So Neogaf is crashing and burning...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

RaikuFA:

Silentpony:

RedRockRun:
NeoGAF? Never heard of it.

From what I've been reading it was the Tosh.0 of websites. Not funny, memorable or important and most people forget it existed and now that its gone everyone is surprised it lasted as long as it did.

I think it's still on.

I miss the Soup.

Yeah I miss the Soup as well it was the best way to catch all the craziness of reality shows/pop culture without having to actually watch it. Plus it was well written and funny

DaCosta:

ScaredIndie:

So and correct my if I'm wrong here you would say the definition of racism and sexism don't require the belief of superiority? If so how does racism/sexism differ from racial or sexual biases?

No, it doesn't require a person to think they are superior.

I've seen people say that black people are good at sports, or that asians are smart, or that latinos are good dancers. It's still racism, even if you meant it as a acompliment. At end of the day the person saying that sees those races as stereotypes.

So If I want to simplify my contention here, it is the language not the ideas I disagree with in how you are explaining things.

how I see the language around this is:

Biases are something everyone holds and but are often rooted in stereotypes and generally should be discouraged
Racism requires a belief one race is superior to another. This is an important distinction from biases
Racial Supremacy is the belief one race is superior and a willingness to enact societal policy to enforce this negative standard

Essentially a tiering of assumption < belief < action

I'm resistant to many redefinition of racism because I think these distinctions are important for discussing such matters. People can hold biases by this standard without being racist but a racist cannot exist without biases. The same goes for the interaction between the clauses of racism and racial supremacy.

In the model you suggest the term biases becomes indistinct so you need to shift everything and you weaken the meanings as a whole.

Also outside of people who discuss this stuff, racism still just means what it's definition says, a belief another race is inferior or your own is superior so it does no good for the cause of equality to use it frivolously in open discussion.

ScaredIndie:

Also outside of people who discuss this stuff, racism still just means what it's definition says, a belief another race is inferior or your own is superior so it does no good for the cause of equality to use it frivolously in open discussion.

Racism means racial prejudice, whatever circle it is discussed in, and it is reflected in one's interactions and actions.

Requiring their beliefs instead of their actions to come into play is inherently flawed, because it hinges on a racist being honest about their beliefs and motives. Besides, you can't prove what is in someone else's mind, therefore as long as they say they don't have that belief, how could anyone be called racist? Might as well retire the word then because you won't be using it anymore.

RaikuFA:

The Lunatic:
Why is it there's always something weird and scummy about these people?

I'm not speaking for "Progressives" as a whole, and I don't mean to hate on the movement.

But, there seriously seems to be a trend of people claiming to be progressive and open to women's movements, and then just turning out to be creepy scumbags who were only interested in it to get with women, and sometimes commit harassment and other things like that.

I know there's always going to be some bad eggs, but, it's seemingly unfortunately common and it really does make everyone else look bad.

It's the same with conservative bible humpers who say the gay is gonna kill us all right before he's caught sucking a man sausage behind a 7-11. Oh thank heaven indeed.

OT: This is the same site that called people pedophiles and/or rapists for liking games like Senran Kagura. Kinda not suprised.

I pretty much assume from now on that if someone is loudly banging a drum about some issue that doesn't directly affect them, they probably are guilty of that thing and are just virtue signaling to alleviate their conscience or hide in plain sight. I had a co-worker/friend go into an overly zealous rant about furries once, so I was minorly suspicious of him being a furry. I went over to his house and saw this:
image
Not damning evidence, but it really made me wonder.

Even if you wish to claim that male feminists aren't all scumbags, you do need to acknowledge that modern feminism tends to be so polemic towards most normal male tendencies that someone willing to put up with it and debase themselves to join up in that group must have some kind of ulterior motive. They may not be itching to rape but they likely crave the attention it'd bring them, be it in a romantic context or a virtue signaling one. They could also just be masochistic and enjoy being treated as dildo/wallet hybrids with legs. I'm sure someone enjoys that.

In any case, I remember hearing neogaf banned talks of criminal girls (a game released in the west on the vita which doesn't allow AO games, with no issues) and called everyone who played it pedos. Not sure which one of the mods was behind that decision but if I hear him being in the news next it'd not surprise me lol.

