So Neogaf is crashing and burning...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

wizzy555:
When you set yourself the task of micro-optimizing peoples inner-thoughts, this is where madness lies, for yourself and your subjects.

Well, yes, it's certainly maddening. But that's what marketing is a part of, and it's an enormous business segment. You can stick your head in the sand if you like, but others aren't and won't.

wizzy555:
Stick to the large, obvious problems.

Ever the rallying cry of those who don't want problems addressed.

Good riddance, I would say. The gaming industry and their communities are no place for the 'progressive', perpetually offended moral busybodies also known as feminists. I don't know whether or not the allegations are true and quite frankly I don't care. They fell into the 'listen and believe' trap. They dug their own grave and now they will have to lie in it.

Pyrian:

wizzy555:
When you set yourself the task of micro-optimizing peoples inner-thoughts, this is where madness lies, for yourself and your subjects.

Well, yes, it's certainly maddening. But that's what marketing is a part of, and it's an enormous business segment. You can stick your head in the sand if you like, but others aren't and won't.

wizzy555:
Stick to the large, obvious problems.

Ever the rallying cry of those who don't want problems addressed.

Ever the thought-terminating cliches of the utopians.

wizzy555:

The better analogy is catholic guilt.

You are correct.

However Church has 2 thousand years of refining and fine tuning, these here 20 years tops being generous.
It would be like comparing 100 yo whiskey with someone after few too many bears taking a piss into empty bottle of 100 yo whiskey. Both liquids, colour might be similar, bottle is the same but comparison is just not fair.

altnameJag:

So, you only communicate via YouTube video?

.

@Baffle2, another example (and at this point I'll just assume they can't help themselves, so there will be more). This time mixture of fanatism and self defeating lack of self-awarness. These guys are literally judean people's front and as useful to the goal we actually share.

Mod edit: Inflammatory post removed

While hilarious watching a site filled with many examples of the worst sort of scummy, censorious people come crashing down around them because their owner did the same thing they condemned (and furthering a remarkably consistent trend of vocal "progressive" voices being revealed as being terrible people guilty of the crimes they often accused others of), I do have to point out that the actions of the owner is not indicative of the whole of the users there.

It is more akin to another the hypocrisy of anti-gay pastors and public restroom gay sex. Doesn't mean the entire congregation is guilty as well by association.

Now granted, an argument about guilt of the group is stronger since it was a closed community that was heavily moderated, differing opinions culled, disagreement banned, and outright unapologetically politically biased. this would certainly narrow the allowable user to something closer to what the owner and mods wanted (and therefore closer to being like themselves, or perhaps like possible victims given the revelations).

Still, despite the fact that it would be more strongly supported that this group is guilty by association when compared to, say a group that has no self-moderation or leadership, it would still not be quite fair to do so.

Now when you get into situations where people knew what the owner was up to an did nothing though, well, that is another matter entirely and I hope that the jackasses who knew about it and let it go because it supported their shared cause get hit by a bus for their loyalty.

But general users, no, can't be blamed for this. At best one could argue that there would be a shared narrow political view since that was the underlying criteria of culling on the forums, but that isn't a mark that they too are guilty of terrible behavior either.

On the site itself, I hope it never returns to its form and instead dies horribly. Users can disperse. I have heard nothing good coming from that place that would make me find its loss anything to shed a tear over.

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.

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.

Okay I think you are starting to get my point.

Racist is common parlance is a derisive as you have outlined here hence why even actual racists often don't want to be called it. A derisive that characterizes certain behavior, which is a meaning I am fine with, I think this is the most useful meaning.

Here is a thought experiment though for how you want to define these things

If everyone is racist, why can an accusation of racism ruin someones career?
If everyone is racist why doe some people claim that those without "power" cannot be racist?
If everyone is racist why is it even useful as a word?
We don't refer to people as breathers or beaters why would the word need to exist if it was a uniform characteristic?

Personally I think when you weaken the term to encompass everyone and anything by inference you create a situation where it gets used publicly as a derisive while screening said over use of the derisive for political ends by claiming it applies to everyone. Robbing the word of any usefulness in the cause for reality and turning it is to a useless political cudgel.

I appreciate that you are having this dialogue but if you can try to respond to my entire posts it probably will be more productive as I feel like I have to keep repeating points that get omitted along the chain here after giving it a read for coherence of argument.

