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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Saelune:
Don't victim blame.

Identity Politics were created by people who wanted to subjugate others. Do not blame the victims of it as if they created it.

People told a minority they were bad for being that minority, they responsed by saying it is ok to be that thing, and then those who told them they were bad for being that are now telling them they are bad for feeling proud of it.

Boy: 'Boys rule, girls drool'

Girl: 'Nuh uh, Girls are awesome! You boys drool'

Boy: 'Stop being sexist'

I'm not victim blaming, because I don't believe that the mere fact that the company is 80% male by itself creates any victims. It's not necessarily a problem, and it doesn't necessarily need to be "corrected." And trying to do so by incorporating hiring practices that are discriminatory against men is just going to make them look hypocritical and create a public relations backlash, which it did.

On average, more men choose to go into tech fields than women. The fact that it's not 50/50 is not a problem. It's a matter of personal preference. More women don't get those jobs because they don't want them. Give women a little credit. They're not all victims.

For the same reason, I don't think we need to "correct" other industries that are dominated by females, such as education and health services, which are 75% female in the U.S. There are probably fewer men in those fields simply because fewer men than women are applying for those jobs.

Striving for better equality of opportunity is a good thing. But trying to force statistical equality of outcomes in every situation is dumb.

Kerg3927:

Saelune:
Don't victim blame.

Identity Politics were created by people who wanted to subjugate others. Do not blame the victims of it as if they created it.

People told a minority they were bad for being that minority, they responsed by saying it is ok to be that thing, and then those who told them they were bad for being that are now telling them they are bad for feeling proud of it.

Boy: 'Boys rule, girls drool'

Girl: 'Nuh uh, Girls are awesome! You boys drool'

Boy: 'Stop being sexist'

I'm not victim blaming, because I don't believe that the mere fact that the company is 80% male by itself creates any victims. It's not necessarily a problem, and it doesn't necessarily need to be "corrected." And trying to do so by incorporating hiring practices that are discriminatory against men is just going to make them look hypocritical and create a public relations backlash, which it did.

On average, more men choose to go into tech fields than women. The fact that it's not 50/50 is not a problem. It's a matter of personal preference. More women don't get those jobs because they don't want them. Give women a little credit. They're not all victims.

For the same reason, I don't think we need to "correct" other industries that are dominated by females, such as education and health services, which are 75% female in the U.S. There are probably fewer men in those fields simply because fewer men than women are applying for those jobs.

Striving for better equality of opportunity is a good thing. But trying to force statistical equality of outcomes in every situation is dumb.

I don't disagree with most of what you're saying in this post, but that isn't what you were saying in the post I responded to.

The people you seem to have a problem with aren't the ones denying people equal opportunity. They are the ones fighting for it.

I bet a lot of women who 'don't want these jobs' don't want it cause they were heavily discouraged and have given up. And many might never have known it is what they wanted cause they were excluded before even getting the chance. I wonder how many women never even gave many professions a shot because 'That's a man's job'.

Saelune:

I bet a lot of women who 'don't want these jobs' don't want it cause they were heavily discouraged and have given up.

This is an assumption, you cannot make these wide sweeping assumptions about this kind of thing, the fact of the matter is, none of us on this forum have any actual first hand data on this kind of thing with any kind of large sample pool which is why I freaking hate this topic.

All discussing this topic of gender does on this forum is turn it into a rage riot. The fact of the matter is that most of us have only our own personal theories on this topic and so we all just talk at each other for weeks on end getting nowhere with the conversation and with the topic resurging whenever some new incident comes up to stoke the fires.

I wish everyone would just let this topic die. I don't care who's right or wrong about this anymore, I just don't want this topic to burn the forums down again.

Specter Von Baren:

Saelune:

I bet a lot of women who 'don't want these jobs' don't want it cause they were heavily discouraged and have given up.