Dreiko:
Even if you wish to claim that male feminists aren't all scumbags, you do need to acknowledge that modern feminism tends to be so polemic towards most normal male tendencies that someone willing to put up with it and debase themselves to join up in that group must have some kind of ulterior motive. They may not be itching to rape but they likely crave the attention it'd bring them, be it in a romantic context or a virtue signaling one. They could also just be masochistic and enjoy being treated as dildo/wallet hybrids with legs. I'm sure someone enjoys that.

Or, and I know this might sound crazy, they might have a sister or a wife or some other woman who is important to them and who they feel should be treated equally.

Baffle2:

Dreiko:
Even if you wish to claim that male feminists aren't all scumbags, you do need to acknowledge that modern feminism tends to be so polemic towards most normal male tendencies that someone willing to put up with it and debase themselves to join up in that group must have some kind of ulterior motive. They may not be itching to rape but they likely crave the attention it'd bring them, be it in a romantic context or a virtue signaling one. They could also just be masochistic and enjoy being treated as dildo/wallet hybrids with legs. I'm sure someone enjoys that.

Or, and I know this might sound crazy, they might have a sister or a wife or some other woman who is important to them and who they feel should be treated equally.

Ahahaha, modern feminism as long stopped being about equality (otherwise they wouldn't touch subjects like abortion, since there's no "inequality" in it, males cannot have abortions and the idea of males "equally" having a say in the subject is taboo). Today it's more like the gendered version of a race supermacy group.

Baffle2:

Dreiko:
Even if you wish to claim that male feminists aren't all scumbags, you do need to acknowledge that modern feminism tends to be so polemic towards most normal male tendencies that someone willing to put up with it and debase themselves to join up in that group must have some kind of ulterior motive. They may not be itching to rape but they likely crave the attention it'd bring them, be it in a romantic context or a virtue signaling one. They could also just be masochistic and enjoy being treated as dildo/wallet hybrids with legs. I'm sure someone enjoys that.

Or, and I know this might sound crazy, they might have a sister or a wife or some other woman who is important to them and who they feel should be treated equally.

That's the normal state of being, for people without relatives too I might add. You don't achieve that goal by joining a movement that does more to alienate men by treating them as "future rapists". That's not something to move you to join a semi-cult over.

If you just want women to be treated fairly you just treat them fairly and speak up or help when someone else isn't doing that. You also are supposed to do the same for men too btw, by default. It's all part of being a good person. You need no clubhouse and group to further these ends. You need no extra attention either. You're just doing the obvious. Being a male feminist is like trying to get praise for not eating babies.

In our society there's three groups. There's criminals who abuse people whenever they can in whichever way they can. There's people who are good and try to do the right thing. And there's people who use the existence of the criminals and the fact that women are more vulnerable and easier to abuse by those criminals (who act out of opportunism as opposed to sexism) to further their own personal goals while masquerading as members of the second group.

I'm sorry but not belonging to your cult doesn't magically infect my innocent and loving heart with malice that isn't in it, no matter how counter-intuitive that may feel to you.

Baffle2:

Dreiko:
Even if you wish to claim that male feminists aren't all scumbags, you do need to acknowledge that modern feminism tends to be so polemic towards most normal male tendencies that someone willing to put up with it and debase themselves to join up in that group must have some kind of ulterior motive. They may not be itching to rape but they likely crave the attention it'd bring them, be it in a romantic context or a virtue signaling one. They could also just be masochistic and enjoy being treated as dildo/wallet hybrids with legs. I'm sure someone enjoys that.

Or, and I know this might sound crazy, they might have a sister or a wife or some other woman who is important to them and who they feel should be treated equally.

Yes it does sound crazy. You don't need any of these excuses to treat people equally regardless of their sex. You are disingenuous human being, if you partake in favourism or discrimination of others based on their inherent characteristics such as their gender.
Even if you discriminate just yourself and favour others you still do not build equality. You just add up rapidly to more overall forms of inequality.

