty generalization.

Edited September 5, 2014 by timaeus222

[AngelCityOutlaw]

So basically, they're to blame because they did... something.

That would be your stance regardless of any possible argument one could make. That's because you have this typical left-wing "If you don't completely agree with my views, you're an enemy who is part of the problem." That's the exact same mentality that the right-wingers have. Great job being "progressive".

I didn't see you say that, but you did say people should be aware of what consequences are possible, and that they should just know what to expect (so it's not realistic).

I did say almost every time that I didn't support or think that the criminals and other bullies were justified or shouldn't be punished because of that though. A point which Meteo Xavier essentially re-iterated with better wording and additional points.

[Native Jovian]

There are two different levels of victim-blaming: "you should have known better" and "you deserved it". They're very different.

If you're walking down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood in the middle of the night while drunk off your ass and with hundred dollar bills spilling out of your pocket, it's not unforeseeable that you might be mugged. Saying "well, doing that was pretty stupid -- you put yourself in a bad situation, you could have easily done things differently and avoided the risk altogether" is the "you should have known better" type of victim-blaming. You're saying that it's their fault in that they engaged in risky behavior. If they hadn't run the risks they did, they wouldn't have run into the consequences they did.

Now, saying that they deserved to be mugged for engaging in that risky behavior is something else entirely. There's huge gap between "the guys who mugged you are assholes, but if you hadn't been flashing large denominations of cash in that alley in that neighborhood at that time of night after you'd been drinking, it wouldn't have happened" and "the muggers aren't at fault, you are; you're an idiot and deserved to be mugged for doing something so stupid".

[Meteo Xavier]

So basically, they're to blame because they did... something.

Ok, dude, stop going "so basically...", there is no fucking basically here. Nothing about this is basic. There is no simple scapegoat here. If there was, there wouldn't be a huge controversy on this subject going on right now. We'd KNOW who the fault was and there wouldn't be any argument.

Chill out. If you're that desperate to pair it down to something you can squeeze into a single sentence, wait some weeks or months or years until more is known about it and the case can be closed.

[Jason Covenant]

You two are arguing about different things. Dusk is arguing about blame in the context of morality, while AngelCityOutlaw is talking about blame deterministically.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Jason Covenant

[AngelCityOutlaw]

There are two different levels of victim-blaming: "you should have known better" and "you deserved it". They're very different.

If you're walking down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood in the middle of the night while drunk off your ass and with hundred dollar bills spilling out of your pocket, it's not unforeseeable that you might be mugged. Saying "well, doing that was pretty stupid -- you put yourself in a bad situation, you could have easily done things differently and avoided the risk altogether" is the "you should have known better" type of victim-blaming. You're saying that it's their fault in that they engaged in risky behavior. If they hadn't run the risks they did, they wouldn't have run into the consequences they did.

Now, saying that they deserved to be mugged for engaging in that risky behavior is something else entirely. There's huge gap between "the guys who mugged you are assholes, but if you hadn't been flashing large denominations of cash in that alley in that neighborhood at that time of night after you'd been drinking, it wouldn't have happened" and "the muggers aren't at fault, you are; you're an idiot and deserved to be mugged for doing something so stupid".

Welcome to the "apologists" club.

I'll give you your t-shirt later.

[timaeus222]

There are two different levels of victim-blaming: "you should have known better" and "you deserved it". They're very different.

If you're walking down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood in the middle of the night while drunk off your ass and with hundred dollar bills spilling out of your pocket, it's not unforeseeable that you might be mugged. Saying "well, doing that was pretty stupid -- you put yourself in a bad situation, you could have easily done things differently and avoided the risk altogether" is the "you should have known better" type of victim-blaming. You're saying that it's their fault in that they engaged in risky behavior. If they hadn't run the risks they did, they wouldn't have run into the consequences they did.

Now, saying that they deserved to be mugged for engaging in that risky behavior is something else entirely. There's huge gap between "the guys who mugged you are assholes, but if you hadn't been flashing large denominations of cash in that alley in that neighborhood at that time of night after you'd been drinking, it wouldn't have happened" and "the muggers aren't at fault, you are; you're an idiot and deserved to be mugged for doing something so stupid".

Absolutely, and it links back to that other post I made about Nicomachean Ethics.

Our evaluation of a person’s actions depends to some extent on whether those actions are voluntary, involuntary, or nonvoluntary. An action is involuntary when it is performed under compulsion and causes pain to the person acting. There are borderline cases, as when someone is compelled to do something dishonorable under threat, but we should generally consider such cases voluntary, since the person is still in control of his or her actions. Something done in ignorance may be called involuntary if the person later recognizes that ignorance, but it is nonvoluntary if the person does not recognize or suffer for such ignorance.

[DusK]

That would be your stance regardless of any possible argument one could make.

Nobody has actually made one yet. Everything you and Meteo have said so far boils down to "they're to blame because they did something". Neither of you can list a single thing that actually makes them in any way responsible for what's happening to them, and in lieu of that, you two post vague stuff like "if they hadn't been doing what they do" and cop-outs like "they should have expected it" -- which again, not a single reasonable person on this planet fucking would.

Nobody here has been able to explain exactly what they did that even makes them even partially responsible for what's happening to them other than "they exist and they do stuff". And that's bar none the stupidest reason a person could have for blaming another person for anything, really.

You know what it's called to blame someone for something bad happening to them simply because they exist and do stuff? It's called victim blaming. Yeah, I used that phrase again, because the shoe fits.

But you'll say you're not, and that Quinn and Sarkeesian are to blame for what's happening to them because they "exist and do stuff". That would be your stance regardless of any possible argument one could make, Mr. Pot.

[Meteo Xavier]

Nobody has actually made one yet. Everything you and Meteo have said so far boils down to "they're to blame because they did something".

Then I wonder how you've been able to type as much as you have without having the ability to read...

[DusK]

Then I wonder how you've been able to type as much as you have without having the ability to read...

Cute. I'm calling your "if something bad happens to you, it's your fault because you let it simply by doing what you normally do" bullshit out, and that means I can't read?

[AngelCityOutlaw]

Cute. I'm calling your "if something bad happens to you, it's your fault because you let it simply by doing what you normally do" bullshit out, and that means I can't read?