This is an assumption, you cannot make these wide sweeping assumptions about this kind of thing, the fact of the matter is, none of us on this forum have any actual first hand data on this kind of thing with any kind of large sample pool which is why I freaking hate this topic.

All discussing this topic of gender does on this forum is turn it into a rage riot. The fact of the matter is that most of us have only our own personal theories on this topic and so we all just talk at each other for weeks on end getting nowhere with the conversation and with the topic resurging whenever some new incident comes up to stoke the fires.

I wish everyone would just let this topic die. I don't care who's right or wrong about this anymore, I just don't want this topic to burn the forums down again.

'Its controversial and upsetting so we shouldn't talk about it' is a terrible view. It is really the opposite, that because it is controversial and upsetting we NEED to talk about it. It wont go away if we don't talk about it, it will just get worse.

You tell me not to make wide sweeping assumptions but not Kerg?

Saelune:
I don't disagree with most of what you're saying in this post, but that isn't what you were saying in the post I responded to.

The people you seem to have a problem with aren't the ones denying people equal opportunity. They are the ones fighting for it.

I was talking about the PAX West hiring event that excluded men. I think it was a bad idea. When I said identity politics, that's what I was referring to. They created an event specifically tailored toward women and non-binary people to the exclusion of men. That's dividing people into categories and treating them differently based upon what category they happen to be born into. It's discriminatory, and in my opinion, wrong. And it's not equal opportunity. Equal opportunity means everyone is given the same opportunity. Outcomes can and usually do vary even when there is equal opportunity.

Saelune:
I bet a lot of women who 'don't want these jobs' don't want it cause they were heavily discouraged and have given up. And many might never have known it is what they wanted cause they were excluded before even getting the chance. I wonder how many women never even gave many professions a shot because 'That's a man's job'.

Based upon what? This is 2018, not 1918. The 80% male statistic is not evidence of anything. I linked an article that showed that even in countries like Finland, Norway, and Sweden, where equality of opportunity is probably emphasized and supported more than anywhere in the world, women just aren't choosing to go into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, at least not in the numbers that men are.

I'm also a believer in the economic power of the free market and that companies are primarily driven by the need to maximize profits. I think this gives employers a huge incentive to hire the most productive person, regardless of gender, etc. For that reason, I don't think sexism in hiring practices is as common as you believe it is.

Kerg3927:

Saelune:
I don't disagree with most of what you're saying in this post, but that isn't what you were saying in the post I responded to.

The people you seem to have a problem with aren't the ones denying people equal opportunity. They are the ones fighting for it.

I was talking about the PAX West hiring event that excluded men. I think it was a bad idea. When I said identity politics, that's what I was referring to. They created an event specifically tailored toward women and non-binary people to the exclusion of men. That's dividing people into categories and treating them differently based upon what category they happen to be born into. It's discriminatory, and in my opinion, wrong. And it's not equal opportunity. Equal opportunity means everyone is given the same opportunity. Outcomes can and usually do vary even when there is equal opportunity.

Saelune:
I bet a lot of women who 'don't want these jobs' don't want it cause they were heavily discouraged and have given up. And many might never have known it is what they wanted cause they were excluded before even getting the chance. I wonder how many women never even gave many professions a shot because 'That's a man's job'.

Based upon what? This is 2018, not 1918. The 80% male statistic is not evidence of anything. I linked an article that showed that even in countries like Finland, Norway, and Sweden, where equality of opportunity is probably emphasized and supported more than anywhere in the world, women just aren't choosing to go into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, at least not in the numbers that men are.

I'm also a believer in the economic power of the free market and that companies are primarily driven by the need to maximize profits. I think this gives employers a huge incentive to hire the most productive person, regardless of gender, etc. For that reason, I don't think sexism in hiring practices is as common as you believe it is.

I guess they will just have to go buy a cake and get jobs elsewhere where women and LGBT people are excluded instead.