Dreiko:

SNIP

You know I don't have a card in my wallet that says I'm a feminist, right? Believing people should be treated equally doesn't require membership of a club - the difference here is what we percieve to be equality.

Re: your comments on being a dildo/wallet hybrid (odd imagery aside). I was at a wake a few days ago, and there was one guy who, loudly and annoyingly, went on and on and on about how women marry men for their money and are pretty awful people. Not only was it not an appropriate venue, but oh my god it was boring. And, being a wake, many people were there with their partners and it was fairly apparent that everyone thought the guy was a tool.

Jamcie Kerbizz:
Yes it does sound crazy. You don't need any of these excuses to treat people equally regardless of their sex. You are disingenuous human being, if you partake in favourism or discrimination of others based on their inherent characteristics such as their gender.
Even if you discriminate just yourself and favour others you still do not build equality. You just add up rapidly to more overall forms of inequality.

That's ... what I'm saying. The issue here is that I don't think women are treated equally, but I think they should be.

Baffle2:

Jamcie Kerbizz:
Yes it does sound crazy. You don't need any of these excuses to treat people equally regardless of their sex. You are disingenuous human being, if you partake in favourism or discrimination of others based on their inherent characteristics such as their gender.
Even if you discriminate just yourself and favour others you still do not build equality. You just add up rapidly to more overall forms of inequality.

That's ... what I'm saying. The issue here is that I don't think women are treated equally, but I think they should be.

Why mention that its the ladies around them in family that are the cause of their actions? And I question course of action as well.
Don't know what country you live in but if there are laws that deliberatelly discriminate or favour people based on their gender I would oppose them.
From my experience and to my honest knowledge, in all western countries there is a clause in constitution that all people are equal. Rest is enforcement of that law and not letting shady bills that try to slide in favourism or discrimination slide.
That includes racist/sexist social engineering drives which are pushed as 'affirmative action' or less frequently (because it instantly exposes ugly intent) 'positive discrimination' (As if all it took was adding a nice adjective, like i.e. 'justified clensing' and all is ok, we can proceed to murder the targeted group. Granted this is always how anti-egalitarian, inhumane, despicable acts are called by culprits for purpose of presenting it to public but I digress).

On the very basic, individual level it's up to you to react if someone acts against that clause. I mean when my wife shouts at less skilled drivers on the road with things like 'Ofcourse she did that! She drives like a girl!', 'Or see? I told you that was a women driving!' I just tell her its pretty unfair and impolite. I do not call the press and police or make a scene over it (ok sometimes I sort of do, if she does that, when kids are in the back). Sometimes I'm just snide and tell her that at least she's consistent (since she had on few occasions scratched the car while parking it, i.e. 3 times same month after which I stopped fixing it).

Point which Dreiko I think makes, is that some of the females take it to absurd levels, postulating that there is opressive patriarchal system in place, which discriminates all women. Which is untrue in case of western countries both on legislative level and social norms consesensus level (what is deemed to be accepted/expected behaviour). At the same time they postulate favourism and discimination practices as remedy, which is strictly anti-egalitarian and has nothing to do with equality. So they err on both assessment and course of action (which is ok, anyoone has a right to err).

Now males, which should have bloody well all prerequisites in hand to realise that this is false, yet still try to get close to these females and vigorously support this nonsense are either individuals with an exceptionally unusal set of life experiences which led them to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy in place, plain stupid and easily manipulated individuals or predators. With likelihood heavily skewed towards being disingenuous individuals with predatory agenda of their own. I don't know about that last part. It sounds off, unless we look at a very specific group, in which there are already predators exposed.
I'd rather bet on majority of such individuals just being stupid/easily manipulated, second most numerous group being people which have had their individual experience cloud their judgement of the full picture and then predators just ravelling in this commotion (I also changed this to people, rather than pointing specific gender, because that applies to entire group of such extremists).

Now, TLDR version
I also think that people are not treated equally (both men and women). From personal experience I can tell that discrimination and favourism based on sex takes place (some like gender based compulsory conscription is even still part of accepted, legal system). I agree that this is wrong but I am not naive enough to believe that any specific broad 'action' will magically fix it (assertion that all individuals will lose their individuallity and just follow the rules). What is needed is law (already in place), enforcement of law (already in place) and keeping yourself and people you interact with to the letter of that law. When you start to grasp for more, is when you cross the line and create the problem instead of fixing it.

