Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Melissia wrote:


And I've said that to you more than once now

Fair enough Ill shut the feth up then.

Didn't you even like my Muslim analogy!?

 mattyrm wrote:
Fair enough Ill shut the feth up then.

I'm not asking you to be quiet, Matty. I like your posts, they're generally good-hearted and gregarious.

 mattyrm wrote:
Didn't you even like my Muslim analogy!?

If you are curious about that, ask in a PM That's not a topic I'd like to bleed in to this thread is all, lol.

 Melissia wrote:
As an aside, reading that article brings to mind the laughably ironic idea that people think that the Breitbart "journalist" Milo Yiannopoulos is some kind of hero when it comes to ethics in games journalism, as well as the sad fact that he's celebrated as a hero amongst many gamergaters. This is the guy that tweets stuff like "Few things are more embarrassing than grown men getting over-excited about video games." and "Unlike video game console launches, where the only ones "present" are pungent male beta bollock-scratchers and twelve-year-olds." If you want to see someone that hates gamers, you need only look towards people like him. And yet he's celebrated by gamergate, not derided by it.

But he completely changed, since he tried Postal². Now he loves video games. He even wrote an article about it. There was a study cited on that article to prove that unlike what he wrote in that other article about the MRA killer guy, violent video games does not turn you into a killer! This prove that he is now a very good journalist that does a lot of research rather than a terrible, terrible opportunist with no ethics and no shame. Totally.

 Torga_DW wrote:
I'd never heard of a SJW before this thread, but I'm starting to see the 'problem'.

Well, as you can see by yourself, nobody in that thread has been neither supporting this statement without at least huge nuances added, and nobody is been arguing in favor of a ban. Yet some of us would certainly be considered SJW. This term is way more far-reaching than this.

 mattyrm wrote:
I have a theory about the always irrational disgusting misogyny if you want to hear it, but as it centers around Islam, Christianity, and Judaism I had better keep that for PM lest I get banned from the last forum I actually find engaging and can still comment in.

Ahah, well please do . Waiting for your PM.

 Melissia wrote:
Or she developed interest in video games afterwards, both as a feminist critic and as someone who enjoys playing them as a hobby.

Related article, Maddelisk on how she went in a few years from “Video games are stupid and people who play them are wasting their times and their brains doing so” to “I split my life between maths, workouts and video games, and I play Starcraft II so good I get featured on national tv”.
.

 mattyrm wrote:
To the layman, feminism isnt a sensible but ultimately very large movement with numerous different demographics and an entirely just and sensible goal, its a load of mad women in comfortable shoes who loathe men and spend their days demanding that the Oxford English dictionary change the spelling of women to wimmin, picketing shops that sell FHM, or chastising children that build snowmen.

Sad but not really important. What is important is whether or not we advance toward a more equal society. So, rather than focusing on changing views on feminism, I would rather focus on changing people's view on those inequalities. Beside, like Melissia, I do not think your solution of a feminist Pope would be a good one. I am not one for the cult of leaders. It is certainly needed in politics (sadly), but I do not think it is the same when trying to make people change their mind.

 mattyrm wrote:
A fair point, and a relevant one. If we find a Muslim bloke living in Birmingham has started to lean towards extremism what do we do? Do we go "meh, educate yourself" and leave it at that, or do we actually take the time to reach out, look at our own behavior, and try and engage the guy?

Who is “we” here?
(Beside, I really believe educating himself/herself could potentially lead to very counterproductive results here, but that is just me.)

I prefer wizards over warriors, myself, but meh.

Wizards and warriors both start with w, so it is the same acronym anyway.
I like necromancer or equivalent. Because then I can just let my summoned minions do all the hard work while I sometime consider helping them by sending a vague curse their way, and spend the rest of the time checking the loot that results from their efforts.
I guess that makes me a capitalist or something .

MEh you W chumps

Rogues all the way.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Sad but not really important. What is important is whether or not we advance toward a more equal society. So, rather than focusing on changing views on feminism, I would rather focus on changing people's view on those inequalities.