I WILL FEEL BAD FOR MEN* GETTING EXCLUDED WHEN EVERYONE ELSE STOPS BEING EXCLUDED FIRST

*(People so adamant about defending 'men's rights' never seem to think that defending black or gay rights also helps men)

There is a reason I started with 'I bet'. Plus our points arent mutually exclusive. Also according your articles brings up that a desire for better paying jobs is relavant, with the palces with poorer equality also having poorer welfare support so needing a good job is more important. I dont think we need a perfectly even diversity pool in every job, but it is more complicated than just saying you support equal opportunity. There are tons of factors and variables, some we dont even like to consider deeply.

You say you support the free market, then get upset when people decide not to support things cause of a lack of diversity. You think it does, but it doesnt. Bigots are stupid, inherently. To disciminate cause of sex or race is a flaw, and flawed people well, they dont make the best decisions. They think things like 'women cant be good at this job, so I have to only hire men to get the best workers' or 'black people are lazy, so I need to hire white people to get the best workers'.

And for that reason among others, I think sexism in hiring practices is more common than you want to believe it is.

Saelune:

Specter Von Baren:

Saelune:

I bet a lot of women who 'don't want these jobs' don't want it cause they were heavily discouraged and have given up.

This is an assumption, you cannot make these wide sweeping assumptions about this kind of thing, the fact of the matter is, none of us on this forum have any actual first hand data on this kind of thing with any kind of large sample pool which is why I freaking hate this topic.

All discussing this topic of gender does on this forum is turn it into a rage riot. The fact of the matter is that most of us have only our own personal theories on this topic and so we all just talk at each other for weeks on end getting nowhere with the conversation and with the topic resurging whenever some new incident comes up to stoke the fires.

I wish everyone would just let this topic die. I don't care who's right or wrong about this anymore, I just don't want this topic to burn the forums down again.

'Its controversial and upsetting so we shouldn't talk about it' is a terrible view. It is really the opposite, that because it is controversial and upsetting we NEED to talk about it. It wont go away if we don't talk about it, it will just get worse.

You tell me not to make wide sweeping assumptions but not Kerg?

Oh yeah we really accomplished something talking about this topic nonstop for over two years, just look at how many people we have left posting on the forums because of how much this topic makes people want to visit them!

This topic should be discussed, but it's clear that doing so here isn't going to bring anything new to it unless someone brings some new kind of hard data to this. We discussed this to death for years and have thoroughly worn out every single permutation of this argument with the only result being people being angry on all sides of the debate but no headway in a resolution.

Bring it up, talk about it for a while, let it die. Unless and until these forums actually get a big injection of new blood and the site new content there's nothing being accomplished here.

I responded to you and not Kerg because you had made the most recent comment when I posted. I don't think anyone should be debating this for either side because no one has anything new to add. This goes to Kerg too, I don't think any of us should be debating this after we've already covered it to death. Talking about the latest incident won't accomplish anything here because all the people here have already seen all these arguments.

Specter Von Baren:

Saelune:

Specter Von Baren:

This is an assumption, you cannot make these wide sweeping assumptions about this kind of thing, the fact of the matter is, none of us on this forum have any actual first hand data on this kind of thing with any kind of large sample pool which is why I freaking hate this topic.

All discussing this topic of gender does on this forum is turn it into a rage riot. The fact of the matter is that most of us have only our own personal theories on this topic and so we all just talk at each other for weeks on end getting nowhere with the conversation and with the topic resurging whenever some new incident comes up to stoke the fires.

I wish everyone would just let this topic die. I don't care who's right or wrong about this anymore, I just don't want this topic to burn the forums down again.

'Its controversial and upsetting so we shouldn't talk about it' is a terrible view. It is really the opposite, that because it is controversial and upsetting we NEED to talk about it. It wont go away if we don't talk about it, it will just get worse.

You tell me not to make wide sweeping assumptions but not Kerg?