Of course I don't believe all male feminists are scumbags. I still like to be optimistic about this and give the benefit of the doubt.

But maybe when so many appalling scumbags seem to come out of the woodwork and infest your movement, shouldn't you take a step back and think twice about adhering to such a poisoned group? Of course, not everyone in there is bad, but man, it's like, these individuals here are just poisoning your movement to the point where I just can't not see you as the bad guys!

Oh wait sorry, I seem to have accidentally paraphrased what someone said about Gamergate 3 years ago and accidentally replaced "gamergaters" with "male feminists". My bad!

Jamcie Kerbizz:
Why mention that its the ladies around them in family that are the cause of their actions?

Because people are often quite thoughtless and selfish. When things begin to affect themselves, even indirectly (e.g. my sister not getting a job because she's of family-making age [she's not, it's an example]), I'd feel bad for her and recognise that she's been unfairly treated. It would affect me more than it happening to a stranger, and so is more likely to prompt thoughts about fairness and whether, generally, not just my sister, women should have equal employment opportunities and whether that is something worth campaigning for.

Note: I'm fully aware that it isn't legal to not give someone a job based on the possibility they will later leave to have children, but you'd be extremely naive to think that doesn't happen, and that it's not a really difficult thing to police.

To suggest that there is always an ulterior motive to altruistic behaviour is foolish. Are LGBT straight allies all secretly hoping to score with a gay person? Do they secretly hate gays and so stand alongside them on marches waving brightly coloured placards? Or do they maybe percieve society as unfairly discriminatory and wish to do something about it?

Dalsyne:
Of course I don't believe all male feminists are scumbags. I still like to be optimistic about this and give the benefit of the doubt.

But maybe when so many appalling scumbags seem to come out of the woodwork and infest your movement, shouldn't you take a step back and think twice about adhering to such a poisoned group? Of course, not everyone in there is bad, but man, it's like, these individuals here are just poisoning your movement to the point where I just can't not see you as the bad guys!

Oh wait sorry, I seem to have accidentally paraphrased what someone said about Gamergate 3 years ago and accidentally replaced "gamergaters" with "male feminists". My bad!

Yeah, your comparisons doesn't really hold water, what with the anti-fems being as bad or worse.

Apathy is wha5 gets us people like Weinstein and O'Reilly, so ignoring it is a bad plan. Anti-fems straight up think this is fine or blame the victims. So, we cut out the cancer and move on.

Baffle2:

Jamcie Kerbizz:
Why mention that its the ladies around them in family that are the cause of their actions?

Because people are often quite thoughtless and selfish. When things begin to affect themselves, even indirectly (e.g. my sister not getting a job because she's of family-making age

Well you see, that's still being toughtless (concluding that this is unfair just because it affects someone I love). Just reality setting in and pushing individual one way or another. Doesn't change the fact they previously coudn't establish correct course on their own. It also means that they are not likely setting the correct appraoch, just try to overcompensate for what they now see as an error (and being thoughtless and guilt ridden is being primed for manipulation).
That's the gist of it, which I argued to be likely more of rooted in stupidity which you aptly named: being thoughtless and selfish or very specific (traumatic) personal experience (which I can be empathetic with and show understanding for over the top reaction but wouldn't change the fact that they err), rather than malice.

I think we both agree on principle of the desired outcome. However, not necessarily on acceptable course of actions, assessment of situation and priorities or motives of other people pursuing same goal. But hey, such is nature of life.

Example you used is pretty personal to me. In similar situation, after we had our first. I asked in advance for parental leave, because I wanted to spend few months with my daughter and let my wife come back to job asap (state guarantees few months of paid parental leave which can be taken by either of parents).
I also stopped doing (unpaid and paid) overtime and spending as much time in company as it was necessary for given project (there were weeks earlier in which I were i.e. for 60h working on the project with as little as 4h sleep breaks). I wanted to spend as much time with family as possible.