Finis Rerum:
Good riddance, I would say. The gaming industry and their communities are no place for the 'progressive', perpetually offended moral busybodies also known as feminists. I don't know whether or not the allegations are true and quite frankly I don't care. They fell into the 'listen and believe' trap. They dug their own grave and now they will have to lie in it.

Yeah, we only have enough room for the people who get offended by review scores. It's one or the other, really.

My most clear memory of NeoGAF is when somone was discussing a game whose name i forgot and a commenter said "I am conservative with my ammunition" and promptly got banned for "conservative propaganda". Apparently the mere word "conservative" triggered the moderators.

Vendor-Lazarus:

Just the gloating..
An enemy could always become a potential friend and ally in the future.
Judge not lest ye be judged, I think it goes.
Would you jump off a bridge..etc.

Crush your enemy completely. If your enemy retains any hope, it will grow into danger to yourself, if your enemy has no hope left, he will not retaliate.

-Sun Tzu, paraphrased.

Zhukov:

Fucking hilarious coming from a guy who has spent the last how many years hiding in a closet to avoid rape charges?

He stood trial and was found not guilty of rape charges. He is hiding due to whistleblower legalities and this rape nonsense is a great excuse for people who are not knowledgable about him to dismiss his claims. Rape claims is a powerful tool in a hands of a liar.

Worgen:

So you're saying there are only 2 types of men, ones who want a woman to know her place and ones that are sexual predators?

So you think all men who arent male feminists (as in 99% of world population) are sexists?

Baffle2:

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.

Then they would not be feminists.

altnameJag:
Never got nervous for no reason around certain people?

I dont think thats even physically possible. As in any time you get nervous there is a reason for it. That reason may be based on incorrect pre-conceptions, but there is a reason for it.

Strazdas:

Baffle2:

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.

Then they would not be feminists.

Before I bother pursuing this any further, could you clarify whether you think, overall, feminists are seeking an unequal society with women at the top? Because if you do, we'd both be wasting our time discussing it.

Baffle2:

Strazdas:

Baffle2:

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.

Then they would not be feminists.

Before I bother pursuing this any further, could you clarify whether you think, overall, feminists are seeking an unequal society with women at the top? Because if you do, we'd both be wasting our time discussing it.

Feminism, as the word itself states, is a pursuit for rights and powers of women. While in the past it coincided with equal treatment between the sexes, it is not what the word or the movement is. Hopefully that clarifies my point.

Strazdas:

Baffle2:

Strazdas:

Then they would not be feminists.

Before I bother pursuing this any further, could you clarify whether you think, overall, feminists are seeking an unequal society with women at the top? Because if you do, we'd both be wasting our time discussing it.

Feminism, as the word itself states, is a pursuit for rights and powers of women. While in the past it coincided with equal treatment between the sexes, it is not what the word or the movement is. Hopefully that clarifies my point.

Uhh, no. Those aren't feminists. Those are what we call femin-

They might CALL themselves feminists, but they're not.

FalloutJack:

Uhh, no. Those aren't feminists. Those are what we call femin-

They might CALL themselves feminists, but they're not.

No, feminazis are part of feminists that want to achieve this female superiority through autocratic means.

Strazdas:
My most clear memory of NeoGAF is when somone was discussing a game whose name i forgot and a commenter said "I am conservative with my ammunition" and promptly got banned for "conservative propaganda". Apparently the mere word "conservative" triggered the moderators.

Vendor-Lazarus:

Just the gloating..
An enemy could always become a potential friend and ally in the future.
Judge not lest ye be judged, I think it goes.
Would you jump off a bridge..etc.

Crush your enemy completely. If your enemy retains any hope, it will grow into danger to yourself, if your enemy has no hope left, he will not retaliate.

-Sun Tzu, paraphrased.

Zhukov:

Fucking hilarious coming from a guy who has spent the last how many years hiding in a closet to avoid rape charges?

He stood trial and was found not guilty of rape charges. He is hiding due to whistleblower legalities and this rape nonsense is a great excuse for people who are not knowledgable about him to dismiss his claims. Rape claims is a powerful tool in a hands of a liar.

Worgen:

So you're saying there are only 2 types of men, ones who want a woman to know her place and ones that are sexual predators?

So you think all men who arent male feminists (as in 99% of world population) are sexists?

Baffle2:

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.

Then they would not be feminists.

altnameJag:
Never got nervous for no reason around certain people?

I dont think thats even physically possible. As in any time you get nervous there is a reason for it. That reason may be based on incorrect pre-conceptions, but there is a reason for it.