Oh yeah we really accomplished something talking about this topic nonstop for over two years, just look at how many people we have left posting on the forums because of how much this topic makes people want to visit them!

This topic should be discussed, but it's clear that doing so here isn't going to bring anything new to it unless someone brings some new kind of hard data to this. We discussed this to death for years and have thoroughly worn out every single permutation of this argument with the only result being people being angry on all sides of the debate but no headway in a resolution.

Bring it up, talk about it for a while, let it die. Unless and until these forums actually get a big injection of new blood and the site new content there's nothing being accomplished here.

I responded to you and not Kerg because you had made the most recent comment when I posted. I don't think anyone should be debating this for either side because no one has anything new to add. This goes to Kerg too, I don't think any of us should be debating this after we've already covered it to death. Talking about the latest incident won't accomplish anything here because all the people here have already seen all these arguments.

Since discussing it is against the rules, I will simply say, I disagree.

Saelune:
And for that reason among others, I think sexism in hiring practices is more common than you want to believe it is.

Agree to disagree. We obviously have different perceptions of the world, and I'm probably not going to be able to change yours.

Kerg3927:

Saelune:
And for that reason among others, I think sexism in hiring practices is more common than you want to believe it is.

Agree to disagree. We obviously have different perceptions of the world, and I'm probably not going to be able to change yours.

I don't agree to disagree, not on this. You should change your view. Yes, we probably wont be able to change each other's views on this, but that doesn't mean I am ok with that.

I did not always appreciate the struggles others face though, and hopefully you will look back and wonder how you ever thought that, just as I have looked back on my former views on stuff like this.

It may seem like discrimination, but budget-conscious employers also have to weigh the law of averages and approach the hiring process as efficiently as possible when chances are they don't personally know 99.999% of their candidates. Women generally don't want or like doing the types of jobs men typically do (think construction, forestry work or anything mechanical for example) and vice versa. Yes there are always exceptions, but that doesn't make it a rule. Though if a woman so happens to be the best qualified candidate for a position typically occupied by a man, then yes she should get the job.

Having said that, modern feminism has put an odd twist on things to where many women may think they want to do that job primarily because it feels empowering to have the choice, but due to insincere intent it doesn't work out and ends up wasting time and money, especially on the employer's part. I think that's a big factor in why some forms of discrimination may be perceived to exist more than they normally would outright.

In short, it's wrong to turn a man or woman away because they're a major woman, but at the same time it shouldn't be a sin for businesses to be pragmatic about who they hire given a lack of more specific and personal background info and not having to worry about filling a certain demographic quota "just because".

Saelune:

Kerg3927:

Saelune:
And for that reason among others, I think sexism in hiring practices is more common than you want to believe it is.

Agree to disagree. We obviously have different perceptions of the world, and I'm probably not going to be able to change yours.

I don't agree to disagree, not on this. You should change your view. Yes, we probably wont be able to change each other's views on this, but that doesn't mean I am ok with that.

I did not always appreciate the struggles others face though, and hopefully you will look back and wonder how you ever thought that, just as I have looked back on my former views on stuff like this.

The problem is different perceptions. You obviously look around and see a horrible, rotten and corrupt world rampant with sexism and other forms of prejudice and oppression. I don't know where you get your data from, what websites and news sources you visit, etc., so I can't really analyze and critique or debunk the scientific validity of the information upon which you form your world view. And as a science guy, just saying it's so because you say it's so, or quoting some diversity statistics without any evidence of causation, or pointing to a few shocking but isolated examples among the 7 BILLION people on the planet is not going to convince me.

I, on the other hand, see a world in which MASSIVE progress has been made in these areas. We have never lived in a world with less prejudice than we live in right now. And it's not even close. A tiny fraction of what it was just 50 years ago. I see a world in which equality of opportunity (not outcomes) is the best it's ever been. Is it perfect? No, but it never will be because it cannot be. Utopia doesn't exist in the complex and chaotic real world.