Reaction of my employer was changing my position to one with no chance to further advance in career, no chance to develop my skills, no chance of additional income. Pretty much locked me up in a closet. As a result I had to actually leave the company and change job to a new one, with no social screen, no possibility to take that leave. Just clear work to get cash we need deal.
To top that, majority of CEOs in the company I worked for were women (all but 1), all of them had children and they were taking their leaves. But I got treated like a work horse that went lame.

All of that is justified business wise mind you and there is no law here, that was broken by this practise (only mothers get the shield - their position and work conditions are protected for a period between informing employer about pregnancy and them coming back to work and re-establishing in it; fathers don't). It was me being naive and idiotically setting myself up for this.

altnameJag:
Yeah, your comparisons doesn't really hold water, what with the anti-fems being as bad or worse.

Apathy is wha5 gets us people like Weinstein and O'Reilly, so ignoring it is a bad plan. Anti-fems straight up think this is fine or blame the victims. So, we cut out the cancer and move on.

You appear to be putting gamergate, anti-feminists and right-wingers in the same category. One of these is not like the others, my friend. You can be any of these and not a right-winger. And you can also be a right-winger, a gamergater and an anti-feminist and not think it's fine to blame victims. The majority of gamergate, as well, is/was not right-wing.

And you can be all of those bad things you listed and STILL have not committed any sexual assault in your entire life, which is decidedly NOT "as bad" as someone who did.

So yes my comparisons do hold water. The only differences are how big the respective groups are, how the media portrays them, and pesky little biases.

But in the eventuality that they are "just as bad" as you put it, I would expect a lot more people to denounce feminism, not the deafening silence I hear now. Therefore, I'm pointing out hypocrisy.

Baffle2:

Dreiko:

SNIP

You know I don't have a card in my wallet that says I'm a feminist, right? Believing people should be treated equally doesn't require membership of a club - the difference here is what we percieve to be equality.

Re: your comments on being a dildo/wallet hybrid (odd imagery aside). I was at a wake a few days ago, and there was one guy who, loudly and annoyingly, went on and on and on about how women marry men for their money and are pretty awful people. Not only was it not an appropriate venue, but oh my god it was boring. And, being a wake, many people were there with their partners and it was fairly apparent that everyone thought the guy was a tool.

Right! So I also can believe it without needing to label myself that and it doesn't mean that if I refuse that label I don't believe people should be treated equally. You can't just tell me I don't believe in equality when I enact it but just refuse to be counted as a a member of a movement with unseemly (in my opinion) aspects. Being a modern third wave intersectional feminist is not the only way to be pro equality.

That guy sounds like a tool indeed. Though it's his lack of decorum that mainly causes him to sound that way. Oh and I don't think "women" do this thing btw, so if you thought that ascribing me his views would be correct I'd have to strongly object. I think feminists tend to do that, but thankfully only something like 20% of women identify as feminist so of course I wouldn't think that all women feel this way. If you are a male feminist though and aren't in it to use women, your risk of being treated that way does indeed rise substantially. But like I said, some people may like thet so good for them I guess lol.

DaCosta:

ScaredIndie:

Also outside of people who discuss this stuff, racism still just means what it's definition says, a belief another race is inferior or your own is superior so it does no good for the cause of equality to use it frivolously in open discussion.

Racism means racial prejudice, whatever circle it is discussed in, and it is reflected in one's interactions and actions.

Requiring their beliefs instead of their actions to come into play is inherently flawed, because it hinges on a racist being honest about their beliefs and motives. Besides, you can't prove what is in someone else's mind, therefore as long as they say they don't have that belief, how could anyone be called racist? Might as well retire the word then because you won't be using it anymore.

Wait are you claiming there are no openly racist people left?

ScaredIndie:

DaCosta:

ScaredIndie:

Also outside of people who discuss this stuff, racism still just means what it's definition says, a belief another race is inferior or your own is superior so it does no good for the cause of equality to use it frivolously in open discussion.

Racism means racial prejudice, whatever circle it is discussed in, and it is reflected in one's interactions and actions.