... You do realize that feminist is someone who believes in equality for women, right? You haven't been getting your definitions from rush limbaugh right?

Worgen:

... You do realize that feminist is someone who believes in equality for women, right? You haven't been getting your definitions from rush limbaugh right?

No, thats an egalitarian. A feminist is someone who believes in furthering the rights and privileges of women. Im not even sure who Rush Limbaugh is, i think hes a libertarian, right?

Strazdas:

Worgen:

... You do realize that feminist is someone who believes in equality for women, right? You haven't been getting your definitions from rush limbaugh right?

No, thats an egalitarian. A feminist is someone who believes in furthering the rights and privileges of women. Im not even sure who Rush Limbaugh is, i think hes a libertarian, right?

No, thats the traditional meaning of feminist. Rush limbaugh is a right wing commentator who pretty much built his career on bashing feminists and redefining the meaning of the word. I think he is literally the origin of the "word" "feminazi."

Worgen:

Strazdas:

Worgen:

... You do realize that feminist is someone who believes in equality for women, right? You haven't been getting your definitions from rush limbaugh right?

No, thats an egalitarian. A feminist is someone who believes in furthering the rights and privileges of women. Im not even sure who Rush Limbaugh is, i think hes a libertarian, right?

No, thats the traditional meaning of feminist. Rush limbaugh is a right wing commentator who pretty much built his career on bashing feminists and redefining the meaning of the word. I think he is literally the origin of the "word" "feminazi."

No it is not. Just because the traditional goals of feminist aligned with equal rights does not make it an equal rights movement. And even if it was back then, it is most definitely not so now.

Well i guess i know more about who this Limbaugh fella is, thanks.

Strazdas:

Worgen:

Strazdas:

No, thats an egalitarian. A feminist is someone who believes in furthering the rights and privileges of women. Im not even sure who Rush Limbaugh is, i think hes a libertarian, right?

No, thats the traditional meaning of feminist. Rush limbaugh is a right wing commentator who pretty much built his career on bashing feminists and redefining the meaning of the word. I think he is literally the origin of the "word" "feminazi."

No it is not. Just because the traditional goals of feminist aligned with equal rights does not make it an equal rights movement. And even if it was back then, it is most definitely not so now.

Well i guess i know more about who this Limbaugh fella is, thanks.

You're letting someone who is anti-feminist define words for you. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism
It is still defined as meaning "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes."

He is a pretty big douche bag and hypocrite.

Worgen:

Strazdas:

Worgen:

No, thats the traditional meaning of feminist. Rush limbaugh is a right wing commentator who pretty much built his career on bashing feminists and redefining the meaning of the word. I think he is literally the origin of the "word" "feminazi."

No it is not. Just because the traditional goals of feminist aligned with equal rights does not make it an equal rights movement. And even if it was back then, it is most definitely not so now.

Well i guess i know more about who this Limbaugh fella is, thanks.

You're letting someone who is anti-feminist define words for you. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism
It is still defined as meaning "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes."

He is a pretty big douche bag and hypocrite.

The dictionary definition does not reflect the reality of the fact. I am not letting anyone define words for me, i observe reality.

Yeah i wouldnt know, like i said i dont even know who the guy is.

Strazdas:

Worgen:

Strazdas:

No it is not. Just because the traditional goals of feminist aligned with equal rights does not make it an equal rights movement. And even if it was back then, it is most definitely not so now.

Well i guess i know more about who this Limbaugh fella is, thanks.

You're letting someone who is anti-feminist define words for you. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism
It is still defined as meaning "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes."

He is a pretty big douche bag and hypocrite.

The dictionary definition does not reflect the reality of the fact. I am not letting anyone define words for me, i observe reality.

Yeah i wouldnt know, like i said i dont even know who the guy is.

No, you're letting someone with an agenda redefine the meaning for you, which has been shown to be one of the more effective things to use against left wing arguments. They make a good point about something so redefine the meaning to make them look much further left wing or something and therefor crazy. If someone keeps making wrong claims then correct them, like I am doing here.

Worgen:

Strazdas:

Worgen:

You're letting someone who is anti-feminist define words for you. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism
It is still defined as meaning "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes."

He is a pretty big douche bag and hypocrite.

The dictionary definition does not reflect the reality of the fact. I am not letting anyone define words for me, i observe reality.

Yeah i wouldnt know, like i said i dont even know who the guy is.