I also see identity politics taking us in the wrong direction, which is why I think affirmative action-type measures are a bad idea (see Asian-Americans sue Harvard). I believe that everyone should be judged by the content of their character and competence rather than the color of their skin, etc. - as an individual rather than the category into which they happen to be born. That's what we should always be striving for. You obviously don't believe that, because identity politics espouses exactly the opposite belief. I don't believe that people should try to correct perceived prejudices by forming prejudices of their own. It's wrong.

So unless we can get past the vast chasms noted above, there is nothing to be gained here. We're just standing on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon throwing rocks at each other.

Kerg3927:
snip

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

Kerg3927:

Saelune:

Kerg3927:

Agree to disagree. We obviously have different perceptions of the world, and I'm probably not going to be able to change yours.

I don't agree to disagree, not on this. You should change your view. Yes, we probably wont be able to change each other's views on this, but that doesn't mean I am ok with that.

I did not always appreciate the struggles others face though, and hopefully you will look back and wonder how you ever thought that, just as I have looked back on my former views on stuff like this.

The problem is different perceptions. You obviously look around and see a horrible, rotten and corrupt world rampant with sexism and other forms of prejudice and oppression. I don't know where you get your data from, what websites and news sources you visit, etc., so I can't really analyze and critique or debunk the scientific validity of the information upon which you form your world view. And as a science guy, just saying it's so because you say it's so, or quoting some diversity statistics without any evidence of causation, or pointing to a few shocking but isolated examples among the 7 BILLION people on the planet is not going to convince me.

I, on the other hand, see a world in which MASSIVE progress has been made in these areas. We have never lived in a world with less prejudice than we live in right now. And it's not even close. A tiny fraction of what it was just 50 years ago. I see a world in which equality of opportunity (not outcomes) is the best it's ever been. Is it perfect? No, but it never will be because it cannot be. Utopia doesn't exist in the complex and chaotic real world.

I also see identity politics taking us in the wrong direction, which is why I think affirmative action-type measures are a bad idea (see Asian-Americans sue Harvard). I believe that everyone should be judged by the content of their character and competence rather than the color of their skin, etc. - as an individual rather than the category into which they happen to be born. That's what we should always be striving for. You obviously don't believe that, because identity politics espouses exactly the opposite belief. I don't believe that people should try to correct perceived prejudices by forming prejudices of their own. It's wrong.

So unless we can get past the vast chasms noted above, there is nothing to be gained here. We're just standing on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon throwing rocks at each other.

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

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

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

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

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

Kerg3927:
And as a science guy...

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

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

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

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

Indeed.

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

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.

Hawki:

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.

The difference is one of those sides is in way more and way higher power. Cause yeah, there is a difference between those with actual power saying horrible things, and angry people on the internet upset at that going to the extreme by saying mean things about those people in power.

When society tells a group of people they are terrible just for existing, a bunch of them will instead say 'No, its great what we are!' and that's not a bad thing on its own. I really just don't fucking care if the bigots are upset that we fight them back and have pride about it.

To those with privilage, equallity feels like oppression.

Saelune:
The difference is one of those sides is in way more and way higher power. Cause yeah, there is a difference between those with actual power saying horrible things, and angry people on the internet upset at that going to the extreme by saying mean things about those people in power.

It shouldn't even be a question of "sides." The end result of this line of thinking is polarization and alienation.

You're correct in as much that every group you listed has historically been discriminated against in history, but it's a banal approach to assume everyone outside that group is culpable with that oppression and/or supports said oppression.

When society tells a group of people they are terrible just for existing, a bunch of them will instead say 'No, its great what we are!' and that's not a bad thing on its own.

"You're gay, so you're a degenerate."

"You're male, so you're a sexist pig."

Both statements are asinine. You don't solve the attitude embodied in the first statement by carrying out actions that embody the attitude of the second. Because not only does that mean decent people are unfairly stigmatized, but it robs those trying to change the first statement of potential allies.