Requiring their beliefs instead of their actions to come into play is inherently flawed, because it hinges on a racist being honest about their beliefs and motives. Besides, you can't prove what is in someone else's mind, therefore as long as they say they don't have that belief, how could anyone be called racist? Might as well retire the word then because you won't be using it anymore.

Wait are you claiming there are no openly racist people left?

If I say that everyone is racist, and admit that I too have been guilty of it, then clearly there are people honest and self-aware enough to say that about themselves.

But expecting racists, specially hardline racists, with much more than innocent ignorance and obliviousness behind their actions, but outright malicious intent, to admit that they are acting based on the belief that their race is superior, when they know for fact that admitting that would only discredit them and hurt their agenda, is ridiculous. Why would they ever do that? That would limit racism to only those very few dumb enough to go out in the street branding swastikas and chanting Heil Hitler.

DaCosta:

ScaredIndie:

DaCosta:

Racism means racial prejudice, whatever circle it is discussed in, and it is reflected in one's interactions and actions.

Requiring their beliefs instead of their actions to come into play is inherently flawed, because it hinges on a racist being honest about their beliefs and motives. Besides, you can't prove what is in someone else's mind, therefore as long as they say they don't have that belief, how could anyone be called racist? Might as well retire the word then because you won't be using it anymore.

Wait are you claiming there are no openly racist people left?

If I say that everyone is racist, and admit that I too have been guilty of it, then clearly there are people honest and self-aware enough to say that about themselves.

@Baffle2, see what I am talking about? Apparently we both are racists. Unconciously. Screw reason, individualism and agency. Forget about your intent and actions that back it up. Pal here managed to wash away his sins and now preaches it is your turn.

Jamcie Kerbizz:

DaCosta:

ScaredIndie:

Wait are you claiming there are no openly racist people left?

If I say that everyone is racist, and admit that I too have been guilty of it, then clearly there are people honest and self-aware enough to say that about themselves.

@Baffle2, see what I am talking about? Apparently we both are racists. Unconciously. Screw reason, individualism and agency. Forget about your intent and actions that back it up. Pal here managed to wash away his sins and now preaches it is your turn.

Original sin is a bitch. I wonder if I can just skip the hard work by buying indulgences.

Jamcie Kerbizz:

DaCosta:

ScaredIndie:

Wait are you claiming there are no openly racist people left?

If I say that everyone is racist, and admit that I too have been guilty of it, then clearly there are people honest and self-aware enough to say that about themselves.

@Baffle2, see what I am talking about? Apparently we both are racists. Unconciously. Screw reason, individualism and agency. Forget about your intent and actions that back it up. Pal here managed to wash away his sins and now preaches it is your turn.

You've never acted or reacted on some level to racist bias? Never got nervous for no reason around certain people? Never expected certain reactions around cultures you really only know through stereotypes..

I call bullshit.

altnameJag:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

DaCosta:

If I say that everyone is racist, and admit that I too have been guilty of it, then clearly there are people honest and self-aware enough to say that about themselves.

@Baffle2, see what I am talking about? Apparently we both are racists. Unconciously. Screw reason, individualism and agency. Forget about your intent and actions that back it up. Pal here managed to wash away his sins and now preaches it is your turn.

You've never acted or reacted on some level to racist bias? Never got nervous for no reason around certain people? Never expected certain reactions around cultures you really only know through stereotypes..

I call bullshit.

@Baffle2, there you go. Exhibit B.
Repent sinner! Repent!

Jamcie Kerbizz:

altnameJag:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

@Baffle2, see what I am talking about? Apparently we both are racists. Unconciously. Screw reason, individualism and agency. Forget about your intent and actions that back it up. Pal here managed to wash away his sins and now preaches it is your turn.

You've never acted or reacted on some level to racist bias? Never got nervous for no reason around certain people? Never expected certain reactions around cultures you really only know through stereotypes..

I call bullshit.

@Baffle2, there you go. Exhibit B.
Repent sinner! Repent!

...you know we can measure unconscious bias, right?