No, you're letting someone with an agenda redefine the meaning for you, which has been shown to be one of the more effective things to use against left wing arguments. They make a good point about something so redefine the meaning to make them look much further left wing or something and therefor crazy. If someone keeps making wrong claims then correct them, like I am doing here.

So are you saying that the feminists i have observed are not feminists and are trying to redefine the term? And the fuck does left wing has to do with it?

Strazdas:

Worgen:

Strazdas:

The dictionary definition does not reflect the reality of the fact. I am not letting anyone define words for me, i observe reality.

Yeah i wouldnt know, like i said i dont even know who the guy is.

No, you're letting someone with an agenda redefine the meaning for you, which has been shown to be one of the more effective things to use against left wing arguments. They make a good point about something so redefine the meaning to make them look much further left wing or something and therefor crazy. If someone keeps making wrong claims then correct them, like I am doing here.

So are you saying that the feminists i have observed are not feminists and are trying to redefine the term? And the fuck does left wing has to do with it?

How many feminists have you 'seen' do this? Have you actually met a single one of them or is this all filtered through the internet (and most likely some propagandist like Sargon). Keep in mind that random dipshits on twitter, tumblr, etc don't count because one can find examples of anything with those as acceptable proof.

Strazdas:

Worgen:

Strazdas:

The dictionary definition does not reflect the reality of the fact. I am not letting anyone define words for me, i observe reality.

Yeah i wouldnt know, like i said i dont even know who the guy is.

No, you're letting someone with an agenda redefine the meaning for you, which has been shown to be one of the more effective things to use against left wing arguments. They make a good point about something so redefine the meaning to make them look much further left wing or something and therefor crazy. If someone keeps making wrong claims then correct them, like I am doing here.

So are you saying that the feminists i have observed are not feminists and are trying to redefine the term? And the fuck does left wing has to do with it?

Yes, if they are saying it means female superiority then they aren't feminists. Simple as that. Because being feminist tends to have left wing connotations in the US. The right tends to view women as having a specific place in society and think they shouldn't leave it.

Avnger:

How many feminists have you 'seen' do this? Have you actually met a single one of them or is this all filtered through the internet (and most likely some propagandist like Sargon). Keep in mind that random dipshits on twitter, tumblr, etc don't count because one can find examples of anything with those as acceptable proof.

Im sorry i dont keep count and categorize everyone i meet in life. I hope "enough" will be a sufficient answer because i will not be able to provide any other.

Worgen:

Yes, if they are saying it means female superiority then they aren't feminists. Simple as that. Because being feminist tends to have left wing connotations in the US. The right tends to view women as having a specific place in society and think they shouldn't leave it.

So is now the time to grab that no true scotsman or should we go back anf forth a bit more?

Well im not from US (im from eastern europe) and feminism doesnt really have concentration on political spectrum at least as far as i experienced. Then again our left and right are different than us left and right.

Strazdas:

Avnger:

How many feminists have you 'seen' do this? Have you actually met a single one of them or is this all filtered through the internet (and most likely some propagandist like Sargon). Keep in mind that random dipshits on twitter, tumblr, etc don't count because one can find examples of anything with those as acceptable proof.

Im sorry i dont keep count and categorize everyone i meet in life. I hope "enough" will be a sufficient answer because i will not be able to provide any other.

Worgen:

Yes, if they are saying it means female superiority then they aren't feminists. Simple as that. Because being feminist tends to have left wing connotations in the US. The right tends to view women as having a specific place in society and think they shouldn't leave it.

So is now the time to grab that no true scotsman or should we go back anf forth a bit more?

Well im not from US (im from eastern europe) and feminism doesnt really have concentration on political spectrum at least as far as i experienced. Then again our left and right are different than us left and right.

Its not a "no true scotsman argument." Its more like saying "I'm not racist but the races should be separated and black people are inferior." You can say your not racist but if all your arguments are racist then your probably racist.

Here in the states the left tends to support government solutions to issues, acceptance of alternative lifestyles, and regulation of business to protect consumers. The right prefers a smaller central government and more power to states, fewer regulations of business to encourage growth, and adherence to traditional lifestyles and power structures.

Strazdas:

altnameJag:
Never got nervous for no reason around certain people?

I dont think thats even physically possible. As in any time you get nervous there is a reason for it. That reason may be based on incorrect pre-conceptions, but there is a reason for it.