Again, I point to Riot. I read the article, the behaviour in the article and the described behaviour is reprehensible. Yet if I'd been at PAX and wanted to discuss how best to solve the issue, I'd have been excluded. In other words, you're excluding a person who wants to help in the same way you are, so again, how does this help anyone?

To those with privilage, equallity feels like oppression.

Right, so, I guess I just want to be oppressed?

Believe it or not, I do actually believe that racism, sexism, and homophobia are all reprehensible, even if I've never suffered from the first, and barely experienced the second and third. Just because I haven't experienced prejudice to the same extent as others doesn't mean I have a vested interest in maintaining said prejudice, nor that I can't sympathize with those who have. The problem with identity politics is that it can lead to a binary approach, the idea that anyone outside the identified group is an enemy.

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

Is anyone advocating the "other end of the spectrum" here? If not, that's just a non-sequitur digression getting us nowhere.

Yet if I'd been at PAX and wanted to discuss how best to solve the issue, I'd have been excluded. In other words, you're excluding a person who wants to help in the same way you are, so again, how does this help anyone?

Maybe you wouldn't help, as it's not an appropriate point for your voice to be heard.

Perhaps there's value in giving women places to be amongst themselves under the wider debate, and not marginalised by the ~80% male majority. Maybe they need to hear perspectives that aren't yours. Maybe even some people who "want to help" are in fact for various reasons part of the problem.

Right, so, I guess I just want to be oppressed?

Not you personally, maybe. But people who have spent decades getting preferential access to things may well assume that's normal and fair. Thus when someone turns up and says that it's not fair, they don't believe it, and measures to prevent it continuing seem like discrimination to them.

Agema:

Is anyone advocating the "other end of the spectrum" here?

Here? No.

In society at large? On the fringe mostly, but yes.

The topic's already touched on the realm of the latter as it's moved beyond the issue of Riot and PAX.

If not, that's just a non-sequitur digression getting us nowhere.

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?"

If you think that's a ludicrous prospect, then congratulations, we agree, but if the world is some giant binary of "us vs. them," of "opressors vs. oppressed," where everyone has to fit into one of those two categories, then that doesn't leave much wriggle room.

Hawki:
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.

Hawki:

Believe it or not, I do actually believe that racism, sexism, and homophobia are all reprehensible, even if I've never suffered from the first, and barely experienced the second and third. Just because I haven't experienced prejudice to the same extent as others doesn't mean I have a vested interest in maintaining said prejudice, nor that I can't sympathize with those who have. The problem with identity politics is that it can lead to a binary approach, the idea that anyone outside the identified group is an enemy.

Kerg also said this, and a lot of people say this, 'I don't like bigotry, but I don't like that other people actually complain and do something about it'. It is basically when people said 'All Lives Matter' in response to the Black Lives Matters movement, and in short, its bullshit, because it doesn't actually help anyone but the oppressors. If people who say 'All Lives Matter' in response to BLM really mean it, then why are they trying to distract from the abuse of black people?

Guess what! You worry about identity politics leading to a binary approach where anyone outside the identified group is the enemy? Well WE'RE ALREADY THERE! Just look at the Trump administration! We are so far beyond that point, but it is not gays and blacks and women causing the issues. It was not a gay person saying no to straight people buying cake, it was not a black person shooting a white person in their own home, and it wasn't a woman sexually abusing a enormous amount of male Olympic athletes.

Yeah, sometimes a gay person does something wrong, and sometimes a black person does something wrong, and considering women make up almost HALF THE WORLD'S POPULATION despite being treated as a second class citizen, yeah sometimes they do something wrong, but pretending they do those wrongs as equally and as thoroughly and as grand a scale is just not true and not helping anyone.