Fair enough, I'm not talking about changing views on feminism predominantly though, just trying to avoid all of the negative headlines. Personally I think the vast majority of stuff is pretty relevant, but the masses do not feel the same, and they are the people you need to think about if you want to get gak done.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Beside, like Melissia, I do not think your solution of a feminist Pope would be a good one. I am not one for the cult of leaders. It is certainly needed in politics (sadly), but I do not think it is the same when trying to make people change their mind.

Well me either, but I am a cynical pragmatist. I think someone has to be in charge, its like all the class-warriors who drip about politicians, find me a better (actually workable socialism for example) solution that really does tackle inequality and works properly and doesnt require someone being in charge and Im all ears. As it stands, I think a sensible Femi-Pope is the best solution because I dont know another one! It might work though, the Pope is never off the fething telly! The Feminist Prime could properly direct everybody's efforts and tell the media to stick to the big issues when they run a story about spelling "wimmin" differently or fringe nutters start talking about aborting male fetuses because they will grow to be penis-wielding oppressors.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Who is “we” here?

The government, and society in general. The past few weeks have seen European Muslims return to Europe from fighting in Syria, and despite an initially aggressive response, the governments of the west are now open to the idea of a reconciliation of sorts, I read an interesting article about it in the Economist last week, but basically they have gone from the "Go Directly to Jail" stance, the the eminently logical "lets try to engage these people" stance.

One thing I learned in Afghanistan was that you cant bomb, stab, or shoot people into submission. Its a good lesson for life in general. The human spirit is indomitable, and violence begets violence. Unless you are willing to commit mass-genocide (nobody is) the carrot always works better than the stick because human beings (especially in deeply religious communities) are all about revenge. Kill a Muslim bloke and all of his kids join the fight. Taking an aggressive stance is the pathway to eventual defeat. The saber rattling Republicans seem to think you can bomb people into submission, but they are wrong. The British had the same with the IRA. slot an IRA sniper and his kids will soon join the battle, the pathway to peace rubs soldiers up the wrong way, but its the only way to win. Hearts and minds, as difficult as you find it on the ground.

The only way to combat any form of hatred is to take a softly-softly approach, whether it be feminism or anything else, and its why I have the opinion that I do. Tackling a negative view of feminism or anything else isn't best served by equal stubbornness, just constantly arguing equally vehemently with your detractors. Change is best achieved by both educating and reaching out. Saying "educate yourselves" to all those plumbers and bricklayers and women who have little interest in reading and then cracking on as normal isn't going to cut it. I think we need to keep the mad feminists off the platform and out of the news, while the sensible ones (the vast majority) do their best to explain exactly how things stand, what it fething means (who would actually disagree?) and why it matters to almost everyone. They are doing their very best with the second half of that sentence, but doing a really gak job that first bit.

Most random working class men for example, shouldn't have a negative view of feminism, but they do. They are only going to come around if you combine education with shutting the wackos up because those fethers make great news stories!

*change the name, the brand is no good
*you've made things too emotionally charged for real dialogue
*you should care more about this other different thing
*your goals aren't clear enough, you won't achieve anything
*the bad actions of this one person reflect on the whole

Is it weird I'm starting to notice the anti-GG arguments are the same as anti-feminism arguments?

 mattyrm wrote:
I think someone has to be in charge, its like all the class-warriors who drip about politicians, find me a better (actually workable socialism for example) solution that really does tackle inequality and works properly and doesnt require someone being in charge and Im all ears.

I agree someone has to be in charge to run a country. I disagree someone has to be in charge to change people's opinions.
While I can agree with the idea that having a few prominent figures that get more attention and media coverage and that are sensible, reasonable people, that is not the same as having them in charge.
Maybe like Dawkins and whoever are the big atheism advocates in the U.S., though I must admit I do not know much about them because where I live, atheism already won .

 mattyrm wrote:
Unless you are willing to commit mass-genocide (nobody is) the carrot always works better than the stick because human beings (especially in deeply religious communities) are all about revenge.

Some people are. So people did .
You are reminding me of Machiavelli. Unlike what one would expect, he spoke a great deal about winning people to your cause. His methods did involve more violence though, but very targeted violence. Have you read The Prince?
Sorry, I am getting completely off-topic. Waiting for your MP too .

 Ashiraya wrote:
is doing nothing but aggravating others, while also lending a(n unintentional?) highfive to the andronazis.

It's called "Reductio ad absurdum".