And when said incorrect pre-conceptions are based on ethnicity, even unconsciously, we've got a word for that.

Strazdas:

FalloutJack:

Uhh, no. Those aren't feminists. Those are what we call femin-

They might CALL themselves feminists, but they're not.

No, feminazis are part of feminists that want to achieve this female superiority through autocratic means.

I'm pretty sure they don't care HOW they get it, as long as they get it. It's all in the attitude, not the methodology.

Worgen:

Its not a "no true scotsman argument." Its more like saying "I'm not racist but the races should be separated and black people are inferior." You can say your not racist but if all your arguments are racist then your probably racist.

Here in the states the left tends to support government solutions to issues, acceptance of alternative lifestyles, and regulation of business to protect consumers. The right prefers a smaller central government and more power to states, fewer regulations of business to encourage growth, and adherence to traditional lifestyles and power structures.

So a person says (s)he is feminist, you say (s)he is not because it does not fit definition you quoted. how is that not a classic no true scotsman? Or are you implying those people who claim to be feminists are actually sexists due to thier arguments being sexists?

Strazdas:

Worgen:

Its not a "no true scotsman argument." Its more like saying "I'm not racist but the races should be separated and black people are inferior." You can say your not racist but if all your arguments are racist then your probably racist.

Here in the states the left tends to support government solutions to issues, acceptance of alternative lifestyles, and regulation of business to protect consumers. The right prefers a smaller central government and more power to states, fewer regulations of business to encourage growth, and adherence to traditional lifestyles and power structures.

So a person says (s)he is feminist, you say (s)he is not because it does not fit definition you quoted. how is that not a classic no true scotsman? Or are you implying those people who claim to be feminists are actually sexists due to thier arguments being sexists?

I'm saying those who are claiming to be feminists while allegedly espousing female superiority ideals are not feminists because to be feminist means striving for equality of the sexes, not one over the other.

If you want a non-political definition in reguards to media studies... Ok, its not really that related but Lindsay Ellis is awesome.

Worgen:

I'm saying those who are claiming to be feminists while allegedly espousing female superiority ideals are not feminists because to be feminist means striving for equality of the sexes, not one over the other.

So you are a fan of gatekeeping too? You get to decide who can call themselves feminist?

Strazdas:

Worgen:

I'm saying those who are claiming to be feminists while allegedly espousing female superiority ideals are not feminists because to be feminist means striving for equality of the sexes, not one over the other.

So you are a fan of gatekeeping too? You get to decide who can call themselves feminist?

Ugh, ok, from now on your mexican. You aren't eastern european, you are mexican. You can't tell me I'm wrong, what are you a gatekeeper? Now you get to decide who is from where and what that means?

Strazdas:

Worgen:

Strazdas:

So you are a fan of gatekeeping too? You get to decide who can call themselves feminist?

Ugh, ok, from now on your mexican. You aren't eastern european, you are mexican. You can't tell me I'm wrong, what are you a gatekeeper? Now you get to decide who is from where and what that means?

You mean you are a mexican? Or do you not understand how this works. Person X identifies as something, person Y says person X is not that something becase of Y and Z. In this case you claimed feminists are not feminists because they are "not true feminists" and because "this is not what being feminist means", using both no true scotsman and gatekeeping.

Im not sure you even understand the concepts here given this response, please make sure that you do.

I know exactly what they mean. You are using it as a way to arbitrarily attribute things to a group that aren't really part of that group since you apparently saw someone claiming to be a group member online say something stupid. If you don't gatekeep to some extent then anyone is anything and nothing means anything because it can be redefined by anyone. And the right is really good at redefining things.

Worgen:

I know exactly what they mean. You are using it as a way to arbitrarily attribute things to a group that aren't really part of that group since you apparently saw someone claiming to be a group member online say something stupid. If you don't gatekeep to some extent then anyone is anything and nothing means anything because it can be redefined by anyone. And the right is really good at redefining things.

Well thank you, finally we have reached the conclusion i was leading you towards. Gatekeeping is necessary to keep assholes out of communities. Now if only we also applied this to groups other than feminists.

Once again not sure what right has to do with it. you keep trying to bring political parties into this.

Also lol i got a warning for asking if you understand the concept i was explaining when quoting a post in which you posted almost complete opposite of the concept. apparently that was a passive aggressive insult. Sounds like moderation on this site got worse since staff left.

Strazdas:
Snip

He didn't make your point. He pointed out where you were mistaken and made his own point.

 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