You want to get mad when a woman sexually abuses a man? Great, you should, and they should be punished too, but to pretend that men are not the ones in the most powerful positions abusing the most amount of people in the most damaging of ways, all to deny the validity of a movement to oppose sexual abuse is just unfair and unhelpful. And hell, men are often victims of that same patriarchy.

I did not always believe this, I did not always understand this. Seriously, I used to disagree with this, but now here I am saying it myself, fighting for women's rights is fighting for men's rights too.

Hawki:

If you think that's a ludicrous prospect, then congratulations, we agree, but if the world is some giant binary of "us vs. them," of "opressors vs. oppressed," where everyone has to fit into one of those two categories, then that doesn't leave much wriggle room.

The 'Us vs Them' is 'People who oppose bigotry vs people who do not'.

It is not divided by gender or race. There are black people and gay people on the pro-bigotry side unfortunately. And there are plenty of straight white Christian men on the same side as me, opposing bigotry.

Saelune:
snip

I think the problem Hawki is describing is similar to what I've seen even on these forums sometimes (long ago, when there were more users). That if you have not experienced these problems yourself and have to rely on statistics and/or anecdotes for your information, your only acceptable course of action is to "acknowledge the problem" and leave. That's quite an incentive to stop caring about "minority rights" and focus your time to an "egalitarian" effort (or just nothing at all). After all, only the latter offers any chance to do anything.

McElroy:

Saelune:
snip

I think the problem Hawki is describing is similar to what I've seen even on these forums sometimes (long ago, when there were more users). That if you have not experienced these problems yourself and have to rely on statistics and/or anecdotes for your information, your only acceptable course of action is to "acknowledge the problem" and leave. That's quite an incentive to stop caring about "minority rights" and focus your time to an "egalitarian" effort (or just nothing at all). After all, only the latter offers any chance to do anything.

Which would be fine except I don't think many of these people ARE focusing on 'egalitarian effort'.

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

RaikuFA:
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?

Saelune:
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.

There's a world of difference between being expected to respect others and political correctness.

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?

Again, there's a difference between being polite and politically correct.

Why do people think that makes them more oppressed than people who have been forbidden to marry another, or be treated as literal property?

Don't think many people actually think that. But in the Western world, both of these things are forbidden by law - the oppression of today is nowhere near as bad as it was in the past. No-one today faces the same oppression that people once did.

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?

Not that I use "that's gay" as a slur myself, and have no desire to, but disliking the slur isn't the same thing as being PC.

Suppose someone says "that's gay." The "polite response" would be along the lines of ignoring it, or if you have to, saying something like "please don't use that language" or "seriously?!"

The politically correct response would be something along the lines of banning the slur and/or punishing anyone who uses the slur.

Political correctness may have good intentions, but you get more flies with honey than vinegar. And as cliche as it is, there's also the idea of freedom of speech.

To appropriate a line, I'd frown on anyone who uses "that's gay" as a slur, or terms like "nigger" or "chink." But I'd defend their right to say it.

Edit: I should also specify that "anti-PC culture" can be just as irritating as PC, as it tends to equate any form of politeness or criticism as being "PC."

Agema:

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

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

But that is the thing, isn't it ?

Yes, science does try to study those things. But the studies don't paint a clear picture, instead they produce wildly differing results. And the experiments are narrowly focussed with results hardly universal. I mean it is probably not coincidence that you linked both studies showing bias to hiring women and bias to hiring men in STEM.

So far science does not really know where the vast male majority in STEM comes from. That doesn't mean that there are no ideas, but none of those is even remotely proven.

In the absence of those clear causes people tend to pick one that matches their preconception and argue based on that.

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

So acting professionally in the workplace is PC now?

Satinavian:

But that is the thing, isn't it ?

Yes, science does try to study those things. But the studies don't paint a clear picture, instead they produce wildly differing results. And the experiments are narrowly focussed with results hardly universal. I mean it is probably not coincidence that you linked both studies showing bias to hiring women and bias to hiring men in STEM.