Jamcie Kerbizz:

@Baffle2, see what I am talking about? Apparently we both are racists. Unconciously. Screw reason, individualism and agency. Forget about your intent and actions that back it up. Pal here managed to wash away his sins and now preaches it is your turn.

Not everyone is equipped for this sort of self-examination, when it's much easier to say "I know I'm not racist" and never change your behaviour at all, then no matter what you do, or who you may hurt, you can repeat that mantra to yourself and say that it's the others who are wrong, never you.

DaCosta:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

@Baffle2, see what I am talking about? Apparently we both are racists. Unconciously. Screw reason, individualism and agency. Forget about your intent and actions that back it up. Pal here managed to wash away his sins and now preaches it is your turn.

Not everyone is equipped for this sort of self-examination, when it's much easier to say "I know I'm not racist" and never change your behaviour at all, then no matter what you do, or who you may hurt, you can repeat that mantra to yourself and say that it's the others who are wrong, never you.

Unless you are in a position of power, unconscious biases are unlikely to hurt anyone.

altnameJag:

...you know we can measure unconscious bias, right?

DaCosta:

Not everyone is equipped for this sort of self-examination, when it's much easier to say "I know I'm not racist" and never change your behaviour at all, then no matter what you do, or who you may hurt, you can repeat that mantra to yourself and say that it's the others who are wrong, never you.

@Baffle2, well this is at least amusing
and I swear I did not set this up. These gents provide this out of their own volition.

and the exact next scene (sic!)

Jamcie Kerbizz:

@Baffle2, well this is at least amusing
and I swear I did not set this up. These gents provide this out of their own volition.

and the exact next scene (sic!)

So, you only communicate via YouTube video?

wizzy555:
Unless you are in a position of power, unconscious biases are unlikely to hurt anyone.

Honestly, I'm just glad you acknowledge people have unconscious bias.

MC1980:
I'm still convinced you were on gaf btw

yip, y'all not pulling the wool over my eyes!

I can neither confirm nor deny any confirmation or denial of any statements made before or after the denied point of confirmation, which I can confirm that I deny having occurred.

makano:
Snip

Dude, how the shitsnacks have you lasted on this site since 2009 with that attitude? Were you in a fucking coma for eight years?

wizzy555:
Unless you are in a position of power, unconscious biases are unlikely to hurt anyone.

Almost everyone is in a position of power. (Exceptions are like solitary prisoners and people with "locked in" syndrome.) It's just a question of how much. Consumers, in particular, can easily make the difference between a successful or failing business with their supposedly unconscious (or perhaps just unvoiced) biases.

Jamcie Kerbizz:

altnameJag:

...you know we can measure unconscious bias, right?

DaCosta:

Not everyone is equipped for this sort of self-examination, when it's much easier to say "I know I'm not racist" and never change your behaviour at all, then no matter what you do, or who you may hurt, you can repeat that mantra to yourself and say that it's the others who are wrong, never you.

@Baffle2, well this is at least amusing
and I swear I did not set this up. These gents provide this out of their own volition.

and the exact next scene (sic!)

The better analogy is catholic guilt.

Pyrian:

wizzy555:
Unless you are in a position of power, unconscious biases are unlikely to hurt anyone.

Almost everyone is in a position of power. (Exceptions are like solitary prisoners and people with "locked in" syndrome.) It's just a question of how much. Consumers, in particular, can easily make the difference between a successful or failing business with their supposedly unconscious (or perhaps just unvoiced) biases.

When you set yourself the task of micro-optimizing peoples inner-thoughts, this is where madness lies, for yourself and your subjects.

Stick to the large, obvious problems.

bastardofmelbourne:

MC1980:
I'm still convinced you were on gaf btw

yip, y'all not pulling the wool over my eyes!

I can neither confirm nor deny any confirmation or denial of any statements made before or after the denied point of confirmation, which I can confirm that I deny having occurred.

makano:
Snip

Dude, how the shitsnacks have you lasted on this site since 2009] with that attitude? Were you in a fucking coma for eight years?

Judging by 64 posts, probably just a lurker who signed up for the occasional moment to put thier two bob in. Not exactly a fine use of his logon but what the who-hah.

For anyone needing a quick summary of what happened:

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here