So far science does not really know where the vast male majority in STEM comes from. That doesn't mean that there are no ideas, but none of those is even remotely proven.

In the absence of those clear causes people tend to pick one that matches their preconception and argue based on that.

Indeed, research often produces results less clear than we might like.

Nevertheless, even without proof there is often "balance of evidence" which can be sufficient to base policy upon. Secondly, it can depend on how wide or narrow a picture we take; evidence might be overwhelming in a very small and specific area, even if unclear in the big picture. A hiring practice can be identified that reduces bias without us needing to know or care who is being disadvantaged. And so on.

Mostly, it just pains me that people want to shout about how much they believe in equal opportunities yadda yadda yadda, but evidently have little or no knowledge of what is going on in the real world of employment out there. What does that mean for the credibility of their opinions?

Agema:

Nevertheless, even without proof there is often "balance of evidence" which can be sufficient to base policy upon. Secondly, it can depend on how wide or narrow a picture we take; evidence might be overwhelming in a very small and specific area, even if unclear in the big picture. A hiring practice can be identified that reduces bias without us needing to know or care who is being disadvantaged. And so on.

A hiring practice that is proven to reduce bias should be adopted. And yes, i have read about many instances where this was done. Usually after the proof that it really reduces bias everyone is pro adoption. An example would be several orchestras switching making it impossible for interviewers to see the prospective musicians and decide only by hearing. Was a huge success. Was introduced after blind studies with lots of participants. Even people previously stating that decades of personal experience showed that men were just better at certain instrument just took the result of the blind hearings and admitted to have been wrong.

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

Saelune:

RaikuFA:
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.

Hawki:

Saelune:
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.

There's a world of difference between being expected to respect others and political correctness.

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?

Again, there's a difference between being polite and politically correct.

Why do people think that makes them more oppressed than people who have been forbidden to marry another, or be treated as literal property?

Don't think many people actually think that. But in the Western world, both of these things are forbidden by law - the oppression of today is nowhere near as bad as it was in the past. No-one today faces the same oppression that people once did.

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?

Not that I use "that's gay" as a slur myself, and have no desire to, but disliking the slur isn't the same thing as being PC.

Suppose someone says "that's gay." The "polite response" would be along the lines of ignoring it, or if you have to, saying something like "please don't use that language" or "seriously?!"

The politically correct response would be something along the lines of banning the slur and/or punishing anyone who uses the slur.

Political correctness may have good intentions, but you get more flies with honey than vinegar. And as cliche as it is, there's also the idea of freedom of speech.

To appropriate a line, I'd frown on anyone who uses "that's gay" as a slur, or terms like "nigger" or "chink." But I'd defend their right to say it.

Edit: I should also specify that "anti-PC culture" can be just as irritating as PC, as it tends to equate any form of politeness or criticism as being "PC."

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

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

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

Having rules and enforcing them is kind of important for society to function. If people would just stop being offensive and bigoted, we would not need to make and enforce rules to quell that.

Freedom of speech is about being able to openly criticize those in power without fear of reprisal. It is NOT ABOUT PROTECTING HATE SPEECH! And most people who use it to defend hate speech do not support freedom of speech, because they tend to flip out when others use so called freedom of speech to criticize them. And freedom of speech doesn't exist the way these people claim it does, or else we could yell 'bomb' in a public setting without getting in trouble.

Fuck politeness. How about people being more polite about not saying offensive shit? Before the gay rights movement actually gained any steam, they tried being polite and not offending anyone's 'moral sensibilities', and no one gave a fuck. It wasnt until they started fighting back against the police raidng their bars and being 'loud and proud' and in everyone's face did anyone care.

Politeness is meekness.

You should not defend the right for people to say the N-word. Certainly not the people who would use it to attack blacks.

Anti-PC culture is 100000x worse than PC culture cause it is oppression culture.

RaikuFA:

Saelune:

RaikuFA:
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'

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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